Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38513166›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2024

Identifying Oncology Clinical Trial Candidates Using Artificial Intelligence Predictions of Treatment Change: A Pilot Implementation Study.

Kenneth L Kehl, Tali Mazor, Pavel Trukhanov, James Lindsay, Matthew R Galvin, Karim S Farhat, Emily McClure, Antonio Giordano, Leena Gandhi, Deborah Schrag and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO precision oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. AI for clinical trials in oncology.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kenneth L KehlDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0001-5339-9797
Tali MazorDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-0138-9615
Pavel TrukhanovDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-4942-5451
James LindsayDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-6295-098X
Matthew R GalvinDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-2040-8567
Karim S FarhatDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
Emily McClureDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
Antonio GiordanoDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
Leena GandhiDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
Deborah SchragMemorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-4334-5717
Michael J HassettDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-0754-3510
Ethan CeramiDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Deep clinical trajectory modeling to optimize accrual to cancer clinical trialsR00CA245899 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI KEHL, KENNETH L · 2022 to 2024
$747k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R00 CA245899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrecision oncology clinical trials often struggle to accrue, partly because it is difficult to find potentially eligible patients at moments when they need new treatment. We piloted deployment of artificial intelligence tools to identify such patients at a large academic cancer center. PATIENTS AND

methodsNeural networks that process radiology reports to identify patients likely to start new systemic therapy were applied prospectively for patients with solid tumors that had undergone next-generation sequencing at our center. Model output was linked to the MatchMiner tool, which matches patients to trials using tumor genomics. Reports listing genomically matched patients, sorted by probability of treatment change, were provided weekly to an oncology nurse navigator (ONN) coordinating recruitment to nine early-phase trials. The ONN contacted treating oncologists when patients likely to change treatment appeared potentially trial-eligible.

resultsWithin weekly reports to the ONN, 60,199 patient-trial matches were generated for 2,150 patients on the basis of genomics alone. Of these, 3,168 patient-trial matches (5%) corresponding to 525 patients were flagged for ONN review by our model, representing a 95% reduction in review compared with manual review of all patient-trial matches weekly. After ONN review for potential eligibility, treating oncologists for 74 patients were contacted. Common reasons for not contacting treating oncologists included cases where patients had already decided to continue current treatment (21%); the trial had no slots (14%); or the patient was ineligible on ONN review (12%). Of 74 patients whose oncologists were contacted, 10 (14%) had a consult regarding a trial and five (7%) enrolled.

conclusionThis approach facilitated identification of potential patients for clinical trials in real time, but further work to improve accrual must address the many other barriers to trial enrollment in precision oncology research.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceHumansMedical OncologyPilot ProjectsPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID38513166
PMCPMC10965204
OpenAlexW4393058144

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.