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
2600 - Atezolizumab (atezo) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): a long-term overall survival (OS) and safety update from the Phase III IMvigor211 study
Presenter: Michiel Van der Heijden
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3598 - Three-Year Follow-Up From the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 Trial: Pembrolizumab (Pembro) Versus Investigator’s Choice (Paclitaxel, Docetaxel, or Vinflunine) in Recurrent, Advanced Urothelial Cancer (UC)
Presenter: Andrea Necchi
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2382 - First Report of Efficacy and Safety From a Phase 2 Trial of Tislelizumab, an Anti-PD-1 Antibody, for the Treatment of PD-L1+ Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (UC) in Asian Patients
Presenter: Dingwei Ye
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2388 - Quality of Life of Metastatic Urothelial Cancer (mUC) Patients Treated with Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) Following Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy and a Checkpoint Inhibitor (CPI): Data from EV-201 Cohort 1
Presenter: Bradley McGregor
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3748 - Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (atezo) in patients (pts) with autoimmune disease (AID): subgroup analysis of the SAUL study in locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma
Presenter: Yohann Loriot
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1126 - Validation of the VIO prognostic index in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors
Presenter: Rafael Morales Barrera
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3693 - Pathologic outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk muscle invasive bladder cancer
Presenter: Justin Matulay
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4840 - Analysis of response to prior therapies and therapies after treatment with erdafitinib in fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)-positive patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1221 - Clinical outcomes by sex with atezolizumab (atezo) monotherapy in patients (pts) with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Jean Hoffman-censits
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1715 - National Small Cell Bladder Cancer Audit: Results from 26 UK institutions
Presenter: Caroline Chau
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract