PURPOSE: Many targeted therapies are currently available only via clinical trials. Therefore, routine precision oncology using biomarker-based assignment to drug depends on matching patients to clinical trials. A comprehensive and up-to-date trial database is necessary for optimal patient-trial matching. METHODS: We describe processes for establishing and maintaining a clinical trial database, focusing on genomically informed trials. Furthermore, we present OCTANE (Oncology Clinical Trial Annotation Engine), an informatics framework supporting these processes in a scalable fashion. To illustrate how the framework can be applied at an institution, we describe how we implemented an instance of OCTANE at a large cancer center. OCTANE consists of three modules. The data aggregation module automates retrieval, aggregation, and update of trial information. The annotation module establishes the database schema, implements data integration necessary for automation, and provides an annotation interface. The update module monitors trial change logs, identifies critical change events, and alerts the annotators when manual intervention may be needed. RESULTS: Using OCTANE, we annotated 5,439 oncology clinical trials (4,438 genomically informed trials) that collectively were associated with 1,453 drugs, 779 genes, and 252 cancer types. To date, we have used the database to screen 4,220 patients for trial eligibility. We compared the update module with expert review, and the module achieved 98.5% accuracy, 0% false-negative rate, and 2.3% false-positive rate. CONCLUSION: OCTANE is a general informatics framework that can be helpful for establishing and maintaining a comprehensive database necessary for automating patient-trial matching, which facilitates the successful delivery of personalized cancer care on a routine basis. Several OCTANE components are publically available and may be useful to other precision oncology programs.
PURPOSE: Many targeted therapies are currently available only via clinical trials. Therefore, routine precision oncology using biomarker-based assignment to drug depends on matching patients to clinical trials. A comprehensive and up-to-date trial database is necessary for optimal patient-trial matching. METHODS: We describe processes for establishing and maintaining a clinical trial database, focusing on genomically informed trials. Furthermore, we present OCTANE (Oncology Clinical Trial Annotation Engine), an informatics framework supporting these processes in a scalable fashion. To illustrate how the framework can be applied at an institution, we describe how we implemented an instance of OCTANE at a large cancer center. OCTANE consists of three modules. The data aggregation module automates retrieval, aggregation, and update of trial information. The annotation module establishes the database schema, implements data integration necessary for automation, and provides an annotation interface. The update module monitors trial change logs, identifies critical change events, and alerts the annotators when manual intervention may be needed. RESULTS: Using OCTANE, we annotated 5,439 oncology clinical trials (4,438 genomically informed trials) that collectively were associated with 1,453 drugs, 779 genes, and 252 cancer types. To date, we have used the database to screen 4,220 patients for trial eligibility. We compared the update module with expert review, and the module achieved 98.5% accuracy, 0% false-negative rate, and 2.3% false-positive rate. CONCLUSION:OCTANE is a general informatics framework that can be helpful for establishing and maintaining a comprehensive database necessary for automating patient-trial matching, which facilitates the successful delivery of personalized cancer care on a routine basis. Several OCTANE components are publically available and may be useful to other precision oncology programs.
Authors: Chunhua Weng; Xiaoying Wu; Zhihui Luo; Mary Regina Boland; Dimitri Theodoratos; Stephen B Johnson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-07-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Funda Meric-Bernstam; Amber Johnson; Vijaykumar Holla; Ann Marie Bailey; Lauren Brusco; Ken Chen; Mark Routbort; Keyur P Patel; Jia Zeng; Scott Kopetz; Michael A Davies; Sarina A Piha-Paul; David S Hong; Agda Karina Eterovic; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Russell Broaddus; Elmer V Bernstam; Kenna R Shaw; John Mendelsohn; Gordon B Mills Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Yonghui Wu; Mia A Levy; Christine M Micheel; Paul Yeh; Buzhou Tang; Michael J Cantrell; Stacy M Cooreman; Hua Xu Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Vivian Law; Craig Knox; Yannick Djoumbou; Tim Jewison; An Chi Guo; Yifeng Liu; Adam Maciejewski; David Arndt; Michael Wilson; Vanessa Neveu; Alexandra Tang; Geraldine Gabriel; Carol Ly; Sakina Adamjee; Zerihun T Dame; Beomsoo Han; You Zhou; David S Wishart Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Kelsy C Cotto; Alex H Wagner; Yang-Yang Feng; Susanna Kiwala; Adam C Coffman; Gregory Spies; Alex Wollam; Nicholas C Spies; Obi L Griffith; Malachi Griffith Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Anna Spreafico; Aaron R Hansen; Albiruni R Abdul Razak; Philippe L Bedard; Lillian L Siu Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 38.272
Authors: Harry Klein; Tali Mazor; Ethan Siegel; Pavel Trukhanov; Andrea Ovalle; Catherine Del Vecchio Fitz; Zachary Zwiesler; Priti Kumari; Bernd Van Der Veen; Eric Marriott; Jason Hansel; Joyce Yu; Adem Albayrak; Susan Barry; Rachel B Keller; Laura E MacConaill; Neal Lindeman; Bruce E Johnson; Barrett J Rollins; Khanh T Do; Brian Beardslee; Geoffrey Shapiro; Suzanne Hector-Barry; John Methot; Lynette Sholl; James Lindsay; Michael J Hassett; Ethan Cerami Journal: NPJ Precis Oncol Date: 2022-10-06