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
5801 - Implementing a Population-Based Cancer Registries Network in Mexico
Presenter: Alejandra Palafox-Parrilla
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4385 - Awareness of cancer risk factors among high school students
Presenter: Monika Rucinska
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3355 - COMPRAYA: Dutch nationwide infrastructure for COMPRehensive health outcome and intervention research among patients with Adolescent and Young Adult cancer
Presenter: Olga Husson
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract