Skip to main content

Supporting breast cancer decisions using formalized guidelines and experts decision patterns: initial prototype and evaluation


Transparent decisions and its documentation of breast cancer patients’ therapy are getting more important especially since modern therapeutic approaches favor personalized forms of treatment. The medical decisions for a treatment are very complex, because there are rules and different options for each patient. To support the decision process, we analyzed the current decision rules and implemented them in a prototype of a rule-based expert system. Thus, this system shall support the quality assurance regarding transparent documentation of individualized therapeutic decisions. For evaluating the system, we used data from a state tumor center and compared the decisions suggested by our system with expert ones. The system and the expert approach will be compared with each other as well as the differences in the treatment decisions. The first preliminary results show us that the human factor—like must be considered by creating a decision support system. The prototype delivers first results, which are restricted, but the results are promising for further developments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. Cp.; retrieved 2016-07-08.

  2. Cp.; retrieved 2016-07-08.

  3. Cp. 9.Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group—ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group,; last accessed 2016-07-11.

  4. Cp. 10.International Union Against Cancer – TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 7th edition,; last accessed 2016-07-11.

  5. For further information regarding the tumor staging read more at


  1. Robert-Koch-Institute: Breast cancer incidence in Germany 2014.

  2. Scharl A, Kühn T, Papathemelis T, Salterberg A. The right treatment for the right patient—personalised treatment of breast cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2015;75:683–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. German Cancer Society (DKG), German Senology Society (DGS): Erhebungsbogen für Brustkrebszentren. OnkoZert (2014).

  4. Lenz R, Reichert M. IT support for healthcare processes—premises, challenges, perspectives. Data Knowl Eng. 2007;61:39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kaiser K, Seyfang A, Miksch S. Identifying treatment activities for modelling computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines. In: Riaño D, ten Teije A, Miksch S, Peleg M, editors. KR4HC 2010, Lissabon, Portugal, August 17. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 114–25.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kuo K-L, Fuh C-S. A rule-based clinical decision model to support interpretation of multiple data in health examinations. J Med Syst. 2011;35:1359–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kreienberg R, Albert U-S, Follmann M, Kopp I, Kühn T, Wöckel A. Interdisciplinary GoR level III guidelines for the diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73:556–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Anonymous1: Anonymized. Presented at the (2016).

  9. Wöckel A, Varga D, Atassi Z, Kurzeder C, Wolters R, Wischnewsky M, Wulff C, Kreienberg R. Impact of guideline conformity on breast cancer therapy: results of a 13-year retrospective cohort study. Onkologie. 2010;33:21–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wolters R, Wöckel A, Wischnewsky M, Kreienberg R. Effects of guideline-compliant therapy on the survival of primary breast cancer patients with: results of a retrospective cohort study. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105:468–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weber-Jahnke J, Peyton L, Topaloglou T. eHealth system interoperability. Inf Syst Front. 2012;14:1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berg M, Toussaint P. The mantra of modeling and the forgotten powers of paper: a sociotechnical view on the development of process-oriented ICT in health care. Int J Med Inform. 2003;69:223–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yang H, Li W, Liu K, Zhang J. Knowledge-based clinical pathway for medical quality improvement. Inf Syst Front. 2012;14:105–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schlieter H, Esswein W. Reference modelling in health care: state of the art and proposal for the construction of a reference model. Enterp Model Inf Syst Archit. 2011;6:36–49.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Österle H, Becker J, Frank U, Hess T, Karagiannis D, Krcmar H, Loos P, Mertens P, Oberweis A, Sinz EJ. Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. Eur J Inf Syst. 2011;20:7–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rouse WB. Engineering perspectives on healthcare delivery: can we afford technological innovation in healthcare? Syst Res Behav Sci. 2009;26:573–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Görlitz R, Rashid A: Stroke management as a service—a distributed and mobile architecture for post-acute stroke management. In: AIS—Proceedings 20th European Conference. Paper 107. AIS, Atlanta (2012).

  18. Hegde V, Raheja D: Design for reliability in medical devices. In: 2010 Proceedings—Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS). pp. 1–6. IEEE, Piscataway (2010).

  19. Keller C, Gäre K, Edenius M, Lindblad S: Designing for complex innovations in health care: design theory and realist evaluation combined. In: Vaishnavi V, Purao S (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology—DESRIST’09. p. Art. 3. ACM, New York (2009).

  20. Maass W, Varshney U. Design and evaluation of Ubiquitous Information Systems and use in healthcare. Decis Support Syst. 2012;54:597–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Darke P, Shanks G, Broadbent M. Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Inf Syst J. 1998;8:273–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Offermann P, Levina O, Schönherr M, Bub U: Outline of a design science research process. In: Vaishnavi, V, Purao S (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International. Art 7. ACM, New York (2009).

  23. Habbema JDF, Wilt TJ, Etzioni R, Nelson HD, Schechter CB, Lawrence WF, Melnikow J, Kuntz KM, Owens DK, Feuer EJ. Models in the development of clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:812–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Anonymous1: Anonymized, (2015).

  25. Schwentner L, Van Ewijk R, Kühn T, Flock F, Felberbaum R, Blettner M, Kreienberg R, Janni W, Wöckel A, Singer S. Exploring patient- and physician-related factors preventing breast cancer patients from guideline-adherent adjuvant chemotherapy—results from the prospective multi-center study BRENDA II. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:2759–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Peleg M. Computer-interpretable clinical guidelines: a methodological review. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46:744–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mans RS, van der Aalst WMP, Russell NC, Bakker PJM, Moleman AJ. Process-Aware Information System Development for the Healthcare Domain - Consistency, Reliability, and Effectiveness. In: Rinderle-Ma S, Sadiq S, Leymann F, editors. Business Process Management Workshops (BPM) 2009, Ulm, Germany, September 7. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 635–46.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Peleg M. The role of modeling in clinical information system development life cycle. Editorial. Methods Inf Med. 2011;50:7–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cancer Research UK—TMN breast cancer staging. Accessed 11 Nov 2016.

  30. Spreckelsen C, Spitzer K, Honekamp W. Present Situation and Prospect of Medical Knowledge Based Systems in German-speaking Countries. Schattauer. Methods Inf Med. 2012;4(2012):281–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Parts of this contribution were carried out within the project Baltic Sea Campus on eHealth (2015–2018) funded by an excellence grant of the German federal state of Schleswig–Holstein. The authors are pleased to acknowledge all supporting participants. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the state of Schleswig–Holstein.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Andrzejewski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrzejewski, D., Breitschwerdt, R., Fellmann, M. et al. Supporting breast cancer decisions using formalized guidelines and experts decision patterns: initial prototype and evaluation. Health Inf Sci Syst 5, 12 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Breast cancer treatment
  • Decision support
  • Tumor board