Abstract 4787
Background
Comparison of options from clinical decision-support (CDS) systems and decisions made in practice may be biased towards the treating institution. In this retrospective study, bias was minimized by blinding evaluators to the source of treatment recommendations, either Watson for Oncology® (WFO®) or treatments patients received at Bumrungrad International Hospital (BIH), a user of WFO®.
Methods
Treatments given were compared to therapeutic options provided by WFO®. Treatments that were identical to WFO® “recommended” (green, acceptable) were not evaluated further. Paired treatments were evaluated independently in a blinded fashion by each oncologist before consensus ranking of each pair as either acceptable, acceptable alternatives, or unacceptable treatment. The consensus for each treatment was compared to WFO®, with WFO® “for consideration” (yellow, acceptable alternative), and “not recommended” (red, unacceptable). Chi-squared tests analyzed the association between risk factors and discordant recommendations.
Results
Of 228 treatments given to patients with lung, colon, breast and rectal cancers, 174 were identical to WFO® acceptable (green) and not evaluated further; 54 non-identical pairs were evaluated (Table). Overall, 88.6% of decisions were either the same or viewed as equally acceptable by oncologists; oncologists preferred 3.9% of BIH treatments and 4.4% of WFO treatments. In cases where reasons for discordance were provided, 70% were due to BIH oncologist preference, 20% to patient preference and 10% to WFO treatment availability. We found no association between discordant recommendations and patient age or stage of cancer.Table: 1435P
Treatments | N (%) 228 Total |
---|---|
Treatments are identical | 174 (76.3%) |
Oncologists’ Evaluations | |
Acceptable alternatives | 28 (12.3%) |
BIH Preferred | 9 (3.9%) |
WFO Preferred | 10 (4.4%) |
Both WFO and BIH-Rx unacceptable | 7 (3.1%) |
Conclusions
This blinded study suggests WFO®’s therapeutic options are at as least as good as (or are an acceptable alternative to) treatments in practice. Blinding evaluators to source of treatment may minimize bias in comparisons of CDS systems and decisions made in practice.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Bumrungrad International Hospital.
Funding
Bumrungrad International Hospital.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
2494 - CAR-T Nursing Education at a UK Specialist Cancer Hospital
Presenter: Rose Ellard
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2438 - Professional Quality of Life, Perceived Stress and Psychological Resistance Levels of Oncology-Hematology Nurses and the Factors Affecting
Presenter: Tugba Pehlivan
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3541 - Representation of cancer survivors’ preferences in policies for supportive care: Implications for oncology nursing
Presenter: Samantha Mayo
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5093 - Vaginal moisturizing post PDR-Pulse Dose Rate Brachytherapy.
Presenter: Pilar Fernández
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1066 - The stomized, chemo and radiotreated patient vs untreated patient: complications and comparison with data literature
Presenter: Cristoforo Ferrero
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1724 - Evaluating the role of clinical nurse specialist
Presenter: Anita Zeneli
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3753 - Role of the Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) in a Functional Unit for Lung cancer at the Catalan Institute of Oncology
Presenter: Isabel Brao
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2676 - A bottom-up approach for prioritising the scientific activities of the Italian Association of Cancer Nurses (AIIAO): rationale and topic identification
Presenter: Valentina Biagioli
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
575 - Investigating quality of care for people with cancer and dementia
Presenter: Naomi Farrington
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5578 - Two years of BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic External Quality Assessment with Gen&tiss Tiss scheme in France
Presenter: Kelly Dufraing
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract