Improving the quality of 'personalized medicine' research and practice: Through an ethical lens

Personalized Medicine

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 413-423

  Browman, George P ^a,b   Vollmann, Jochen ^c   Virani, Alice ^b   Schildmann, Jan ^c  

^a BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

ethics; evaluation methodology; personalized medicine; system quality measures

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME PROJECT; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INFORMED CONSENT; INSURANCE; LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; METABOLOMICS; NEOPLASM; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY; PROTEOMICS; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; STANDARD;

EID: 84906246664     PISSN: 17410541     EISSN: 1744828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/pme.14.17     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Meric-Bernstam F, Farhangfar C, Mendelsohn J, Mills G. Building a personalized medicine infrastructure at a major cancer center. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(15), 1849-1857 (2013).
2. Hood L, Flores M. A personal view on systems medicine and the emergence of proactive P4 medicine: predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory. N. Biotechnol. 29(6), 613-624 (2012).
3. Ganz P, Levit L. Charting a new course for the delivery of high-quality cancer care. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(36), 4485-4487 (2013).
4. Shih Y, Ganz P, Aberle D et al. Delivering high-quality and affordable care throughout the cancer care continuum. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(32), 4151-4157 (2013).
5. Garraway L. Genomics-driven oncology: framework for an emerging paradigm. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(15), 1806-1814 (2013).
6. Kass NE, Faden RR, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hastings Cent. Rep. 43(s1), 4-15 (2013).
7. Faden RR, Kass NE, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent. Rep. 43(s1), 16-27 (2013).
8. Brody H, Miller FG. The research-clinical practice distinction, learning health systems, and relationships. Hastings Cent. Rep. 43(5), 41-47 (2013).
9. Browman G. Special series on comparative effectiveness research: challenges to real-world solutions to quality improvement in personalized medicine. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(34), 4188-4191 (2012).
10. Watson P, Wilson-Mcmanus J, Barnes R et al. Evolutionary concepts in biobanking - the BC BioLibrary. J. Transl. Med. 7, 95 (2009).
11. Longstaff H, Secko D. Media influence on biobank deliberations. J. Health Mass Commun. 2, 73-91 (2010).
12. Patton S, Barton D, Elles R. Retaining the confidence of the public in molecular genetic testing - quality assurance. Community Genet. 3, 164-169 (2000).
13. Tutton R, Kaye J, Hoeyer K. Governing UK Biobank: the importance of ensuring public trust. Trends Biotechnol. 22(6), 284-285 (2004).
14. Hawkins A, O'Doherty K. Biobank governance: a lesson in trust. New Genet. Soc. 29(3), 311-327 (2010).
15. O'Doherty K, Ibrahim T, Hawkins A, Burgess M, Watson P. Managing the introduction of biobanks to potential participants: lessons from a deliberative public forum. Biopreserv. Biobank. 10(1), 12-21 (2012).
16. Katsanis S, Javitt G, Hudson K. A case study of personalized medicine. Science 320, 53-54 (2008).
17. Caulfield T, Condit C. Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics 15(3-4), 209-217 (2012).
18. Evans J, Meslin E, Marteau T, Caulfield T. Genomics. Deflating the genomic bubble. Science 331, 861-862 (2011).
19. Haibe-Kains B, El-Hachem N, Birkbak N et al. Inconsistency in large pharmacogenomic studies. Nature 504, 389-393 (2013).
20. Douillard J, Oliner K, Siena S et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 369(11), 1023-1034 (2013).
21. Chapman P, Hauschild A, Robert C et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(26), 2507-2516 (2011).
22. Ellis L, Hicklin D. Resistance to targeted therapies: refining anticancer therapy in the era of molecular oncology. Clin. Cancer Res. 15(24), 7471-7478 (2009).
23. Jakka S, Rossbach M. An economic perspective on personalized medicine. HUGO J. 7(1), doi:10.1186/1877-6566-7-1 (2013).
24. Peterson I. Personalized Medicine: The Ethics of Access (2006). www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/personalized-medicine.html
25. Worldwide Innovative Networking in Personalized Cancer Medicine. Overview and WIN report. www.winconsortium.org/page.jsp?id=200
26. Vollmann J. Ein trügerisches Versprechen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 105, 10 (2012).
27. Dickenson D. Me Medicine vs. We Medicine: Reclaiming Biotechnology for the Common Good. Columbia UP, NY, USA (2013).
28. Ginsburg G, Willard H. Genomic and personalized medicine: foundations and applications. Transl. Res. 154(6), 277-287 (2009).
29. Vogenberg FR, Barash CI, Pursel M. Personalized medicine: part 2: ethical, legal, and regulatory issues. P T 35(11), 624-642 (2010).
30. Sleijfer S, Bogaerts J, Siu L. Designing transformative clinical trials in the cancer genome era. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(15), 1834-1841 (2013).
31. Kaplan R, Maughan T, Crook A et al. Evaluating many treatments and biomarkers in oncology: a new design. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(36), 4562-4568 (2013).
32. Mandrekar S, Sargent D. Genomic advances and their impact on clinical trial design. Genome Med. 1(7), 69 (2009).
33. Stewart D, Kurzrock R. Fool's gold, lost treasures, and the randomized clinical trial. BMC Cancer 13, 193 (2013).
34. Wudhikarn K, Link B. Comparative effectiveness research in follicular lymphoma: current and future perspectives and challenges. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 3(1), 95-107 (2014).
35. Lewis G. Global impact of real world evidence [RWE]: replacing discord with harmony. www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/ims/Global/EMEA/Nordic/Graham- Presentation.pdf
36. Sledge G, Hudis C, Swain S et al. ASCO's approach to a learning health care system in oncology. J. Oncol. Pract. 9(3), 145-148 (2013).
37. Lanman J, Guy L, Dancis J. Retrolental fibroplasia and oxygen therapy. JAMA 155(3), 223-226 (1954).
38. Lerner B. False hope: bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. Bull. Hist. Med. 83(3), 640-642 (2009).
39. Preliminary Report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infarction. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators. N. Engl. J. Med. 321(6), 406-412 (1989).
40. Mandrola J. Changing the culture of American Medicine - start by removing hubris (2013). www.drjohnm.org/2013/07/changing-the-culture-ofamerican- medicine-start-by-removing-hubris/
41. Bradford-Hill A. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58(5), 295-300 (1965).
42. Emanuel E, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283, 2701-2711 (2000).
43. Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61(6), 521-524 (2008).
44. Hudson T, Anderson W, Artez A et al. International network of cancer genome projects. Nature 464, 993-998 (2010).
45. Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulieu A et al. Science and government. An international framework to promote access to data. Science 303, 1777-1778 (2004).
46. Human Genome Organisation (HUGO). Statement on human genomic databases. J. Int. Bioéthique 14(3-4), 207-210 (2003).
47. Human Genome Organization (HUGO). Statement on the principled conduct of genetic research. Eubios J. Asian Int. Bioeth. 6, 59-60 (1995).
48. The Wellcome Trust. Sharing data from large-scale biological research projects: a system of tripartite responsibility (2003). www.wellcome.ac.uk/ About-us/Policy/Policy-and-positionstatements/WTD002751.htm
49. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding. OECD, Paris, France (2007).
50. The Wellcome Trust. Sharing Data From Large-Scale Biological Research Projects: a System of Tripartite Responsibility. The Wellcome Trust, London, UK (2003).
51. Godard B, Schmidtke J, Cassiman J, Aymé S. Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 11(Suppl. 2), 88-122 (2003).
52. Schadt E, Woo S, Hao K. Bayesian method to predict individual SNP genotypes from gene expression data. Nat. Genet. 44(5), 603-608 (2012).
53. Gymrek M, McGuire A, Golan D, Halperin E, Erlich Y. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 339, 321-324 (2013).
54. Knoppers B, Harris J, Tassé A et al. Towards a data sharing Code of Conduct for international genomic research. Genome Med. 3(7), 46 (2011).
55. Bull S. NIH seeking public comment on a draft policy for sharing genomic data (2013). http://globalhealthreviewers.tghn.org/blog/post/988/2013/09/nih- seeking-public-comment-on-a-draftpolicy-f/
56. Carnahan S. Biobanking newborn bloodspots for genetic research without consent. J. Health Care Law Policy 14, 299-301 (2011).
57. Tarini B, Lantos J. Lessons that newborn screening in the USA can teach us about biobanking and large-scale genetic studies. Per. Med. 10(1), 81-87 (2013).
58. NHS National Research Ethics Service. Proportionate Review Service. What is proportionate review? www.nres.nhs.uk/about-the-national-research-ethics- service/building-on-improvement/proportionate-review
59. Kohnen T, Schildmann J, Vollmann J. Patients' selfdetermination in "personalised medicine": the case of whole genome sequencing and tissue banking in oncology. In: "Individualised Medicine" Between Hype and Hope. Braun M, Dabrock P (Eds). LIT, Münster, Germany, 97-110 (2013).
60. Stein D, Terry S. Reforming biobank consent policy: a necessary move away from broad consent toward dynamic consent. Genet. Test Mol. Biomarkers 17(12), 855-856 (2013).
61. Meslin E, Cho M. Research ethics in the era of personalized medicine: updating science's contract with society. Public Health Genomics 13(6), 378-384 (2010).
62. P3G Consortium, Church G, Heeney C et al. Public access to genome-wide data: five views on balancing research with privacy and protection. PLoS Genet. 5(10), e1000665 (2009).
63. Rahm A, Wrenn M, Carroll N, Feigelson H. Biobanking for research: a survey of patient population attitudes and understanding. J. Community Genet. 4(4), 445-450 (2013).
64. Ormond K, Cirino A, Helenowski I, Chisholm R, Wolf W. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 149A(2), 188-198 (2009).
65. Green R, Berg J, Grody W et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 15(7), 565-574 (2013).
66. Wolf S. The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings. Genet. Med. 14(4), 355-357 (2012).
67. O'Doherty K, Mackenzie M, Badulescu D, Burgess M. Explosives, genomics, and the environment conducting public deliberation on topics of complex science and social controversy. SAGE Open 3(1), (2013).
68. Secko D, Preto N, Niemeyer S, Burgess M. Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. Soc. Sci. Med. 68(4), 781-789 (2009).
69. Clarke A, Thirlaway K. Genetic counselling for personalised medicine. Hum. Genet. 130(1), 27-31 (2011).
70. Guttmacher A, McGuire A, Ponder B, Stefánsson K. Personalized genomic information: preparing for the future of genetic medicine. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11(2), 161-165 (2010).
71. Nagy R, Sturm A. Personalized medicine: impact on patient care in genetic counseling. Curr. Genet. Med. Rep. 1(2), 129-134 (2013).
72. Offit K. Personalized medicine: new genomics, old lessons. Hum. Genet. 131(1), 3-14 (2011).
73. Wolf S, Annas G, Elias S. Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science 340, 1049-1050 (2013).
74. Ross L. Genetic exceptionalism vs. paradigm shift: lessons from HIV. J. Law Med. Ethics 29(2), 141-148 (2001).
75. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. S 358, H R 493 (2007). www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr493pcs/pdf/BILLS- 110hr493pcs.pdf
76. Hudson K, Holohan M, Collins F. Keeping pace with the times - the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. N. Engl. J. Med. 358(25), 2661-2663 (2008).
77. Lumbreras B, Donat L, Hernández-Aguado I. Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Br. J. Radiol. 83, 276-289 (2010).
78. Rothstein M. Genetic exceptionalism and legislative pragmatism. Hastings Cent. Rep. 35(4), 27-33 (2005).
79. Hazell A. Taking exception to genetic exceptionalism (2011). http://thednaexchange.com/2011/05/13/taking-exceptionto-genetic-exceptionalism/