Ethical Hurdles in the Prioritization of Oncology Care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: de Groot F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5343076 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Ethical Hurdles in the Prioritization of Oncology Care.
de Groot Folkert F Capri Stefano S Castanier Jean-Claude JC Cunningham David D Flamion Bruno B Flume Mathias M Herholz Harald H Levin Lars-Åke LÅ Solà-Morales Oriol O Rupprecht Christoph J CJ Shalet Natalie N Walker Andrew A Wong Olivier O
Applied health economics and health policy 20170401 2
With finite resources, healthcare payers must make difficult choices regarding spending and the ethical distribution of funds. Here, we describe some of the ethical issues surrounding inequity in healthcare in nine major European countries, using cancer care as an example. To identify relevant studies, we conducted a systematic literature search. The results of the literature review suggest that although prevention, access to early diagnosis, and radiotherapy are key factors associated with good ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNovel precision oncology trial designs, such as basket and umbrella trials, are designed to test new anticancer agents in more effective and affordable ways. However, they present some ethical concerns referred to scientific validity, risk-benefit balance and informed consent. Our aim is to discuss these issues in basket and umbrella trials, giving examples of two ongoing cancer trials: NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute - Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) and Lung-MAP (Lung Cancer Master Protocol) study.Main bodyWe discuss three ethical requirements for clinical trials which may be challenged in basket and umbrella trial designs. Firstly, we consider scientific validity. Thanks to the new trial designs, patients with rare malignancies have the opportunity to be enrolled and benefit from the trial, but due to insufficient accrual, the trial may generate clinically insignificant findings. Inadequate sample size in study arms and the use of surrogate endpoints may result in a drug approval without confirmed efficacy. Moreover, complexity, limited quality and availability of tumor samples may not only introduce bias and result in unreliable and unrepresentative findings, but also can potentially harm patients and assign them to an inappropriate therapy arm. Secondly, we refer to benefits and risks. Novel clinical trials can gain important knowledge on the variety of tumors, which can be used in future trials to develop effective therapies. However, they offer limited direct benefits to patients. All potential participants must wait about 2 weeks for the results of the genetic screening, which may be stressful and produce anxiety. The enrollment of patients whose tumors harbor multiple mutations in treatments matching a single mutation may be controversial. As to informed consent - the third requirement we discuss, the excessive use of phrases like "personalized medicine", "tailored therapy" or "precision oncology" might be misleading and cause personal convictions that the study protocol is designed to fulfill the individual health-related needs of participants.ConclusionsWe suggest that further approaches should be implemented to enhance scientific validity, reduce misunderstandings and risks, thus maximizing the benefits to society and to trial participants.
| S-EPMC6708208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis qualitative study examined ethical challenges reported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in a large Australian pediatric oncology center during a period of strict COVID-19 restrictions.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 HCPs who provided pediatric cancer care during the pandemic in 2020, during strict lockdown periods. Interviews examined the difficulties they faced, as well as their own ethical evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 policies on oncology care. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis and thematic analysis.ResultsHCPs faced several challenges, primarily originating from hospital restrictions, which led to changes in usual clinical practices. These challenges included delivering care with personal protective equipment (PPE), the impact of a one-parent visitation policy, changes in psychosocial and allied health services, and COVID-19 swabbing policies. Overall, there was consensus from participants that hospital restrictions were justified and, while difficult, HCPs simply had to provide the best care possible given the circumstances. However, participants described decreased capacity to deliver holistic patient care and, in some instances, a tendency to avoid ethical reflection. Lastly, there was a consistent theme of shame and sense of responsibility underlying some participants' anxiety around inadvertently transmitting COVID-19 to immunocompromised patients.ConclusionOur findings show that many staff felt unease at the disruptions in patient care due to COVID-19 restrictions. Some HCPs indicated a degree of moral distress, with a possibility of moral injury among some HCPs. A focus on ethical recovery could assist in preventing any ongoing difficulties among HCPs because of their experiences.
| S-EPMC9878045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prioritizing molecular alterations that act as drivers of cancer remains a crucial bottleneck in therapeutic development. Here we introduce HIT'nDRIVE, a computational method that integrates genomic and transcriptomic data to identify a set of patient-specific, sequence-altered genes, with sufficient collective influence over dysregulated transcripts. HIT'nDRIVE aims to solve the "random walk facility location" (RWFL) problem in a gene (or protein) interaction network, which differs from the standard facility location problem by its use of an alternative distance measure: "multihitting time," the expected length of the shortest random walk from any one of the set of sequence-altered genes to an expression-altered target gene. When applied to 2200 tumors from four major cancer types, HIT'nDRIVE revealed many potentially clinically actionable driver genes. We also demonstrated that it is possible to perform accurate phenotype prediction for tumor samples by only using HIT'nDRIVE-seeded driver gene modules from gene interaction networks. In addition, we identified a number of breast cancer subtype-specific driver modules that are associated with patients' survival outcome. Furthermore, HIT'nDRIVE, when applied to a large panel of pan-cancer cell lines, accurately predicted drug efficacy using the driver genes and their seeded gene modules. Overall, HIT'nDRIVE may help clinicians contextualize massive multiomics data in therapeutic decision making, enabling widespread implementation of precision oncology.
| S-EPMC5580716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MotivationIdentifying appropriate pharmacotherapy options from genomics results is a significant challenge in personalized oncology. However, computational methods for prioritizing drugs are underdeveloped. With the hypothesis that network-based approaches can improve the performance by extending the use of potential drug targets beyond direct interactions, we devised two network-based methods for personalized pharmacotherapy prioritization in cancer.ResultsWe developed novel personalized drug prioritization approaches, PANACEA: PersonAlized Network-based Anti-Cancer therapy EvaluAtion. In PANACEA, initially, the protein interaction network is extended with drugs, and a driverness score is assigned to each altered gene. For scoring drugs, either (i) the 'distance-based' method, incorporating the shortest distance between drugs and altered genes, and driverness scores, or (ii) the 'propagation' method involving the propagation of driverness scores via a random walk with restart framework is performed. We evaluated PANACEA using multiple datasets, and demonstrated that (i) the top-ranking drugs are relevant for cancer pharmacotherapy using TCGA data; (ii) drugs that cancer cell lines are sensitive to are identified using GDSC data; and (iii) PANACEA can perform adequately in the clinical setting using cases with known drug responses. We also illustrate that the proposed methods outperform iCAGES and PanDrugs, two previous personalized drug prioritization approaches.Availability and implementationThe corresponding R package is available on GitHub. (https://github.com/egeulgen/PANACEA.git).Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
| S-EPMC9869653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Religion is increasingly significant in UK society, and is highly significant for many patients and primary care practitioners. An important task for the practitioner is to ensure that the place of religion in the patient/practitioner relationship is treated with the same ethical seriousness as every other aspect of that relationship. The article finds the 'four principles of biomedical ethics' to be applicable, and recent GMC guidelines to be consistent with the four principles. The article applies the four principles to the particular case of practitioners wearing religious symbolism.
| S-EPMC5537594 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn Canada, requests for public reimbursement of cancer drugs are predominately initiated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinician-led submissions provide a mechanism to initiate the drug funding process when industry does not submit a request for funding consideration. Although such requests are resource-intensive to produce, Cancer Care Ontario (cco) has the capacity to facilitate clinician-led submissions. In 2014, cco began developing a cancer drug prioritization framework that allocates resources to systematically address a growing number of clinician-identified funding gaps with clinician-led submissions.MethodsCancer site-specific drug advisory committees established by cco consist of health care practitioners whose roles include identifying and prioritizing funding gaps. The committees submit their identified gaps to a cross-cancer-site prioritization exercise in which the requests are ranked based on a set of guiding principles derived from health technology assessment. The requests are then sequentially allocated the resources needed to meet submission requirements. Whether the funding gap is of provincial or pan-Canadian relevance determines where the submission is filed for assessment.ResultsSince its inception, the cco framework has identified 17 funding gaps in 9 cancer sites. In 4 prioritizations, the framework supported 6 submissions. As of June 2018, the framework had contributed to the eventual funding of more than 9 new drug-indication pairs, with more awaiting funding consideration.ConclusionsThe cco prioritization framework has enabled clinicians to effectively and systematically identify, prioritize, and fill funding gaps not addressed by industry. Ultimately, the framework helps to ensure that patients can access evidence-informed and cost-effective therapies. The framework will continue to evolve as it encounters new challenges, including funding requests for rare indications.
| S-EPMC6476458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical Ethics Support Services (CESS) have been established to support healthcare professionals in addressing ethically sensitive issues in clinical practice and, in many countries, they are under development. In the context of growing CESS, exploring how healthcare professionals experience and address clinical ethics issues in their daily practice represents a fundamental step to understand their potential needs. This is even more relevant in the context of extremely sensitive diseases, such as cancer. On this basis, we carried out a qualitative study conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders of a major comprehensive cancer centre in Italy, with the twofold aim of investigating what ethical issues arise in the context of clinical oncology and how they are addressed, as well as stakeholders' expectations about a potential CESS to be implemented within the Institution.MethodsThe study was conducted within the theoretical framework of Grounded Theory. Participants were healthcare professionals and other key stakeholders working within the cancer centre. The semi-structured interview aimed at exploring common ethical aspects of oncology, investigating stakeholders' professional experience in dealing with clinical ethics issues, their expectations and requests regarding ethics support services. Transcripts of the interviews were coded and analysed according to the principles of Grounded Theory.ResultsTwenty-one stakeholders were interviewed. Our analysis showed a wide consensus on the identification of ethically relevant issues, above all those concerning communication, end-of-life, and resource allocation. The absence of institutional tools or strategies to address and manage ethical issues at the patient bedside emerged, and this is reflected in the widespread request for their development in the future. The ideal support service should be fast and flexible in order to adapt to different needs and clinical cases.ConclusionsThe interviewees showed a limited degree of 'ethical awareness': despite having reported many issues in clinical practice, they could hardly identify and describe the ethical aspects, while complaining about a lack of ethical resources in their management. To build a truly effective support service, it therefore seems appropriate to take such context into consideration and address the emerged needs. Ethical sensitivity seems to be key and it becomes even more relevant in critical clinical areas, such as the therapeutic pathways of terminally ill patients.
| S-EPMC9248199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEliciting residents' priorities for their care is fundamental to delivering person-centred care in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Prioritization involves ordering different aspects of care in relation to one another by level of importance. By understanding residents' priorities, care can be tailored to residents' needs while considering practical limitations of RACFs.ObjectivesTo investigate aged care residents' prioritization of care.DesignA mixed-methods study comprising Q methodology and qualitative methods.Setting and participantsThirty-eight residents living in one of five Australian RACFs.MethodParticipants completed a card-sorting activity using Q methodology in which they ordered 34 aspects of care on a pre-defined grid by level of importance. Data were analysed using inverted factor analysis to identify factors representing shared viewpoints. Participants also completed a think-aloud task, demographic questionnaire, post-sorting interview and semi-structured interview. Inductive content analysis of qualitative data was conducted to interpret shared viewpoints and to identify influences on prioritization decision making.ResultsFour viewpoints on care prioritization were identified through Q methodology: Maintaining a sense of spirituality and self in residential care; information sharing and family involvement; self-reliance; and timely access to staff member support. Across the participant sample, residents prioritized being treated with respect, the management of medical conditions, and their independence. Inductive content analysis revealed four influences on prioritization decisions: level of dependency; dynamic needs; indifference; and availability of staff.ConclusionsRecommendations for providing care that align with residents' priorities include establishing open communication channels with residents, supporting residents' independence and enforcing safer staffing ratios.
| S-EPMC8077118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe structure of the HIV transmission networks can be dictated by just a few individuals. Public health intervention, such as ensuring people living with HIV adhere to antiretroviral therapy and remain virally suppressed, can help control the spread of the virus. However, such intervention requires using limited public health resource allocations. Determining which individuals are most at risk of transmitting HIV could allow public health officials to focus their limited resources on these individuals.SettingMolecular epidemiology can help prioritize people living with HIV by patterns of transmission inferred from their sampled viral sequences. Such prioritization has been previously suggested and performed by monitoring cluster growth. In this article, we introduce Prioritization using AnCesTral edge lengths (ProACT), a phylogenetic approach for prioritizing individuals living with HIV.MethodsProACT starts from a phylogeny inferred from sequence data and orders individuals according to their terminal branch length, breaking ties using ancestral branch lengths. We evaluated ProACT on a real data set of 926 HIV-1 subtype B pol data obtained in San Diego between 2005 and 2014 and a simulation data set modeling the same epidemic. Prioritization methods are compared by their ability to predict individuals who transmit most after the prioritization.ResultsAcross all simulation conditions and most real data sampling conditions, ProACT outperformed monitoring cluster growth for multiple metrics of prioritization efficacy.ConclusionThe simple strategy used by ProACT improves the effectiveness of prioritization compared with state-of-the-art methods that rely on monitoring the growth of transmission clusters defined based on genetic distance.
| S-EPMC7933099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ChatGPT has promising applications in health care, but potential ethical issues need to be addressed proactively to prevent harm. ChatGPT presents potential ethical challenges from legal, humanistic, algorithmic, and informational perspectives. Legal ethics concerns arise from the unclear allocation of responsibility when patient harm occurs and from potential breaches of patient privacy due to data collection. Clear rules and legal boundaries are needed to properly allocate liability and protect users. Humanistic ethics concerns arise from the potential disruption of the physician-patient relationship, humanistic care, and issues of integrity. Overreliance on artificial intelligence (AI) can undermine compassion and erode trust. Transparency and disclosure of AI-generated content are critical to maintaining integrity. Algorithmic ethics raise concerns about algorithmic bias, responsibility, transparency and explainability, as well as validation and evaluation. Information ethics include data bias, validity, and effectiveness. Biased training data can lead to biased output, and overreliance on ChatGPT can reduce patient adherence and encourage self-diagnosis. Ensuring the accuracy, reliability, and validity of ChatGPT-generated content requires rigorous validation and ongoing updates based on clinical practice. To navigate the evolving ethical landscape of AI, AI in health care must adhere to the strictest ethical standards. Through comprehensive ethical guidelines, health care professionals can ensure the responsible use of ChatGPT, promote accurate and reliable information exchange, protect patient privacy, and empower patients to make informed decisions about their health care.
| S-EPMC10457697 | biostudies-literature