A clinical decision support system for AI-assisted decision-making in response-adaptive radiotherapy (ARCliDS)

Intricacies of Human-AI Interaction in Dynamic Decision-Making for Precision Oncology: A Case Study in Response-Adaptive Radiotherapy

Background

Adaptive treatment strategies that can dynamically react to individual cancer progression can provide effective personalized care. Longitudinal multi-omics information, paired with an artificially intelligent clinical decision support system (AI-CDSS) can assist clinicians in determining optimal therapeutic options and treatment adaptations. However, AI-CDSS is not perfectly accurate, as such, clinicians' over/under reliance on AI may lead to unintended consequences, ultimately failing to develop optimal strategies. To investigate such collaborative decision-making process, we conducted a Human-AI interaction case study on response-adaptive radiotherapy (RT).

Methods

We designed and conducted a two-phase study for two disease sites and two treatment modalities-adaptive RT for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and adaptive stereotactic body RT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-in which clinicians were asked to consider mid-treatment modification of the dose per fraction for a number of retrospective cancer patients without AI-support (Unassisted Phase) and with AI-assistance (AI-assisted Phase). The AI-CDSS graphically presented trade-offs in tumor control and the likelihood of toxicity to organs at risk, provided an optimal recommendation, and associated model uncertainties. In addition, we asked for clinicians' decision confidence level and trust level in individual AI recommendations and encouraged them to provide written remarks. We enrolled 13 evaluators (radiation oncology physicians and residents) from two medical institutions located in two different states, out of which, 4 evaluators volunteered in both NSCLC and HCC studies, resulting in a total of 17 completed evaluations (9 NSCLC, and 8 HCC). To limit the evaluation time to under an hour, we selected 8 treated patients for NSCLC and 9 for HCC, resulting in a total of 144 sets of evaluations (72 from NSCLC and 72 from HCC). Evaluation for each patient consisted of 8 required inputs and 2 optional remarks, resulting in up to a total of 1440 data points.

Results

AI-assistance did not homogeneously influence all experts and clinical decisions. From NSCLC cohort, 41 (57%) decisions and from HCC cohort, 34 (47%) decisions were adjusted after AI assistance. Two evaluations (12%) from the NSCLC cohort had zero decision adjustments, while the remaining 15 (88%) evaluations resulted in at least two decision adjustments. Decision adjustment level positively correlated with dissimilarity in decision-making with AI [NSCLC: ρ = 0.53 ( p < 0.001); HCC: ρ = 0.60 ( p < 0.001)] indicating that evaluators adjusted their decision closer towards AI recommendation. Agreement with AI-recommendation positively correlated with AI Trust Level [NSCLC: ρ = 0.59 ( p < 0.001); HCC: ρ = 0.7 ( p < 0.001)] indicating that evaluators followed AI's recommendation if they agreed with that recommendation. The correlation between decision confidence changes and decision adjustment level showed an opposite trend [NSCLC: ρ = -0.24 ( p = 0.045), HCC: ρ = 0.28 ( p = 0.017)] reflecting the difference in behavior due to underlying differences in disease type and treatment modality. Decision confidence positively correlated with the closeness of decisions to the standard of care (NSCLC: 2 Gy/fx; HCC: 10 Gy/fx) indicating that evaluators were generally more confident in prescribing dose fractionations more similar to those used in standard clinical practice. Inter-evaluator agreement increased with AI-assistance indicating that AI-assistance can decrease inter-physician variability. The majority of decisions were adjusted to achieve higher tumor control in NSCLC and lower normal tissue complications in HCC. Analysis of evaluators' remarks indicated concerns for organs at risk and RT outcome estimates as important decision-making factors.

Conclusions

Human-AI interaction depends on the complex interrelationship between expert's prior knowledge and preferences, patient's state, disease site, treatment modality, model transparency, and AI's learned behavior and biases. The collaborative decision-making process can be summarized as follows: (i) some clinicians may not believe in an AI system, completely disregarding its recommendation, (ii) some clinicians may believe in the AI system but will critically analyze its recommendations on a case-by-case basis; (iii) when a clinician finds that the AI recommendation indicates the possibility for better outcomes they will adjust their decisions accordingly; and (iv) When a clinician finds that the AI recommendation indicate a worse possible outcome they will disregard it and seek their own alternative approach.

Graph Neural Networks in Cancer and Oncology Research: Emerging and Future Trends

Next-generation cancer and oncology research needs to take full advantage of the multimodal structured, or graph, information, with the graph data types ranging from molecular structures to spatially resolved imaging and digital pathology, biological networks, and knowledge graphs. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) efficiently combine the graph structure representations with the high predictive performance of deep learning, especially on large multimodal datasets. In this review article, we survey the landscape of recent (2020-present) GNN applications in the context of cancer and oncology research, and delineate six currently predominant research areas. We then identify the most promising directions for future research. We compare GNNs with graphical models and "non-structured" deep learning, and devise guidelines for cancer and oncology researchers or physician-scientists, asking the question of whether they should adopt the GNN methodology in their research pipelines.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in precision oncology: a review on enhancing discoverability through multiomics integration

Multiomics data including imaging radiomics and various types of molecular biomarkers have been increasingly investigated for better diagnosis and therapy in the era of precision oncology. Artificial intelligence (AI) including machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques combined with the exponential growth of multiomics data may have great potential to revolutionize cancer subtyping, risk stratification, prognostication, prediction and clinical decision-making. In this article, we first present different categories of multiomics data and their roles in diagnosis and therapy. Second, AI-based data fusion methods and modeling methods as well as different validation schemes are illustrated. Third, the applications and examples of multiomics research in oncology are demonstrated. Finally, the challenges regarding the heterogeneity data set, availability of omics data, and validation of the research are discussed. The transition of multiomics research to real clinics still requires consistent efforts in standardizing omics data collection and analysis, building computational infrastructure for data sharing and storing, developing advanced methods to improve data fusion and interpretability, and ultimately, conducting large-scale prospective clinical trials to fill the gap between study findings and clinical benefits.

Interpretable artificial intelligence in radiology and radiation oncology

Artificial intelligence has been introduced to clinical practice, especially radiology and radiation oncology, from image segmentation, diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis. It is not only crucial to have an accurate artificial intelligence model, but also to understand the internal logic and gain the trust of the experts. This review is intended to provide some insights into core concepts of the interpretability, the state-of-the-art methods for understanding the machine learning models, the evaluation of these methods, identifying some challenges and limits of them, and gives some examples of medical applications.