scholarly journals Personalized cancer therapy—leveraging a knowledge base for clinical decision-making

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. a001578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ecaterina Ileana Dumbrava ◽  
Funda Meric-Bernstam
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Knowledge Base ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Personalized Cancer Therapy ◽  
Personalized Cancer

Goals of palliative cancer therapy.

1993 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 378-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Porzsolt ◽  
I Tannock
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Palliative Treatment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Oncology Practice

The major conclusions of the Workshop on Goals of Palliative Cancer Therapy are as follows: 1. The goals of any cancer therapy should be stated explicitly. 2. If the goal of treatment is palliation, this should be documented according to one of the established and validated methods for assessment of quality of life. Several validated methods are available, and although imperfect, have been shown to give reliable information. 3. The use of simple measures of quality of life (eg, symptom checklists, pain assessment cards) should become routine in oncology practice. The act of introducing such measures improves palliation. 4. Measures of cost-effectiveness should be used more widely in clinical decision making to ensure the appropriate deployment of resources. 5. There must be improved education of all health professionals with regard to the multiple methods for provision of palliative treatment to cancer patients and the assessment of palliation.

scholarly journals Extracting genetic alteration information for personalized cancer therapy from ClinicalTrials.gov

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 750-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Xu ◽  
Hee-Jin Lee ◽  
Jia Zeng ◽  
Yonghui Wu ◽  
Yaoyun Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Knowledge Base ◽  
Genetic Alterations ◽  
Genetic Alteration ◽  
Treatment Trials ◽  
Personalized Cancer Therapy ◽  
Personalized Cancer ◽  
Manual Review

Abstract Objective: Clinical trials investigating drugs that target specific genetic alterations in tumors are important for promoting personalized cancer therapy. The goal of this project is to create a knowledge base of cancer treatment trials with annotations about genetic alterations from ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods: We developed a semi-automatic framework that combines advanced text-processing techniques with manual review to curate genetic alteration information in cancer trials. The framework consists of a document classification system to identify cancer treatment trials from ClinicalTrials.gov and an information extraction system to extract gene and alteration pairs from the Title and Eligibility Criteria sections of clinical trials. By applying the framework to trials at ClinicalTrials.gov, we created a knowledge base of cancer treatment trials with genetic alteration annotations. We then evaluated each component of the framework against manually reviewed sets of clinical trials and generated descriptive statistics of the knowledge base. Results and Discussion: The automated cancer treatment trial identification system achieved a high precision of 0.9944. Together with the manual review process, it identified 20 193 cancer treatment trials from ClinicalTrials.gov. The automated gene-alteration extraction system achieved a precision of 0.8300 and a recall of 0.6803. After validation by manual review, we generated a knowledge base of 2024 cancer trials that are labeled with specific genetic alteration information. Analysis of the knowledge base revealed the trend of increased use of targeted therapy for cancer, as well as top frequent gene-alteration pairs of interest. We expect this knowledge base to be a valuable resource for physicians and patients who are seeking information about personalized cancer therapy.

Multigene Signature Panels and Breast Cancer Therapy: Patterns of Use and Impact on Clinical Decision Making

2018 ◽  
Vol 226 (4) ◽  
pp. 406-412.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal Bhutiani ◽  
Michael E. Egger ◽  
Nicolás Ajkay ◽  
Charles R. Scoggins ◽  
Robert CG. Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Therapy ◽  
Patterns Of Use

scholarly journals Contemporary Role of Echocardiography for Clinical Decision Making in Patients During and After Cancer Therapy

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 1122-1131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Liu ◽  
Jose Banchs ◽  
Negareh Mousavi ◽  
Juan Carlos Plana ◽  
Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
After Cancer

An evaluation of artificial intelligence-based clinical decision supports use in Brazil.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18081-e18081
Author(s):  
Hermano Alexandre Lima Rocha ◽  
Irene Dankwa-Mullan ◽  
Sergio Ferreira Juacaba ◽  
Anita Preininger ◽  
Winnie Felix ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Time Table ◽  
Positive Statements ◽  
Strongly Agree ◽  
Clinical Decision Supports ◽  
Personalized Cancer ◽  
The Impact

e18081 Background: The Instituto do Câncer do Ceará (ICC), a 160-bed oncology hospital located in Brazil, serves approximately 23,000 patients monthly. In December of 2017, ICC implemented Watson for Oncology (WFO), an artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision-support (CDS) tool to help enhance personalized cancer care. As of December 2018, 903 cases involving mainly breast, prostate and gastric cancers were entered in WFO. The purpose of this study was to investigate how implementation of WFO and use by oncologists affects clinical decision-making and workflow. Methods: 7 oncologists who employed WfO during and after the patients’ first visit were recruited to complete a survey regarding usability, decision-making and workflow. The group consisted of 1 urologist, 3 gastric surgeons, 1 gynecologist, 1 breast surgeon, 1 head-neck surgeon. Survey questions integrated the CDS Five Rights framework. Results: Most oncologists agreed that WFO is easy to understand and provides complete, relevant and actionable information at an appropriate time (Table). Opinions on the impact on treatment decisions varied. 71.4% expressed positive statements (agree or strongly agree) pertaining to the use of WFO. Conclusions: In this study, oncologists felt WFO met 5 Rights expectations for CDS; 57% felt that WFO exceed expectations. Further research is needed to understand how variation in experience affects decision impact. [Table: see text]

Debates in Dysphagia Management: How Do You Use Evidence-Based Practice in Your Dysphagia Patient Care?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Do So

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document