NYU Langone Health and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute developed a digital tool to support cancer treatment decisions, then tested it within NYU Langone before offering it commercially to other health systems. The platform, called Solavia Decision Suite, gives physicians a way to view relevant clinical research, guidelines, and treatments alongside patient data within the electronic health record system, helping them make treatment decisions more closely connected to the case in front of them.
The move comes at a time when enterprise software costs are rising and health systems repeatedly face a choice: Should they buy a ready-made package that may include functionality they do not need, or build a specialized tool suited to their workflows? Nader Mehrabi, executive vice president, vice dean, and chief information and digital transformation officer at NYU Langone, presents the two institutions’ experience as a practical case study of this decision, while emphasizing that building software is not the right choice for every organization.
A Partnership That Began After an Existing Product Was Discontinued
NYU Langone and Dana-Farber previously used a Philips oncology pathways product. According to Mehrabi, the two institutions discovered that the content in the tool had been developed by Dana-Farber, and then Philips’ decision to discontinue its oncology business left them with two options: find a new vendor or collaborate to build a more comprehensive and cooperative tool.
Dana-Farber contributed its expertise in oncology informatics and medical content, while NYU Langone brought advanced experience in developing and managing products throughout their life cycles. The two institutions also benefited from their knowledge of shortcomings and practical problems in the previous product, which helped them identify what could improve oncologists’ experience and patient care.
Integration With the Physician’s Workflow
Close integration with the clinical workflow was one of the main reasons for choosing to build from scratch. According to Mehrabi, physicians’ time is limited, so the required information and steps should appear directly in front of them. Solavia was designed to integrate deeply with the electronic health record system, and Epic was in use at both NYU Langone and Dana-Farber. He explained that the platform is not necessarily limited to Epic: It can be integrated with Cerner and other electronic health record products, or used as a standalone tool.
Oncology treatment pathways are complex and may include multiple, interwoven branches for reaching the treatment most appropriate for a patient. Development therefore also focused on ease of use, speed, and responsiveness rather than adding numerous functions that do not directly serve the clinical decision. Solavia is also cloud-based and scalable and extensible—features the institutions considered necessary for a modern product that can serve more than one organization.
Internal Testing Before Commercial Expansion
The platform began operating at NYU Langone during June, before becoming commercially available. The first objective was to replace the previous software and use the tool with the institution’s physicians and patients. The second was to draw on the expertise of the two institutions’ cancer centers and gather extensive feedback from oncologists during discovery, design, and development.
This internal launch enabled the institutions to test whether the platform actually met physicians’ needs and then present interested health systems with a working product rather than only a theoretical concept. Internal use thus became a stage for learning and validation, not merely a technical step before sales.
Governance and Security in a Multi-Institution Model
The two institutions established a governance council, entered into formal agreements, and involved legal, compliance, and commercial teams in managing the platform. This structure is intended to maintain alignment between the parties as use expands and other institutions join.
Solavia was designed as a multitenant system, with each institution’s data separated from that of the others. The platform also underwent multiple security reviews, following the same approach the institutions use when purchasing a product from an external vendor. This includes verifying system security and its ability to isolate each organization’s data, requirements that do not disappear simply because the software was developed internally.
It Is Not a Decision That Works for Everyone
Mehrabi believes that some organizations buy large software suites and then use only about 30% of their functionality while continuing to pay the full cost of the package. With the development of cloud computing and artificial intelligence tools, building a product that solves a specific problem has become faster and easier than it was previously, while software-as-a-service products may offer more functionality than an organization needs at a high price.
Nevertheless, Mehrabi does not believe that all health systems will move toward building their software entirely in-house. The choice may make sense for specialized use cases, particularly when an organization has the necessary financial, operational, and technical capabilities. Organizations that lack these resources may find purchasing or collaborating with an external vendor more suitable. The experience concludes that the build-versus-buy decision depends on the nature of the problem, the degree of specialization required, and the ability to develop, support, and govern the product; it is not a single rule for every health system.