Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 40045482

The future of precision oncology and artificial intelligence in Belgium: scenarios and policy responses.

Tugce Schmitt·Marie Delnord·Emilie Cauët·Els Van Valckenborgh·Marc Van den Bulcke
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: Precision medicine, also known as personalized medicine, enables the provision of tailored health services to patients. In the prevention, early detection, and treatment of cancers, precision medicine is highly promising, given the increasing use of genomic profiling for diagnosis and adapting therapies in several tumor types. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can support this process by analyzing vast amounts of relevant data. However, high-quality data and financial investments in the health system are essential for the implementation of precision medicine and AI solutions in routine cancer care. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Building on the quantitative outcomes of a foresight exercise published in another study, this article collects qualitative data to gain more detailed insights into the future of precision oncology in Belgium and discusses the role of AI in this field. It reports the results of a series of expert workshops, focusing on four hypothetical future scenarios that are centered around technological and economic issues that must be overcome for the widespread use of precision oncology in Belgium. FINDINGS: The study concludes that all four scenarios discussed in the workshops would require supportive policy measures in Belgium, which should go beyond mere technological and economic considerations, such as involving patient associations and the public in policy design or creating multi-disciplinary expert groups for precision medicine. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to employ foresight methodology to illustrate possible future scenarios, scrutinize feasible approaches for implementing precision oncology in Belgium, and discuss the use of AI in this context.

Explore related subjects

BelgiumArtificial IntelligenceHumansPrecision MedicineMedical OncologyForecastingHealth PolicyArtificial intelligenceForesightPrecision oncologyScenario buildingJournal Article

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Tugce Schmitt, Marie Delnord, Emilie Cauët, Els Van Valckenborgh, Marc Van den Bulcke. 2026-09-02. The future of precision oncology and artificial intelligence in Belgium: scenarios and policy responses.. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhom-05-2024-0202

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article resourceArtificial Intelligence subjectForecasting subjectHealth policy subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence-assisted detection and optical differentiation of colorectal lesions in Lynch syndrome surveillance (CADLY2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (CADe) systems improve adenoma detection in average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Meanwhile, evidence in Lynch syndrome surveillance is sparse and inconsistent. We assessed the effect of CADe on adenoma detection during Lynch syndrome surveillance. Computer-aided optical diagnosis (CADx) performance for optical differentiation of colorectal lesions was evaluated as a secondary aim. METHODS: CADLY2 was an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial at nine specialised hereditary cancer surveillance centres in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. Adults aged 18 years or older with genetically confirmed Lynch syndrome scheduled for surveillance colonoscopy were randomly assigned (1:1) to high-definition white-light (HD-WL) colonoscopy alone or to HD-WL colonoscopy with computer-aided assistance from CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan). CAD EYE was used for CADe during withdrawal and for CADx after lesion detection. Randomisation was done centrally through a secure web-based system using Pocock's minimisation algorithm with a stochastic component and was stratified by centre, sex, previous colorectal cancer, underlying pathogenic variant, and interval since previous colonoscopy. Allocation concealment was ensured through the centralised web-based system. Patients were masked to group allocation until the start of withdrawal in procedures with mild sedation, or until completion of the procedure in procedures with propofol-based sedation. Endoscopists were not masked. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate, defined as the proportion of patients with at least one histopathologically confirmed adenoma, analysed in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly allocated patients with available data for the primary outcome). The diagnostic performance of the CADx system was evaluated as a secondary outcome. The safety analysis set comprised all randomly allocated patients who underwent a study colonoscopy. This study is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00030695, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2023, and Oct 30, 2025, 757 patients were randomly allocated to HD-WL colonoscopy (377 patients) or to AI-assisted colonoscopy (380 patients); 733 patients were included in the full analysis set (369 HD-WL and 364 AI-assisted). The median age was 49 years (IQR 38-59) in the HD-WL group and 50 years (38-59) in the AI-assisted group; 213 (58%) were female and 156 (42%) male in the HD-WL group, and 207 (57%) were female and 157 (43%) male in the AI-assisted group. The adenoma detection rate was 30·9% (114 of 369 patients) with HD-WL versus 33·8% (123 of 364 patients) with CADe assistance (odds ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·83-1·57], p=0·41). For CADx differentiation of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic lesions in the paired lesion-level analysis, with histopathology as the reference standard and sessile serrated lesions and traditional serrated adenomas classified as non-neoplastic, CADx sensitivity was 85·9% (95% CI 82·0-89·1) and specificity was 91·4% (89·4-93·0). Three adverse events occurred in the AI-assisted group: two mild post-polypectomy bleedings and one serious pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis unrelated to the procedure. No adverse events occurred in the HD-WL group. INTERPRETATION: CADe-assisted colonoscopy did not show the absolute improvement in adenoma detection rate that was assumed in the prespecified sample-size calculation. CADx did not clearly improve lesion differentiation beyond expert optical diagnosis in expert Lynch syndrome surveillance settings. FUNDING: Third-party research funding of the National Center for Hereditary Tumor Syndromes, University Hospital Bonn.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

The application of artificial intelligence in healthcare practice: A mapping review of systematic reviews.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare practice, with growing evidence supporting its use in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment planning, and operational decision-making. The proliferation of systematic reviews in recent years underscores the need for an updated synthesis of the literature to inform research, policy, and practice. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and CINAHL for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2019 and February 2026. Eligible reviews focused on AI applications in healthcare practice, were peer-reviewed, and written in English. A total of 368 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Publication volume increased steadily, peaking in 2025. AI research was concentrated in high-density domains, such as radiology, oncology, and critical care. Across reviews, diagnostic imaging, electronic health record (EHR) data, and biomarkers/laboratory results accounted for 68% of training data sources, though newer data types, such as wearable device and sensor data, emerged from 2022 onward. Diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment comprised over 80% of AI applications, with novel uses emerging in recent years, such as AI-assisted clinical documentation (e.g., ambient documentation tools) and patient education. Ethical concerns were reported in 78.5% of reviews, with privacy, model accuracy, data and algorithmic bias, and explainability as recurrent themes. The proportion of reviews reporting ethical concerns increased from 2021 to 2025. AI applications in healthcare are expanding in scope, diversifying in data sources, and evolving toward novel clinical and operational uses. The human-centered AI or augmented intelligence paradigm, integrating computational precision with clinical expertise, holds significant promise but will require parallel advances in governance, regulatory frameworks, and ethical oversight to ensure safe adoption.

Artificial Intelligence↗
PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence for dental caries detection: An umbrella review.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed as a tool to improve dental caries detection across imaging modalities; however, its clinical value remains uncertain. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise systematic reviews evaluating AI for caries detection and diagnosis. An umbrella review was conducted following PRIOR guidance (PROSPERO CRD420261340728). Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to 15 March 2026. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and overlap of primary studies was quantified using the corrected covered area (CCA). Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which five reported diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses using bivariate or HSROC models. Across these meta-analyses, pooled sensitivity ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 and specificity from 0.85 to 0.91. Most systems were based on deep learning models applied to bitewing radiographs and intraoral photographs. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in imaging modalities, lesion thresholds, analytical tasks, and evaluation metrics. In addition, a high degree of overlap across reviews and recurrent methodological limitations, including reliance on retrospective datasets, limited external validation, and inconsistent reporting, substantially weaken the reliability of the evidence. Although AI models demonstrate high diagnostic performance under experimental conditions, current evidence does not support their use as stand-alone diagnostic tools. Their clinical applicability remains limited, and implementation should be restricted to decision-support contexts until robust prospective validation demonstrates meaningful impact on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Dental Caries↗