GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 38, No. 15_suppl ( 2020-05-20), p. e14070-e14070
    Abstract: e14070 Background: Watson for Oncology (WfO) is an artificial intelligence-based clinical decision-support system that offers potential therapeutic options to cancer-treating physicians. We reviewed studies of concordance between therapeutic options offered by WfO and treatment decisions made by individual clinicians (IC) and multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB) in practice in gynecological cancers. Methods: We searched PubMed and an internal database to identify peer-reviewed WfO concordance studies of gynecological cancers published between 01/01/2015 and 06/30/2019. Concordance was defined as agreement between therapeutic options recommended or offered for consideration by WfO and treatment decisions made by IC or MTB. Mean concordance was calculated as a weighted average based on the number of patients per study. Statistical significance was evaluated by z-test of two proportions. Results: Our search identified 5 retrospective studies with 635 patients with cervical and ovarian cancers in China and Thailand; 4 compared WfO to MTB and 1 to IC. Overall WfO concordance with MTB and IC for both cancers was 77.2% (SD 11.6%). The concordance between MTB and WfO in cervical and ovarian cancers was 80.5% and 86.2%, respectively ( P = .21); IC concordance with WfO in cervical and ovarian cancers was 65.2% and 73.2%, respectively ( P = .18). MTB concordance with WfO for both cancers combined was 81.5%, significantly higher than the 67.9% IC concordance with WfO for both cancers ( P = .01). Conclusions: Studies of cervical and ovarian cancers demonstrated a statistically significantly higher concordance of MTB and WfO than IC and WFO, suggesting a role for WfO in supporting treatment-decision making in gynecological cancers that aligns with decisions made by MTB. Larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate the technical performance, usability, workflow integration, and clinical impact of WfO in gynecological cancers.[Table: see text]
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 81, No. 4_Supplement ( 2021-02-15), p. PS8-22-PS8-22
    Abstract: BackgroundAll UK cancer patients undergo required assessments by a full Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (fMTB) at key treatment decision points, placing a resource burden on the healthcare system. Watson for Oncology (WfO) is a decision-support system that presents therapeutic options to cancer-treating clinicians. This study is an initial phase of an evaluation at Guys and St. Thomas’ NHS Hospital (GSTT), designed to explore the extent to which WfO can be used by the fMTB to triage less complex patient cases and ultimately reduce workload and time pressures currently experienced by fMTBs. We conducted a concordance study with two minimal MTB teams (mMTB) for Stage I-III breast cancer patients. MethodsBreast cancer cases (N=63) treated from 2017-2018 at GSTT were evaluated by 2 independent mMTBs, blinded to each other and previous fMTB decisions rendered prior to this study. Each mMTB consisted of a senior medical oncologist and surgeon; GSTT’s 12+ member fMTB is comprised of oncologists, surgeons, radiologists, pathologists and others. mMTBs were shown options that were either listed as ‘recommended’ or ‘for consideration’ by WfO and given the opportunity to revise prior decisions. The combined 4-person minimal MTB (cmMTB) consisting of both 2-person mMTBs provided a current consensus best-practice plan and systemic therapy recommendations for discordant cases. We evaluated the concordance of WfO’s systemic therapeutic recommendations and mMTBs, as well as concordance with the cmMTB. Previous decisions by the fMDTB were also compared to decisions by the cmMTB. Univariate logistic regression explored characteristics predictive of concordance with the cmMTB. ResultsFor treatment plans, WFO’s therapeutic options had higher concordance with cmMTB decisions than either mMTB alone (concordance 93.7% vs. 92.1%) or the previous decisions by the fMTB (87.3). For systemic therapy decisions, the WfO-cmMDTB concordance was 70.2%; however, adjusting for non-NICE approved drugs and the common practice of Carboplatin use in the UK, concordance increased to 91.5%. Previous decisions by the fMTB had the lowest concordance with the cmMTB (87.3%). Adjusting for the UK-practice related use of Carboplatin, WfO had slightly higher concordance with cmMTB systemic therapy decisions than either mMTB alone (89.4% and 87.2%). Univariate analysis with this limited sample revealed non-significant trends in association between mMTB’s concordance with WfO and stage of cN at diagnosis, HER2 status, tumor location and grade. For example, mMTBs concordance with WfO tended to improve when tumor grade was high. Non-significant trends were also identified in the association between WfO-treatment concordance and tumor location, where treatment concordance increased with medial tumor location. ConclusionIn this small cohort study, a clinical decision-support tool demonstrated better agreement with UK best practice treatment than a 2-person mMTB and may have a role in triaging breast cancer cases in the UK. Citation Format: Hartmut Kristeleit, Martha Martin, Christina Karampera, Rezzan Hekmat, Bertha IntHout, Ashutosh Kothari, Majid Kazmi, Amanda Clery, Yanzhong Wang, Bolaji Coker, Winnie Felix, Anita Preininger, Suwei Wang, Roy Vergis, Tom Eggebraaten, Christopher Gloe, Irene Dankwa-Mullan, Gretchen Jackson, Anna Rigg, Danny Ruta. Augmentation of a minimal multidisciplinary tumor board with clinical decision support to triage breast cancer patients in the UK [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS8-22.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0008-5472 , 1538-7445
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036785-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1432-1
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 410466-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2020
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 38, No. 4_suppl ( 2020-02-01), p. 250-250
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 38, No. 4_suppl ( 2020-02-01), p. 250-250
    Abstract: 250 Background: Watson for Oncology (WfO), a cognitive CDSS, provides therapeutic options to cancer-treating physicians. We reviewed the concordance of WfO therapeutic options in gastrointestinal cancers with experts’ treatment decisions. Methods: Systematic review to identify WfO concordance studies in gastrointestinal cancers, published from June 2015 to June 2019. Concordance was defined as agreement between WfO “Recommended” and “For Consideration” treatment options and decisions made by experts. Mean concordance rates were calculated as an average, weighted by the number of patients in each study. Results: 2,407 patients were identified (Table). Overall treatment decision concordance was 67.2% (SD 25.7%). Concordance for rectal, colon, hepatocellular, and gastric cancers were 90.5% (SD 9.4%), 80.9% (SD 24.3%), 58.5%, and 47.5% (SD 33.9%), respectively. Concordance with WfO were significantly higher for rectal versus colon cancer ( p = .001), rectal versus gastric cancer ( p 〈 .0001) and for colon versus gastric cancer ( p 〈 .0001). Conclusions: Concordance between WfO and treatment decisions by experts for rectal and colon cancers were high. Concordance for HCC and gastric cancer were the lowest. A higher discordance in gastric cancer is likely related to disease-specific and management differences compared to United States practice. Variable concordance between expert clinical decisions and CDSS suggestions and can be minimized by localization efforts. [Table: see text]
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 38, No. 15_suppl ( 2020-05-20), p. e19193-e19193
    Abstract: e19193 Background: Artificial intelligence-driven clinical decision-support systems such as Watson for Oncology (WfO) may aid cancer care in economically challenged health systems. Evidence of the applicability of such tools in resource-constrained settings is limited. The study objective was to evaluate treatment agreement between physician-prescribed therapy and WfO recommended treatment options in thyroid cancer in Brazil. An in-depth evaluation of discordant cases by a blinded expert panel of medical oncologists and cancer surgeons was performed to identify preferred therapies and predictors of discordance. Methods: Thyroid cancer patients treated at the Instituto do Câncer do Ceará, Brazil from July 2018 to June 2019, but not processed in WfO, were selected for entry into WfO in January 2020. Blinded to treatment-plan source (i.e., WfO or historical), the expert panel reviewed all WfO therapeutic options and historical physician-prescribed treatment plans for discordant cases and selected their preferred treatment options. Clinical and demographic characteristics were analyzed using logistic regression. Results: Thyroid cancer patients (n = 83) evaluated for concordance between WfO therapeutic options and historical treatments were mostly female (91%) and between the ages of 18 - 78 years (mean 47.7). Concordance between historical physician-prescribed treatment decisions and WfO was 73.5% (61/83). Demographics and clinical characteristics associated with discordance are shown in Table. For all discordant cases (n = 22), preferred treatment decisions, as determined by the expert panel, were in agreement with WfO. Conclusions: High concordance between WfO recommended treatment options and historical treatment decisions for thyroid cancer was observed at Instituto do Câncer do Ceará. For discordant cases, a blinded expert panel agreed with WfO recommended treatment options in all cases, demonstrating there may be a role for decision support in aiding individual oncologists to make best-practice and evidence-informed treatment decisions. [Table: see text]
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 80, No. 4_Supplement ( 2020-02-15), p. P4-14-05-P4-14-05
    Abstract: Background: Watson for Oncology (WfO) is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision-support system (CDSS) that presents personalized therapeutic options to support cancer-treating physicians in making treatment decisions for cancer patients. WfO was released in 2015, and it has been deployed in over 200 institutions across the world. Many academic centers have examined WfO’s performance by measuring concordance between WfO therapeutic options and treatment recommendations by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) or individual clinicians (ICs). This study systematically reviewed the results of such concordance studies for breast cancer. Methods: We conducted a review of the WfO publication database and a PubMed search to identify WfO concordance studies in breast cancer patients, published from 01/01/2015 to 06/30/2019. Studies were excluded if they measured concordance for multiple cancer types but did not include individual concordance for breast cancer. Concordance was defined as agreement between WfO “Recommended” and “For Consideration” treatment options and treatments prescribed by MTBs or ICs. Mean concordance rates were calculated as an average, weighted by the number of patients in each study. Concordance rates between MTBs and ICs were compared with z-test of two proportions. Subgroup analyses for larger studies were summarized. Results: Table 1 presents the results of nine identified breast cancer concordance studies (4,427 patients) from China, India, and Thailand. Five studies (1,528 patients) determined concordance with MTB and 4 (2,899 patients) with ICs. WfO treatment options were compared to historical treatment recommendations by MTBs and ICs. Mean concordance for all studies was 70.8% (range 55 - 98%). Mean concordance with MTBs of 90.7% (range 79 - 98%) was significantly higher than the concordance between WfO and ICs of 59.9% (range 55-76%) p & lt;0.0001. Table 1Study/LocationNumber of patientsConcordance Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Studies (MTBs)Zhang XC, et al. Ann Oncol 2017;28:x170 / China11979%Yue L, Yang L. Ann Oncol 2017;28:x162 / China3198%Somashekhar SP, et al. Ann Oncol 2018 1; 29(2):418-423 / India63893%Zhou N, et al. The Oncologist 2018;23:1-8 / China12082%Somashekhar SP, et al. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (suppl; abstr 6533) / India62092%MTB subtotals152890.7%Individual Clinicians Studies (ICs)Suwanvecho S, et al. J Clin Oncol 2017;35 (suppl; abstr 6589) / Thailand21176%Jiang Z, et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36 (suppl; abstr 18566) / China1,99755%Suwanrusme H, et al. J Clin Oncol 2018;36 (suppl; abstr 18584) / Thailand26470%32672%Suwanvecho S et al. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (suppl; abstr 6553) / Thailand10160%ICs subtotals289959.9% Mean concordance in China, Thailand and India were 78.5%, 69.5%, and 92.5%, respectively. A large IC study from China including 1,997 patients found concordance in triple negative, high risk non-metastatic, and metastatic breast cancers of 69%, 66%, and 50%, respectively. A MTB study from China in 120 patients found concordance for luminal A, luminal B and triple negative breast cancers of 63%, 87% and 79%, respectively. Reported reasons for discordance varied among studies and included locally unavailable treatments, individual physician or MTB management preferences, and age older than 75 years. Conclusions Overall concordance between the WfO therapeutic options and decisions of both MTBs and ICs was high, demonstrating performance comparable with experts across the world. Higher concordance was observed between WfO and MTBs versus WfO and ICs, likely reflecting the multidisciplinary expertise having greater agreement with evidence and guideline-based recommendations of WfO than decisions of individual clinicians. This finding illustrates a role for clinical decision support in practice. Concordance varied across countries, reflecting the need for localization to address regional differences in practice. Citation Format: Yull Arriaga, Rezzan Hekmat, Karlis Draulis, Suwei Wang, Winnie Felix, Irene Dankwa-mullan, Kyu Rhee, Gretchen Jackson. A systematic review of concordance studies using Watson for Oncology (WfO) to support breast cancer treatment decisions: A four-year global experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-14-05.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0008-5472 , 1538-7445
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036785-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1432-1
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 410466-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...