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
1885 - Factors associated with disease progression in patients treated with trametinib in combination with dabrafenib for unresectable advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma: an open label, non randomized study
Presenter: Philippe Saiag
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5259 - Integrative RNAseq and Target panel sequencing reveals common and distinct innate and adaptive resistance mechanisms to BRAF inhibitors
Presenter: Phil Cheng
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5619 - Effective treatment with T-VEC monotherapy in Stage IIIB/C-IVM1a Melanoma of the Head & Neck Region
Presenter: Viola Franke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5666 - Re-introduction of T-VEC Monotherapy in Recurrent Stage IIIB/C-IVM1a melanoma is effective
Presenter: Viola Franke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4117 - Efficacy of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) in melanoma patients (pts) with locoregional (LR) recurrence, including in-transit metastases (ITM): subgroup analysis of the phase 3 OPTiM study
Presenter: Mark Middleton
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5303 - Real Life Use of Talimogene Laherparepvec in Melanoma in Centers in Austria and Switzeland
Presenter: Christoph Hoeller
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4130 - Outcomes of advanced melanoma patients who discontinued pembrolizumab (pembro) after complete response (CR) in the French early access program (EAP)
Presenter: Philippe Saiag
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2050 - Outcome of patients with elevated LDH treated with first-line targeted therapy (TT) or PD-1 based immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)
Presenter: Sarah Knispel
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1618 - Comparative-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab vs. Nivolumab for Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
Presenter: Justin Moser
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3556 - Long-term efficacy of combination nivolumab and ipilimumab for first-line treatment of advanced melanoma: a network meta-analysis
Presenter: Peter Mohr
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract