Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29979736›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Gene expression assay and Watson for Oncology for optimization of treatment in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Yun Yeong Kim, Se Jeong Oh, Yong Soon Chun, Woon Kee Lee, Heung Kyu Park

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. When Predictive Models Collide.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yun Yeong KimDepartment of Surgery, Breast Cancer Center, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0077-540X
Se Jeong OhDepartment of Surgery, Breast Cancer Center, Catholic University Saint Mary's Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Yong Soon ChunDepartment of Surgery, Breast Cancer Center, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Woon Kee LeeDepartment of Surgery, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Heung Kyu ParkDepartment of Surgery, Breast Cancer Center, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonalized treatment for cancer patients is a hot topic of debate, particularly the decision to initiate chemotherapy in patients with Estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative tumors in the early stages of breast cancer (BC). Owing to significant advancements in information technology (IT) and genomics, clinicians are increasingly attaining therapeutic goals rapidly and safely by effectively differentiating patient subsets that require chemotherapy. IBM Watson for Oncology (WFO) is a cognitive computing system employed by clinicians to provide evidence-based treatment options for cancer. WFO aids in clinical diagnosis, with claims that it may be superior in performance to human clinicians. The current study was based on the hypothesis that WFO alone cannot effectively determine whether or not chemotherapy is essential for the subset of ER-positive, HER2-negative BC patients. PATIENTS AND

methodsFrom December 2015 to July 2017, 95 patients with ER-positive, HER2- negative BC subjected to treatment were retrospectively examined using WFO, and outputs compared to real clinical practice. Treatment options were suggested by WFO, and WFO recommendations calculated both with and without data from the gene expression assay (GEA).

resultsWFO without GEA was unable to determine the groups of patients that did not require chemotherapy. Concordant therapeutic recommendations between real clinical practice and WFO without GEA were obtained for 23.2% of the patient group. On the other hand, the results of WFO with GEA showed good clinical applicability. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values of WFO with GEA were 100%, 80%, 61% and 100%, respectively.

conclusionsOur collective findings indicate that WFO without the gene expression assay has limited clinical utility.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingTherapy, Computer-AssistedAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient-Specific ModelingPrecision MedicineReceptors, EstrogenRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesReceptors, Estrogen

Identifiers

PMID29979736
PMCPMC6034851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.