Untapped potential of observational research to inform clinical decision making: American Society of Clinical Oncology Research statement

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 35, Issue 16, 2017, Pages 1845-1854

  Visvanathan, Kala ^a   Levit, Laura A ^b   Raghavan, Derek ^c   Hudis, Clifford A ^b   Wong, Sandra ^d   Dueck, Amylou ^e   Lyman, Gary H ^f  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY   (United States)

^c LEVINE CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER CENTER; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); VULNERABLE POPULATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; ONCOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85022342472     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.6414     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Norris S, Atkins D, Bruening W, et al: Selecting Observational Studies for Comparing Medical Interventions. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2010
2. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: The PCORI Methodology Report. Appendix A: Methodology Standards. http://www.pcori.org/sites/ default/files/PCORI-Methodology-Standards.pdf, 2013
3. Booth CM, Tannock IF: Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: Partners in the evolution of medical evidence. Br J Cancer 110:551-555, 2014
4. Angus DC: Fusing randomized trials with big data: The key to self-learning health care systems? JAMA 314:767-768, 2015
5. Krumholz HM: Big data and new knowledge in medicine: The thinking, training, and tools needed for a learning health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 33: 1163-1170, 2014
6. Institute of Medicine: Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2011
7. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2011
8. Garrison LP Jr, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, et al: Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: The ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health 10:326-335, 2007
9. Innovation in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance (IMEDS): IMEDS-Methods Research Agenda Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA (RUF). http://www.reaganudall.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 04/IMEDS-Methods-Research-Agenda.pdf, 2014
10. Academy of Medical Sciences and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry: Real World Evidence. https://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/ viewFile/56cab22108cf9.pdf, 2016
11. Lyman GH: Comparative effectiveness research in oncology. Oncologist 18:752-759, 2013
12. Morton SC, Costlow MR, Graff JS, et al: Standards and guidelines for observational studies: Quality is in the eye of the beholder. J Clin Epidemiol 71:3-10, 2016
13. Institute of Medicine. Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2010
14. Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2009
15. American College of Surgeons: National Cancer Data Base. https://www.facs.org/quality% 20programs/cancer/ncdb, 2016
16. National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. http://seer. cancer.gov/, 2016
17. 111th Congress: Public Law 111-115: Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act. 2009;123 Stat. 227
18. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: New Medicare data available to increase transparency on hospital and physician utilization. https:// www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/ Press-releases/2015-Press-releases-items/2015-06-01.html, 2015
19. Food and Drug Administration: OpenFDA. https://open.fda.gov/, 2016
20. Institute of Medicine: Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risk. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2015
21. AllTrials: All Trials Registered, All Results Reported. http://www.alltrials.net/, 2016
22. Yale University: The YODA Project. http:// yoda.yale.edu/, 2016
23. Clinical Study Data Request Initiative: Get Started. https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com/, 2016
24. National Institutes of Health: Summary of HHS/NIH Proposals to Enhance Transparency of clinical Trial Results. https://www.nih.gov/newsevents/ news-releases/summary-hhs/nih-proposalsenhance- transparency-clinical-trial-results, 2014
25. National Cancer Institute: National Cancer Moonshot Initiative Research Areas. http://www. cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancerinitiative, 2016
26. Schilsky RL, Michels DL, Kearbey AH, et al: Building a rapid learning health care system for oncology: The regulatory framework of CancerLinQ. J Clin Oncol 32:2373-2379, 2014
27. Etheredge LM: Rapid learning: A breakthrough agenda. Health Aff (Millwood) 33:1155-1162, 2014
28. Fleurence RL, Beal AC, Sheridan SE, et al: Patient-powered research networks aim to improve patient care and health research. Health Aff (Millwood) 33:1212-1219, 2014
29. Levit LA, Balogh EP, Nass SJ, Ganz PA (eds): Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2013
30. 111th Congress. Public Law 111-148: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 2010;124 Stat. 119
31. 114th Congress. Public Law 114-110: Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. 2015;129 Stat. 87
32. Executive Office of the President: Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values. http:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ big-data-privacy-report-may-1-2014.pdf, 2014
33. Susan Love Research Foundation: About Us. https://www.armyofwomen.org/aboutus, 2016
34. PatientsLikeMe: About Us. https://www. patientslikeme.com/about, 2016
35. Get My Health Data: Get Your Health Data. https://getmyhealthdata.org/, 2016
36. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: About Us. http://www.pcori.org/about-us, 2016
37. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality: Evidence-Based Practice Centers (EPC) Program Overview. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidencebased- reports/overview/index.html, 2016
38. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al: GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336: 924-926, 2008
39. Loblaw DA, Prestrud AA, Somerfield MR, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines: Formal systematic reviewbased consensus methodology. J Clin Oncol 30: 3136-3140, 2012
40. Somerfield MR, Bohlke K, Browman GP, et al: Innovations in American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline development. J Clin Oncol 34: 3213-3220, 2016
41. Zhao F: Surrogate end points and their validation in oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 34: 1436-1437, 2016
42. Kay A, Higgins J, Day AG, et al: Randomized controlled trials in the era of molecular oncology: Methodology, biomarkers, and end points. Ann Oncol 23:1646-1651, 2012
43. Booth CM, Cescon DW, Wang L, et al: Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol 26:5458-5464, 2008
44. Lyman GH: Comparative effectiveness research in oncology: The need for clarity, transparency and vision. Cancer Invest 27:593-597, 2009
45. Korn EL, Freidlin B: Methodology for comparative effectiveness research: Potential and limitations. J Clin Oncol 30:4185-4187, 2012
46. Berger ML, Dreyer N, Anderson F, et al: Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: The ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health 15:217-230, 2012
47. Minami CA, Bilimoria KY: Databases as vehicles for comparative effectiveness research. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 13:1585-1588, 2015
48. Berlin JA, Colditz GA: The role of metaanalysis in the regulatory process for foods, drugs, and devices. JAMA 281:830-834, 1999
49. Psaty BM, Breckenridge AM: Mini-Sentinel and regulatory science - Big data rendered fit and functional. N Engl J Med 370:2165-2167, 2014
50. Curtis LH, Brown J, Platt R: Four health data networks illustrate the potential for a shared national multipurpose big-data network. Health Aff (Millwood) 33:1178-1186, 2014
51. Madden JM, Lakoma MD, Rusinak D, et al: Missing clinical and behavioral health data in a large electronic health record (EHR) system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 23:1143-1149, 2016
52. Benson K, Hartz AJ: A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. Am J Ophthalmol 130:688, 2000
53. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI: Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342: 1887-1892, 2000
54. DeMets DL, Califf RM: Lessons learned from recent cardiovascular clinical trials: Part I. Circulation 106:746-751, 2002
55. Hurwitz HI, Lyman GH: Registries and randomized trials in assessing the effects of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer: Is there a common theme? J Clin Oncol 30:580-581, 2012
56. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, et al: Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 286: 821-830, 2001
57. Pritchard KI: Should observational studies be a thing of the past? J Natl Cancer Inst 100:451-452, 2008
58. König J, van Ewijk R, Kuhr K, et al: Radiotherapy effects on early breast cancer survival in observational and randomized studies: A systematic analysis of advantages, disadvantages and differences between the two study types. Breast Cancer 23:415-424, 2016
59. Henson KE, Jagsi R, Cutter D, et al: Inferring the effects of cancer treatment: Divergent results from Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational data from SEER registries. J Clin Oncol 34:803-809, 2016
60. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Gamble GD, et al: Concordance of results from randomized and observational analyses within the same study: A re-analysis of the Women's Health Initiative limited-access dataset. PLoS One 10:e0139975, 2015
61. Shikata S, Nakayama T, Noguchi Y, et al: Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery. Ann Surg 244:668-676, 2006
62. Dahabreh IJ, Kent DM: Can the learning health care system be educated with observational data? JAMA 312:129-130, 2014
63. Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM: Randomized trials analyzed as observational studies. Ann Intern Med 159:560-562, 2013
64. National Library of Medicine: SNOMED CT. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/healthit/snomedct/, 2016
65. National Cancer Institute: NCI Metathesaurus. https://ncimeta.nci.nih.gov/ncimbrowser/, 2016
66. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: PROMIS. http://www.healthmeasures.net/ explore-measurement-systems/promis, 2016
67. Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, et al: Development of the National Cancer Institute's patientreported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst 106:dju244, 2014
68. West D: Enabling Personalized Medicine Through Health Information Technology: Advancing the Integration of Information. http://www.brookings. edu/research/papers/2011/01/28-personalizedmedicine- west, 2011
69. National Cancer Registrars Association: Certification. http://www.ncra-usa.org/i4a/pages/index. cfm?pageid=3864, 2016
70. Government Accountability Office: Electronic Health Records: Nonfederal Efforts to Help Achieve Health Information Interoperability, GAO-15-817. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-817, 2015
71. Schneeweiss S: Learning from big health care data. N Engl J Med 370:2161-2163, 2014
72. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology: Report to Congress: Report on Health Information Blocking. https://www. healthit.gov/sites/default/files/reports/ info-blocking-040915.pdf, 2015
73. American Society of Clinical Oncology: Barriers to Interoperability and Information Blocking. http://www.asco.org/sites/new-www.asco.org/files/ content-files/blog-release/documents/2015-positionpaper- for-clq-briefing.pdf, 2015
74. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality: AHRQIssueBrief:Harnessing the Power ofData: How AHRQ is Catalyzing Transformation in Health Care. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/ informatic/databrief/index.html, 2015
75. Lamont EB, Herndon JE II, Weeks JC, et al: Criterion validity of Medicare chemotherapy claims in Cancer and Leukemia Group B breast and lung cancer trial participants. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 1080-1083, 2005
76. Lamont EB, Herndon JE II, Weeks JC, et al: Measuring disease-free survival and cancer relapse using Medicare claims from CALGB breast cancer trial participants (companion to 9344). J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1335-1338, 2006
77. Lamont EB, Herndon JE II, Weeks JC, et al: Measuring clinically significant chemotherapyrelated toxicities using Medicare claims from Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) trial participants. Med Care 46:303-308, 2008
78. Li Y, Hall M, Fisher BT, et al:Merging Children's Oncology Group data with an external administrative database using indirect patient identifiers: A report from the Children's Oncology Group. PLoS One 10: e0143480, 2015
79. Sequoia Project: About eHealth Exchange. http://sequoiaproject.org/ehealth-exchange/about/, 2016
80. Sequoia Project: What is Carequality? http:// sequoiaproject.org/carequality/, 2016
81. CommonWell Health Alliance: About Common- Well Health Alliance. http://www.commonwellalliance. org/about/, 2016
82. Adler-Milstein J, Lin SC, Jha AK: The number of health information exchange efforts is declining, leaving the viability of broad clinical data exchange uncertain. Health Aff (Millwood) 35:1278-1285, 2016
83. 114th Congress: 21st Century Cures Act, H.R.6, 2015
84. Velentgas P, Dreyer NA, Nourjah P, et al: Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User's Guide, AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC099. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. 2013
85. Berger ML, Martin BC, Husereau D, et al: A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health 17:143-156, 2014
86. European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance: Standards and Guidance. http://www.encepp.eu/standards -and-guidances/index.shtml, 2016
87. Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for Industry: Good Pharmacovigilance Practices and Pharmacoepidemiologic Assessment. http://www. fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ UCM126834.pdf, 2005
88. Dreyer NA, Schneeweiss S, McNeil BJ, et al: GRACE principles: Recognizing high-quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Am J Manag Care 16:467-471, 2010
89. Dreyer NA, Velentgas P, Westrich K, et al: The GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness: A tale of hope and caution. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 20: 301-308, 2014
90. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, et al: Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report - Part I. Value Health 12:1044-1052, 2009
91. Johnson ML, CrownW, Martin BC, et al: Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report - Part III. Value Health 12: 1062-1073, 2009
92. Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, et al: Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Approaches tomitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report - Part II. Value Health 12:1053-1061, 2009
93. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: Points to Consider on the Best Practices for Biorepositories, Registries and Databases. https://www. nccn.org/clinical-trials/RepositoriesBestPractices. aspx, 2015
94. STRengthing Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies: STRATOS Initiative. http://www. stratos-initiative.org/, 2016
95. American Association for Cancer Research: About The Workshop. http://vailworkshop.org/Pages/ AboutWorkshop.aspx, 2016
96. Drummond M, Brown R, Fendrick AM, et al: Use of pharmacoeconomics information - Report of the ISPOR Task Force on use of pharmacoeconomic/health economic information in health-care decision making. Value Health 6:407-416, 2003
97. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 12: 1495-1499, 2014
98. Nicholls SG, Quach P, von Elm E, et al: The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement: Methods for arriving at consensus and developing reporting guidelines. PLoS One 10: e0125620, 2015
99. Benchimol EI, Manuel DG, To T, et al: Development and use of reporting guidelines for assessing the quality of validation studies of health administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol 64:821-829, 2011
100. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.icmje.org/ recommendations/, 2015
101. Network for Excellence in Health Innovation: Real World Evidence: A New Era for Health Care Innovation. http://www.nehi.net/publications/66-realworld- evidence-a-new-era-for-health-care-innovation/ view, 2015
102. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Health Information Privacy Complaints Received by Calendar Year. http://www.hhs.gov/ hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/ data/complaints-received-by-calendar-year/index. html, 2016
103. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J: Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. N Engl J Med 365:1145-1150, 2011
104. Emanuel EJ: Reform of clinical research regulations, finally. N Engl J Med 373:2296-2299, 2015
105. Nass SJ, Levit LA, Gostin LO (eds): Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2009
106. Platt R, Kass NE, McGraw D: Ethics, regulation, and comparative effectiveness research: Time for a change. JAMA 311:1497-1498, 2014
107. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Human Subjects Research Implications of "Big Data" Studies: SACHRP Recommendations. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp-committee/ recommendations/2015-april-24-attachment-a/index. html, 2015
108. National Academy of Medicine: Clinical Effectiveness Research: Methods Innovation and Practice-Based Approaches. https://nam.edu/programs/ value-science-driven-health-care/clinical-effectivenessresearch/, 2016
109. National Institutes of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program - Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.nih.gov/precision-medicineinitiative- cohort-program/precision-medicine-initiativecohort- program-frequently-asked-questions, 2016
110. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology: Connecting Health and Care for the Nation: A Shared Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap. https://www.healthit.gov/ sites/default/files/nationwide-interoperability-roadmapdraft- version-1.0.pdf, 2014
111. Federal Register: Final Rule: Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Vol. 82, No. 12, 2017
112. Sage Bionetworks: Participant-Centered Consent Toolkit. http://sagebase.org/governance/ participant-centered-consent-toolkit/, 2016
113. Doshi JA, Hendrick FB, Graff JS, et al: Data, data everywhere, but access remains a big issuefor researchers: A review of access policies for publicly-funded patient-level health care data in the United States. EGEMS (Wash DC) 4:1204, 2016