4.5 Editorial Material

Molecular Tumor Boards: Ethical Issues in the New Era of Data Medicine

期刊

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 307-322

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9880-8

关键词

Personalized medicine; Data medicine (DM); Molecular tumor board (MTB); Electronic informed consent (e-IC); Dynamic consent; Biobank; Database; Genomic; Bioinformatic; Ethical issues

资金

  1. CARPEM (CAncer Research For PErsonalized Medicine)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The practice and development of modern medicine requires large amounts of data, particularly in the domain of cancer. The future of personalized medicine lies neither with genomic medicine nor with precision medicine, but with data medicine (DM) (big data, data mining). The establishment of this DM has required far-reaching changes, to establish four essential elements connecting patients and doctors: biobanks, databases, bioinformatic platforms and genomic platforms. The transformation of scientific research areas, such as genetics, bioinformatics and biostatistics, into clinical specialties has generated a new vision of care. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) are one response to these changes and are now providing better access to next-generation sequencing (NGS) and new cancer treatments to patients with inoperable or metastatic cancers, and those for whom the usual treatment has failed. However, MTB face a crucial ethical challenge: maintaining and improving the trust of patients, clinicians, researchers and industry in academic medical centers supported by private or public funding rather than providing genetic data directly to private companies. We believe that, in this era of DM, appropriate modern digital communication networks will be required to maintain this trust and to improve the organization and effectiveness of the system. There is, therefore, a need to reconsider the form and content of informed consent (IC) documents at all academic medical centers and to introduce dynamic and electronic informed consent (e-IC).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据