Search

Objective IBM(R) Watson for Oncology (WfO) is a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) that provides evidence-informed therapeutic options to cancer-treating clinicians. A panel of experienced oncologists compared CDSS treatment options to treatment decisions made by clinicians to characterize the quality of CDSS therapeutic options and decisions made in practice. Methods This study included patients treated between 1/2017 and 7/2018 for breast, colon, lung, and rectal cancers at Bumrungrad International Hospital (BIH), Thailand. Treatments selected by clinicians were paired with therapeutic options presented by the CDSS and coded to mask the origin of options presented. The panel rated the acceptability of each treatment in the pair by consensus, with acceptability defined as compliant with BIH’s institutional practices. Descriptive statistics characterized the study population and treatment-decision evaluations by cancer type and stage. Results Nearly 60% (187) of 313 treatment pairs for breast, lung, colon, and rectal cancers were identical or equally acceptable, with 70% (219) of WfO therapeutic options identical to, or acceptable alternatives to, BIH therapy. In 30% of cases (94), 1 or both treatment options were rated as unacceptable. Of 32 cases where both WfO and BIH options were acceptable, WfO was preferred in 18 cases and BIH in 14 cases. Colorectal cancers exhibited the highest proportion of identical or equally acceptable treatments; stage IV cancers demonstrated the lowest. Conclusion This study demonstrates that a system designed in the US to support, rather than replace, cancer-treating clinicians provides therapeutic options which are generally consistent with recommendations from oncologists outside the US.

Background IBM Watson for Oncology (WFO) provides physicians with evidence‐based treatment options. This study was designed to explore the concordance of the suggested therapeutic regimen for advanced non‐small cell lung (NSCLC) cancer patients between the updated version of WFO and physicians in our department, in order to reflect the differences of cancer treatment between China and the United States. Methods Retrospective data from 165 patients with advanced NSCLC from September 2014 to March 2018 were entered manually into WFO. WFO recommendations were provided in three categories: recommended, for consideration, and not recommended. Concordance was analyzed by comparing the treatment decisions proposed by WFO with the real treatment. Potential influenced factors were also analyzed. Results Overall, the treatment recommendations were concordant in 73.3% (121/165) of cases. When two alternative drugs such as icotinib and nedaplatin were included as “for consideration,” the total consistency could be elevated from 73.3% to 90.3%(149/165). The logistic regression analysis showed that gender (P = 0.096), ECOG (P = 0.0.502), smoking (P = 0.455), and pathology (P = 0.633) had no effect on consistency, but stages (P = 0.019), including stage ≤III (77.8%, 21/27) and stage IV (93.5%, 129/138) had significant effects on consistency. Conclusions In China, most of the treatment recommendations of WFO are consistent with the real world treatment. Factors such as patient preferences, prices, drug approval and medical insurance are also taken into consideration, and they ultimately affect the inconsistency. To be comprehensively and rapidly applied in China, localization needs to be accelerated by WFO.

BackgroundIBM’s Watson for Oncology (WFO) is an artificial intelligence tool that trains by acquiring data from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and learns from test cases and experts. This study aimed to analyze the adequacy and effectiveness of WFO in determining the treatment method for patients with thyroid carcinoma.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled 50 patients with thyroid cancer who underwent surgery in 2018 and entered their clinical data into WFO. The WFO treatment recommendations were compared with the surgical procedures and recommended treatments performed according to the Korean Thyroid Endocrine Surgery Association guidelines.ResultsThe overall concordance rate between WFO-recommended treatments and actual surgical treatments was 48%, and for patients with stage I, II, and III disease, these rates were 52.4, 50, and 16.7%, respectively. A lower concordance rate was observed with respect to treatment for advanced thyroid cancer.ConclusionWFO is a useful clinical aid but must be used with caution. A surgeon’s decision takes precedence over WFO recommendations in the treatment of advanced thyroid cancer.

BackgroundPersonalized and novel evidence-based clinical treatment strategy consulting for colorectal cancer has been available through various artificial intelligence (AI) supporting systems such as Watson for Oncology (WFO) from IBM. However, the potential effects of this supporting tool in cancer care have not been thoroughly explored in real-world studies. This research aims to investigate the concordance between treatment recommendations for colorectal cancer patients made by WFO and a multidisciplinary team (MDT) at a major comprehensive gastrointestinal cancer center.MethodsIn this prospective study, both WFO and the blinded MDT’s treatment recommendations were provided concurrently for enrolled colorectal cancers of stages II to IV between March 2017 and January 2018 at Shanghai Minimally Invasive Surgery Center. Concordance was achieved if the cancer team’s decisions were listed in the “recommended” or “for consideration” classification in WFO. A review was carried out after 100 cases for all non-concordant patients to explain the inconsistency, and corresponding feedback was given to WFO’s database. The concordance of the subsequent cases was analyzed to evaluate both the performance and learning ability of WFO.ResultsOverall, 250 patients met the inclusion criteria and were recruited in the study. Eighty-one were diagnosed with colon cancer and 189 with rectal cancer. The concordances for colon cancer, rectal cancer, or overall were all 91%. The overall rates were 83, 94, and 88% in subgroups of stages II, III, and IV. When categorized by treatment strategy, concordances were 97, 93, 89, 87, and 100% for neoadjuvant, surgery, adjuvant, first line, and second line treatment groups, respectively. After analyzing the main factors causing discordance, relative updates were made in the database accordingly, which led to the concordance curve rising in most groups compared with the initial rates.ConclusionClinical recommendations made by WFO and the cancer team were highly matched for colorectal cancer. Patient age, cancer stage, and the consideration of previous therapy details had a significant influence on concordance. Addressing these perspectives will facilitate the use of the cancer decision-support systems to help oncologists achieve the promise of precision medicine.

BackgroundWatson for Oncology (WFO) is a cognitive computing system that provides clinical decision support. This study examined the concordance between the treatment recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) proposed by WFO and those recommended by the multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), and evaluated the influence of concordance on the prognosis.MethodsWe retrospectively collected 175 patients with colorectal cancer who received treatment recommended by MDTs at a hospital in China, and evaluated them using WFO. Concordance between the two recommendations was analyzed. The overall survival was analyzed between concordant and non-concordant groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed and a concordance-predicting model was developed.ResultsConcordance between WFO’ and MDTs’ recommendations occurred in 66.9% (117/175) of cases. The overall survival (OS) was significantly better in concordant group and non-concordance was found to be an independent prognostic factor [hazard ratio (HR)=2.784 (95% CI 1.264–6.315)]. Logistic regression analyses determined that tumor type [odds ratio (OR)= 2.195 for left colon cancer and OR=2.502 for rectum cancer], and TNM stage (OR=0.545 for stage II, OR=0.187 for stage III, OR=0.127 for stage IV) were independently related with concordance, which were used to develop a concordance-predictive-nomogram.ConclusionsTreatment recommendations for patients with colorectal cancer determined by WFO and MDTs were mostly concordant. However, the survival was better among concordant patients and non-concordance was found to be an independent prognostic factor. This study presents a nomogram that can be conveniently used for predicting individualized concordance. However, our findings should be prospectively validated in multi-center trials.

Watson for Oncology (WfO) is a clinical decision support system driven by artificial intelligence. In Korea, WfO is used by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) caring for cancer patients. This study aimed to investigate the effect of WfO use on hospital satisfaction and perception among patients cared for by MDTs. This was a descriptive study that used a written survey to gather information from cancer patients at a hospital in Korea. The rate of positive change in patient perception after treatment was 86.8% in the MDT-WfO group and 71.2% in the MDT group. In terms of easily understandable explanations, the MDT-WfO (9.53 points) group reported higher satisfaction than the MDT group (9.24 points). Younger patients in the MDT-WfO group showed high levels of satisfaction and reliability of treatment. When WfO was used, the probability of positive change in patient perception of the hospital was 2.53 times higher than when WfO was not used. With a one-point increase in overall satisfaction, the probability of positive change in patient perception of the hospital increased 1.97 times. Therefore, if WfO is used appropriately in the medical field, it may enhance patient satisfaction and change patient perception positively.

Background With the increasing number of cancer treatments, the emergence of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) provides patients with personalized treatment options. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has developed rapidly in the medical field. There has been a gradual tendency to replace traditional diagnosis and treatment with AI. IBM Watson for Oncology (WFO) has been proven to be useful for decision-making in breast cancer and lung cancer, but to date, research on gastric cancer is limited. Objective This study compared the concordance of WFO with MDT and investigated the impact on patient prognosis. Methods This study retrospectively analyzed eligible patients (N=235) with gastric cancer who were evaluated by an MDT, received corresponding recommended treatment, and underwent follow-up. Thereafter, physicians inputted the information of all patients into WFO manually, and the results were compared with the treatment programs recommended by the MDT. If the MDT treatment program was classified as “recommended” or “considered” by WFO, we considered the results concordant. All patients were divided into a concordant group and a nonconcordant group according to whether the WFO and MDT treatment programs were concordant. The prognoses of the two groups were analyzed. Results The overall concordance of WFO and the MDT was 54.5% (128/235) in this study. The subgroup analysis found that concordance was less likely in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors than in patients with HER2-negative tumors (P=.02). Age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, differentiation type, and clinical stage were not found to affect concordance. Among all patients, the survival time was significantly better in concordant patients than in nonconcordant patients (P Conclusions The treatment recommendations made by WFO and the MDT were mostly concordant in gastric cancer patients. If the WFO options are updated to include local treatment programs, the concordance will greatly improve. The HER2 status of patients with gastric cancer had a strong effect on the likelihood of concordance. Generally, survival was better in concordant patients than in nonconcordant patients.

Machine learning platforms have emerged as a new promissory technology that some argue will revolutionize work practices across a broad range of professions, including medical care. During the past few years, IBM has been testing its Watson for Oncology platform at several oncology departments around the world. Published reports, news stories, as well as our own empirical research show that in some cases, the levels of concordance over recommended treatment protocols between the platform and human oncologists have been quite low. Other studies supported by IBM claim concordance rates as high as 96%. We use the Watson for Oncology case to examine the practice of using concordance levels between tumor boards and a machine learning decision-support system as a form of evidence. We address a challenge related to the epistemic authority between oncologists on tumor boards and the Watson Oncology platform by arguing that the use of concordance levels as a form of evidence of quality or trustworthiness is problematic. Although the platform provides links to the literature from which it draws its conclusion, it obfuscates the scoring criteria that it uses to value some studies over others. In other words, the platform “black boxes” the values that are coded into its scoring system.

Watson for Oncology (WFO) is a artificial intelligence clinical decision-support system with evidence-based treatment options for oncologists. WFO has been gradually used in China, but limited reports on whether WFO is suitable for Chinese patients. This study aims to investigate the concordance of treatment options between WFO and real clinical practice for Cervical cancer patients retrospectively. We retrospectively enrolled 300 cases of cervical cancer patients. WFO provides treatment options for 246 supported cases. Real clinical practice were defined as concordant if treatment options were designated “recommended” or “for consideration” by WFO. Concordance of treatment option between WFO and real clinical practice was analyzed statistically. The treatment concordance between WFO and real clinical practice occurred in 72.8% (179/246) of cervical cancer cases. Logistic regression analysis showed that rural registration residences, advanced age, poor ECOG performance status, stages II-IV disease have a remarkable impact on consistency. The main reasons attributed to the 27.2% (67/246) of the discordant cases were the substitution of nedaplatin for cisplatin, reimbursement plan of bevacizumab, surgical preference, and absence of neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies recommendations. WFO recommendations were in 72.8% of concordant with real clinical practice for cervical cancer patients in China. However, several localization and individual factors limit its wider application. So, WFO could be an essential tool but it cannot currently replace oncologists. To be rapidly and fully apply to cervical cancer patients in China, accelerate localization and improvement were needed for WFO.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is developing quickly in the medical field and can benefit both medical staff and patients. The clinical decision support system Watson for Oncology (WFO) is an outstanding representative AI in the medical field, and it can provide to cancer patients prompt treatment recommendations comparable with ones made by expert oncologists. WFO is increasingly being used in China, but limited reports on whether WFO is suitable for Chinese patients, especially patients with lung cancer, exist. Here, we report a retrospective study based on the consistency between the lung cancer treatment recommendations made for the same patient by WFO and by the multidisciplinary team at our center. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of using WFO for lung cancer cases in China and to ascertain ways to make WFO more suitable for Chinese patients with lung cancer. Methods: We selected all lung cancer patients who were hospitalized and received antitumor treatment for the first time at the Second Xiangya Hospital Cancer Center from September to December 2017 (N=182). WFO made treatment recommendations for all supported cases (n=149). If the actual therapeutic regimen (administered by our multidisciplinary team) was recommended or for consideration according to WFO, we defined the recommendations as consistent; if the actual therapeutic regimen was not recommended by WFO or if WFO did not provide the same treatment option, we defined the recommendations as inconsistent. Blinded second round reviews were performed by our multidisciplinary team to reassess the incongruent cases. Results: WFO did not support 18.1% (33/182) of recommendations among all cases. Of the 149 supported cases, 65.8% (98/149) received recommendations that were consistent with the recommendations of our team. Logistic regression analysis showed that pathological type and staging had significant effects on consistency (P=.004, odds ratio [OR] 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.45 and P