OBJECTIVE: IBM(R) Watson for Oncology (WfO) is a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) that provides evidence-informed therapeutic options to cancer-treating clinicians. A panel of experienced oncologists compared CDSS treatment options to treatment decisions made by clinicians to characterize the quality of CDSS therapeutic options and decisions made in practice. METHODS: This study included patients treated between 1/2017 and 7/2018 for breast, colon, lung, and rectal cancers at Bumrungrad International Hospital (BIH), Thailand. Treatments selected by clinicians were paired with therapeutic options presented by the CDSS and coded to mask the origin of options presented. The panel rated the acceptability of each treatment in the pair by consensus, with acceptability defined as compliant with BIH's institutional practices. Descriptive statistics characterized the study population and treatment-decision evaluations by cancer type and stage. RESULTS: Nearly 60% (187) of 313 treatment pairs for breast, lung, colon, and rectal cancers were identical or equally acceptable, with 70% (219) of WfO therapeutic options identical to, or acceptable alternatives to, BIH therapy. In 30% of cases (94), 1 or both treatment options were rated as unacceptable. Of 32 cases where both WfO and BIH options were acceptable, WfO was preferred in 18 cases and BIH in 14 cases. Colorectal cancers exhibited the highest proportion of identical or equally acceptable treatments; stage IV cancers demonstrated the lowest. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a system designed in the US to support, rather than replace, cancer-treating clinicians provides therapeutic options which are generally consistent with recommendations from oncologists outside the US.
OBJECTIVE: IBM(R) Watson for Oncology (WfO) is a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) that provides evidence-informed therapeutic options to cancer-treating clinicians. A panel of experienced oncologists compared CDSS treatment options to treatment decisions made by clinicians to characterize the quality of CDSS therapeutic options and decisions made in practice. METHODS: This study included patients treated between 1/2017 and 7/2018 for breast, colon, lung, and rectal cancers at Bumrungrad International Hospital (BIH), Thailand. Treatments selected by clinicians were paired with therapeutic options presented by the CDSS and coded to mask the origin of options presented. The panel rated the acceptability of each treatment in the pair by consensus, with acceptability defined as compliant with BIH's institutional practices. Descriptive statistics characterized the study population and treatment-decision evaluations by cancer type and stage. RESULTS: Nearly 60% (187) of 313 treatment pairs for breast, lung, colon, and rectal cancers were identical or equally acceptable, with 70% (219) of WfO therapeutic options identical to, or acceptable alternatives to, BIH therapy. In 30% of cases (94), 1 or both treatment options were rated as unacceptable. Of 32 cases where both WfO and BIH options were acceptable, WfO was preferred in 18 cases and BIH in 14 cases. Colorectal cancers exhibited the highest proportion of identical or equally acceptable treatments; stage IV cancers demonstrated the lowest. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a system designed in the US to support, rather than replace, cancer-treating clinicians provides therapeutic options which are generally consistent with recommendations from oncologists outside the US.
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Yun Li; Lawrence C An; Kenneth Resnicow; Nancy K Janz; Michael S Sabel; Kevin C Ward; Angela Fagerlin; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Timothy P Hofer; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wenya Yang; James H Williams; Paul F Hogan; Suanna S Bruinooge; Gladys I Rodriguez; Michael P Kosty; Dean F Bajorin; Amy Hanley; Ashley Muchow; Naya McMillan; Michael Goldstein Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: George Simon; Courtney D DiNardo; Koichi Takahashi; Tina Cascone; Cynthia Powers; Rick Stevens; Joshua Allen; Mara B Antonoff; Daniel Gomez; Pat Keane; Fernando Suarez Saiz; Quynh Nguyen; Emily Roarty; Sherry Pierce; Jianjun Zhang; Emily Hardeman Barnhill; Kate Lakhani; Kenna Shaw; Brett Smith; Stephen Swisher; Rob High; P Andrew Futreal; John Heymach; Lynda Chin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-11-16
Authors: S P Somashekhar; M-J Sepúlveda; S Puglielli; A D Norden; E H Shortliffe; C Rohit Kumar; A Rauthan; N Arun Kumar; P Patil; K Rhee; Y Ramya Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Peter Schmid; Sylvia Adams; Hope S Rugo; Andreas Schneeweiss; Carlos H Barrios; Hiroji Iwata; Véronique Diéras; Roberto Hegg; Seock-Ah Im; Gail Shaw Wright; Volkmar Henschel; Luciana Molinero; Stephen Y Chui; Roel Funke; Amreen Husain; Eric P Winer; Sherene Loi; Leisha A Emens Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fernando Suarez Saiz; Corey Sanders; Rick Stevens; Robert Nielsen; Michael Britt; Leemor Yuravlivker; Anita M Preininger; Gretchen P Jackson Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-01
Authors: Matthew D Hellmann; Luis Paz-Ares; Reyes Bernabe Caro; Bogdan Zurawski; Sang-We Kim; Enric Carcereny Costa; Keunchil Park; Aurelia Alexandru; Lorena Lupinacci; Emmanuel de la Mora Jimenez; Hiroshi Sakai; Istvan Albert; Alain Vergnenegre; Solange Peters; Konstantinos Syrigos; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Reck; Hossein Borghaei; Julie R Brahmer; Kenneth J O'Byrne; William J Geese; Prabhu Bhagavatheeswaran; Sridhar K Rabindran; Ravi S Kasinathan; Faith E Nathan; Suresh S Ramalingam Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245