Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT06463977

Using Surveys to Examine the Association of Exposure to ML Mortality Risk Predictions With Medical Oncologists' Prognostic Accuracy and Decision-making

Nearly half of cancer patients in the US will receive care that is inconsistent with their wishes prior to death. Early advanced care planning (ACP) and palliative care improve goal-concordant care and symptoms and reduce unnecessary utilization. A promising strategy to increase ACP and palliative care is to identify patients at risk of mortality earlier in the disease course in order to target these services. Machine learning (ML) algorithms have been used in various industries, including medicine, to accurately predict risk of adverse outcomes and direct earlier resources. "Human-machine collaborations" - systems that leverage both ML and human intuition - have been shown to improve predictions and decision-making in various situations, but it is not known whether human-machine collaborations can improve prognostic accuracy and lead to greater and earlier ACP and palliative care. In this study, we contacted a national sample of medical oncologists and invited them complete a vignette-based survey. Our goal was to examine the association of exposure to ML mortality risk predictions with clinicians' prognostic accuracy and decision-making. We presented a series of six vignettes describing three clinical scenarios specific to a patient with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) that differ by age, gender, performance status, smoking history, extent of disease, symptoms and molecular status. We will use these vignette-based surveys to examine the association of exposure to ML mortality risk predictions with medical oncologists' prognostic accuracy and decision-making.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104, United States

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Medical oncologists who treat lung cancer

Exclusion criteria

  • Medical oncologists who do not see lung cancer patients

Treatment and study plan

Survey

Other

The study consisted of a 3 × 3 online factorial experiment employing a survey instrument hosted via Qualtrics presenting describing three patient vignettes. The three patient vignettes varied by various clinical characteristics including age, gender, performance status, smoking history, extent of disease, symptoms and molecular status. Each patient had advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Each vignette had two parts: Part 1 described the case history for one of the three patients, after which prognostic estimates and medical decision-making was assessed (i.e. 1, 2, 3). Part 2 immediately followed and described the same vignette from the same patient with added information from a hypothetical ML predictive algorithm (i.e. A, B, C). The order of the vignettes in each survey was randomized with regard to presentation strategies for the ML risk predictions, so that there were 6 versions of the survey to which each participant was randomized.

Primary outcomes

  1. Prognostic accuracy as assessed via survey

    Time frame: Up to 3 months

    Prognostic estimates were measured using two items administered after Parts 1 and 2 of each of the 3 vignettes:

    • What is your anticipated life expectancy for this patient, in months?
    • What do you think is the likelihood that she will die within 12 months? Please provide a percentage on a scale of 0% to 100%.

    Accurate prognoses were defined as whether the reported life expectancy estimate was within 33% of the LCPI estimate, as modified after the focus groups. Participants answered the first question in months and the second question as a percentage between 0-100%.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Advance care planning decisions as assessed via survey

    Time frame: Up to 3 months

    ACP decision-making was assessed using the following item administered after Parts 1 and 2 of each of the 3 vignettes:

    • Would you have a discussion about advance care planning at this point in her disease course?

    Each question was operationalized as a Yes/No answer and was followed by a free response box asking, "Please share your reason for this decision."

  2. Palliative care referral as assessed via survey

    Time frame: Up to 3 months

    Palliative care referral was assessed using the following item administered after Parts 1 and 2 of each of the 3 vignettes:

    • Would you refer him/her to a palliative care specialist at this point in her disease course?

    Each question was operationalized as a Yes/No answer and was followed by a free response box asking, "Please share your reason for this decision."

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Medicine

Other

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2023
Primary completion
2023
Study completion
2023
First posted
Jun 18, 2024
Registry last updated
Nov 21, 2024

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.