Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29158372›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2018

Enhancing Next-Generation Sequencing-Guided Cancer Care Through Cognitive Computing.

Nirali M Patel, Vanessa V Michelini, Jeff M Snell, Saianand Balu, Alan P Hoyle, Joel S Parker, Michele C Hayward, David A Eberhard, Ashley H Salazar, Patrick McNeillie and 15 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Differential Localization of β-Catenin Protein in CTNNB1 Mutant Endometrial Cancers Results in Distinct Transcriptional Profiles.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The Perception of Health Professionals in Bangladesh toward the Digitalization of the Health Sector.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Serial Analysis of Clinical Cancer Genomics Data Identifies Changing Treatment Recommendations and Therapeutic Targets.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Artificial Intelligence: Review of Current and Future Applications in Medicine.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Editorial: Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Clinical Medicine and the 2020 CONSORT-AI Study Guidelines.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nirali M PatelLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Vanessa V MicheliniIBM Watson Health, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Jeff M SnellLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Saianand BaluLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Alan P HoyleLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Joel S ParkerLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Michele C HaywardLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
David A EberhardLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Ashley H SalazarLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Patrick McNeillieIBM Watson Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Jia XuIBM Watson Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Claudia S HuettnerIBM Watson Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Takahiko KoyamaIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
Filippo UtroIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
Kahn RhrissorrakraiIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
Raquel NorelIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
Erhan BilalIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
Ajay RoyyuruIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
Laxmi ParidaIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, New York, USA.
H Shelton EarpLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Juneko E Grilley-OlsonLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
D Neil HayesLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Stephen J HarveyIBM Watson Health, Herndon, Virginia, USA.
Norman E SharplessLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA william_kim@med.unc.edu nes@med.unc.edu.
William Y KimLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA william_kim@med.unc.edu nes@med.unc.edu.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USIBM (United States) · US

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Deborah F. Tate · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
Network Group Integrated Translational Science Centers ApplicationU10CA181009 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HAYES, DAVID N, PEROU, CHARLES M · 2014 to 2018
$3.4M
Kinase Inhibition in Kidney CancerR01CA202053 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KIM, WILLIAM Y. · 2016 to 2020
$2.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086NCI NIH HHS R01 CA202053NCI NIH HHS U10 CA181009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing next-generation sequencing (NGS) to guide cancer therapy has created challenges in analyzing and reporting large volumes of genomic data to patients and caregivers. Specifically, providing current, accurate information on newly approved therapies and open clinical trials requires considerable manual curation performed mainly by human "molecular tumor boards" (MTBs). The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of cognitive computing as performed by Watson for Genomics (WfG) compared with a human MTB. MATERIALS AND

methodsOne thousand eighteen patient cases that previously underwent targeted exon sequencing at the University of North Carolina (UNC) and subsequent analysis by the UNCseq informatics pipeline and the UNC MTB between November 7, 2011, and May 12, 2015, were analyzed with WfG, a cognitive computing technology for genomic analysis.

resultsUsing a WfG-curated actionable gene list, we identified additional genomic events of potential significance (not discovered by traditional MTB curation) in 323 (32%) patients. The majority of these additional genomic events were considered actionable based upon their ability to qualify patients for biomarker-selected clinical trials. Indeed, the opening of a relevant clinical trial within 1 month prior to WfG analysis provided the rationale for identification of a new actionable event in nearly a quarter of the 323 patients. This automated analysis took <3 minutes per case.

conclusionThese results demonstrate that the interpretation and actionability of somatic NGS results are evolving too rapidly to rely solely on human curation. Molecular tumor boards empowered by cognitive computing could potentially improve patient care by providing a rapid, comprehensive approach for data analysis and consideration of up-to-date availability of clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study demonstrate that the interpretation and actionability of somatic next-generation sequencing results are evolving too rapidly to rely solely on human curation. Molecular tumor boards empowered by cognitive computing can significantly improve patient care by providing a fast, cost-effective, and comprehensive approach for data analysis in the delivery of precision medicine. Patients and physicians who are considering enrollment in clinical trials may benefit from the support of such tools applied to genomic data.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBiomarkers, TumorCase-Control StudiesCombined Modality TherapyFollow-Up StudiesGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLymphatic MetastasisNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasmsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateBiomarkers, TumorArtificial intelligenceGenomicsHigh‐throughput nucleotide sequencingPrecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID29158372
PMCPMC5813753
OpenAlexW2770203518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.