OnCo
ideasIdea

A randomised trial of AI-generated treatment recommendations versus tumour boards

Test head to head whether an AI that reads the record and the evidence recommends treatments as well as a panel of experts, and whether patients do as well.

AI systems that propose treatment plans from the record and the literature have been compared with tumour boards only retrospectively, with concordance as the metric. The proposal is a prospective, randomised non-inferiority trial in a defined setting (for example, first-line metastatic NSCLC or colorectal cancer): patients are randomised to have their plan generated by the AI (with clinician sign-off and override) or by the standard board, with guideline concordance, time to treatment, trial enrolment and 12-month outcomes as endpoints, and full provenance logging for every AI recommendation.

Hypothesis
AI-generated plans with clinician sign-off will be non-inferior to tumour boards on guideline concordance and clinical outcomes and superior on time to treatment and trial referral, in the studied settings.
Rationale
Tumour board capacity is a bottleneck and boards show variable concordance; if AI can match them in defined settings, expert time can be redirected to complex cases. The claim is testable only prospectively.
What would test it
A 600-patient randomised non-inferiority trial in one indication across five centres; pre-registered with concordance, time to treatment and 12-month PFS endpoints.
Maturity
speculative
Who has to act
research
Cost to try
Medium ($1M to $50M)
Years to first evidence
3
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

6top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links