Establishing and Defining an Approach to Climate Conscious Clinical Medical Ethics.

An anthropocentric scope for clinical medical ethics (CME) has largely separated this area of bioethics from environmental concerns. In this article, we first identify and reconcile the ethical issues imposed on CME by climate change including the dispersion of related causes and effects, the transdisciplinary and transhuman nature of climate change, and the historic divorce of CME from the environment. We then establish how several moral theories undergirding modern CME, such as virtue ethics, feminist ethics, and several theories of justice, promote both a flourishing of human medical practice and the environment. We conclude by defining an expanded the scope of CME as inclusive of not only patients, families, physicians, and other health professionals but other humans, non-humans, and their shared environment. We then apply this scope and theory to a widely used framework for applying CME, the Four Topics model, to construct a climate conscious approach to CME.

Perspectives of Oncologists on the Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence for Cancer Care.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly integrating into cancer care. Understanding stakeholder views on ethical issues associated with the implementation of AI in oncology is critical to optimal deployment. Objective: To evaluate oncologists' views on the ethical domains of the use of AI in clinical care, including familiarity, predictions, explainability (the ability to explain how a result was determined), bias, deference, and responsibilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based survey study was conducted from November 15, 2022, to July 31, 2023, among 204 US-based oncologists identified using the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was response to a question asking whether participants agreed or disagreed that patients need to provide informed consent for AI model use during cancer treatment decisions. Results: Of 387 surveys, 204 were completed (response rate, 52.7%). Participants represented 37 states, 120 (63.7%) identified as male, 128 (62.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 60 (29.4%) were from academic practices; 95 (46.6%) had received some education on AI use in health care, and 45.3% (92 of 203) reported familiarity with clinical decision models. Most participants (84.8% [173 of 204]) reported that AI-based clinical decision models needed to be explainable by oncologists to be used in the clinic; 23.0% (47 of 204) stated they also needed to be explainable by patients. Patient consent for AI model use during treatment decisions was supported by 81.4% of participants (166 of 204). When presented with a scenario in which an AI decision model selected a different treatment regimen than the oncologist planned to recommend, the most common response was to present both options and let the patient decide (36.8% [75 of 204]); respondents from academic settings were more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.19-5.51). Most respondents (90.7% [185 of 204]) reported that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use. Some agreed that this responsibility was shared by physicians (47.1% [96 of 204]) or hospitals (43.1% [88 of 204]). Finally, most respondents (76.5% [156 of 204]) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools, but only 27.9% (57 of 204) were confident in their ability to identify poorly representative AI models. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey study, few oncologists reported that patients needed to understand AI models, but most agreed that patients should consent to their use, and many tasked patients with choosing between physician- and AI-recommended treatment regimens. These findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise.

Race/ethnic associations with comprehensive cancer center access and clinical trial enrollment for acute leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial participation at Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) is inequitable for minoritized race/ethnic groups with acute leukemia. CCCs care for a high proportion of adults with acute leukemia. It is unclear if participation inequities are due to CCC access, post-access enrollment, or both. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with acute leukemia (2010-2019) residing within Massachusetts, the designated catchment area of the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (DF/HCC). Individuals were categorized as non-Hispanic Asian (NHA), Black (NHB), White (NHW), Hispanic White (HW), or Other. Decomposition analyses assessed covariate contributions to disparities in (1) access to DF/HCC care and (2) post-access enrollment. RESULTS: Of 3698 individuals with acute leukemia, 85.9% were NHW, 4.5% HW, 4.3% NHB, 3.7% NHA, and 1.3% Other. Access was lower for HW (age- and sex-adjusted OR 0.64 95%CI 0.45,0.90) and reduced post-access enrollment for HW (aOR 0.54 95%CI 0.34,0.86) and NHB (aOR 0.60 95%CI 0.39,0.92) compared to NHW. Payor and socioeconomic status (SES) accounted for 25.2% and 21.2% of the +1.1% absolute difference in HW access. Marital status and SES accounted for 8.0% and 7.0% of the -8.8% absolute disparity in HW enrollment; 76.4% of the disparity was unexplained. SES and marital status accounted for 8.2% and 7.1% of the -9.1% absolute disparity in NHB enrollment; 73.0% of the disparity was unexplained. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of race/ethnic inequities in acute leukemia trial enrollment at CCCs are from post-access enrollment, the majority of which was not explained by sociodemographic factors.

Shifting from Equality toward Equity: Addressing Disparities in Research Participation for Clinical Cancer Research.

AbstractThere is societal consensus that cancer clinical trial participation is unjust because some sociodemographic groups have been systematically underrepresented. Despite this, neither a definition nor an ethical explication for the justice norm of equity has been clearly articulated in this setting, leading to confusion over its application and goals. Herein we define equity as acknowledging sociodemographic circumstances and apportioning resource and opportunity allocation to eliminate disparities in outcomes, and we explore the issues and tensions this norm generates through practical examples. We assess how equality-based enrollment structures in clinical cancer research have perpetuated historical disparities and what equity-based alternatives are necessary to achieve representativeness and an expansive conception of participatory justice in clinical cancer research. This framework addresses the breadth from normative to applied by defining the justice norm of equity and translating it into practical strategies for addressing participation disparities in clinical cancer research.

Use, variability, and justification of eligibility criteria for phase II and III clinical trials in acute leukemia.

Clinical trial eligibility criteria can unfairly exclude patients or unnecessarily expose them to known risks if criteria are not concordant with drug safety. There are few data evaluating the extent to which acute leukemia eligibility criteria are justified. We analyzed criteria and drug safety data for front-line phase II and/or III acute leukemia trials with start dates 1/1/2010-12/31/2019 registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Multivariable analyses assessed concordance between criteria use and safety data (presence of criteria with a safety signal, or absence of criteria without a signal), and differences between criteria and safety-based limits. Of 250 eligible trials, concordant use of ejection fraction criteria was seen in 34.8%, corrected QT level (QTc) in 22.4%, bilirubin in 68.4%, aspartate transaminase/alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT) in 58.8%, renal function in 68.4%, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 54.8%, and hepatitis B and C in 42.0% and 41.2%. HIV and hepatitis B and C criteria use was concordant with safety data (adjusted Odds Ratios 2.04 [95%CI: 1.13, 3.66], 2.64 [95%CI: 1.38, 5.04], 2.27 [95%CI: 1.20, 4.32]) but organ function criteria were not (all P>0.05); phase III trials were not more concordant. Bilirubin criteria limits were the same as safety-based limits in 16.0% of trials, AST/ALT in 18.1%, and renal function in 13.9%; in 75.7%, 51.4%, and 56.5% of trials, criteria were more restrictive, respectively, by median differences of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.5 times the upper limits of normal. We found limited drug safety justifications for acute leukemia eligibility criteria. These data define criteria use and limits that can be rationally modified to increase patient inclusion and welfare.

Digital Health to Patient-Facing Artificial Intelligence: Ethical Implications and Threats to Dignity for Patients With Cancer.

Ethical considerations for patient-facing AI for oncology: dignity, autonomy, safety, equity, inclusivity.

Sociodemographic associations with uptake of novel therapies for acute myeloid leukemia.

Inequitable uptake of novel therapies (NT) in non-cancer settings are known for patients with lower socioeconomic status (SES), People of Color (POC), and older adults. NT uptake equity in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is not well known. We performed a retrospective cohort study (1/2014-8/2022) of the United States nationwide Flatiron HealthTM electronic health record-derived, de-identified database. We estimated sociodemographic associations with AML NT receipt using incidence rate ratios (IRR). Odds ratios (OR) assessed differences in venetoclax (the most common NT) receipt at community sites and between site characteristics and NT adoption. Of 8081 patients (139 sites), 3102 (38%) received a NT. NT use increased annually (IRR 1.14, 95% confidence interval [1.07, 1.22]). NT receipt was similar between Non-Hispanic-Whites and POC (IRR 1.03, [0.91, 1.17]) and as age increased (IRR 1.02 [0.97, 1.07]). At community sites, Non-Hispanic-Whites were less likely to receive venetoclax (OR 0.77 [0.66, 0.91]); older age (OR 1.05 [1.04, 1.05]) and higher area-level SES were associated with venetoclax receipt (OR 1.23 [1.05, 1.43]). Early NT adopting sites had more prescribing physicians (OR 1.25 [1.13, 1.43]) and higher SES strata patients (OR 2.81 [1.08, 7.66]). Inequities in AML NT uptake were seen by SES; for venetoclax, differential uptake reflects its label indication for older adults and those with comorbidities.

National Cancer Institute Centers With Environmental Sustainability Plans for Climate Change.

This qualitative study investigates environmental sustainability plans at National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers and affiliated institutions.

Inequities in Alliance Acute Leukemia Clinical Trial and Biobank Participation: Defining Targets for Intervention.

PURPOSE: Representativeness in acute leukemia clinical research is essential for achieving health equity. The National Cancer Institute's mandate for Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) to define and assume responsibility for cancer control and treatment across a geographic catchment area provides an enforceable mechanism to target and potentially remediate participatory inequities. METHODS: We examined enrollee characteristics across 15 Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance cooperative group adult acute leukemia clinical trials (N = 3,734) from 1998 to 2013, including participation in optional companion biobanks. We determined enrollment odds by race-ethnicity for all participants adjusted for national incidence, and for those enrolled at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence. We modeled biobank participation by sociodemographics using logistic regression. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic (NH)-White patients were more likely to be enrolled than NH-Black, NH-Asian, or Hispanic patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.75, 0.48, and 0.44, respectively; all P < .001), but less likely than NH-Native American patients (OR, 1.91; P < .001), adjusted for national incidence. Enrollment odds were lower for NH-Black, NH-Asian, and Hispanic patients at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence (OR, 0.57, 0.26, and 0.32, respectively; P < .001); differences were driven by overenrollment of NH-White patients from outside self-defined catchment areas (18.1% v 12.3%; χ2 P = .01) and by CCCs with less absolute enrollee diversity (rank sum P = .03). Among all enrollees, NH-White race-ethnicity and lower neighborhood deprivation correlated with biobank participation (OR, 1.81 and 1.45, respectively; P = .01 and .03). For CCC enrollees, the correlation of race-ethnicity with biobank participation was attenuated by a measure accounting for their site's degree of enrollment disparity but not neighborhood deprivation. CONCLUSION: Acute leukemia clinical research disparities are substantial and driven by structural trial enrollment barriers at CCCs. Real-time CCC access and enrollment monitoring is needed to better align research participation with local populations.

Impact of Allocation on Survival During Intermittent Chemotherapy Shortages: A Modeling Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent shortages of chemotherapeutics used to treat curable malignancies are a worldwide problem that increases patient mortality. Although multiple strategies have been proposed for managing these shortages (eg, prioritizing patients by age, scarce treatment efficacy per volume, alternative treatment efficacy difference), critical clinical dilemmas arise when selecting a management strategy and understanding its impact. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a model to compare the impact of different allocation strategies on overall survival during intermittent chemotherapy shortages and tested it using vincristine, which was recently scarce for 9 months in the United States. Demographic and treatment data were abstracted from 1,689 previously treated patients in our tertiary-care system; alternatives were abstracted from NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for each disease and survival probabilities from the studies cited therein. Modeled survival was validated using SEER data. Nine-month shortages were modeled for all possible supply levels. Pairwise differences in 3-year survival and risk reductions were calculated for each strategy compared with standard practice (first-come, first-served) for each 50-mg supply increment, as were supply thresholds above which each strategy maintained survival similar to scenarios without shortages. RESULTS: A strategy prioritizing by higher vincristine efficacy per volume and greater alternative treatment efficacy difference performed best, improving survival significantly (P<.01) across 86.5% of possible shortages (relative risk reduction, 8.3%; 99% CI, 8.0-8.5) compared with standard practice. This strategy also maintained survival rates similar to a model without shortages until supply fell below 72.2% of the amount required to treat all patients, compared with 94.3% for standard practice. CONCLUSIONS: During modeled vincristine shortages, prioritizing patients by higher efficacy per volume and alternative treatment efficacy difference significantly improved survival over standard practice. This approach can help optimize allocation as intermittent chemotherapy shortages continue to arise.

Racial and ethnic enrollment disparities and demographic reporting requirements in acute leukemia clinical trials.

Data regarding racial and ethnic enrollment diversity for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) clinical trials in the United States are limited, and little is known about the effect of federal reporting requirements instituted in the late 2000s. We examined demographic data reporting and enrollment diversity for ALL and AML trials in the United States from 2002 to 2017, as well as changes in reporting and diversity after reporting requirements were instituted. Of 223 AML trials and 97 ALL trials with results on ClinicalTrials.gov, 68 (30.5%) and 51 (52.6%) reported enrollment by both race and ethnicity. Among trials that reported race and ethnicity (AML, n = 6554; ALL, n = 4149), non-Hispanic (NH)-Black, NH-Native American, NH-Asian, and Hispanic patients had significantly lower enrollment compared with NH-White patients after adjusting for race-ethnic disease incidence (AML odds ratio, 0.68, 0.31, 0.75, and 0.83, respectively; ALL odds ratio, 0.74, 0.27, 0.67, and 0.64; all, P ≤ .01). The proportion of trials reporting race increased significantly after implementation of the reporting requirements (44.2% to 60.2%; P = .02), but race-ethnicity reporting did not (34.8% to 38.6%; P = .57). Reporting proportions according to number of patients enrolled increased significantly after the reporting requirements were instituted (race, 51.7% to 72.7%; race-ethnicity, 39.5% to 45.4%; both, P < .001), and relative enrollment of NH-Black and Hispanic patients decreased (AML odds ratio, 0.79 and 0.77; ALL odds ratio, 0.35 and 0.25; both P ≤ .01). These data suggest that demographic enrollment reporting for acute leukemia trials is suboptimal, changes in diversity after the reporting requirements may be due to additional enrollment disparities that were previously unreported, and enrollment diversification strategies specific to acute leukemia care delivery are needed.

Peri-transfusion quality-of-life assessment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) receive red cell transfusions to relieve symptoms associated with anemia, with transfusions triggered by hemoglobin level. It is not known if patients' quality of life (QOL) improves after transfusion, nor if peri-transfusion QOL assessment (PTQA) can guide future transfusion decisions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study of adults with MDS at three centers. Participants, who had to have hemoglobin ≥7.5, completed an MDS-specific measure of QOL (the Quality of Life in Myelodysplasia Scale, [QUALMS]) 1 day before and 7 days after red cell transfusion. A report was sent to each patient and provider before the next transfusion opportunity, indicating whether there were clinically significant changes in QOL. We assessed the proportion of patients experiencing changes in QOL, and with a follow-up questionnaire, whether they perceived their PTQA data were used for future transfusion decisions. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2020, 62 patients enrolled (mean age 73 years) and 37 completed both pre- and post-transfusion QOL assessments. Of these, 35% experienced a clinically significant increase in QUALMS score 7 days after transfusion; 46% no change; and 19% a decrease. Among those completing the follow-up questionnaire, 23% reported that PTQA results were discussed by their provider when considering repeat transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest PTQA is feasible for patients with MDS. Moreover, while helpful for some, for many others, red cell transfusion may not achieve its intended goal of improving QOL. PTQA offers a strategy to inform shared decision-making regarding red cell transfusion.

US State Government Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines: Implications for Patients With Cancer.

Importance: State crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines in the US allocate scarce health care resources among patients. Anecdotal reports suggest that guidelines may disproportionately allocate resources away from patients with cancer, but no comprehensive evaluation has been performed. Objective: To examine the implications of US state CSC guidelines for patients with cancer, including allocation methods, cancer-related categorical exclusions and deprioritizations, and provisions for blood products and palliative care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional population-based analysis examined state-endorsed CSC guidelines published before May 20, 2020, that included health care resource allocation recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Guideline publication before or within 120 days after the first documented US case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), inclusion of cancer-related categorical exclusions and/or deprioritizations, provisions for blood products and/or palliative care, and associations between these outcomes and state-based cancer demographics. Results: Thirty-one states had health care resource allocation guidelines that met inclusion criteria, of which 17 had been published or updated since the first US case of COVID-19. States whose available hospital bed capacity was predicted to exceed 100% at 6 months (χ2 = 3.82; P = .05) or that had a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC; χ2 = 6.21; P = .01) were more likely to have publicly available guidelines. The most frequent primary methods of prioritization were the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (27 states [87%]) and deprioritizing persons with worse long-term prognoses (22 states [71%]). Seventeen states' (55%) allocation methods included cancer-related deprioritizations, and 8 states (26%) included cancer-related categorical exclusions. The presence of an in-state CCC was associated with lower likelihood of cancer-related categorical exclusions (multivariable odds ratio, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.004-0.87]). Guidelines with disability rights statements were associated with specific provisions to allocate blood products (multivariable odds ratio, 7.44 [95% CI, 1.28-43.24). Both the presence of an in-state CCC and having an oncologist and/or palliative care specialist on the state CSC task force were associated with the inclusion of palliative care provisions. Conclusions and Relevance: Among states with CSC guidelines, most deprioritized some patients with cancer during resource allocation, and one-fourth categorically excluded them. The presence of an in-state CCC was associated with guideline availability, palliative care provisions, and lower odds of cancer-related exclusions. These data suggest that equitable state-level CSC considerations for patients with cancer benefit from the input of oncology stakeholders.