This paper is in the following e-collections/theme issues:

Medicine 2.0: Social Media, Open, Participatory, Collaborative Medicine  Medicine 2.0'12 Boston (Full Paper of Conference Presentation) 


Advertisement: Preregister now for the Medicine 2.0 Congress



Article Thumbnail
Members can download this full article for Adobe PDF Format.
Membership provides unlimited access to all PDF files.
Or, ask your department head to become an institutional member.

For tax purposes please select your country and if applicable state/province of residence:
Buy Now (Pay-per-download for non-members):
Download Price (USD): $22.00

Viewpoint

Collaborative Biomedicine in the Age of Big Data: The Case of Cancer

Abdul R Shaikh1, MHSc, PhD; Atul J Butte2, MD, PhD; Sheri D Schully3, PhD; William S Dalton4, MD, PhD; Muin J Khoury3, MD, PhD; Bradford W Hesse3, PhD

1PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, McLean, VA, United States
2Division of Systems Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States
3Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States
4DeBartolo Family Personalized Medicine Institute at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States

Corresponding Author:
Abdul R Shaikh, MHSc, PhD

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1800 Tysons Boulevard
McLean, VA, 22102
United States
Phone: 1 301 448 0057
Fax: 1 416 340 3200
Email:



ABSTRACT

Biomedicine is undergoing a revolution driven by high throughput and connective computing that is transforming medical research and practice. Using oncology as an example, the speed and capacity of genomic sequencing technologies is advancing the utility of individual genetic profiles for anticipating risk and targeting therapeutics. The goal is to enable an era of “P4” medicine that will become increasingly more predictive, personalized, preemptive, and participative over time. This vision hinges on leveraging potentially innovative and disruptive technologies in medicine to accelerate discovery and to reorient clinical practice for patient-centered care. Based on a panel discussion at the Medicine 2.0 conference in Boston with representatives from the National Cancer Institute, Moffitt Cancer Center, and Stanford University School of Medicine, this paper explores how emerging sociotechnical frameworks, informatics platforms, and health-related policy can be used to encourage data liquidity and innovation. This builds on the Institute of Medicine’s vision for a “rapid learning health care system” to enable an open source, population-based approach to cancer prevention and control.

(J Med Internet Res 2014;16(4):e101)
doi:10.2196/jmir.2496

KEYWORDS

biomedical research; crowdsourcing; health information technology; innovation; precision medicine



Introduction

Biomedicine is undergoing a revolution driven by innovation in high throughput and connective computing [1,2], big data [3,4], and evolving models of individual and population care [5,6]. Emerging informatics technologies and platforms are being used to combine molecular, clinical, and population data to better anticipate risk, target therapeutics, and manage care for cancer and other diseases [6,7]. Based on a panel discussion at the 2012 Medicine 2.0 conference (5th World Congress on Social Media, Mobile Apps, and Internet/Web 2.0 in Health and Medicine) at the Harvard Medical School conference center in Boston with representatives from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC), and Stanford University School of Medicine, this paper explores how emerging technologies and innovative care models that build on the concepts of “P4” medicine (ie, predictive, personalized, preemptive, and participatory) [8] and the learning health care system [9] can help enable an open source, population-based approach to cancer prevention and control.


P4 Medicine and the Learning Health System

The growing speed and capacity of genomic sequencing technologies are advancing the utility of individual genetic profiles for anticipating risk and targeting therapeutics for cancer [10]. Combining the digital revolution with genomics and other “omics” fields, the term P4 medicine implies a systems approach to biology and medicine that brings together molecular immunology, advanced computation, biotechnology, and genomics, among other fields [8]. Standing for predictive profiles of risk, preventive clinical and wellness systems, personalized medicine, and participative research and practice, proponents of P4 medicine extend its purview beyond genomics to include multiple data vectors such as longitudinal molecular, cellular, and phenotypic data for predicting disease progression and targeting intervention [11]. Thus, P4 medicine is predicated on the notion that individual disease and broader notions of health and wellness can be quantified with advanced computation and informatics through systems approaches to decipher the inherent complexity of billions of data points surrounding patients in the future.

P4 medicine can be viewed in conjunction with the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) concept of a learning health system, which simultaneously links effective, efficient clinical health care to the biomedical research enterprise [12]. As presented in a draft proposal at the IOM National Cancer Policy Forum, the notion of a rapid learning health system for cancer utilizes basic translational, comparative effectiveness, and health services research synchronized with optimal delivery of precision care. This model of research and practice is based on two elements: (1) a sufficiently advanced digital health infrastructure that can fully utilize the phenomenon of (2) data liquidity, defined as “the rapid, seamless, secure exchange of useful, standards-based information among authorized individual and institutional senders and recipients” [13].

Both of these innovative approaches to health research and practice—P4 medicine and the learning health system—require robust technology infrastructure and data liquidity to realize the ambitious aim of transforming biomedicine for cancer and other diseases. Moreover, in presenting the rapid learning health system framework for cancer research and practice, members of the National Cancer Policy Forum’s planning committee identified five challenges to developing a learning health system for cancer that are also directly relevant to the realization of P4 medicine: (1) data collection (eg, data accuracy, timeliness, and completeness), (2) incentivizing data-sharing, (3) data standards, harmonization, and computation, (4) meaningful use of health IT, and (5) the central role of government entities such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [13].

One example of a rapid learning health care system that is currently being implemented for oncology is the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Cancer Learning Intelligence Network for Quality (CancerLinQ) system [14]. CancerLinQ is designed to address the growing challenge of managing the deluge of data emerging from precision medicine for cancer care. The system incorporates data from researchers, providers, and patients in order to continually improve comprehensive clinical algorithms reflecting preferred care at a series of decision nodes for clinical decision support.


“P5 Medicine”: A Population Approach to Transforming Biomedicine

Adding both promise and complexity to the previously described frameworks of modern care, proponents of the public health sciences assert that a 5th P standing for a population perspective is needed to realize the full potential of P4 medicine [15]. Limited by a primary focus on individual health, the P4 approach to biomedicine can be augmented as follows:

  • Predictive: Predicting health using systems biologic and phenotypic information augmented with the ecological model of health to account for multilevel determinants of health and life-course approaches.
  • Preventive: Early disease detection and prevention also incorporate population screening principles to assess benefits, harm, and costs of primary prevention.
  • Personalized: Targeted therapeutics and diagnostics enhanced by principles of evidence-based medicine using formal analytic frameworks for comparative effectiveness.
  • Participatory: Engaging patients, providers, and systems including the public health enterprise (eg, policy development, regulatory science, implementation, and health services research).

In addition to the rapid learning health system approach, which incorporates notions of translational, comparative effectiveness and health services research, adding a population focus to P4 medicine explicitly addresses broader, structural issues such as costs and potential for harm that result in greater social, economic, and health disparities. Population science also helps focus on the need for enhanced population level interventions (such as education, employment, and roads) in addition to individual level interventions to improve health and prevent disease [15].

One innovative example of an effort incorporating a P5 approach to cancer biomedicine can be found in the Moffitt Cancer Center’s Total Cancer Care (TCC) proposal for a new federated model for research and health care [16]. Based on a robust informatics platform allowing for real-time integration and analysis of disparate multilevel data, the TCC builds on the rapid learning health system model by incorporating development of “secondary use” of data including comparative effectiveness research. Perhaps equally important, TCC proposes a shared governance approach with a federated data model designed to promote team science, data liquidity, and access to the disparate data sources that are essential for effective transformation of the biomedical enterprise [17].


Crowdsourcing Science and the Future of Biomedicine

Scaling the biomedical research enterprise to tackle cancer and other diseases with unknown therapeutics and unclear diagnostics will require recruiting new communities of investigators such as those in engineering and computational disciplines, often earlier in their careers. In addition to exploring new models of cancer research and practice, the Medicine 2.0 conference panel also delved into how big data, emerging technologies, and commoditized access to sophisticated wet lab tools and computational methods can spark scientific innovation in basic and applied research. Individuals have greater access to potentially disruptive technologies in medicine to accelerate basic discovery science and reorient clinical practice for patient-centered care. Publically available molecular measurements can be used to discover novel biomarkers of disease [18] and can be used to find novel uses for existing therapeutics [19,20]. One example of individuals addressing big data challenges is in the field of computational immunogenics, where a challenge sponsored by Harvard Medical School was used to crowdsource solutions that significantly outperformed leading academic efforts [21]. Such immunology datasets, including clinical trials, are available at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ImmPort website for professionals and students.

On a policy level, examples such as the federal Open Government Initiative, the America COMPETES Act, and NIH requirements for data sharing in grant proposals, combined with public and private sector initiatives by donors, journals, and foundations, have led to unprecedented amounts of data being available for secondary research. Two examples include the Data.gov platform, which enables public access to “nearly 450,000 datasets…across 172 federal agencies” [22], and the availability of one million gene expression microarray measurements for research [23].

In addition to greater availability of data, public and private entities are leveraging prize and challenge mechanisms to accelerate innovation with health-related data. Biomedically related open innovation challenges such as these often involve the release of data first, with the expectation that the “winner” of the challenge is awarded a prize. This is the reverse of the typical grant funding mechanism, with money given first, potentially followed by results [24]. In the cancer arena, NCI and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) have had success in combining open innovation challenges with the federal Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant program to support the evaluation and dissemination of evidence-based applications for cancer prevention and control [25,26]. For these agencies, the federal prize and challenge mechanism has provided a high-value approach to addressing their core agency missions through building a new ecosystem of developers, entrepreneurs, and scientists who can innovate for cancer control and public health. The most recent ONC and NCI challenge competition, focusing on technology innovation for cancer survivors, expands the Department of Health and Human Services innovation portfolio by incorporating crowdfunding to potentially enhance engagement and market validation of submitted innovations with consumer audiences [27].


Conclusions

In many respects, cancer is the prototypical workspace for applying new models of scientific discovery and medical practice. The story of cancer is a story of how the body’s complex coding systems go awry through the creation of self-perpetuating errors in cellular replication and growth. Fortunately, advances in genetic sequencing technologies, high throughput data architectures, massively networked public and scientific communities, and the wide availability of sophisticated wet lab tools may be sparking the innovation in “open source” science needed to accelerate progress against the disease. As one panel member put it, “individuals in garages and dorm rooms have greater access to potentially disruptive technologies in medicine than the most well-resourced scientists of the last decade.” This exciting era of distributed and open source science holds great potential for accelerating basic discovery and reorienting clinical practice for patient-centered care and population health.


Conflicts of Interest

WS Dalton is CEO of M2Gen, affiliated with Moffitt Cancer Center. No conflicts declared for all other authors.


References

  1. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Realizing the Full Potential of Health Information Technology to Improve Healthcare for Americans: The Path Forward. Washington, DC: The White House; 2010.
  2. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Designing a Digital Future: Federally Funded Research and Development in Networking and Information Technology. Washington, DC: The White House; 2010.
  3. Big Data: Community Cleverness Required. [editorial] Nature. 2008.   URL: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/455001a.html [accessed 2014-03-30] [WebCite Cache]
  4. Shaikh AR, Prabhu Das I, Vinson CA, Spring B. Cyberinfrastructure for consumer health. Am J Prev Med 2011 May;40(5 Suppl 2):S91-S96. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Institute of Medicine. In: Murphy S, editor. A Foundation for Evidence-Driven Practice: A Rapid Learning System for Cancer Care: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.
  6. Butte AJ, Shah NH. Computationally translating molecular discoveries into tools for medicine: translational bioinformatics articles now featured in JAMIA. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18(4):352-353 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Dalton WS, Sullivan DM, Yeatman TJ, Fenstermacher DA. The 2010 Health Care Reform Act: a potential opportunity to advance cancer research by taking cancer personally. Clin Cancer Res 2010 Dec 15;16(24):5987-5996 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Zewail AH. A Systems Approach to Medicine Will Transform Healthcare. In: Physical biology: from atoms to medicine. London: Imperial College Press; 2008.
  9. Olsen L, Aisner D. The learning healthcare system: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
  10. American Association of Cancer Research. Cancer Progress Report 2012: Making Research Count for Patients: A New Day. 2012.   URL: http://cancerprogressreport.org/2012/Documents/2012_Report.pdf [accessed 2012-12-15] [WebCite Cache]
  11. Hood L, Friend SH. Predictive, personalized, preventive, participatory (P4) cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2011 Mar;8(3):184-187. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Series THHR, Institute of Medicine, Grossman C. Digital Infrastructure for the Learning Health System: The Foundation for Continuous Improvement in Health and Health Care: Workshop Series Summary (The Learning Health System Series). Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
  13. Kean MA, Abernethy AP, Clark AM, Dalton WS, Pollock BH, Shulman LN, et al. Achieving Data Liquidity in the Cancer Community: Proposal for Coalition of All Stakeholders. 2012. Achieving Data Liquidity in the Cancer Community: Proposal for Coalition of All Stakeholders   URL: http://www.iom.edu/Global/Perspectives/2012/DataLiquidityCancerCommunity.aspx [accessed 2012-12-15] [WebCite Cache]
  14. CancerLinq. 2013.   URL: http://www.asco.org/institute-quality/cancerlinq [accessed 2013-05-08] [WebCite Cache]
  15. Khoury MJ, Gwinn ML, Glasgow RE, Kramer BS. A population approach to precision medicine. Am J Prev Med 2012 Jun;42(6):639-645 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Fenstermacher DA, Wenham RM, Rollison DE, Dalton WS. Implementing personalized medicine in a cancer center. Cancer J 2011;17(6):528-536 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Dalton WS. A Partnership to Develop a National Health & Research Information Exchange (NHRIE). 2012.   URL: http:/​/ncip.​nci.nih.gov/​ncip-launch-meeting-presentations/​1230B-Dalton-Slides-for-5-31-Informatics-SessionVer1.​pdf [accessed 2012-12-15] [WebCite Cache]
  18. Chen R, Sigdel TK, Li L, Kambham N, Dudley JT, Hsieh SC, et al. Differentially expressed RNA from public microarray data identifies serum protein biomarkers for cross-organ transplant rejection and other conditions. PLoS Comput Biol 2010;6(9):e1000940 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Sirota M, Dudley JT, Kim J, Chiang AP, Morgan AA, Sweet-Cordero A, et al. Discovery and preclinical validation of drug indications using compendia of public gene expression data. Sci Transl Med 2011 Aug 17;3(96):96ra77 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Dudley JT, Sirota M, Shenoy M, Pai RK, Roedder S, Chiang AP, et al. Computational repositioning of the anticonvulsant topiramate for inflammatory bowel disease. Sci Transl Med 2011 Aug 17;3(96):96ra76 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Lakhani KR, Boudreau KJ, Loh PR, Backstrom L, Baldwin C, Lonstein E, et al. Prize-based contests can provide solutions to computational biology problems. Nat Biotechnol 2013 Feb;31(2):108-111. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Data.gov celebrates third anniversary.   URL: http://www.data.gov/whats-new [accessed 2012-12-15] [WebCite Cache]
  23. Baker M. Gene data to hit milestone. Nature 2012 Jul 19;487(7407):282-283. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Lakhani KR, Panetta JA. The Principles of Distributed Innovation: Technology, Governance, Globalization. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 2007;2(3):1034 [FREE Full text] [WebCite Cache]
  25. National Cancer Institute, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Using Public Data for Cancer Prevention and Control: From Innovation to Impact.   URL: http:/​/www.​health2con.com/​devchallenge/​using-public-data-for-cancer-prevention-and-control-from-innovation-to-impact-2/​ [accessed 2012-12-15] [WebCite Cache]
  26. National Cancer Institute. SBIR Program Announcement: Innovative Health Information Technology for Broad Adoption by Healthcare Systems and Consumers.   URL: http://sbir.cancer.gov/resource/hit/ [accessed 2012-12-15] [WebCite Cache]
  27. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, National Cancer Institute. Crowds Care for Cancer: Supporting Survivors.   URL: http://challenge.gov/ONC/529-crowds-care-for-cancer-supporting-survivors [accessed 2013-05-08] [WebCite Cache]


Abbreviations

CancerLinQ: Cancer Learning Intelligence Network for Quality
IOM: Institute of Medicine
MCC: Moffitt Cancer Center
NCI: National Cancer Institute
NIH: National Institutes of Health
ONC: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
P4: predictive, personalized, preemptive, participatory
SBIR: Small Business Innovation Research
TCC: Total Cancer Care



Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 15.12.12; peer-reviewed by L Toldo, Y Zhu; comments to author 27.03.13; revised version received 10.05.13; accepted 03.03.14; published 07.04.14

Please cite as:
Shaikh AR, Butte AJ, Schully SD, Dalton WS, Khoury MJ, Hesse BW
Collaborative Biomedicine in the Age of Big Data: The Case of Cancer
J Med Internet Res 2014;16(4):e101
URL: http://www.jmir.org/2014/4/e101/
doi: 10.2196/jmir.2496
PMID: 24711045

Export Metadata:
END, compatible with Endnote
BibTeX, compatible with BibDesk, LaTeX
RIS, compatible with RefMan, Procite, Endnote, RefWorks

Add this article to your Mendeley library
Add this article to your CiteULike library



Copyright

©Abdul R Shaikh, Atul J Butte, Sheri D Schully, William S Dalton, Muin J Khoury, Bradford W Hesse. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 07.04.2014.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.