OSIRIS: A Minimum Data Set for Data Sharing and Interoperability in Oncology

PURPOSE

Many institutions throughout the world have launched precision medicine initiatives in oncology, and a large amount of clinical and genomic data is being produced. Although there have been attempts at data sharing with the community, initiatives are still limited. In this context, a French task force composed of Integrated Cancer Research Sites (SIRICs), comprehensive cancer centers from the Unicancer network (one of Europe's largest cancer research organization), and university hospitals launched an initiative to improve and accelerate retrospective and prospective clinical and genomic data sharing in oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 5 years, the OSIRIS group has worked on structuring data and identifying technical solutions for collecting and sharing them. The group used a multidisciplinary approach that included weekly scientific and technical meetings over several months to foster a national consensus on a minimal data set.

RESULTS

The resulting OSIRIS set and event-based data model, which is able to capture the disease course, was built with 67 clinical and 65 omics items. The group made it compatible with the HL7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) format to maximize interoperability. The OSIRIS set was reviewed, approved by a National Plan Strategic Committee, and freely released to the community. A proof-of-concept study was carried out to put the OSIRIS set and Common Data Model into practice using a cohort of 300 patients.

CONCLUSION

Using a national and bottom-up approach, the OSIRIS group has defined a model including a minimal set of clinical and genomic data that can be used to accelerate data sharing produced in oncology. The model relies on clear and formally defined terminologies and, as such, may also benefit the larger international community.

Navigating Diagnostic and Treatment Decisions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Expert Commentary on the Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately one in five cancer-related deaths, and management requires increasingly complex decision making by health care professionals. Many centers have therefore adopted a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, using the expertise of various specialists to provide the best evidence-based, personalized treatment. However, increasingly complex disease staging, as well as expanded biomarker testing and multimodality management algorithms with novel therapeutics, have driven the need for multifaceted, collaborative decision making to optimally guide the overall treatment process. To keep up with the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, national-level guidelines have been introduced to standardize patient pathways and ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment. Such strategies depend on efficient and effective communication between relevant multidisciplinary team members and have both improved adherence to treatment guidelines and extended patient survival. This article highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and staging, treatment decision making, and adverse event management in NSCLC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to the diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and makes practical suggestions as to how multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be best deployed at individual stages of the disease to improve patient outcomes and effectively manage common adverse events. The authors discuss how a collaborative approach, appropriately leveraging the diverse expertise of NSCLC MDT members (including specialist radiation and medical oncologists, chest physicians, pathologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, and nursing staff) can continue to ensure optimal per-patient decision making as treatment options become ever more specialized in the era of biomarker-driven therapeutic strategies.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Lung cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality and has a wide variation in treatment and outcomes in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must only be carried out in lung cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

Achieving Thoracic Oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 Countries

BACKGROUND

A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire.

METHODS

Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months.

RESULTS

Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses.

CONCLUSION

Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research.