In light of recent developments in genomic technology and the rapid accumulation of genomic information, a major transition toward precision medicine is anticipated. However, the clinical applications of genomic information remain limited. This lag can be attributed to several complex factors, including the knowledge gap between medical experts and bioinformaticians, the distance between bioinformatics workflows and clinical practice, and the unique characteristics of genomic data, which can make interpretation difficult. Here we present a novel genomic data model that allows for more interactive support in clinical decision-making. Informational modelling was used as a basis to design a communication scheme between sophisticated bioinformatics predictions and the representative data relevant to a clinical decision. This study was conducted by a multidisciplinary working group who carried out clinico-genomic workflow analysis and attribute extraction, through Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Based on those results, a clinical genome data model (cGDM) was developed with 8 entities and 46 attributes. The cGDM integrates reliability-related factors that enable clinicians to access the reliability problem of each individual genetic test result as clinical evidence. The proposed cGDM provides a data-layer infrastructure supporting the intellectual interplay between medical experts and informed decision-making.

Purpose: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is well known for its aggressive course and poor prognosis. In this study, we sought to investigate clinical, demographic, and pathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with refractory, metastatic TNBC selected by a clinical data warehouse (CDW) approach. Patients and methods: Data were extracted from the real-time breast cancer registry integrated into the Data Analytics and Research Window for Integrated Knowledge C (DARWIN-C), the CDW of Samsung Medical Center. Between January 1997 and December 2019, a TNBC cohort was searched for in the breast cancer registry, which includes records from more than 40,000 patients. Among them, cases of pathologically confirmed metastatic TNBC (mTNBC) were selected as the cohort group (n = 451). The extracted data from the registry via the CDW platform included clinical, pathological, laboratory, and chemotherapy information. Refractory TNBC was defined as confirmed distant metastasis within one year after adjuvant treatment. Results: This study comprised a total of 451 patients with mTNBC, including 69 patients with de novo mTNBC, 131 patients in the nonrefractory TNBC group with confirmed stage IV disease after one year of adjuvant treatment, and 251 patients with refractory mTNBC, whose disease recurred as stage IV within one year after completing adjuvant treatment. The refractory mTNBC cohort was composed of patients with disease that recurred at stage IV after surgery (refractory mTNBC after surgery) (n = 207) and patients in whom metastasis was confirmed during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (unresectable TNBC due to progression during neoadjuvant chemotherapy) (n = 44). Patients in the refractory mTNBC group were younger than those in the nonrefractory group (median age 46 vs. 51 years; p < 0.001). Considering the pathological findings, the refractory group had a greater proportion of cases with Ki-67 ≥ 3+ than did the nonrefractory group (71% vs. 47%; p = 0.004). During a median 8.4 years of follow-up, the overall survival was 24.8 months in the nonrefractory mTNBC group and 14.3 months in the refractory mTNBC group (p < 0.001), and the median progression-free survival periods were 6.2 months and 4.2 months, respectively (p < 0.001). The median disease-free survival period was 30.1 months in the nonrefractory mTNBC group and only 7.6 months in the refractory mTNBC group. Factors related to metastatic sites affecting overall survival were liver metastasis at diagnosis (p < 0.001) and leptomeningeal involvement (p = 0.001). Conclusions: We revealed that patients with refractory mTNBC had a much poorer prognosis among all mTNBC cases and described the characteristics of this patient group.

Lee KH, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Feb;35(12):e78. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e78

Background: Several type B adverse drug reactions (ADRs), especially severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), are associated with particular human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotypes. However, pre‐stored HLA information obtained from other clinical workups has not been used to prevent ADRs. We aimed to simulate the preemptive use of pre‐stored HLA information in electronic medical records to evaluate whether this information can prevent ADRs.Methods: We analyzed the incidence and the risk of ADRs for selected HLA alleles (HLA‐B*57:01, HLA‐B*58:01, HLA‐A*31:01, HLA‐B*15:02, HLA‐B*15:11, HLA‐B*13:01, HLA‐B*59:01, and HLA‐A*32:01) and seven drugs (abacavir, allopurinol, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, dapsone, methazolamide, and vancomycin) using pre‐stored HLA information of transplant patients based on the Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base guidelines and experts' consensus.Results: Among 11,988 HLA‐tested transplant patients, 4092 (34.1%) had high‐risk HLA alleles, 4583 (38.2%) were prescribed risk drugs, and 580 (4.8%) experienced type B ADRs. Patients with HLA‐B*58:01 had a significantly higher incidence of type B ADR and SCARs associated with allopurinol use than that of patients without HLA‐B*58:01 (17.2% vs. 11.9%, odds ratio [OR] 1.53 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.09–2.13], p = 0.001, 2.3% versus 0.3%, OR 7.13 [95% CI 2.19–22.69], p < 0.001). Higher risks of type B ADR and SCARs were observed in patients taking carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine if they had one of HLA‐A*31:01, HLA‐B*15:02, or HLA‐B*15:11 alleles. Vancomycin and dapsone use in HLA‐A*32:01 and HLA‐B*13:01 carriers, respectively, showed trends toward increased risk of type B ADRs.Conclusion: Utilization of pre‐stored HLA data can prevent type B ADRs including SCARs by screening high‐risk patients.

Background: In recent decades, real-world evidence (RWE) in oncology has rapidly gained traction for its potential to answer clinical questions that cannot be directly addressed by randomized clinical trials. Integrating real-world data (RWD) into clinical research promises to contribute to more sustainable research designs, including extension, augmentation, enrichment, and pragmatic designs. Nevertheless, clinical research using RWD is still limited because of concerns regarding the shortage of best practices for extracting, harmonizing, and analyzing RWD. In particular, pragmatic screening methods to determine whether the content of a data source is sufficient to answer the research questions before conducting the research with RWD have not yet been established. Objective: We examined the PAR (Preliminary Attainability Assessment of Real-World Data) framework and assessed its utility in breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM), which has an unmet medical need for data attainability screening at the preliminary step of observational studies that use RWD. Methods: The PAR framework was proposed to assess data attainability from a particular data source during the early research process. The PAR framework has four sequential stages, starting with clinical question clarification: (1) operational definition of variables, (2) data matching (structural/semantic), (3) data screening and extraction, and (4) data attainability diagramming. We identified 5 clinical questions to be used for PAR framework evaluation through interviews and validated them with a survey of breast cancer experts. We used the Samsung Medical Center Breast Cancer Registry, a hospital-based real-time registry implemented in March 2021, leveraging the institution’s anonymized and deidentified clinical data warehouse platform. The number of breast cancer patients in the registry was 45,129; it covered the period from June 1995 to December 2021. The registry consists of 24 base data marts that represent disease-specific breast cancer characteristics and care pathways. The outcomes included screening results of the clinical questions via the PAR framework and a procedural diagram of data attainability for each research question. Results: Data attainability was tested for study feasibility according to the PAR framework with 5 clinical questions for BCBM. We obtained data sets that were sufficient to conduct studies with 4 of 5 clinical questions. The research questions stratified into 3 types when we developed data fields for clearly defined research variables. In the first, only 1 question could be answered using direct data variables. In the second, the other 3 questions required surrogate definitions that combined data variables. In the third, the question turned out to be not feasible for conducting further analysis. Conclusions: The adoption of the PAR framework was associated with more efficient preliminary clinical research using RWD from BCBM. Furthermore, this framework helped accelerate RWE generation through clinical research by enhancing transparency and reproducibility and lowering the entry barrier for clinical researchers.