Precision medicine and the principle of equal treatment: a conjoint analysis
BMC Medical Ethics - 2021
Tóm tắt
In precision medicine biomarkers stratify patients into groups that are offered different treatments, but this may conflict with the principle of equal treatment. While some patient characteristics are seen as relevant for unequal treatment and others not, it is known that they all may influence treatment decisions. How biomarkers influence these decisions is not known, nor is their ethical relevance well discussed. We distributed an email survey designed to elicit treatment preferences from Norwegian doctors working with cancer patients. In a forced-choice conjoint analysis pairs of hypothetical patients were presented, and we calculated the average marginal component effect of seven individual patient characteristics, to estimate how each of them influence doctors’ priority-setting decisions. A positive biomarker status increased the probability of being allocated the new drug, while older age, severe comorbidity and reduced physical function reduced the probability. Importantly, sex, education level and smoking status had no significant influence on the decision. Biomarker status is perceived as relevant for priority setting decisions, alongside more well-known patient characteristics like age, physical function and comorbidity. Based on our results, we discuss a framework that can help clarify whether biomarker status should be seen as an ethically acceptable factor for providing unequal treatment to patients with the same disease.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Singer P. Practical ethics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
Kieslich K, Bump JB, Norheim OF, Tantivess S, Littlejohns P. Accounting for technical, ethical, and political factors in priority setting. Health Syst Reform. 2016;2(1):51–60.
Norheim OF. Clinical priority setting. BMJ. 2008;337:a1846.
Pal SK, Hurria A. Impact of age, sex, and comorbidity on cancer therapy and disease progression. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(26):4086–93.
Lee L, Cheung WY, Atkinson E, Krzyzanowska MK. Impact of comorbidity on chemotherapy use and outcomes in solid tumors: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2010;24:2304–10.
Nilssen Y, Strand T-E, Fjellbirkeland L, Bartnes K, Brustugun OT, O’Connell DL, et al. Lung cancer treatment is influenced by income, education, age and place of residence in a country with universal health coverage. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(6):1350–60.
Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793–5.
US Food and Drug Administration. US food and drug administration: precision medicine. 2018 [cited 6 Sep 2020]. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/vitro-diagnostics/precision-medicine.
Hyman DM, Taylor BS, Baselga J. Implementing genome-driven oncology. Cell. 2017;168(4):584–99.
Kerr KM, Bubendorf L, Edelman MJ, Marchetti A, Mok T, Novello S, et al. Second ESMO consensus conference on lung cancer: pathology and molecular biomarkers for non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(9):1681–90.
Abreu FD, Schwartz GN, Wells WA, Tsongalis GJ. Personalized therapy for breast cancer. Clin Genet. 2014;86(1):62–7.
Michielin O, van Akkooi ACJ, Ascierto PA, Dummer R, Keilholz U. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(12):1884–901.
Patel SP, Kurzrock R. PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in cancer immunotherapy. Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14(4):847LP-856LP.
Prasad V, Kaestner V, Mailankody S. Cancer drugs approved based on biomarkers and not tumor type—FDA approval of pembrolizumab for mismatch repair-deficient solid cancers. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(2):157–8.
Chatterjee SK, Zetter BR. Cancer biomarkers: knowing the present and predicting the future. Futur Oncol. 2005;1(1):37–50.
Tranvåg EJ, Norheim OF. How can boimarkers influence priority setting for cancer drugs? In: Blanchard A, Strand R, editors. Cancer biomarkers: ethics, economics and society. 2nd ed. Kokstand: Megaloceros; 2017. p. 55–72.
Blanchard A. Mapping ethical and social aspects of cancer biomarkers. N Biotechnol. 2016;33(6):763–72.
Bien DR, Danner M, Vennedey V, Civello D, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M. Patients’ preferences for outcome, process and cost attributes in cancer treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2017;10(5):553–65.
Sun H, Wang H, Shi L, Wang M, Li J, Shi J, et al. Physician preferences for chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in China: evidence from multicentre discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2):e032336.
Morgan JL, Walters SJ, Collins K, Robinson TG, Cheung K-L, Audisio R, et al. What influences healthcare professionals’ treatment preferences for older women with operable breast cancer? An application of the discrete choice experiment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(7):1282–7.
Hopmans W, Zwaan L, Senan S, van der Wulp I, Damman OC, Hartemink KJ, et al. Differences between pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons and radiation oncologists in deciding on the treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a binary choice experiment. Radiother Oncol. 2015;115(3):361–6.
Jönsson B, Wilking N. The burden and cost of cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(suppl 3):iii8-22.
Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, Zalcberg J, Meropol NJ, Amir E, et al. Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(10):933–80.
Vokinger KN, Hwang TJ, Grischott T, Reichert S, Tibau A, Rosemann T, et al. Prices and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a cost–benefit analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(5):664–70.
Meld.St.34. Verdier i pasientens helsetjeneste [Values in the patient’s health care]. Oslo: regjeringen.no; 2016 Jun. 2015–2016.
Ottersen T, Førde R, Kakad M, Kjellevold A, Melberg HO, Moen A, et al. A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: open and fair. Health Policy (New York). 2016;120(3):246–51.
The Norwegian Directorate of Health. The New Methods System. 2020 [cited 6 Sep 2020]. www.nyemetoder.no/english.
Aviram H. What would you Do? Conducting web-based factorial vignette surveys. In: 2012. p. 463–73.
Kulshreshtha K, Tripathi V, Bajpai N. 1971–2017: Evolution, exploration and test of time of conjoint analysis. Qual Quant. 2018;52(6):2893–919.
Kulshreshtha K, Bajpai N, Tripathi V, Sharma G. Consumer preference for eco-friendly appliances in trade-off: a conjoint analysis approach. Int J Prod Dev. 2019;23(2–3):212–43.
Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530–3.
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–26.
Hainmueller J, Hopkins DJ, Yamamoto T. Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Polit Anal. 2014;22(1):1–30.
Awad E, Dsouza S, Kim R, Schulz J, Henrich J, Shariff A, et al. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature. 2018;563(7729):59–64.
Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Heal. 2011;14(4):403–13.
Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.
Leaper TJ. cregg: simple conjoint analysis and visualization. R package 0.3.6. 2020. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cregg/index.html.
Ministry of Health and Care Services. Act on medical and health research (the Health Research Act) [Internet]. 2009. p. LOV-2008-06-20-44.
Ottersen T. Greater benefits and the worse off: specifying and balancing priority-setting principles in health [dissertation]. Bergen: University of Bergen; 2013.
Garon EB, Rizvi NA, Hui R, Leighl N, Balmanoukian AS, Eder JP, et al. Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(21):2018–28.
Bognar G. Fair innings. Bioethics. 2015;29(4):251–61.
Tsuchiya A, Dolan P, Shaw R. Measuring people’s preferences regarding ageism in health: some methodological issues and some fresh evidence. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(4):687–96.
Williams A. The rationing debate: rationing health care by age: the case for. BMJ. 1997;314(7083):820.
Archard D, Caplan A. Is it wrong to prioritise younger patients with covid-19? BMJ. 2020;369:m1509.
NOU 2014:12. Åpent og rettferdig - prioriteringer i helsetjenesten [Open and fair - priority setting in the health service]. Norges offentlige utredninger. Oslo: Helse- og sosialdepartementet; 2014.
Tranvåg EJ, Norheim OF, Ottersen T. Clinical decision making in cancer care: a review of current and future roles of patient age. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):546.
Harris J. The value of life—an introduction to medical ethics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1985.
Tsuchiya A. QALYs and ageism: philosophical theories and age weighting. Health Econ. 2000;9(1):57–68.
Rivlin M. Why the fair innings argument is not persuasive. BMC Med Ethics. 2000;1(1):1.
Rivlin M. Protecting elderly people: flaws in ageist arguments. BMJ. 1995;310(6988):1179–82.
Majewski IJ, Bernards R. Taming the dragon: genomic biomarkers to individualize the treatment of cancer. Nat Med. 2011;17(3):304.
Wieseler B, McGauran N, Kaiser T. New drugs: where did we go wrong and what can we do better? BMJ. 2019;366:4340.
Davis C, Naci H, Gurpinar E, Poplavska E, Pinto A, Aggarwal A. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009–13. BMJ. 2017;359:4530.
Kemp R, Prasad V. Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused? BMC Med. 2017;15(1):134.
Prasad V, Kim C, Burotto M, Vandross A. The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology: a systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1389–98.
Hwang TJ, Gyawali B. Association between progression-free survival and patients’ quality of life in cancer clinical trials. Int J Cancer. 2019;144(7):1746–51.
Moscow JA, Fojo T, Schilsky RL. The evidence framework for precision cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(3):183.
Kimmelman J, Tannock I. The paradox of precision medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(6):341.
Fleck LM. Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine: wicked problems, ragged edges and ethical precipices. N Biotechnol. 2012;29(6):757–68.
Holm S. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ. 1998;317:1000–1.
Chung C. To do or not to do: a concise update of current clinical controversies in immune checkpoint blockade. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2018;25(3):663–73.
Kerr KM, Tsao M-S, Nicholson AG, Yatabe Y, Wistuba II, Hirsch FR. Programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry in lung cancer: in what state is this art? J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10(7):985–9.
Planchard D, Popat S, Kerr KM, Novello S, Smit EF, Faivre-Finn C, et al. Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(5):863–70.
Hofmann BM. Too much technology. BMJ. 2015;350:750.
De la Cuesta B, Egami N, Imai K. Improving the external validity of conjoint analysis: the essential role of profile distribution. Working paper; 2019.
Workman P, Draetta GF, Schellens JHM, Bernards R. How much longer will we put up with $100,000 cancer drugs? Cell. 2017;168(4):579–83.
Cohen D. Cancer drugs: high price, uncertain value. BMJ. 2017;359:4543.
Dykema J, Jones NR, Piché T, Stevenson J. Surveying clinicians by web: current issues in design and administration. Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(3):352–81.
Cunningham CT, Quan H, Hemmelgarn B, Noseworthy T, Beck CA, Dixon E, et al. Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):32.
Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys: a review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(1):61–7.