Toward a Tiered Model to Share Clinical Trial Data and Samples in Precision Oncology

The recent revolution in science and technology applied to medical research has left in its wake a trial of biomedical data and human samples; however, its opportunities remain largely unfulfilled due to a number of legal, ethical, financial, strategic, and technical barriers. Precision oncology has been at the vanguard to leverage this potential of “Big data” and samples into meaningful solutions for patients, considering the need for new drug development approaches in this area (due to high costs, late-stage failures, and the molecular diversity of cancer). To harness the potential of the vast quantities of data and samples currently fragmented across databases and biobanks, it is critical to engage all stakeholders and share data and samples across research institutes. Here, we identified two general types of sharing strategies. First, open access models, characterized by the absence of any review panel or decision maker, and second controlled access model where some form of control is exercised by either the donor (i.e., patient), the data provider (i.e., initial organization), or an independent party. Further, we theoretically describe and provide examples of nine different strategies focused on greater sharing of patient data and material. These models provide varying levels of control, access to various data and/or samples, and different types of relationship between the donor, data provider, and data requester. We propose a tiered model to share clinical data and samples that takes into account privacy issues and respects sponsors’ legitimate interests. Its implementation would contribute to maximize the value of existing datasets, enabling unraveling the complexity of tumor biology, identify novel biomarkers, and re-direct treatment strategies better, ultimately to help patients with cancer.

[1]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  Toward efficient trials in colorectal cancer: the ARCAD Clinical Trials Program. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research , 2014, The Lancet.

[3]  Misha Angrist,et al.  Personal genomes in progress: from the Human Genome Project to the Personal Genome Project , 2010, Dialogues in clinical neuroscience.

[4]  Lee Murray,et al.  The 100,000 Genomes Project , 2015 .

[5]  Helen E. Parkinson,et al.  The new NHGRI-EBI Catalog of published genome-wide association studies (GWAS Catalog) , 2016, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  G. Tortora,et al.  EGFR antagonists in cancer treatment. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Sean Khozin,et al.  Advantages of a Truly Open-Access Data-Sharing Model. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  E. Zerhouni,et al.  The role of public–private partnerships in addressing the biomedical innovation challenge , 2014, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[9]  A. Breckenridge,et al.  Open Clinical Trial Data for All? A View from Regulators , 2012, PLoS medicine.

[10]  Mark Barnes,et al.  A Global, Neutral Platform for Sharing Trial Data. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Michael Morrison,et al.  Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks , 2014, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[12]  John A Spertus,et al.  The double-edged sword of open access to research data. , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[13]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  Shaping the future of biomarker research in breast cancer to ensure clinical relevance , 2007, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[14]  Arcadi Navarro,et al.  The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research , 2015, Nature Genetics.

[15]  Erik Schultes,et al.  The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.

[16]  C Sotiriou,et al.  The AURORA initiative for metastatic breast cancer , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.

[17]  Sabine Tejpar,et al.  Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. , 2010, The Lancet. Oncology.

[18]  S. Gabriel,et al.  Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumor types , 2014, Nature.

[19]  S. Beck,et al.  Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research , 2017, BMC Medical Ethics.

[20]  Gil Alterovitz,et al.  All the World's a Stage: Facilitating Discovery Science and Improved Cancer Care through the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. , 2015, Cancer discovery.

[21]  Richard L Schilsky,et al.  Clinical cancer advances 2015: Annual report on progress against cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  David Haussler,et al.  Sharing Clinical and Genomic Data on Cancer - The Need for Global Solutions. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  J. Tabernero,et al.  Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  Robert W. Corty,et al.  The project data sphere initiative: accelerating cancer research by sharing data. , 2015, The oncologist.

[25]  Balwir Matharoo-Ball,et al.  Biobanking from the patient perspective , 2015, Research Involvement and Engagement.

[26]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  The ARCAD clinical trials program: an update and invitation. , 2012, The oncologist.

[27]  Ulrich Keilholz,et al.  The combinatorial complexity of cancer precision medicine , 2014, Oncoscience.

[28]  B. Fitzgerald Guidance Regarding Methods for De-identification of Protected Health Information in Accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule , 2015 .

[29]  Michael J Pencina,et al.  Supporting open access to clinical trial data for researchers: The Duke Clinical Research Institute-Bristol-Myers Squibb Supporting Open Access to Researchers Initiative. , 2016, American heart journal.

[30]  Charles C. Persinger,et al.  How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[31]  Sabine Tejpar,et al.  European perspective for effective cancer drug development , 2014, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[32]  D A Flockhart,et al.  Personal DNA Donation to Energize Genomic Medicine , 2014, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[33]  Mark R. Trusheim,et al.  Stratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers , 2007, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[34]  Robert E. Hewitt,et al.  Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine , 2011, Current opinion in oncology.

[35]  Sean Khozin,et al.  Regulatory watch: From big data to smart data: FDA's INFORMED initiative , 2017, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[36]  Kelly Edwards,et al.  From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research , 2012, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[37]  International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome , 2001, Nature.

[38]  Mark Barnes,et al.  Preparing for responsible sharing of clinical trial data. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[39]  J. Scannell,et al.  Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency , 2012, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[40]  Jedd D. Wolchok,et al.  The future of cancer treatment: immunomodulation, CARs and combination immunotherapy , 2016, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[41]  Lesley Seymour,et al.  Role of KRAS and EGFR as biomarkers of response to erlotinib in National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[42]  K. Sirotkin,et al.  The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[43]  N. Cohen,et al.  Open innovation networks between academia and industry: an imperative for breakthrough therapies , 2009, Nature Medicine.

[44]  M. Parmar,et al.  Sharing data from clinical trials: the rationale for a controlled access approach , 2015, Trials.

[45]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Good practice principles for sharing individual participant data from publicly funded clinical trials , 2015, Trials.

[46]  Ira Shoulson,et al.  Approaches and costs for sharing clinical research data. , 2014, JAMA.

[47]  Ari B Friedman Preparing for responsible sharing of clinical trial data. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[48]  Bart Van Looy,et al.  Intellectual property policies in early-phase research in public–private partnerships , 2016, Nature Biotechnology.

[49]  Gil McVean,et al.  The 100,000 Genomes Project Protocol , 2017 .

[50]  J Cuzick,et al.  Improving decision making about clinical trial participation – a randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for women considering participation in the IBIS-II breast cancer prevention trial , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.

[51]  Neil Savage Getting Data Sharing Right to Help Fulfill the Promise of Cancer Genomics , 2017, Cell.

[52]  Andrew V. Biankin,et al.  The Challenges of Precision Oncology Drug Development and Implementation , 2015, Public Health Genomics.

[53]  Michiel Verlinden,et al.  Access to biobanks: harmonization across biobank initiatives. , 2014, Biopreservation and biobanking.

[54]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  The Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project--A Mechanism for Data Sharing. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[55]  David P Carbone Epidermal growth factor receptor overexpression: the importance of context. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[56]  Mercè Crosas,et al.  Data Authorship as an Incentive to Data Sharing. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[57]  Zhiwei Steven Wu,et al.  Privacy-Preserving Generative Deep Neural Networks Support Clinical Data Sharing , 2017, bioRxiv.

[58]  E. Hafen,et al.  Health Data Cooperatives – Citizen Empowerment , 2014, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[59]  Peter Høngaard Andersen,et al.  Priorities for improving drug research, development and regulation , 2013, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[60]  Sigrid Sterckx,et al.  Access to human tissues for research and product development , 2015, EMBO reports.

[61]  Andreas Busch,et al.  Industry–academia collaborations for biomarkers , 2015, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[62]  David J. Kerr,et al.  Clinical cancer research: the past, present and the future , 2014, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[63]  Rachel G Liao,et al.  A federated ecosystem for sharing genomic, clinical data , 2016, Science.

[64]  VerlindenMichiel,et al.  Access to biobanks: harmonization across biobank initiatives. , 2014 .

[65]  S. Hollingsworth,et al.  Precision medicine in oncology drug development: a pharma perspective. , 2015, Drug discovery today.

[66]  Frank Rockhold,et al.  Data Sharing at a Crossroads. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[67]  Richard L Schilsky,et al.  Cetuximab in the treatment of colorectal cancer. , 2004, Clinical advances in hematology & oncology : H&O.