Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
411 Background: Inefficiencies in patient (pt) screening may impair enrollment in oncology trials and could potentially be mitigated by a centralized trial matching infrastructure. The objective of this study was to implement a novel clinical trial screening service using electronic health record (EHR)-based structured variables, machine learning (ML) and human abstraction. Methods: To construct the model, we defined a set of inclusion and exclusion (IE) criteria unique to each trial and routinely documented in EHRs. Patients that met IE criteria via structured and ML-extracted clinical data were selected for review by trained specialists via a technology-enabled abstraction platform. Real-time notifications for eligible pts were issued via EHR alerts to research teams at participating study sites. Results: Between January and May 2024, over 80,000 pts were screened prior to a clinic visit for two trials at three sites. Using structured IE criteria alone, 98.7% and 99.6% of pts were excluded. An additional 31.9% of pts were excluded when employing ML modeling. A total of 15 (3.0%) and 5 (4.0%) pts were deemed eligible when using structured, ML, and abstraction-based criteria (Table). Seventeen percent of surfaced pts were consented within 10 days of implementation. Median time for abstractor confirmation of pt eligibility was 13.3 hours (interquartile range: 2.8, 27.4) with abstraction of highest priority pts taking a median of 3.0 and 9.9 hours, respectively. Conclusions: Our results support the implementation of a centralized, technology-enabled pt screening service for effective trial eligibility assessments across large patient populations. The value of using structured, ML- and abstraction-based data models, improved accuracy by more than 95% compared to structured data alone. The impact of multi-modal centralized screening is being evaluated across additional clinical trials in a nationwide community oncology research network. Pts, No. (% pts excluded). Trial 1 Trial 2 1. Pts with upcoming visit 37,865 44,973 2. Pts meeting structured criteria (including: age, stage, prior IV therapy) 497 (98.7) 182 (99.6) 3. Pts meeting ML model-based criteria (including: prior oral therapy) - 124 (31.9) 4. Pts meeting steps 1-3 and abstraction criteria (including: cancer diagnosis, biomarker status, prior malignancies) 15 (97.0) 5 (96.0)
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Anosheh Afghahi
Filip Frahm
Maneet Kaur
JCO Oncology Practice
Flatiron Health (United States)
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Afghahi et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68e56f65b6db64358750f91c — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.2024.20.10_suppl.411
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: