Batuer Aikemu1,2, Pei Xue1,2, Hiju Hong1,2, Hongtao Jia1,2, Chenxing Wang1,2, Shuchun Li1,2, Ling Huang1,2, Xiaoyi Ding3, Huan Zhang3, Gang Cai4, Aiguo Lu1,2, Li Xie5, Hao Li6, Minhua Zheng1,2, Jing Sun1,2. 1. Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 2. Shanghai Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 5. Clinical Research Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 6. Department of Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Personalized and novel evidence-based clinical treatment strategy consulting for colorectal cancer has been available through various artificial intelligence (AI) supporting systems such as Watson for Oncology (WFO) from IBM. However, the potential effects of this supporting tool in cancer care have not been thoroughly explored in real-world studies. This research aims to investigate the concordance between treatment recommendations for colorectal cancer patients made by WFO and a multidisciplinary team (MDT) at a major comprehensive gastrointestinal cancer center. METHODS: In this prospective study, both WFO and the blinded MDT's treatment recommendations were provided concurrently for enrolled colorectal cancers of stages II to IV between March 2017 and January 2018 at Shanghai Minimally Invasive Surgery Center. Concordance was achieved if the cancer team's decisions were listed in the "recommended" or "for consideration" classification in WFO. A review was carried out after 100 cases for all non-concordant patients to explain the inconsistency, and corresponding feedback was given to WFO's database. The concordance of the subsequent cases was analyzed to evaluate both the performance and learning ability of WFO. RESULTS: Overall, 250 patients met the inclusion criteria and were recruited in the study. Eighty-one were diagnosed with colon cancer and 189 with rectal cancer. The concordances for colon cancer, rectal cancer, or overall were all 91%. The overall rates were 83, 94, and 88% in subgroups of stages II, III, and IV. When categorized by treatment strategy, concordances were 97, 93, 89, 87, and 100% for neoadjuvant, surgery, adjuvant, first line, and second line treatment groups, respectively. After analyzing the main factors causing discordance, relative updates were made in the database accordingly, which led to the concordance curve rising in most groups compared with the initial rates. CONCLUSION: Clinical recommendations made by WFO and the cancer team were highly matched for colorectal cancer. Patient age, cancer stage, and the consideration of previous therapy details had a significant influence on concordance. Addressing these perspectives will facilitate the use of the cancer decision-support systems to help oncologists achieve the promise of precision medicine.
BACKGROUND: Personalized and novel evidence-based clinical treatment strategy consulting for colorectal cancer has been available through various artificial intelligence (AI) supporting systems such as Watson for Oncology (WFO) from IBM. However, the potential effects of this supporting tool in cancer care have not been thoroughly explored in real-world studies. This research aims to investigate the concordance between treatment recommendations for colorectal cancer patients made by WFO and a multidisciplinary team (MDT) at a major comprehensive gastrointestinal cancer center. METHODS: In this prospective study, both WFO and the blinded MDT's treatment recommendations were provided concurrently for enrolled colorectal cancers of stages II to IV between March 2017 and January 2018 at Shanghai Minimally Invasive Surgery Center. Concordance was achieved if the cancer team's decisions were listed in the "recommended" or "for consideration" classification in WFO. A review was carried out after 100 cases for all non-concordant patients to explain the inconsistency, and corresponding feedback was given to WFO's database. The concordance of the subsequent cases was analyzed to evaluate both the performance and learning ability of WFO. RESULTS: Overall, 250 patients met the inclusion criteria and were recruited in the study. Eighty-one were diagnosed with colon cancer and 189 with rectal cancer. The concordances for colon cancer, rectal cancer, or overall were all 91%. The overall rates were 83, 94, and 88% in subgroups of stages II, III, and IV. When categorized by treatment strategy, concordances were 97, 93, 89, 87, and 100% for neoadjuvant, surgery, adjuvant, first line, and second line treatment groups, respectively. After analyzing the main factors causing discordance, relative updates were made in the database accordingly, which led to the concordance curve rising in most groups compared with the initial rates. CONCLUSION: Clinical recommendations made by WFO and the cancer team were highly matched for colorectal cancer. Patient age, cancer stage, and the consideration of previous therapy details had a significant influence on concordance. Addressing these perspectives will facilitate the use of the cancer decision-support systems to help oncologists achieve the promise of precision medicine.
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Reid F Thompson; Gilmer Valdes; Clifton D Fuller; Colin M Carpenter; Olivier Morin; Sanjay Aneja; William D Lindsay; Hugo J W L Aerts; Barbara Agrimson; Curtiland Deville; Seth A Rosenthal; James B Yu; Charles R Thomas Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Mahul B Amin; Frederick L Greene; Stephen B Edge; Carolyn C Compton; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Robert K Brookland; Laura Meyer; Donna M Gress; David R Byrd; David P Winchester Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 508.702
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: Nirali M Patel; Vanessa V Michelini; Jeff M Snell; Saianand Balu; Alan P Hoyle; Joel S Parker; Michele C Hayward; David A Eberhard; Ashley H Salazar; Patrick McNeillie; Jia Xu; Claudia S Huettner; Takahiko Koyama; Filippo Utro; Kahn Rhrissorrakrai; Raquel Norel; Erhan Bilal; Ajay Royyuru; Laxmi Parida; H Shelton Earp; Juneko E Grilley-Olson; D Neil Hayes; Stephen J Harvey; Norman E Sharpless; William Y Kim Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-11-20