Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) as a tool in Coverage with Evidence Development: The case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 73-83

  Retèl, Valesca P ^a   Bueno De Mesquita, Jolien M ^a   Hummel, Marjan J M ^b   Van De Vijver, Marc J ^c   Douma, Kirsten F L ^a   Karsenberg, Kim ^d   Van Dam, Frits S A M ^a   Van Krimpen, Cees ^e   Bellot, Frank E ^f   Roumen, Rudi M H ^g   Linn, Sabine C ^a   Van Harten, Wim H ^a  

^a ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^c ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d Department of Communication   (Netherlands)

^e Kennemer Gasthuis Haarlem ^*  (Netherlands)

^f Infection and Immunology   (Netherlands)

^g MÁXIMA MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Coverage with evidence development; Diffusion scenarios; Genomics; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ADJUVANT TREATMENT; BREAST CANCER; CONSTRUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COVERAGE WITH EVIDENCE DEVELOPMENT; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS; EVALUATION TOOL; GENOMICS; MODEL-BASED; NETHERLANDS; NEW TECHNOLOGIES; NODE-NEGATIVE; PATIENT MANAGEMENT; SIGNATURE INFORMATION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

ANEMOMETERS; DIFFUSION; SURVEYS; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; CONSTRUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIFFUSION; EMOTION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MONITORING; MULTICENTER STUDY; NETHERLANDS; ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PH; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; TEAMWORK; TUMOR GENE; VALIDITY; BREAST TUMOR; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; GENETICS; MASS COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROGNOSIS;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; PROGNOSIS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 60749096808     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462309090102     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bleiker EM, Hendriks JH, Otten JD, et al. Personality factors and breast cancer risk: A 13-year follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:213-218.
2. Bogaerts J, Cardoso F, Buyse M, et al. Gene signature evaluation as a prognostic tool: Challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2006;3:540-551. (Pubitemid 44781724)
3. Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Linn SC, Keijzer R, et al. Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008.
4. Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten W, Retel V, et al. Use of 70-gene signature to predict prognosis of patients with node-negative breast cancer: A prospective community-based feasibility study (RASTER). Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:1079-1087. (Pubitemid 350182954)
5. Buyse M, Loi S, van't Veer L, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1183-1192. (Pubitemid 44390989)
6. Douma KF, Karsenberg K, Hummel MJ, et al. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:162-168. (Pubitemid 46642723)
7. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' CollaborativeGroup (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365:1687-1717. (Pubitemid 40719106)
8. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, et al. Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. Seventh International Conference on Adjuvant Therapy of Primary Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3817-3827.
9. Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: An examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:425-432. (Pubitemid 47586920)
10. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
11. Ioannidis JP. Is molecular profiling ready for use in clinical decision making? Oncologist. 2007;12:301-311.
12. Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO VvIK. Conceptrichtlijn Mammacarcinoom 2008. 2008:123-145.
13. Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO, Vereniging voor Integrale Kankercentra: Adjuvante Systemische Therapie voor het Operabel Mammacarcinoom. Richtlijn Behandeling van het Mammacarcinoom 2005. 2005:46-70.
14. Lerman C, Seay J, Balshem A, et al. Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients. Am J Med Genet. 1995;57:385-392.
15. Lynch HT, Lemon SJ, Durham C, et al. A descriptive study of BRCA1 testing and reactions to disclosure of test results. Cancer. 1997;79:2219-2228. (Pubitemid 27227388)
16. Mook S, Van't Veer LJ, Rutgers EJ, et al. Individualization of therapy using Mammaprint: From development to the MINDACT Trial. Cancer Genomics Proteomics. 2007;4:147-155. (Pubitemid 46807341)
17. Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, et al. When and howto assess fast-changing technologies:Acomparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1:i-149.
18. Olivotto IA, Bajdik CD, Ravdin PM, et al. Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2716-2725. (Pubitemid 46179461)
19. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:980-991. (Pubitemid 32176272)
20. Retel VP, Hummel MJ, van Harten WH. Early phase technology assessment of nanotechnology in oncology. Tumori. 2008;94:284-290. (Pubitemid 351838837)
21. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
22. Schot J, Rip A. The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1996;54:251-268.
23. Schot JW. Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics: The case of clean technologies. Sci Technol Human Values. 1992;17:36-56.
24. Tunis SR, Chalkidou K. Coverage with evidence development: A very good beginning, but much to be done. Commentary to Hutton et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:432-435. (Pubitemid 47586924)
25. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453-458. (Pubitemid 11265613)
26. van't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415:530-536.
27. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ, et al. A geneexpression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999-2009. (Pubitemid 35461656)