Clinical decision making in prostate cancer care-evaluation of EAU-guidelines use and novel decision support software.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Aug 2024
18 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
04
02
2024
accepted:
14
08
2024
medline:
19
8
2024
pubmed:
19
8
2024
entrez:
18
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Keeping up to date with the latest clinical advances in prostate cancer can be challenging. We investigated the impact of guideline use on quality of treatment decisions as well as the impact of a novel, CE-certified clinical decision support tool (Siemens AIPC software) on the amount of time clinicians spend on decision-making in a multicenter setting. Ten urologists assessed ten clinical cases (screening and localized prostate cancer) in three settings: without support, using a digital version of the EAU guidelines, and with the AIPC tool, resulting in 300 clinical decisions. Comparison involved time spent, decision correct- and completeness. Using AIPC compared to digital guidelines led to a significant reduction of expenditure of time at a per case level (3.57 min and 0:14 min, p < 0.01) and for overall time per urologist (39.45 min and 02:20 min, p < 0.01). Decision options without guidelines support, online guideline usage and usage of AIPC were complete in 61%, 80% and 100%, respectively (p < 0.01). Decision making without guidelines support, online guideline usage and usage of AIPC was correct including all options in 28%, 66% and 100%, respectively (p < 0.01).Clinical decision support systems have the potential to reduces decision-making time and to enhance decision quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39155288
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-70292-y
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-70292-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19113Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
De Santis, M., Mottet, N., Cornford, P. & Gillessen, S. Precision oncology for metastatic prostate cancer: Translation into practice. Eur. Urol. Switzerland 78, 771–4 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.08.021
N.Mottet, P.Cornford, Bergh RCN va. den, al EB et. EAU - EANM - ESTRO - ESUR - ISUP - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2023. EAU Guidelines. p.
Melzer, G., Maiwald, T., Prokosch, H. U. & Ganslandt, T. Leveraging real-world data for the selection of relevant eligibility criteria for the implementation of electronic recruitment support in clinical trials. Appl. Clin. Inform. 12(01), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1721010 (2021).
doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1721010
pubmed: 33440429
pmcid: 7806423
Henkel, M. & Stieltjes, B. Structured data acquisition in oncology. Oncology. 98, 423–9 (2020).
doi: 10.1159/000504259
pubmed: 31734663
Suwanvecho, S. et al. Comparison of an oncology clinical decision-support system’s recommendations with actual treatment decisions. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 28, 832–8 (2021).
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa334
pubmed: 33517389
pmcid: 7973455
Jie, Z., Zhiying, Z. & Li, L. A meta-analysis of Watson for oncology in clinical application. Sci. Rep. 11, 5792 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84973-5
pubmed: 33707577
pmcid: 7952578
Kann, B. H., Hosny, A. & Aerts, H. J. W. L. Artificial intelligence for clinical oncology. Cancer Cell 39(7), 916–927 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2021.04.002
pubmed: 33930310
pmcid: 8282694
Voigt, W. & Trautwein, M. Improved guideline adherence in oncology through clinical decision-support systems: Still hindered by current health IT infrastructures?. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 35(1), 68 (2023).
doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000916
pubmed: 36367223
Henkel, M. et al. Initial experience with AI pathway companion: Evaluation of dashboard-enhanced clinical decision making in prostate cancer screening. PloS One. 17, e0271183 (2022).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271183
pubmed: 35857753
pmcid: 9299327
Henkel, M. et al. Toward a platform for structured data acquisition in oncology: A pilot study on prostate cancer screening. Oncology. 99(12), 802–812 (2021).
doi: 10.1159/000518381
pubmed: 34515209
Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, editors. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; (2011)
Woolhandler, S. & Himmelstein, D. U. Administrative work consumes one-sixth of U.S. Physicians’ working hours and lowers their career satisfaction. Int. J. Heal. Serv. 44(4), 635–42. https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.44.4.a (2014).
doi: 10.2190/HS.44.4.a
Lee, K. & Lee, S. H. Artificial intelligence-driven oncology clinical decision support system for multidisciplinary teams. Sens. (Basel). 20(17), 4693 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/s20174693
Cornford, P. et al. IMAGINE-IMpact assessment of guidelines implementation and education: The next frontier for harmonising urological practice across europe by improving adherence to guidelines. Eur. Urol. 79(2), 173–176 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.10.011
pubmed: 33129581
Kozikowski, M., Malewski, W., Michalak, W. & Dobruch, J. Clinical utility of MRI in the decision-making process before radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 14(1), e0210194–e0210194 (2019).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210194
pubmed: 30615661
pmcid: 6322775
Mazo, C., Kearns, C., Mooney, C. & Gallagher, W. M. Clinical decision support systems in breast cancer: A systematic review. Cancers (Basel). 12(2), 369 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/cancers12020369
pubmed: 32041094
pmcid: 7072392
Nafees, A. et al. Evaluation of clinical decision support systems in oncology: An updated systematic review. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 192, 104143 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104143
pubmed: 37742884
Lipczak, H., Dørflinger, L., Enevoldsen, C., Vinter, M. M. & Knudsen, J. L. Cancer patients’ experiences of error and consequences during diagnosis and treatment. Patient Exp. J. 2, 102–10 (2015).
doi: 10.35680/2372-0247.1039
Carey, M. et al. The patient perspective on errors in cancer care: Results of a cross-sectional survey. J. Patient Saf. 15(4), 322–327 (2019).
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000368
pubmed: 28230580
Khilfeh, I. et al. Real world US community urology adherence to prostate cancer guidelines. JCO Oncol. Pract. 19(11suppl), 449. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.2023.19.11_suppl.449 (2023).
doi: 10.1200/OP.2023.19.11_suppl.449
MacLennan, S. et al. Improving guideline adherence in urology. Eur. Urol. Focus. 8(5), 1545–52 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.10.007
pubmed: 34702647