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
3252 - Genes involved in DNA replication, chromatin remodeling and cell cycle as potential biomarkers for therapy outcome to immune therapy in patients with metastatic cutaneous malignant melanoma
Presenter: Fernanda Costa Svedman
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5545 - Phase Ib/II Study (SENSITIZE) assessing safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and clinical outcome of domatinostat in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma refractory/non-responding to prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy
Presenter: Jessica Hassel
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5213 - Genomic landscape of primary malignant melanoma of esophagus
Presenter: Jie Dai
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2716 - A phase III, randomised, double-blind study of adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo post-surgery and radiation in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC)
Presenter: Danny Rischin
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3550 - ILLUMINATE 301: A randomized phase 3 study of tilsotolimod in combination with ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma following progression on or after anti-PD-1 therapy
Presenter: Marcus Butler
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1645 - PRIME002 - Early phase II study of Azacitidine and Carboplatin priming for Avelumab in patients with advanced melanoma who are resistant to immunotherapy
Presenter: Andre Van Der Westhuizen
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4440 - Pembrolizumab (pembro) Plus Lenvatinib (len) for First-Line Treatment of patients (pts) With Advanced Melanoma: Phase 3 LEAP-003 Study
Presenter: Alexander Eggermont
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3454 - Proof of concept study with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat in patients with resistant BRAFV600 mutated advanced melanoma
Presenter: Sanne Huijberts
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1832 - A phase Ia/Ib clinical study to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary anti-tumor activity of FCN-159 in patients with advanced melanoma harboring NRAS-aberrant (Ia) and NRAS-mutation (Ib).
Presenter: Lu Si
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3996 - A Phase I Clinical Trial Investigating the Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine UV1 in Combination with Pembrolizumab as First-Line Treatment of Patients with Malignant Melanoma
Presenter: Sanjiv Agarwala
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract