Background. A multifactorial decision support system (mDSS) is a tool designed to improve the clinical decision-making process, while using clinical inputs for an individual patient to generate case-specific advice. The study provides an overview of the literature to analyze current available mDSS focused on prostate cancer (PCa), in order to better understand the availability of decision support tools as well as where the current literature is lacking. Methods. We performed a MEDLINE literature search in July 2018. We divided the included studies into different sections: diagnostic, which aids in detection or staging of PCa; treatment, supporting the decision between treatment modalities; and patient, which focusses on informing the patient. We manually screened and excluded studies that did not contain an mDSS concerning prostate cancer and study proposals. Results. Our search resulted in twelve diagnostic mDSS; six treatment mDSS; two patient mDSS; and eight papers that could improve mDSS. Conclusions. Diagnosis mDSS is well represented in the literature as well as treatment mDSS considering external-beam radiotherapy; however, there is a lack of mDSS for other treatment modalities. The development of patient decision aids is a new field of research, and few successes have been made for PCa patients. These tools can improve personalized medicine but need to overcome a number of difficulties to be successful and require more research.

We present a methodology which can be utilized to select proton or photon radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients. Four state-of-the-art competing treatment modalities were compared (by way of an in silico trial) for a cohort of 25 prostate cancer patients, with and without correction strategies for prostate displacements. Metrics measured from clinical image guidance systems were used. Three correction strategies were investigated; no-correction, extended-no-action-limit, and online-correction. Clinical efficacy was estimated via radiobiological models incorporating robustness (how probable a given treatment plan was delivered) and stability (the consistency between the probable best and worst delivered treatments at the 95% confidence limit). The results obtained at the cohort level enabled the determination of a threshold for likely clinical benefit at the individual level. Depending on the imaging system and correction strategy; 24%, 32% and 44% of patients were identified as suitable candidates for proton therapy. For the constraints of this study: Intensity-modulated proton therapy with online-correction was on average the most effective modality. Irrespective of the imaging system, each treatment modality is similar in terms of robustness, with and without the correction strategies. Conversely, there is substantial variation in stability between the treatment modalities, which is greatly reduced by correction strategies. This study provides a ‘proof-of-concept’ methodology to enable the prospective identification of individual patients that will most likely (above a certain threshold) benefit from proton therapy.

Introduction: Previous studies revealed that dose escalated radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients leads to higher tumor control probabilities (TCP) but also to higher rectal toxicities. An isotoxic model was developed to maximize the given dose while controlling the toxicity level. This was applied to analyze the effect of an implantable rectum spacer (IRS) and extended with a genetic test of normal tissue radio-sensitivity. A virtual IRS (V-IRS) was tested using this method. We hypothesized that the patients with increased risk of toxicity would benefit more from an IRS. Material and methods: Sixteen localized prostate cancer patients implanted with an IRS were included in the study. Treatment planning was performed on computed tomography (CT) images before and after the placement of the IRS and with a V-IRS. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) was calculated using a QUANTEC reviewed model for Grade > =2 late rectal bleeding and the number of fractions of the plans were adjusted until the NTCP value was under 5%. The resulting treatment plans were used to calculate the TCP before and after placement of an IRS. This was extended by adding the effect of two published genetic single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP’s) for late rectal bleeding. Results: The median TCP resulting from the optimized plans in patients before the IRS was 75.1% [32.6–90.5%]. With IRS, the median TCP is significantly higher: 98.9% [80.8–99.9%] (p < .01). The difference in TCP between the V-IRS and the real IRS was 1.8% [0.0–18.0%]. Placing an IRS in the patients with SNP’s improved the TCP from 49.0% [16.1–80.8%] and 48.9% [16.0–72.8%] to 96.3% [67.0–99.5%] and 90.1% [49.0–99.5%] (p < .01) respectively for either SNP. Conclusion: This study was a proof-of-concept for an isotoxic model with genetic biomarkers with a V-IRS as a multifactorial decision support system for the decision of a placement of an IRS.

The aim of this study is to build a decision support system (DSS) to select radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We used an individual state-transition model based on predictive models for estimating tumor control and toxicity probabilities. We performed analyses on a synthetically generated dataset of 1000 patients with realistic clinical parameters, externally validated by comparison to randomized clinical trials, and set up an in silico clinical trial for elderly patients. We assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the DSS for treatment selection by comparing it to randomized treatment allotment. Using the DSS, 47.8% of synthetic patients were selected for RP and 52.2% for EBRT. During validation, differences with the simulations of late toxicity and biochemical failure never exceeded 2%. The in silico trial showed that for elderly patients, toxicity has more influence on the decision than TCP, and the predicted QoL depends on the initial erectile function. The DSS is estimated to result in cost savings (EUR 323 (95% CI: EUR 213–433)) and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.11 years, 95% CI: 0.00–0.22) than randomized treatment selection.

Background: The current pandemic has led to a proliferation of predictive models being developed to address various aspects of COVID-19 patient care. We aimed to develop an online platform that would serve as an open source repository for a curated subset of such models, and provide a simple interface for included models to allow for online calculation. This platform would support doctors during decision-making regarding diagnoses, prognoses, and follow-up of COVID-19 patients, expediting the models’ transition from research to clinical practice. Methods: In this pilot study, we performed a literature search in the PubMed and WHO databases to find suitable models for implementation on our platform. All selected models were publicly available (peer reviewed publications or open source repository) and had been validated (TRIPOD type 3 or 2b). We created a method for obtaining the regression coefficients if only the nomogram was available in the original publication. All predictive models were transcribed on a practical graphical user interface using PHP 8.0.0, and were published online together with supporting documentation and links to the associated articles. Results: The open source website currently incorporates nine models from six different research groups, evaluated on datasets from different countries. The website will continue to be populated with other models related to COVID-19 prediction as these become available. This dynamic platform allows COVID-19 researchers to contact us to have their model curated and included on our website, thereby increasing the reach and real-world impact of their work. Conclusion: We have successfully demonstrated in this pilot study that our website provides an inclusive platform for predictive models related to COVID-19. It enables doctors to supplement their judgment with patient-specific predictions from externally validated models in a user-friendly format. Additionally, this platform supports researchers in showcasing their work, which will increase the visibility and use of their models.