Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38598013›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2024

Supporting the decision to perform molecular profiling for cancer patients based on routinely collected data through the use of machine learning.

Julia Kasprzak, C Benedikt Westphalen, Simon Frey, Yvonne Schmitt, Volker Heinemann, Theres Fey, Daniel Nasseh

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Julia KasprzakComprehensive Cancer Center (CCC Munich LMU), LMU University Hospital Munich, Pettenkoferstraße 8a, Munich, Germany. Julia.Kasprzak@med.uni-muenchen.de.
C Benedikt WestphalenComprehensive Cancer Center (CCC Munich LMU), LMU University Hospital Munich, Pettenkoferstraße 8a, Munich, Germany.
Simon FreyRoche Pharma AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany.
Yvonne SchmittRoche Pharma AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany.
Volker HeinemannComprehensive Cancer Center (CCC Munich LMU), LMU University Hospital Munich, Pettenkoferstraße 8a, Munich, Germany.
Theres FeyComprehensive Cancer Center (CCC Munich LMU), LMU University Hospital Munich, Pettenkoferstraße 8a, Munich, Germany.
Daniel NassehComprehensive Cancer Center (CCC Munich LMU), LMU University Hospital Munich, Pettenkoferstraße 8a, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DELMU Klinikum · DERoche Pharma AG (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonalized medicine offers targeted therapy options for cancer treatment. However, the decision whether to include a patient into next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing is not standardized. This may result in some patients receiving unnecessary testing while others who could benefit from it are not tested. Typically, patients who have exhausted conventional treatment options are of interest for consideration in molecularly targeted therapy. To assist clinicians in decision-making, we developed a decision support tool using routine data from a precision oncology program.

methodsWe trained a machine learning model on clinical data to determine whether molecular profiling should be performed for a patient. To validate the model, the model's predictions were compared with decisions made by a molecular tumor board (MTB) using multiple patient case vignettes with their characteristics.

resultsThe prediction model included 440 patients with molecular profiling and 13,587 patients without testing. High area under the curve (AUC) scores indicated the importance of engineered features in deciding on molecular profiling. Patient age, physical condition, tumor type, metastases, and previous therapies were the most important features. During the validation MTB experts made the same decision of recommending a patient for molecular profiling only in 10 out of 15 of their previous cases but there was agreement between the experts and the model in 9 out of 15 cases.

conclusionBased on a historical cohort, our predictive model has the potential to assist clinicians in deciding whether to perform molecular profiling.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsHumansMachine LearningMolecular Targeted TherapyPrecision MedicineRoutinely Collected Health DataDecision supportHealth informaticsImbalanced dataMachine learningMolecular tumor boardNext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID38598013
PMCPMC11006770
OpenAlexW4394692787

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.