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
4370 - Continental differences in pathologic response with neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI) plus nivolumab (NIVO) in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma in the phase 2 OpACIN-neo trial.
Presenter: Irene Reijers
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3230 - Comparable responses of melanoma at primary site and synchronous lymph node metastases upon neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO)
Presenter: Judith Versluis
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3171 - Adjuvant Therapies for Stage III Melanoma: Benchmarks for Bringing Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice
Presenter: Tina HIEKEN
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3493 - Mixture-cure modeling for resected stage III/IV melanoma in the phase 3 CheckMate 238 trial
Presenter: Jeffrey Weber
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3036 - An open-label, non-randomized, phase IIIb study of trametinib in combination with dabrafenib for patients with unresectable advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma: a subgroup analysis of patients with brain metastasis
Presenter: Caroline Dutriaux
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2233 - Adverse event (AE) kinetics in patients (pts) treated with dabrafenib + trametinib (D + T) in the metastatic and adjuvant setting
Presenter: Jean Jacques Grob
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2435 - A Single Arm, Open Label, Phase II, Multicenter Study to Assess the Detection of the BRAF V600 Mutation on cfDNA from Plasma in Patients with Advanced Melanoma
Presenter: Piotr Rutkowski
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1766 - Efficacy and Safety of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Patients with Metastatic BRAFV600 Mutation-positive Melanoma in the Real-World Setting – Interim results of the non-interventional COMBI-r study
Presenter: Carola Berking
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2131 - Trial update: A randomized Phase Ib/II study of the selective small molecule Axl inhibitor Bemcentinib (BGB324) in combination with either dabrafenib/trametinib (D/T) or pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic melanoma
Presenter: Oddbjørn Straume
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4074 - Analysis of pyrexia in patients (pts) treated with dabrafenib (D) and/or trametinib (T) across clinical trials
Presenter: Caroline Robert
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract