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
4543 - Long-term real-world (RW) outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma (MEL) treated with ipilimumab (IPI) and non-IPI therapies: IMAGE study
Presenter: Stéphane Dalle
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4523 - Prognostic Factors for efficacy of Ipilimumab used after AntiPD1 and/or BRAF+MEK inhibitors in Melanoma Patients: an Italian Melanoma Intergroup study
Presenter: Riccardo Marconcini
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3632 - Rechallenge with combination ipilimumab and anti-PD-1 (IPI+PD1) in metastatic melanoma after acquired resistance to IPI+PD1 immunotherapy
Presenter: Adriana Hepner
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3732 - Clinicopathologic characteristics of immune colitis in melanoma patients treated with combination ipilimumab and anti-PD1 (IPI+PD1) and PD1 monotherapy.
Presenter: Kazi Nahar
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5005 - Real-world outcomes of ipilimumab plus nivolumab for advanced melanoma in the Netherlands
Presenter: Michiel van Zeijl
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5524 - Utilization of Real-World Data to Assess the Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) in Elderly Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
Presenter: D Scott Ernst
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5884 - Tumor mutational burden and response to PD-1 inhibitors: an analysis of 89 cases of metastatic melanoma.
Presenter: Léa Dousset
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3120 - Increase in S100B and LDH as early outcome predictors for non-responsiveness to anti-PD-1 monotherapy in advanced melanoma.
Presenter: Elisa Rozeman
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2157 - Immune status defined by molecular information layers predicts response to pembrolizumab treatment in advanced melanoma
Presenter: Guillermo Prado-Vázquez
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2553 - Interim analysis of a phase Ib study of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced BRAFV600 wild type melanoma progressing on prior anti-PD-L1 therapy
Presenter: Shahneen Sandhu
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract