A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board
Abstract Publicly available trial matching tools can improve the access to therapeutic innovations, but errors may expose to over-solicitation and disappointment. We performed a pragmatic non-interventional prospective evaluation on sequential patients at the Molecular Tumor Board of Centre Leon Ber...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | npj Precision Oncology |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-025-00806-y |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832572053032534016 |
|---|---|
| author | Lilia Gueguen Louise Olgiati Clément Brutti-Mairesse Alric Sans Vincent Le Texier Loic Verlingue |
| author_facet | Lilia Gueguen Louise Olgiati Clément Brutti-Mairesse Alric Sans Vincent Le Texier Loic Verlingue |
| author_sort | Lilia Gueguen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Publicly available trial matching tools can improve the access to therapeutic innovations, but errors may expose to over-solicitation and disappointment. We performed a pragmatic non-interventional prospective evaluation on sequential patients at the Molecular Tumor Board of Centre Leon Berard. During 10 weeks in 2024, we analysed 157 patients with four clinical trial matching tools from the 19 screened: Klineo, ScreenAct, Trialing and DigitalECMT. Each patient had 2.19 trials proposed on average, and 38% had no trials suggested. The mean performances were precision = 0.33, recall = 0.32, AP@3 = 0.45, and NDCG@3 = 0.34. Using all the tools can increase to 26% the clinical trial options. The most frequent error concerned the type of gene variants required by the selection criteria. We showed that using a Large Language Model on the patients’ molecular reports could improve the performance by up to 5%. We recommend that experts supervise the results and we advocate for improved technologies. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-21f268fc91234c52bf9be4d7cf4a3493 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2397-768X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | npj Precision Oncology |
| spelling | doaj-art-21f268fc91234c52bf9be4d7cf4a34932025-02-02T12:06:33ZengNature Portfolionpj Precision Oncology2397-768X2025-01-019111010.1038/s41698-025-00806-yA prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor boardLilia Gueguen0Louise Olgiati1Clément Brutti-Mairesse2Alric Sans3Vincent Le Texier4Loic Verlingue5CRCL, Centre Léon BérardCRCL, Centre Léon BérardCRCL, Centre Léon BérardCRCL, Centre Léon BérardCRCL, Centre Léon BérardCRCL, Centre Léon BérardAbstract Publicly available trial matching tools can improve the access to therapeutic innovations, but errors may expose to over-solicitation and disappointment. We performed a pragmatic non-interventional prospective evaluation on sequential patients at the Molecular Tumor Board of Centre Leon Berard. During 10 weeks in 2024, we analysed 157 patients with four clinical trial matching tools from the 19 screened: Klineo, ScreenAct, Trialing and DigitalECMT. Each patient had 2.19 trials proposed on average, and 38% had no trials suggested. The mean performances were precision = 0.33, recall = 0.32, AP@3 = 0.45, and NDCG@3 = 0.34. Using all the tools can increase to 26% the clinical trial options. The most frequent error concerned the type of gene variants required by the selection criteria. We showed that using a Large Language Model on the patients’ molecular reports could improve the performance by up to 5%. We recommend that experts supervise the results and we advocate for improved technologies.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-025-00806-y |
| spellingShingle | Lilia Gueguen Louise Olgiati Clément Brutti-Mairesse Alric Sans Vincent Le Texier Loic Verlingue A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board npj Precision Oncology |
| title | A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board |
| title_full | A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board |
| title_fullStr | A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board |
| title_full_unstemmed | A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board |
| title_short | A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board |
| title_sort | prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-025-00806-y |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT liliagueguen aprospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT louiseolgiati aprospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT clementbruttimairesse aprospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT alricsans aprospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT vincentletexier aprospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT loicverlingue aprospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT liliagueguen prospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT louiseolgiati prospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT clementbruttimairesse prospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT alricsans prospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT vincentletexier prospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard AT loicverlingue prospectivepragmaticevaluationofautomatictrialmatchingtoolsinamoleculartumorboard |