Malignant Brain TumorsEC-AIM BrainNCT06649591
Expert Consensus and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Decision Making in Patients with Malignant Brain Tumors
An observational study of Malignant Brain Tumors, run by Tufts Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Nearly 23,000 adults are diagnosed with primary central nervous system (CNS) malignancy yearly. An additional 200,000 adults are diagnosed with brain metastasis. There are significant variations in CNS tumor treatment. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 16 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Malignant Brain Tumors
- What is being tested?
- Survey
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- 225 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2017to Dec 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 16 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: The population from which sampling will occur is all patients with CNS gliomas, metastatic disease, and lymphoma treated by neurosurgeons.
Who may be able to join
- consecutive patients treated at a single center between April 2018 and July 2023 for malignant brain tumors, including glioma, metastasis, and lymphoma.
Who cannot join
- Patients without available MRI dicom images
- Patients with other CNS malignancies
- Patients with multiply recurrent gliomas undergoing treatment for primarily palliative purposes
- Patients younger than 18 years old
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: A Survey Based Study Assessing the Feasibility of Using Standardized Clinical Vignettes to Aid in Medical Decision in Patients with Malignant Brain Tumors
Nearly 23,000 adults are diagnosed with primary central nervous system (CNS) malignancy yearly. An additional 200,000 adults are diagnosed with brain metastasis. There are significant variations in CNS tumor treatment. However, due to significant heterogeneity in patient baseline factors, identifying unwarranted variation is challenging. Ghogawala et al have previously demonstrated that, among patients undergoing surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy and lumbar degenerative spinal disease, an expert panel consisting of surgeon experts can identify variations in proposed surgical procedure and demonstrated superior patient outcomes when the surgery performed matched the procedure recommended by expert consensus. Expert panel surveys have not previously been used to identify variations in care among patients with CNS malignancy.
The primary aim is to determine whether patient outcomes are superior when treatment aligns with recommendations made by a clinical expert neurosurgical panel. The study also seek to identify patient factors that predispose to variability in care. Our long-term aim is to determine whether predictive artificial learning algorithms can achieve the same outcomes, or better, as clinical expert panels, but with greater efficiency and greater capacity to be available for more patients. The investigators hypothesize that:
Read more
- When a team of 10 medical experts has greater than 80% consensus regarding optimal treatment and when the doctor and patient select that specific treatment, the outcome is superior than when a patient and doctor select an alternative procedure.
- When a team of 10 medical experts has greater than 80% consensus regarding optimal treatment, the structured data used by the experts can be processed and trained by computing algorithms to predict the pattern recognized by the experts - i.e. - the computer can predict how an expert panel would vote.
Procedures include the following:
- Chart review portion of study: Patients will be identified from case logs of the principal investigators from July 2017 through July 2023. Data will be collected retrospectively and will include age, non-identifier demographics, diagnosis details, operative/treatment characteristics, post-treatment characteristics, and follow-up characteristics. Images reviewed will include pre and post-treatment MRIs obtained as part of routine care. Data will be abstracted from the medical record (Epic/Soarian and PACS) and recorded in an excel database.
- Survey portion of study: De-identified structured radiographic data and a brief clinical vignette without patient identifiers will be uploaded to Acesis Healthcare Process Optimization Platform (http://www.acesis.com/our-platform). A survey will be generated by Acesis and emailed to the subject experts/participants. This portion is prospective.
- Cohort definitions:
- Patients will be assigned to either "expert-treatment consensus" or "no expert-treatment consensus" arms based on whether greater than 80% consensus is achieved
- Patients will be assigned to either "Expert consensus-aligned" or "Expert consensus - unaligned" arms based on whether expert survey results match actual treatment given.
- Data will then be analyzed using appropriate packages with SAS statistical analysis software. Survival analysis will be performed to determine whether consensus predicts improved progression free survival (PFS).
- The structured and de-identified radiographic images used by the experts in surveys will be used for training and development of an AI algorithm. The aim of this portion of the study is to determine whether standardized and structured imaging can be used to train an algorithm to predict whether expert consensus is achieved and the recommended treatment.
Read the detailed description
- Statistical analysis plan:
- this document provides the details of statistical analyses planned for the EC-AIM Brain study.
- Objective of this study:
- The primary objective is to determine whether patients whose treatment aligns with expert consensus have a superior outcome to those who treatment does not align with expert consensus.
- This will be determined with a primary endpoint of progression free survival (alive and without tumor growth at last follow up).
- This will be tested with the log-rank test for equality of survival curves (EC/aligned vs EC/unaligned).
- Abbreviations:
- EC - expert consensus
- HR - hazard ratio
- OS - overall survival
- PFS - progression free survival
- KPS - Karnofsky Performance Score 3) Target population:
- Inclusion criteria: i. Consecutive patients treated by neurosurgeons at a single center between April 2018 and July 2023 for malignant brain tumors, including glioma, metastasis, and lymphoma.
- Exclusion criteria:
- Patients without available MRI dicom images
- Patients with other CNS malignancies
- Patients with multiply recurrent gliomas undergoing treatment for primarily palliative purposes
- Patients younger than 16 years old 4) Sampling: Consecutive 5) Sample size assessment: a. It is challenging to determine an estimated effect size that EC would provide. From previous research on expert panels in lumbar spondylolisthesis, a sample size of approximately 200 patients was noted to be sufficient for initial assessment. As such, the study will include 225 subjects as our cohort size in order to account for ~10% patient loss to follow up.
- Data Acquisition Methods:
- Standardized clinical vignettes with de-identified clinical data and standardized radiographic images and video will be uploaded to Acesis HPOP platform.
- Uploaded files will include representative multiplanar magnetic resonance or computed tomography images b. An email with a link to the survey will be distributed to the brain tumor expert panel c. Expert respondents will have 72 hours to respond to a standardized survey d. Expert respondents may answer questions regarding suggested treatment as well as any adjunctive technologies needed 7) Blinding: The chart review portion will be performed by a separate study investigator without knowledge of cohort assignment; cohort allocation (based on survey results and actual treatment) will be performed by a separate study investigator.
- Missing data:
- All subjects will be included in primary outcome analysis. They will be censored at the last follow up assessment. All missing data will be assumed to be missing at random.
- Quality assurance plan: 10) Outcome Group Allocation:
- Treatment will be defined into the following four categories: i. Observation/no treatment ii. Biopsy only iii. Resection iv. Radiation treatment b. Expert consensus will be defined as at least 80% agreement among at least 10 survey respondents c. Aligned will be defined as the recommended treatment category above matching the actual treatment provided 11) Outcome Analysis:
- Primary Outcome Variable Analysis: i. The primary outcome measure is progression free survival (alive and without evidence of tumor growth at follow up) ii. Hypothesis:
- H0: hEC_aligned ≤ hEC_unaligned
- HA: hEC_aligned \> hEC_unaligned iii. This will be tested with the log-rank test for equality of survival curves (EC/aligned vs EC/unaligned). iv. Test will be one-sided (alpha=0.025) b. Additional analyses of the primary outcome: i. Adjustment for known confounders including diagnosis, age, KPS, extent of resection ii. Exploratory data analysis using descriptive statistics and logistic regression/linear regression will be used to evaluate for interactions and confounding co-variates c. Secondary Outcome Variable Analysis: i. Overall survival ii. Data analysis will be exploratory and supportive, and, thus, the statistical plan will not account for multiplicity iii. Secondary analyses will be performed for OS and PFS for two- and three- cohort groups
- EC/aligned vs EC/unaligned
- EC vs no EC
- EC/aligned vs EC/unaligned vs no EC 12) Planned analysis for predictors of EC
- Data analysis will be exploratory and supportive, and, thus, the study will not account for multiplicity
- Descriptive statistics will be used to evaluate differences between EC and no EC groups
- Descriptive statistics will be used to evaluate differences between EC/aligned and EC/unaligned groups
- Fisher exact tests and Chi-squared tests will be used for categorical variables depending on test assumptions
- Student's t test and Mann-Whitney U tests will be used for normally distributed and non-normally distributed continuous variables, respectively
- Logistic regression models will be used to evaluate for predictors of EC
- Concordance between treatment performed and expert consensus will be evaluated using Spearman coefficients
- All statistical tests used for descriptive statistics will be two-tailed (alpha=0.05) 13) Planned interim analysis: None 14) Adverse events: None expected as this is a retrospective chart review and survey based study.
- Conditions
- Malignant Brain Tumors
- Being tested
- Survey
- Keywords
- Glioma, Glioblastoma, Lymphoma, Brain metastasis
- Medical subject headings
- Glioma, Glioblastoma, Lymphoma, Brain Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
SurveyBehavioural
The intervention is an email based survey as described in the study description.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| EC/aligned | Cohort with expert consensus aligned with actual treatment Receives: Behavioral: Survey | |
| EC/unaligned | Cohort with expert consensus not aligned with actual treatment Receives: Behavioral: Survey | |
| No EC | Expert panel recommended treatment did not achieve 80% agreement Receives: Behavioral: Survey |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Overall Survival
Patients alive at last follow up through study completion, an average of 2 years
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 2 years
Secondary outcomes (1)
Progression free survival
Patients without definite evidence of progression by last follow up through study completion, an average of two years
Measured: Through study completion, an average of two years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Oct 2024
- Study start1 Jul 2017
- Primary completionDec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Malignant Brain TumorsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 225 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Tufts Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Marie Roguski, MD MPH, Principal investigator, Tufts Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06649591
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- STUDY00003110
- Acronym
- EC-AIM Brain
- Status last verified
- Sep 2024
- First submitted
- 9 Sep 2024
- Last updated
- 21 Oct 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Oct 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Survey Based Study Assessing the Feasibility of Using Standardized Clinical Vignettes to Aid in Medical Decision in Patients with Malignant Brain Tumors
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06649591
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EC-AIM Brain / STUDY00003110
- Conditions
- Malignant Brain Tumors
- Keywords
- Glioma, Glioblastoma, Lymphoma, Brain metastasis
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 225 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Tufts Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 21 Oct 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Nearly 23,000 adults are diagnosed with primary central nervous system (CNS) malignancy yearly. An additional 200,000 adults are diagnosed with brain metastasis. There are significant variations in CNS tumor treatment. However, due to significant heterogeneity in patient baseline factors, identifying unwarranted variation is challenging. Ghogawala et al have previously demonstrated that, among patients undergoing surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy and lumbar degenerative spinal disease, an expert panel consisting of surgeon experts can identify variations in proposed surgical procedure and demonstrated superior patient outcomes when the surgery performed matched the procedure recommended by expert consensus. Expert panel surveys have not previously been used to identify variations in care among patients with CNS malignancy.
The primary aim is to determine whether patient outcomes are superior when treatment aligns with recommendations made by a clinical expert neurosurgical panel. The study also seek to identify patient factors that predispose to variability in care. Our long-term aim is to determine whether predictive artificial learning algorithms can achieve the same outcomes, or better, as clinical expert panels, but with greater efficiency and greater capacity to be available for more patients. The investigators hypothesize that:
- When a team of 10 medical experts has greater than 80% consensus regarding optimal treatment and when the doctor and patient select that specific treatment, the outcome is superior than when a patient and doctor select an alternative procedure.
- When a team of 10 medical experts has greater than 80% consensus regarding optimal treatment, the structured data used by the experts can be processed and trained by computing algorithms to predict the pattern recognized by the experts - i.e. - the computer can predict how an expert panel would vote.
Procedures include the following:
- Chart review portion of study: Patients will be identified from case logs of the principal investigators from July 2017 through July 2023. Data will be collected retrospectively and will include age, non-identifier demographics, diagnosis details, operative/treatment characteristics, post-treatment characteristics, and follow-up characteristics. Images reviewed will include pre and post-treatment MRIs obtained as part of routine care. Data will be abstracted from the medical record (Epic/Soarian and PACS) and recorded in an excel database.
- Survey portion of study: De-identified structured radiographic data and a brief clinical vignette without patient identifiers will be uploaded to Acesis Healthcare Process Optimization Platform (http://www.acesis.com/our-platform). A survey will be generated by Acesis and emailed to the subject experts/participants. This portion is prospective.
- Cohort definitions:
- Patients will be assigned to either "expert-treatment consensus" or "no expert-treatment consensus" arms based on whether greater than 80% consensus is achieved
- Patients will be assigned to either "Expert consensus-aligned" or "Expert consensus - unaligned" arms based on whether expert survey results match actual treatment given.
- Data will then be analyzed using appropriate packages with SAS statistical analysis software. Survival analysis will be performed to determine whether consensus predicts improved progression free survival (PFS).
- The structured and de-identified radiographic images used by the experts in surveys will be used for training and development of an AI algorithm. The aim of this portion of the study is to determine whether standardized and structured imaging can be used to train an algorithm to predict whether expert consensus is achieved and the recommended treatment.
Detailed description
- Statistical analysis plan:
- this document provides the details of statistical analyses planned for the EC-AIM Brain study.
- Objective of this study:
- The primary objective is to determine whether patients whose treatment aligns with expert consensus have a superior outcome to those who treatment does not align with expert consensus.
- This will be determined with a primary endpoint of progression free survival (alive and without tumor growth at last follow up).
- This will be tested with the log-rank test for equality of survival curves (EC/aligned vs EC/unaligned).
- Abbreviations:
- EC - expert consensus
- HR - hazard ratio
- OS - overall survival
- PFS - progression free survival
- KPS - Karnofsky Performance Score 3) Target population:
- Inclusion criteria: i. Consecutive patients treated by neurosurgeons at a single center between April 2018 and July 2023 for malignant brain tumors, including glioma, metastasis, and lymphoma.
- Exclusion criteria:
- Patients without available MRI dicom images
- Patients with other CNS malignancies
- Patients with multiply recurrent gliomas undergoing treatment for primarily palliative purposes
- Patients younger than 16 years old 4) Sampling: Consecutive 5) Sample size assessment: a. It is challenging to determine an estimated effect size that EC would provide. From previous research on expert panels in lumbar spondylolisthesis, a sample size of approximately 200 patients was noted to be sufficient for initial assessment. As such, the study will include 225 subjects as our cohort size in order to account for ~10% patient loss to follow up.
- Data Acquisition Methods:
- Standardized clinical vignettes with de-identified clinical data and standardized radiographic images and video will be uploaded to Acesis HPOP platform.
- Uploaded files will include representative multiplanar magnetic resonance or computed tomography images b. An email with a link to the survey will be distributed to the brain tumor expert panel c. Expert respondents will have 72 hours to respond to a standardized survey d. Expert respondents may answer questions regarding suggested treatment as well as any adjunctive technologies needed 7) Blinding: The chart review portion will be performed by a separate study investigator without knowledge of cohort assignment; cohort allocation (based on survey results and actual treatment) will be performed by a separate study investigator.
- Missing data:
- All subjects will be included in primary outcome analysis. They will be censored at the last follow up assessment. All missing data will be assumed to be missing at random.
- Quality assurance plan: 10) Outcome Group Allocation:
- Treatment will be defined into the following four categories: i. Observation/no treatment ii. Biopsy only iii. Resection iv. Radiation treatment b. Expert consensus will be defined as at least 80% agreement among at least 10 survey respondents c. Aligned will be defined as the recommended treatment category above matching the actual treatment provided 11) Outcome Analysis:
- Primary Outcome Variable Analysis: i. The primary outcome measure is progression free survival (alive and without evidence of tumor growth at follow up) ii. Hypothesis:
- H0: hEC_aligned ≤ hEC_unaligned
- HA: hEC_aligned \> hEC_unaligned iii. This will be tested with the log-rank test for equality of survival curves (EC/aligned vs EC/unaligned). iv. Test will be one-sided (alpha=0.025) b. Additional analyses of the primary outcome: i. Adjustment for known confounders including diagnosis, age, KPS, extent of resection ii. Exploratory data analysis using descriptive statistics and logistic regression/linear regression will be used to evaluate for interactions and confounding co-variates c. Secondary Outcome Variable Analysis: i. Overall survival ii. Data analysis will be exploratory and supportive, and, thus, the statistical plan will not account for multiplicity iii. Secondary analyses will be performed for OS and PFS for two- and three- cohort groups
- EC/aligned vs EC/unaligned
- EC vs no EC
- EC/aligned vs EC/unaligned vs no EC 12) Planned analysis for predictors of EC
- Data analysis will be exploratory and supportive, and, thus, the study will not account for multiplicity
- Descriptive statistics will be used to evaluate differences between EC and no EC groups
- Descriptive statistics will be used to evaluate differences between EC/aligned and EC/unaligned groups
- Fisher exact tests and Chi-squared tests will be used for categorical variables depending on test assumptions
- Student's t test and Mann-Whitney U tests will be used for normally distributed and non-normally distributed continuous variables, respectively
- Logistic regression models will be used to evaluate for predictors of EC
- Concordance between treatment performed and expert consensus will be evaluated using Spearman coefficients
- All statistical tests used for descriptive statistics will be two-tailed (alpha=0.05) 13) Planned interim analysis: None 14) Adverse events: None expected as this is a retrospective chart review and survey based study.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| EC/aligned | – | Behavioral: SurveyCohort with expert consensus aligned with actual treatment |
| EC/unaligned | – | Behavioral: SurveyCohort with expert consensus not aligned with actual treatment |
| No EC | – | Behavioral: SurveyExpert panel recommended treatment did not achieve 80% agreement |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 16 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The population from which sampling will occur is all patients with CNS gliomas, metastatic disease, and lymphoma treated by neurosurgeons.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- consecutive patients treated at a single center between April 2018 and July 2023 for malignant brain tumors, including glioma, metastasis, and lymphoma.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patients without available MRI dicom images
- Patients with other CNS malignancies
- Patients with multiply recurrent gliomas undergoing treatment for primarily palliative purposes
- Patients younger than 18 years old
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| SurveyThe intervention is an email based survey as described in the study description. | Behavioural | EC/aligned, EC/unaligned, No EC |
Primary outcome
Overall Survival
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 2 years
Patients alive at last follow up through study completion, an average of 2 years
1 secondary outcome
Progression free survival
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of two years
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Oct 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Malignant Brain Tumors
RecruitingObservational study
Collection of CSF Samples From Participants With Metastatic Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and HER2+ Breast Cancer With no Prior History Nor Active Radiographically Detectable Brain Metastases
Breast Cancer, Breast Carcinoma
RecruitingPhase 1/2
000860: A Phase I/II Study of Zotiraciclib for Recurrent Malignant Gliomas With Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1 or 2 (IDH1 or IDH2) Mutations
Brain Tumor, Cancer
RecruitingPhase 3
S1501 Dual Observational and Randomized Cohort Study of Patients With Metastatic HER-2+ Breast Cancer at Risk of Cardiac Toxicity
Cardiotoxicity, HER2/Neu Positive
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Twenty-five Years of Advanced RadioTherapy at San Raffaele Hospital
Malignant Tumor, Benign Neoplasm
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Safety and Tolerability of TNG456 Alone and in Combination With Abemaciclib in Patients With Solid Tumors With MTAP Loss
Non Small Cell Lung Cancer, Glioma Glioblastoma Multiforme
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Marie Roguski, MD MPH principal investigator
Tufts Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Malignant Brain Tumors, run by Tufts Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Oct 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Overall Survival (time frame: Through study completion, an average of 2 years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Oct 2024.