Background The complexity of the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) multidisciplinary team (MDT) is continually growing, leading to rising clinician workload, time pressures, and demands. This increases heterogeneity or ‘noise’ within decision-making for patients with oesophageal cancer (OC) and may lead to inconsistent treatment decisions. In recent decades, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and more specifically the branch of machine learning (ML) has led to a paradigm shift in the perceived utility of statistical modelling within healthcare. Within oesophageal cancer (OC) care, ML techniques have already been applied with early success to the analyses of histological samples and radiology imaging; however, it has not yet been applied to the MDT itself where such models are likely to benefit from incorporating information-rich, diverse datasets to increase predictive model accuracy. Methods This review discusses the current role the MDT plays in modern UGI cancer care as well as the utilisation of ML techniques to date using histological and radiological data to predict treatment response, prognostication, nodal disease evaluation, and even resectability within OC. Results The review finds that an emerging body of evidence is growing in support of ML tools within multiple domains relevant to decision-making within OC including automated histological analysis and radiomics. However, to date, no specific application has been directed to the MDT itself which routinely assimilates this information. Conclusions The authors feel the UGI MDT offers an information-rich, diverse array of data from which ML offers the potential to standardise, automate, and produce more consistent, data-driven MDT decisions.

Rising workflow pressures within the oesophageal cancer (OC) multidisciplinary team (MDT) can lead to variability in decision-making, and health inequality. Machine learning (ML) offers a potential automated data-driven approach to address inconsistency and standardize care. The aim of this experimental pilot study was to develop ML models able to predict curative OC MDT treatment decisions and determine the relative importance of underlying decision-critical variables. Retrospective complete-case analysis of oesophagectomy patients ± neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) between 2010 and 2020. Established ML algorithms (Multinomial Logistic regression (MLR), Random Forests (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB)) and Decision Tree (DT) were used to train models predicting OC MDT treatment decisions: surgery (S), NACT + S or NACRT + S. Performance metrics included Area Under the Curve (AUC), Accuracy, Kappa, LogLoss, F1 and Precision -Recall AUC. Variable importance was calculated for each model. We identified 399 cases with a male-to-female ratio of 3.6:1 and median age of 66.1yrs (range 32-83). MLR outperformed RF, XGB and DT across performance metrics (mean AUC of 0.793 [±0.045] vs 0.757 [±0.068], 0.740 [±0.042], and 0.709 [±0.021] respectively). Variable importance analysis identified age as a major factor in the decision to offer surgery alone or NACT + S across models (p < 0.05). ML techniques can use limited feature-sets to predict curative UGI MDT treatment decisions. Explainable Artificial Intelligence methods provide insight into decision-critical variables, highlighting underlying subconscious biases in cancer care decision-making. Such models may allow prioritization of caseload, improve efficiency, and offer data-driven decision-assistance to MDTs in the future.

Clinician-led quality control into oncological decision-making is crucial for optimising patient care. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques provide data-driven approaches to unravel how clinical variables influence this decision-making. We applied global XAI techniques to examine the impact of key clinical decision-drivers when mapped by a machine learning (ML) model, on the likelihood of receiving different oesophageal cancer (OC) treatment modalities by the multidisciplinary team (MDT). Retrospective analysis of 893 OC patients managed between 2010 and 2022 at our tertiary unit, used a random forests (RF) classifier to predict four possible treatment pathways as determined by the MDT: neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NACT + S), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (NACRT + S), surgery-alone, and palliative management. Variable importance and partial dependence (PD) analyses then examined the influence of targeted high-ranking clinical variables within the ML model on treatment decisions as a surrogate model of the MDT decision-making dynamic. Amongst guideline-variables known to determine treatments, such as Tumour-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging, age also proved highly important to the RF model (16.1 % of total importance) on variable importance analysis. PD subsequently revealed that predicted probabilities for all treatment modalities change significantly after 75 years (p < 0.001). Likelihood of surgery-alone and palliative therapies increased for patients aged 75-85yrs but lowered for NACT/NACRT. Performance status divided patients into two clusters which influenced all predicted outcomes in conjunction with age. XAI techniques delineate the relationship between clinical factors and OC treatment decisions. These techniques identify advanced age as heavily influencing decisions based on our model with a greater role in patients with specific tumour characteristics. This study methodology provides the means for exploring conscious/subconscious bias and interrogating inconsistencies in team-based decision-making within the era of AI-driven decision support.

Prostate artery embolization is emerging as one of the most effective therapies amidst a new era of mini- mally invasive benign prostate hyperplasia treatment and technology. However, several current controver- sies remain unanswered which could impact the widespread adoption of this novel and unique transarterial(rather than transurethral) intervention. This is reflected in the differences between the UK (NICE), European (EAU), and American (AUA) guidelines, the latter of which only recommends the use of prostate arteryembolization in a clinical trial setting. The main issues include questions over the duration of symptom response, cost-effectiveness, mechanism of action, patient selection, and other procedural technical consid- erations. These factors are the most pressing faced by proponents of prostate artery embolization, and we seek to highlight why their resolution is important to ensure men with benign prostate hyperplasia seeking a minimally invasive solution are optimally informed and most effectively managed. Cite this article as: Maclean D, Bryant CTF, Vigneswaran G, et al. Comprehensive review on current controversies and debate inprostate artery embolization. Turk J Urol. 2022;48(3):166-173.