Health Data Sharing Perspectives of Patients Receiving Care in CancerLinQ-Participating Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: CancerLinQ seeks to use data sharing technology to improve quality of care, improve health outcomes, and advance evidence-based research. Understanding the experiences and concerns of patients is vital to ensure its trustworthiness and success. METHODS: In a survey of 1,200 patients receiving care in four CancerLinQ-participating practices, we evaluated awareness and attitudes regarding participation in data sharing. RESULTS: Of 684 surveys received (response rate 57%), 678 confirmed cancer diagnosis and constituted the analytic sample; 54% were female, and 70% were 60 years and older; 84% were White. Half (52%) were aware of the existence of nationwide databases focused on patients with cancer before the survey. A minority (27%) indicated that their doctors or staff had informed them about such databases, 61% of whom indicated that doctors or staff had explained how to opt out of data sharing. Members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be comfortable with research (88% v 95%; P = .002) or quality improvement uses (91% v 95%; P = .03) of shared data. Most respondents desired to know how their health information was used (70%), especially those of minority race/ethnicity (78% v 67% of non-Hispanic White respondents; P = .01). Under half (45%) felt that electronic health information was sufficiently protected by current law, and most (74%) favored an official body for data governance and oversight with representation of patients (72%) and physicians (94%). Minority race/ethnicity was associated with increased concern about data sharing (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; P < .001). Women were less concerned about data sharing than men (OR, 0.61; P = .001), and higher trust in oncologist was negatively associated with concern (OR, 0.75; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and respecting their perspectives is essential as systems like CancerLinQ evolve.

ASCO Ethical Guidance for the US Oncology Community Where Reproductive Health Care Is Limited by Law.

The decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned federal protections for abortion rights, making way for states to enact abortion bans with or without exceptions for the health or life of the pregnant patient. Patient care across many areas of medicine including oncology continues to be affected. Although the change in the legal landscape is widely felt, the core ethical considerations for physicians do not change because of restrictions on the practice of medicine. ASCO offers this guidance to assist US oncologists and institutions who must balance limitations with established ethical duties. This paper articulates principles for cancer care and pregnancy, offers a framework for ethical reflection and action for oncologists who care for pregnant patients, and makes recommendations for individual and institutional action to support evidence-based, patient-centered care in the United States where abortion is illegal or access is limited.

Policy Preferences Regarding Health Data Sharing Among Patients With Cancer: Public Deliberations.

BACKGROUND: Precision health offers the promise of advancing clinical care in data-driven, evidence-based, and personalized ways. However, complex data sharing infrastructures, for-profit (commercial) and nonprofit partnerships, and systems for data governance have been created with little attention to the values, expectations, and preferences of patients about how they want to be engaged in the sharing and use of their health information. We solicited patient opinions about institutional policy options using public deliberation methods to address this gap. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand the policy preferences of current and former patients with cancer regarding the sharing of health information collected in the contexts of health information exchange and commercial partnerships and to identify the values invoked and perceived risks and benefits of health data sharing considered by the participants when formulating their policy preferences. METHODS: We conducted 2 public deliberations, including predeliberation and postdeliberation surveys, with patients who had a current or former cancer diagnosis (n=61). Following informational presentations, the participants engaged in facilitated small-group deliberations to discuss and rank policy preferences related to health information sharing, such as the use of a patient portal, email or SMS text messaging, signage in health care settings, opting out of commercial data sharing, payment, and preservation of the status quo. The participants ranked their policy preferences individually, as small groups by mutual agreement, and then again individually in the postdeliberation survey. RESULTS: After deliberation, the patient portal was ranked as the most preferred policy choice. The participants ranked no change in status quo as the least preferred policy option by a wide margin. Throughout the study, the participants expressed concerns about transparency and awareness, convenience, and accessibility of information about health data sharing. Concerns about the status quo centered around a lack of transparency, awareness, and control. Specifically, the patients were not aware of how, when, or why their data were being used and wanted more transparency in these regards as well as greater control and autonomy around the use of their health data. The deliberations suggested that patient portals would be a good place to provide additional information about data sharing practices but that over time, notifications should be tailored to patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests the need for increased disclosure of health information sharing practices. Describing health data sharing practices through patient portals or other mechanisms personalized to patient preferences would minimize the concerns expressed by patients about the extent of data sharing that occurs without their knowledge. Future research and policies should identify ways to increase patient control over health data sharing without reducing the societal benefits of data sharing.

Public Deliberation Process on Patient Perspectives on Health Information Sharing: Evaluative Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Precision oncology is one of the fastest-developing domains of personalized medicine and is one of many data-intensive fields. Policy for health information sharing that is informed by patient perspectives can help organizations align practice with patient preferences and expectations, but many patients are largely unaware of the complexities of how and why clinical health information is shared. OBJECTIVE: This paper evaluates the process of public deliberation as an approach to understanding the values and preferences of current and former patients with cancer regarding the use and sharing of health information collected in the context of precision oncology. METHODS: We conducted public deliberations with patients who had a current or former cancer diagnosis. A total of 61 participants attended 1 of 2 deliberative sessions (session 1, n=28; session 2, n=33). Study team experts led two educational plenary sessions, and trained study team members then facilitated discussions with small groups of participants. Participants completed pre- and postdeliberation surveys measuring knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about precision oncology and data sharing. Following informational sessions, participants discussed, ranked, and deliberated two policy-related scenarios in small groups and in a plenary session. In the analysis, we evaluate our process of developing the deliberative sessions, the knowledge gained by participants during the process, and the extent to which participants reasoned with complex information to identify policy preferences. RESULTS: The deliberation process was rated highly by participants. Participants felt they were listened to by their group facilitator, that their opinions were respected by their group, and that the process that led to the group's decision was fair. Participants demonstrated improved knowledge of health data sharing policies between pre- and postdeliberation surveys, especially regarding the roles of physicians and health departments in health information sharing. Qualitative analysis of reasoning revealed that participants recognized complexity, made compromises, and engaged with trade-offs, considering both individual and societal perspectives related to health data sharing. CONCLUSIONS: The deliberative approach can be valuable for soliciting the input of informed patients on complex issues such as health information sharing policy. Participants in our two public deliberations demonstrated that giving patients information about a complex topic like health data sharing and the opportunity to reason with others and discuss the information can help garner important insights into policy preferences and concerns. Data on public preferences, along with the rationale for information sharing, can help inform policy-making processes. Increasing transparency and patient engagement is critical to ensuring that data-driven health care respects patient autonomy and honors patient values and expectations.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Enrollment in Precision Oncology Research: Qualitative Ethical Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The genomic frontier continues to revolutionize the practice of oncology. Advances in cancer biology from tumorigenesis to treatment resistance are driven by the molecular underpinnings of malignancy. The framing of precision oncology as both a clinical and research tool is constantly evolving and directly influences conversations between oncologists and their patients. Prior research has shown that patient-participants often have unmet or unrealistic expectations regarding the clinical utility of oncology research and genomic sequencing. This indicates the need for more in-depth investigation of how and why patients choose to participate in such research. OBJECTIVE: This study presents a qualitative ethical analysis to better understand patient and provider perspectives on enrollment in precision oncology research. METHODS: Paired semistructured interviews were conducted with patient-participants enrolled in a prospective head and neck precision oncology research platform, along with their oncology providers, at a National Cancer Institute-designated academic cancer center. RESULTS: There were three major themes that emerged from the analysis. (1) There are distinct and unique challenges with informed consent to precision medicine, chiefly involving the ability of both patient-participants and providers to effectively understand the science underlying the research. (2) The unique benefits of precision medicine enrollment are of paramount importance to patients considering enrollment. (3) Patient-participants have little concern for the risks of research enrollment, particularly in the context of a low-burden protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-participants and their providers offer complementary and nuanced perspectives on their motivation to engage in precision oncology research. This reflects both the inherent promise and enthusiasm within the field, as well as the limitations and challenges of ensuring that both patient-participants and clinicians understand the complexities of the science involved.

Industry Compensation to Physician Vascular Specialist Authors of Highly-referenced Aortic Aneurysm Studies.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to physicians may influence their attitudes toward medical devices and products. Disclosure of industry compensation by authors of scientific manuscripts usually occurs at the authors' discretion and is seldom audited as part of the peer review process. The purpose of this analysis was to characterize industry compensation among highly cited research articles related to aortic aneurysm. METHODS: A Web of Science search for English language articles published from 2013-2017 using the search term "aortic aneurysm" identified publications for this study. The top 99 most-cited publications were abstracted by author. Physician authors with reported industry compensation from 2013-2016 were identified using the ProPublica Dollars for Docs search tool (linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments data), based on provider name, medical specialty, and geographic location. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and categorical tests. RESULTS: The 99 articles had 1,264 unique authors, of whom 105 physicians (8.3%) received industry compensation during the study period. Fourteen of the 105 authors self-reported having received industry compensation. The remaining 91 authors (86.7%) did not disclose their industry-reported compensation. Industry payments during the study period totaled $6,082,574 paid through 13,489 transactions from 169 different manufacturers. In-kind items and services were the most common form of payment (65.3%). The median transaction amount was $58.32. [$138.34]. Food and beverage accounted for the largest number of transactions (N=9653), followed by travel and lodging (N=2365), consulting (N=513), and promotional speaking (N=436). Consulting accounted for the most total dollars over the study period ($1,970,606), followed by travel and lodging ($1,122,276), promotional speaking ($972,894), food and beverage ($568,251), royalty or license ($504,631), honoraria ($452,167), and education ($428,489). Royalty and license payments had the highest median transaction amount ($15,418. [$29,049]), and was the only category with a median transaction amount greater than $5,000. In contrast, several categories had median transaction amounts under $50, including food and beverage ($32. [$77]), gifts ($34. [$86]), and entertainment ($30. [$69]). No significant difference in payment amounts by medical specialty was identified (P=0.071). CONCLUSIONS: Only 8.3% of physician authors of highly cited aortic aneurysm studies received industry compensation, but 86.7% of those physician authors receiving payments did not disclose industry compensation within the manuscripts. Potential bias associated with industry compensation may be underestimated and conservatively biased based on author self-reporting.

"My Research Is Their Business, but I'm Not Their Business": Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Commercialization of Precision Oncology Data.

BACKGROUND: Genetic sequencing and precision oncology have supported clinical breakthroughs but depend upon access to vast arrays of research specimens and data. One way for academic medical centers to fund such infrastructure and research is "commercialization" of access to specimens and data to industry. Here we explore patient and clinician perspectives regarding cancer specimen and data commercialization with the goal of improving such processes in the future. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative analysis was embedded within a prospective precision oncology sequencing study of adults with head and neck cancer. Via semistructured dyadic interviews with patients with cancer and their doctors, we assessed understanding and concerns regarding potential commercialization, opinions regarding investment of profits, and perspectives regarding the return of information directly to participants from industry. RESULTS: Several patient- and clinician-participants did not understand that the consent form already permitted commercialization of patient genetic data and expressed concerns regarding who would profit from the data, how profits would be used, and privacy and access. Patients were generally more comfortable with commercialization than clinicians. Many patients and clinicians were comfortable with investing profits back into research, but clinicians were more interested in investment in head and neck cancer research specifically. Patients generally supported potential return-of-results from a private entity, but their clinicians were more skeptical. CONCLUSION: Our results illustrate the limitations of mandatory disclosures in the informed consent process. The voices of both patients and their doctors are critical to mitigate violations of privacy and a degradation of trust as stakeholders negotiate the terms of academic and commercial engagement. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Further education is needed regarding how and why specimens and data in precision oncology research may be commercialized for both patients and providers alike. This process will require increased transparency, comprehension, and engagement of involved stakeholders.

Industry compensation and self-reported financial conflicts of interest among authors of highly cited peripheral artery disease studies.

OBJECTIVE: Industry compensation to authors may influence the interpretation of study results. Scientific journals often require author disclosure of a relevant financial conflict of interest (FCOI) but seldom quantify compensation and leave reporting up to the author's discretion. Professional and public concerns related to potential bias introduced into medical research by FCOI have arisen, especially when physician compensation from manufacturers is not disclosed. Little is known, however, about the prevalence of industry compensation to authors of related publications, payment amounts, or how this information compares with self-reported FCOI. The objective of this study was to compare industry compensation and disclosed FCOI among highly referenced publications related to treatment of peripheral artery disease, a disease that affects approximately 8.5 million Americans and is often treated with medications and devices. METHODS: "Peripheral artery disease" was used as a Web of Science search term to identify publications from 2013 to 2016, excluding review articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, abstract publications, and non-English language publications. The top 99 most cited publications were abstracted for self-reported FCOI by author. Industry compensation to authors was queried using a ProPublica Dollars for Docs custom data set based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments data. Providers practicing in the United States in any of the following specialties were included: cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, vascular and interventional radiology, or vascular surgery. Payment transactions were matched to physician authors on the basis of provider name, specialty, and geographic location. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and categorical tests. Descriptive statistics are reported as frequency (percentage) or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: Among 1008 vascular specialist authors identified, 218 (22%) self-reported FCOI. Fifty-six physician authors had compensation reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by industry during the study period. Among those identified as recipients of industry compensation, 28 (50%) self-reported FCOI. Industry payments to the 56 authors totaled $11,139,987, with a median total payment of $18,827 (interquartile range, $152,084) per author. Food and beverage was the most frequently identified nature of payment (n = 8981 [74%]), promotional speaking involved the largest total amount of payments ($3,256,431), and royalty or license was the highest median payment ($51,431 [$72,215]). Physicians reporting FCOI received a total of $9,435,340 during the study period vs $1,706,647 for those who did not report any FCOI. Median total payments were higher among authors reporting FCOI vs not ($81,224 [$324,171] vs $9494 [$43,448]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Nondisclosed author compensation from industry is relatively uncommon among highly cited peripheral artery disease research studies but may be associated with substantial payments. These results suggest that self-reported FCOI does not provide a comprehensive overview of industry compensation. Reporting all payments rather than only those deemed relevant by the author might provide a more complete and transparent report of potential FCOI, allowing independent assessment of relevance in interpreting study findings.

Patient and Provider Perspectives Regarding Enrollment in Head and Neck Cancer Research.

OBJECTIVE: The advent of precision oncology complicates how clinicians and participants understand how clinical care and research interface. Here we examine how key stakeholders perceive the utility of, and evaluate the decision to participate in, genomic sequencing head and neck cancer research. The goal of this study was to highlight unique considerations for our community as this type of research proliferates across the country. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multimethod qualitative and quantitative embedded ethics protocol. SETTING: Single-institution National Cancer Institute-designated academic cancer center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Multimethod study using paired surveys and semistructured interviews among patients and providers involved in a prospective precision head and neck oncology sequencing protocol (116 survey patient-participants, response rate 82%) with 18 interviewees. RESULTS: Participants were generally enthusiastic about enrollment in research, both to help future patients and as a way of giving back to the community. They described reliance on information from and trust in their cancer doctor regarding the decision to participate in research, but paradoxically there was discordance in how doctors and patients reported their respective influence in the decision-making process. Clinicians also stressed the importance in separating clinical and research-informed consent processes, although patients did not describe this tension. CONCLUSION: As we enter an era of increasing personalized medicine and targeted therapies, the relationship between clinicians, scientists, and patients plays a larger role in how we individualize and contextualize cancer research. Our data are another step toward the ultimate goal of respecting and protecting patients as participants in head and neck translational oncology.

Biospecimens, Research Consent, and Distinguishing Cell Line Research.

Newly revised regulations for human research affecting translational oncology will become effective in January 2019. A substantial component of the debate leading to this revision was how to regulate biospecimen research; specifically, whether all biospecimens should be considered inherently "identifiable," thereby necessitating informed consent for use in research. The famous cases seminal to this discussion involve cancer cell lines, but the unique features of this kind of biospecimen research were largely missing from the regulatory deliberation. However, special aspects of cell line research-at the stages of procurement, generation, evolution, and sharing-alter how society should balance participant interests against the goals of research. Recommendations are offered to cancer researchers and policymakers going forward to enable ethically appropriate regulation of biospecimen research across its diverse spectrum.

Reg-ent within the Learning Health System.

Clinical data registries are perhaps one of the most powerful outcomes of electronic medical records, and their benefits are projected to redound to patients and clinicians across the nation. The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's Reg-ent fits within the conceptual framework of a learning health system. Because the data within this system are deidentified, research informed consent is not legally required. But ethical concerns remain regarding whether and how to best notify, and whether to obtain consent from, patients whose data are included. Particularly because data corroborate that a substantial minority of survey respondents believe that consent should be obtained for each research protocol (even for deidentified research) and because data breaches are, unfortunately, a serious risk, we recommend that the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation ensure best practices for patient engagement as it continues to build Reg-ent.

Revisiting Expectations in an Era of Precision Oncology.

As we enter an era of precision medicine and targeted therapies in the treatment of metastatic cancer, we face new challenges for patients and providers alike as we establish clear guidelines, regulations, and strategies for implementation. At the crux of this challenge is the fact that patients with advanced cancer may have disproportionate expectations of personal benefit when participating in clinical trials designed to generate generalizable knowledge. Patient and physician goals of treatment may not align, and reconciliation of their disparate perceptions must be addressed. However, it is particularly challenging to manage a patient's expectations when the goal of precision medicine-personalized response-exacerbates our inability to predict outcomes for any individual patient. The precision medicine informed consent process must therefore directly address this issue. We are challenged to honestly, clearly, and compassionately engage a patient population in an informed consent process that is responsive to their vulnerability, as well as ever-evolving indications and evidence. This era requires a continual reassessment of expectations and goals from both sides of the bed.