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
2507 - KEYLYNK-010: Phase 3 Study of Pembrolizumab (pembro) Plus Olaparib (OLA) vs Enzalutamide (ENZA) or Abiraterone (ABI) in ENZA- or ABI-Pretreated Patients (pts) With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) Who Had Progression on Chemotherapy (CTx)
Presenter: Evan Yu
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2944 - PROSTRATEGY: A Spanish Genitourinary Oncology Group (SOGUG) multi-arm multistage (MAMS) phase III trial of immunotherapy strategies in high-volume metastasic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
Presenter: Jose Arranz Arija
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3535 - A phase 1 study of AMG 160, a half-life extended bispecific T cell engager (HLE BiTE) immuno-oncology therapy targeting PSMA, in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)
Presenter: Ben Tran
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4951 - ProBio: An outcome-adaptive, multi-arm, open-label, multiple assignment randomised controlled biomarker-driven trial in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (EudraCT: 2018-002350-78, NCT03903835)
Presenter: Johan Lindberg
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2892 - A phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone versus abiraterone acetate and prednisone in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (NCT03748641)
Presenter: Kim Chi
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2427 - The Extended/Phase II Study of Safety And Tolerability Of Proxalutamide (GT0918) In Subjects With Metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) Who Failed Either Abiraterone (Abi) Or Enzalutamide (Enza)
Presenter: Nicholas Vogelzang
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3224 - Addition of an oral docetaxel treatment (ModraDoc006/r) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with high risk N+M0 prostate cancer
Presenter: Marit Vermunt
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3312 - A phase II randomized, open-label study comparing salvage radiotherapy in combination with 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy with LHRH agonist or antagonist versus anti-androgen therapy with apalutamide in patients with biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy.
Presenter: Piet Dirix
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2829 - Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Updated Follow-Up From KEYNOTE-057: Phase 2 Study of Pembrolizumab (pembro) for Patients (pts) With High-Risk (HR) Non–Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC) Unresponsive to Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)
Presenter: Ronald de Wit
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2673 - Clinical activity of vofatamab (V), an FGFR3 selective antibody in combination with pembrolizumab (P) in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), updated interim analysis of FIERCE-22
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract