Using a Chatbot to Assess Hereditary Cancer Risk

Transforming Health Care Through Chatbots for Medical History-Taking and Future Directions: Comprehensive Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The integration of artificial intelligence and chatbot technology in health care has attracted significant attention due to its potential to improve patient care and streamline history-taking. As artificial intelligence-driven conversational agents, chatbots offer the opportunity to revolutionize history-taking, necessitating a comprehensive examination of their impact on medical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to assess the role, effectiveness, usability, and patient acceptance of chatbots in medical history-taking. It also examines potential challenges and future opportunities for integration into clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic search included PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE (via Ovid), CENTRAL, Scopus, and Open Science and covered studies through July 2024. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies reviewed were based on the PICOS (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design) framework. The population included individuals using health care chatbots for medical history-taking. Interventions focused on chatbots designed to facilitate medical history-taking. The outcomes of interest were the feasibility, acceptance, and usability of chatbot-based medical history-taking. Studies not reporting on these outcomes were excluded. All study designs except conference papers were eligible for inclusion. Only English-language studies were considered. There were no specific restrictions on study duration. Key search terms included "chatbot*," "conversational agent*," "virtual assistant," "artificial intelligence chatbot," "medical history," and "history-taking." The quality of observational studies was classified using the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) criteria (eg, sample size, design, data collection, and follow-up). The RoB 2 (Risk of Bias) tool assessed areas and the levels of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

The review included 15 observational studies and 3 RCTs and synthesized evidence from different medical fields and populations. Chatbots systematically collect information through targeted queries and data retrieval, improving patient engagement and satisfaction. The results show that chatbots have great potential for history-taking and that the efficiency and accessibility of the health care system can be improved by 24/7 automated data collection. Bias assessments revealed that of the 15 observational studies, 5 (33%) studies were of high quality, 5 (33%) studies were of moderate quality, and 5 (33%) studies were of low quality. Of the RCTs, 2 had a low risk of bias, while 1 had a high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides critical insights into the potential benefits and challenges of using chatbots for medical history-taking. The included studies showed that chatbots can increase patient engagement, streamline data collection, and improve health care decision-making. For effective integration into clinical practice, it is crucial to design user-friendly interfaces, ensure robust data security, and maintain empathetic patient-physician interactions. Future research should focus on refining chatbot algorithms, improving their emotional intelligence, and extending their application to different health care settings to realize their full potential in modern medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023410312; www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero.

User experience of a family health history chatbot: A quantitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

Family health history (FHx) is an important tool in assessing one's risk towards specific health conditions. However, user experience of FHx collection tools is rarely studied. ItRunsInMyFamily.com (ItRuns) was developed to assess FHx and hereditary cancer risk. This study reports a quantitative user experience analysis of ItRuns.

METHODS

We conducted a public health campaign in November 2019 to promote FHx collection using ItRuns. We used software telemetry to quantify abandonment and time spent on ItRuns to identify user behaviors and potential areas of improvement.

RESULTS

Of 11,065 users who started the ItRuns assessment, 4305 (38.91%) reached the final step to receive recommendations about hereditary cancer risk. Highest abandonment rates were during Introduction (32.82%), Invite Friends (29.03%), and Family Cancer History (12.03%) subflows. Median time to complete the assessment was 636 s. Users spent the highest median time on Proband Cancer History (124.00 s) and Family Cancer History (119.00 s) subflows. Search list questions took the longest to complete (median 19.50 s), followed by free text email input (15.00 s).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of objective user behaviors at a large scale and factors impacting optimal user experience will help enhance the ItRuns workflow and improve future FHx collection.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of family cancer history collection tools in oncology clinical practices

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of family cancer history (FCH) collection tools in clinical practices and community settings by assessing clinicians' perceptions of implementing a chatbot interface to collect FCH information and provide personalized results to patients and providers.

OBJECTIVES

By identifying design and implementation features that facilitate tool adoption and integration into clinical workflows, this study can inform future FCH tool development and adoption in healthcare settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quantitative data were collected using survey to evaluate the implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability of the chatbot tool for collecting FCH. Semistructured interviews were conducted to gather qualitative data on respondents' experiences using the tool and recommendations for enhancements.

RESULTS

We completed data collection with 19 providers (n = 9, 47%), clinical staff (n = 5, 26%), administrators (n = 4, 21%), and other staff (n = 1, 5%) affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. FCH was systematically collected using a wide range of tools at sites, with information being inserted into the patient's medical record. Participants found the chatbot tool to be highly acceptable, with the tool aligning with existing workflows, and were open to adopting the tool into their practice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We further the evidence base about the appropriateness of scripted chatbots to support FCH collection. Although the tool had strong support, the varying clinical workflows across clinic sites necessitate that future FCH tool development accommodates customizable implementation strategies. Implementation support is necessary to overcome technical and logistical barriers to enhance the uptake of FCH tools in clinical practices and community settings.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent.

METHODS

Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons.

RESULTS

Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Pre-test Genetic Counseling Using an Artificial Intelligence Automated Chatbot and Traditional In-person Genetic Counseling in Women Newly Diagnosed with Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Alternative service delivery models are critically needed to address the increasing demand for genetics services and limited supply of genetics experts available to provide pre-test counseling.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of women with stage 0-III breast cancer not meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Patients were randomized to pre-test counseling with a Chatbot or a certified genetic counselor (GC). Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge of breast cancer genetics and a survey assessing satisfaction with their decision regarding pre-test counseling.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients were enrolled and 37 were randomized to genetic counseling with an automated Chatbot or a GC; 19 were randomized to Chatbot and 18 to traditional genetic counseling, and 13 (38.2%) had a family member with breast cancer but did not meet NCCN criteria. All patients opted to undergo genetic testing. Testing revealed six pathogenic variants in five patients (13.5%): CHEK2 (n = 2), MSH3 (n = 1), MUTYH (n = 1), and BRCA1 and HOXB13 (n = 1). No patients had a delay in time-to-treatment due to genetic testing turnaround time, nor did any patients undergo additional risk reducing surgery. There was no significant difference in median knowledge score between Chatbot and traditional counseling (11 vs. 12, p = 0.09) or in median patient satisfaction score (30 vs. 30, p = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

Satisfaction and comprehension in patients with breast cancer undergoing pre-test genetic counseling using an automated Chatbot is comparable to in-person genetic testing. Utilization of this technology can offer improved access to care and a much-needed alternative for pre-test counseling.

Chatbot Artificial Intelligence for Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Most individuals with a hereditary cancer syndrome are unaware of their genetic status to underutilization of hereditary cancer risk assessment. Chatbots, or programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate conversation, have emerged as a promising tool in health care and, more recently, as a potential tool for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Here, we evaluated the existing literature on the use of chatbots in genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using key electronic databases to identify studies which use chatbots for genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. Eligible studies were further subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven studies met inclusion criteria, evaluating five distinct chatbots. Three studies evaluated a chatbot that could perform genetic cancer risk assessment, one study evaluated a chatbot that offered patient counseling, and three studies included both functions. The pooled estimated completion rate for the genetic cancer risk assessment was 36.7% (95% CI, 14.8 to 65.9). Two studies included comprehensive patient characteristics, and none involved a comparison group. Chatbots varied as to the involvement of a health care provider in the process of risk assessment and counseling.

CONCLUSION

Chatbots have been used to streamline genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling and hold promise for reducing barriers to genetic services. Data regarding user and nonuser characteristics are lacking, as are data regarding comparative effectiveness to usual care. Future research may consider the impact of chatbots on equitable access to genetic services.

Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable.

CONCLUSIONS

WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.

User experience of a family health history chatbot: A quantitative analysis

Objective

Family health history (FHx) is an important tool in assessing one's risk towards specific health conditions. However, user experience of FHx collection tools is rarely studied. ItRunsInMyFamily.com (ItRuns) was developed to assess FHx and hereditary cancer risk. This study reports a quantitative user experience analysis of ItRuns.

Methods

We conducted a public health campaign in November 2019 to promote FHx collection using ItRuns. We used software telemetry to quantify abandonment and time spent on ItRuns to identify user behaviors and potential areas of improvement.

Results

Of 11065 users who started the ItRuns assessment, 4305 (38.91%) reached the final step to receive recommendations about hereditary cancer risk. Highest abandonment rates were during Introduction (32.82%), Invite Friends (29.03%), and Family Cancer History (12.03%) subflows. Median time to complete the assessment was 636 seconds. Users spent the highest median time on Proband Cancer History (124.00 seconds) and Family Cancer History (119.00 seconds) subflows. Search list questions took the longest to complete (median 19.50 seconds), followed by free text email input (15.00 seconds).

Conclusion

Knowledge of objective user behaviors at a large scale and factors impacting optimal user experience will help enhance the ItRuns workflow and improve future FHx collection.

Implementing digital systems to facilitate genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: An observational study of 4 clinical workflows

PURPOSE

National efforts have prioritized the identification of effective methods for increasing case ascertainment and delivery of evidence-based health care for individuals at elevated risk for hereditary cancers.

METHODS

This study examined the uptake of genetic counseling and testing following the use of a digital cancer genetic risk assessment program implemented at 27 health care sites in 10 states using 1 of 4 clinical workflows: (1) traditional referral, (2) point-of-care scheduling, (3) point-of-care counseling/telegenetics, and (4) point-of-care testing.

RESULTS

In 2019, 102,542 patients were screened and 33,113 (32%) were identified as at high risk and meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network genetic testing criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, or both. Among those identified at high risk, 5147 (16%) proceeded with genetic testing. Genetic counseling uptake was 11% among the sites with workflows that included seeing a genetic counselor before testing, with 88% of patients proceeding with genetic testing after counseling. Uptake of genetic testing across sites varied significantly by clinical workflow (6% referral, 10% point-of-care scheduling, 14% point-of-care counseling/telegenetics, and 35% point-of-care testing, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Study findings highlight the potential heterogeneity of effectiveness attributable to different care delivery approaches for implementing digital hereditary cancer risk screening programs.

The Use of Chatbots in Oncological Care: A Narrative Review

Background

Few reports have investigated chatbots in patient care. We aimed to assess the current applications, limitations, and challenges in the literature on chatbots employed in oncological care.

Methods

We queried the PubMed database through April 2022 and included studies that investigated the use of chatbots in different phases of oncological care. The search used five different combinations of the specific terms "chatbot", "cancer", "oncology", and "conversational agent". Inclusion criteria were chatbot use in any aspect of oncological care-prevention, patient education, treatment, and surveillance.

Results

The initial search yielded 196 records, 21 of which met inclusion criteria. The identified chatbots mostly focused on breast and ovarian cancer (n=8), with the second most common being cervical cancer (n=3). Good patient satisfaction was reported among 14 of 21 chatbots. The most reported chatbot applications were cancer screening, prevention, risk stratification, treatment, monitoring, and management. Of 12 studies examining efficacy of care via chatbot, 9 demonstrated improvements compared to standard care.

Conclusion

Chatbots used for oncological care to date demonstrate high user satisfaction, and many have shown efficacy in improving patient-centered communication, accessibility to cancer-related information, and access to care. Currently, chatbots are primarily limited by the need for extensive user-testing and iterative improvement before widespread implementation.

Barriers to family history collection among Spanish-speaking primary care patients: a BRIDGE qualitative study

Objectives

Family history is an important tool for assessing disease risk, and tailoring recommendations for screening and genetic services referral. This study explored barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients.

Methods

This qualitative study was conducted in two US healthcare systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical assistants, physicians, and interpreters with experience collecting family history for Spanish-speaking patients.

Results

The most common patient-level barrier was the perception that some Spanish-speaking patients had limited knowledge of family history. Interpersonal communication barriers related to dialectical differences and decisions about using formal interpreters vs. Spanish-speaking staff. Organizational barriers included time pressures related to using interpreters, and ad hoc workflow adaptations for Spanish-speaking patients that might leave gaps in family history collection.

Conclusions

This study identified multi-level barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients in primary care. Findings suggest that a key priority to enhance communication would be to standardize processes for working with interpreters.

Innovation

To improve communication with and care provided to Spanish-speaking patients, there is a need to increase healthcare provider awareness about implicit bias, to address ad hoc workflow adjustments within practice settings, to evaluate the need for professional interpreter services, and to improve digital tools to facilitate family history collection.

Predicting breast cancer risk in a racially diverse, community-based sample of potentially high-risk women

BACKGROUND

Identifying women with high risk of breast cancer is necessary to study high-risk experiences and deliver risk-management care. Risk prediction models estimate individuals' lifetime risk but have rarely been applied in community-based settings among women not yet receiving specialized care. Therefore, we aimed: (1) to apply three breast cancer risk prediction models (i.e., Gail, Claus, and IBIS) to a racially diverse, community-based sample of women, and (2) to assess risk prediction estimates using survey data.

METHODS

An online survey was administered to women who were determined by a screening instrument to have potentially high risk for breast cancer. Risk prediction models were applied using their self-reported family and medical history information. Inclusion in the high-risk subsample required ≥20% lifetime risk per ≥1 model. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the proportions of women identified as high risk by each model.

RESULTS

N = 1053 women were initially eligible and completed the survey. All women, except one, self-reported the information necessary to run at least one model; 90% had sufficient information for >1 model. The high-risk subsample included 717 women, of which 75% were identified by one model only; 96% were identified by IBIS, 3% by Claus, <1% by Gail. In the high-risk subsample, 20% were identified by two models and 3% by all three models.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing breast cancer risk using self-reported data in a community-based sample was feasible. Different models identify substantially different groups of women who may be at high risk for breast cancer; use of multiple models may be beneficial for research and clinical care.

Virtual conversational agents versus online forms: Patient experience and preferences for health data collection

Objective

Virtual conversational agents, or chatbots, have emerged as a novel approach to health data collection. However, research on patient perceptions of chatbots in comparison to traditional online forms is sparse. This study aimed to compare and assess the experience of completing a health assessment using a chatbot vs. an online form.

Methods

A counterbalanced, within-subject experimental design was used with participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Participants completed a standardized health assessment using a chatbot (i.e., Dokbot) and an online form (i.e., REDCap), each followed by usability and experience questionnaires. To address poor data quality and preserve integrity of mTurk responses, we employed a thorough data cleaning process informed by previous literature. Quantitative (descriptive and inferential statistics) and qualitative (thematic analysis and complex coding query) approaches were used for analysis.

Results

A total of 391 participants were recruited, 185 of whom were excluded, resulting in a final sample size of 206 individuals. Most participants (69.9%) preferred the chatbot over the online form. Average Net Promoter Score was higher for the chatbot (NPS = 24) than the online form (NPS = 13) at a statistically significant level. System Usability Scale scores were also higher for the chatbot (i.e. 69.7 vs. 67.7), but this difference was not statistically significant. The chatbot took longer to complete but was perceived as conversational, interactive, and intuitive. The online form received favorable comments for its familiar survey-like interface.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate that a chatbot provided superior engagement, intuitiveness, and interactivity despite increased completion time compared to online forms. Knowledge of patient preferences and barriers will inform future design and development of recommendations and best practice for chatbots for healthcare data collection.

Association of Disparities in Family History and Family Cancer History in the Electronic Health Record With Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Language Preference in 2 Large US Health Care Systems

Importance

Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms are increasingly being implemented in health care systems to identify patients for specialty care. However, systematic differences in missingness of electronic health record (EHR) data may lead to disparities in identification by CDS algorithms.

Objective

To examine the availability and comprehensiveness of cancer family history information (FHI) in patients' EHRs by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and language preference in 2 large health care systems in 2021.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective EHR quality improvement study used EHR data from 2 health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Participants included patients aged 25 to 60 years who had a primary care appointment in the previous 3 years. Data were collected or abstracted from the EHR from December 10, 2020, to October 31, 2021, and analyzed from June 15 to October 31, 2021.

Exposures

Prior collection of cancer FHI in primary care settings.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Availability was defined as having any FHI and any cancer FHI in the EHR and was examined at the patient level. Comprehensiveness was defined as whether a cancer family history observation in the EHR specified the type of cancer diagnosed in a family member, the relationship of the family member to the patient, and the age at onset for the family member and was examined at the observation level.

Results

Among 144 484 patients in the UHealth system, 53.6% were women; 74.4% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino and 67.6% were White; and 83.0% had an English language preference. Among 377 621 patients in the NYULH system, 55.3% were women; 63.2% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino, and 55.3% were White; and 89.9% had an English language preference. Patients from historically medically undeserved groups-specifically, Black vs White patients (UHealth: 17.3% [95% CI, 16.1%-18.6%] vs 42.8% [95% CI, 42.5%-43.1%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.0%-24.8%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 33.6%-34.0%]), Hispanic or Latino vs non-Hispanic or non-Latino patients (UHealth: 27.2% [95% CI, 26.5%-27.8%] vs 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.5%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.1%-24.7%] vs 31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.8%]), Spanish-speaking vs English-speaking patients (UHealth: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.2%-19.1%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 39.7%-40.3%]; NYULH: 15.1% [95% CI, 14.6%-15.6%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 30.9%-31.2%), and men vs women (UHealth: 30.8% [95% CI, 30.4%-31.2%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 42.6%-43.3%]; NYULH: 23.1% [95% CI, 22.9%-23.3%] vs 34.9% [95% CI, 34.7%-35.1%])-had significantly lower availability and comprehensiveness of cancer FHI (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that systematic differences in the availability and comprehensiveness of FHI in the EHR may introduce informative presence bias as inputs to CDS algorithms. The observed differences may also exacerbate disparities for medically underserved groups. System-, clinician-, and patient-level efforts are needed to improve the collection of FHI.

Impact of Genetic Counseling on Patient-Reported Electronic Cancer Family History Collection

BACKGROUND

Cancer family history is a vital part of cancer genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT), but increasing indications for germline cancer GT necessitate less labor-intensive models of collection. We evaluated the impact of GC on patient pedigrees generated by an electronic cancer family history questionnaire (eCFHQ).

METHODS

An Institutional Review Board-approved review of pedigrees collected through an eCFHQ was conducted. Paired pre-GC and post-GC pedigrees (n=1,113 each group) were analyzed independently by cancer genetic counselors for changes in patient-reported clinical history and to determine whether the pedigrees met NCCN GT criteria. Discrepancy in meeting NCCN GT criteria between pre-GC and post-GC pedigrees was the outcome variable of logistic regressions, with patient and family history characteristics as covariates.

RESULTS

Overall, 780 (70%) patients had cancer (affected), 869 (78%) were female, and the median age was 57 years (interquartile range, 45-66 years; range, 21-91 years). Of the 1,113 pairs of pre-GC and post-GC pedigrees analyzed, 85 (8%) were blank, 933 (84%) were not discrepant, and 95 (9%) were discrepant in meeting any NCCN GT criteria. Of the discrepant pedigrees, n=79 (83%) became eligible for testing by at least one of the NCCN GT criteria after GC. Patients with discrepant pedigrees were more likely to report no or unknown history of GT (odds ratio [OR], 4.54; 95% CI, 1.66-18.70; P=.01, and OR, 18.47; 95% CI, 5.04-88.73; P<.0001, respectively) and belonged to racially and/or ethnically underrepresented groups (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.25; P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

For most patients (84%), a standalone eCFHQ was sufficient to determine whether NCCN GT criteria were met. More research is needed on the performance of the eCFHQ in diverse patient populations.

Automated Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Hereditary Cancer Risk Using Chatbots and Ontologies: System Description

BACKGROUND

Identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer based on their family health history is a highly nuanced task. Frequently, patients at risk are not referred for genetic counseling as providers lack the time and training to collect and assess their family health history. Consequently, patients at risk do not receive genetic counseling and testing that they need to determine the preventive steps they should take to mitigate their risk.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to automate clinical practice guideline recommendations for hereditary cancer risk based on patient family health history.

METHODS

We combined chatbots, web application programming interfaces, clinical practice guidelines, and ontologies into a web service-oriented system that can automate family health history collection and assessment. We used Owlready2 and Protégé to develop a lightweight, patient-centric clinical practice guideline domain ontology using hereditary cancer criteria from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Cancer Comprehensive Network.

RESULTS

The domain ontology has 758 classes, 20 object properties, 23 datatype properties, and 42 individuals and encompasses 44 cancers, 144 genes, and 113 clinical practice guideline criteria. So far, it has been used to assess >5000 family health history cases. We created 192 test cases to ensure concordance with clinical practice guidelines. The average test case completes in 4.5 (SD 1.9) seconds, the longest in 19.6 seconds, and the shortest in 2.9 seconds.

CONCLUSIONS

Web service-enabled, chatbot-oriented family health history collection and ontology-driven clinical practice guideline criteria risk assessment is a simple and effective method for automating hereditary cancer risk screening.

Comparison of a Cancer Family History Collection and Risk Assessment Tool - ItRunsInMyFamily - with Risk Assessment by Health-Care Professionals

INTRODUCTION

Primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists lack time and training to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer using family health history (FHx) and clinical practice guideline (CPG) criteria. We built a tool, "ItRunsInMyFamily" (ItRuns) that automates FHx collection and risk assessment using CPGs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ItRuns by measuring the level of concordance in referral patterns for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT) between the CPGs as applied by the tool and genetic counselors (GCs), in comparison to oncologists and PCPs. The extent to which non-GCs are discordant with CPGs is a gap that health information technology, such as ItRuns, can help close to facilitate the identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer.

METHODS

We curated 18 FHx cases and surveyed GCs and non-GCs (oncologists and PCPs) to assess concordance with ItRuns CPG criteria for referring patients for GC/GT. Percent agreement was used to describe concordance, and logistic regression to compare providers and the tool's concordance with CPG criteria.

RESULTS

GCs had the best overall concordance with the CPGs used in ItRuns at 82.2%, followed by oncologists with 66.0% and PCPs with 60.6%. GCs were significantly more likely to concur with CPGs (OR = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.35-4.89) than non-GCs. All providers had higher concordance with CPGs for FHx cases that met the criteria for genetic counseling/testing than for cases that did not.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The risk assessment provided by ItRuns was highly concordant with that of GC's, particularly for at-risk individuals. The use of such technology-based tools improves efficiency and can lead to greater numbers of at-risk individuals accessing genetic counseling, testing, and mutation-based interventions to improve health.

Chatbot for Health Care and Oncology Applications Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Systematic Review

Background

Chatbot is a timely topic applied in various fields, including medicine and health care, for human-like knowledge transfer and communication. Machine learning, a subset of artificial intelligence, has been proven particularly applicable in health care, with the ability for complex dialog management and conversational flexibility.

Objective

This review article aims to report on the recent advances and current trends in chatbot technology in medicine. A brief historical overview, along with the developmental progress and design characteristics, is first introduced. The focus will be on cancer therapy, with in-depth discussions and examples of diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, patient support, workflow efficiency, and health promotion. In addition, this paper will explore the limitations and areas of concern, highlighting ethical, moral, security, technical, and regulatory standards and evaluation issues to explain the hesitancy in implementation.

Methods

A search of the literature published in the past 20 years was conducted using the IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and OVID databases. The screening of chatbots was guided by the open-access Botlist directory for health care components and further divided according to the following criteria: diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, support, workflow, and health promotion.

Results

Even after addressing these issues and establishing the safety or efficacy of chatbots, human elements in health care will not be replaceable. Therefore, chatbots have the potential to be integrated into clinical practice by working alongside health practitioners to reduce costs, refine workflow efficiencies, and improve patient outcomes. Other applications in pandemic support, global health, and education are yet to be fully explored.

Conclusions

Further research and interdisciplinary collaboration could advance this technology to dramatically improve the quality of care for patients, rebalance the workload for clinicians, and revolutionize the practice of medicine.

Evaluation and comparison of hereditary Cancer guidelines in the population

BACKGROUND

Family health history (FHx) is an effective tool for identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Hereditary cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPG) contain criteria used to evaluate FHx and to make recommendations for genetic consultation. Comparing different CPGs used to evaluate a common set of FHx provides insight into how well the CPGs perform, the extent of agreement across guidelines, and how well they identify patients who should consider a cancer genetic consultation.

METHODS

We compare the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Networks (NCCN) (2019) CPG criteria for FHx collected by a chatbot and evaluated by ontologies and web services in a previous study. Collected FHx met criteria from seven groups: Gene Mutation, Breast and Ovarian, Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), Colorectal and Endometrial, Relative Meets Criteria, ACMG Only Criteria, and NCCN Testing. CPG Criteria were coded and matched across 12 ACMG sub-guidelines and 6 NCCN sub-guidelines for comparison purposes.

RESULTS

The dataset contains 4915 records, of which 2221 met either ACMG or NCCN criteria and 2694 did not. There was significant overlap-1179 probands met both ACMG and NCCN criteria. The greatest similarities were for Gene Mutation and Breast and Ovarian criteria and the greatest disparity existed among Colorectal and Endometrial criteria. Only 156 positive gene mutations were reported and of the 2694 probands who did not meet criteria, 90.6% of them reported at least one cancer in their personal or family cancer history.

CONCLUSION

Hereditary cancer CPGs are useful for identifying patients at risk of developing cancer based on FHx. This comparison shows that with the aid of chatbots, ontologies, and web services, CPGs can be more efficiently applied to identify patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Additionally this comparison examines similarities and differences between ACMG and NCCN and shows the importance of using both guidelines when evaluating hereditary cancer risk.

Modernizing family health history: achievable strategies to reduce implementation gaps

Family health history (FHH) is a valuable yet underused healthcare tool for assessing health risks for both prevalent disorders like diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases, and for rare, monogenic disorders. Full implementation of FHH collection and analysis in healthcare could improve both primary and secondary disease prevention for individuals and, through cascade testing, make at risk family members eligible for pre-symptomatic testing and preventative interventions. In addition to risk assessment in the clinic, FHH is increasingly important for interpreting clinical genetic testing results and for research connecting health risks to genomic variation. Despite this value, diverse implementation gaps in clinical settings undermine its potential clinical value and limit the quality of connected health and genomic data. The NHGRI Family Health History Group, an open-membership, US-based group with international members, believes that integrating FHH in healthcare and research is more important than ever, and that achievable implementation advances, including education, are urgently needed to boost the pace of translational utility in genomic medicine. An inventory of implementation gaps and proposed achievable strategies to address them, representing a consensus developed in meetings from 2019-2020, is presented here. The proposed measures are diverse, interdisciplinary, and are guided by experience and ongoing implementation and research efforts.