Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice

Nature Reviews Genetics

Volumn 10, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 489-495

  Rogowski, Wolf H ^a   Grosse, Scott D ^b   Khoury, Muin J ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

^b NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN; DNA; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2;

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; MOLECULAR GENETICS; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; MEDICAL GENETICS; METHODOLOGY;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; GENETICS, MEDICAL; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; HUMANS;

EID: 67649732906     PISSN: 14710056     EISSN: 14710064     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrg2606     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Palomaki, G. E., McClain, M. R., Melillo, S., Hampel, H. L. & Thibodeau, S. N. EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Genet. Med. 11, 42-65 (2009).
2. EGAPP Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet. Med. 11, 35-41 (2009).
3. Rogowski, W. Genetic screening by DNA technology. A systematic review of health economic evidence. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care 22, 327-337 (2006).
4. Grossman, I. Routine pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice: dream or reality? Pharmacogenomics 8, 1449-1459 (2007).
5. Krawczak, M., Caliebe, A., Croucher, P. J. & Schmidtke, J. On the testing load incurred by cascade genetic carrier screening for Mendelian disorders: a brief report. Genet. Test. 11, 417-419 (2007).
6. Schmidtke, J., Pabst, B. & Nippert, I. DNA-based genetic testing is rising steeply in a national health care system with open access to services: a survey of genetic test use in Germany, 1996-2002. Genet. Test. 9, 80-84 (2005).
7. Khoury, M. J. et al. The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. Health Aff. (Millwood) 27, 1600-1611 (2008).
8. Rogowski, W., Grosse, S. D., John, J. & Palmer, S. The value of cost-effectiveness information for the decision on genetic screening for haemochromatosis in Germany. University of York, Centre of Health Economics [online], 〈http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che〉 (in the press).
9. Murray, T. H. in Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era (ed. Rothstein, M.) 60-73 (Yale Univ. Press, London, 1997).
10. Teutsch, S. M. et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet. Med. 11, 3-14 (2009).
11. Ioannidis, J. P., Ntzani, E. E., Trikalinos, T. A. & Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nature Genet. 29, 306-309 (2001).
12. Grosse, S. D. & Khoury, M. J. What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet. Med. 8, 448-450 (2006).
13. Payne, K. et al. Outcome measurement in clinical genetics services: a systematic review of validated measures. Value Health 11, 497-508 (2008).
14. Foster, C. et al. Predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 in a UK clinical cohort: three-year follow-up. Br. J. Cancer 96, 718-724 (2007).
15. Beery, T. A. & Williams, J. K. Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders. Genet. Test. 11, 111-123 (2007).
16. Rogowski, W. H. The cost-effectiveness of screening for hereditary hemochromatosis in Germany: a remodeling study. Med. Decis. Making 29, 224-238 (2009).
17. Beran, T. M. et al. The trajectory of psychological impact in BRCA1/2 genetic testing: does time heal? Ann. Behav. Med. 36, 107-116 (2008).
18. Smith, A. W. et al. Psychological distress and quality of life associated with genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Psychooncology 17, 767-773 (2008).
19. Burnett, L., McQueen, M. J., Jonsson, J. J. & Torricelli, F. IFCC position paper: report of the IFCC taskforce on ethics: introduction and framework. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 45, 1098-1104 (2007).
20. Sugarman, J. & Sulmasy, D. P. Methods in Medical Ethics (Georgetown Univ. Press, Washington, 2001).
21. Potter, B. K. et al. Guidance for considering ethical, legal, and social issues in health technology assessment: application to genetic screening. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24, 412-422 (2008).
22. Javaher, P. et al. EuroGentest: DNA-based testing for heritable disorders in Europe. Community Genet. 11, 75-120 (2008).
23. Rogowski, W. Current impact of gene technology on healthcare. A map of economic assessments. Health Policy 80, 340-357 (2007).
24. McGuire, A. L. & Burke, W. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 300, 2669-2671 (2008).
25. Chikhaoui, Y., Gelinas, H., Joseph, L. & Lance, J. M. Cost-minimization analysis of genetic testing versus clinical screening of at-risk relatives for familial adenomatous polyposis. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18, 67-80 (2002).
26. Joseph, B., Shanmugam, M. P., Srinivasan, M. K. & Kumaramanickavel, G. Retinoblastoma: genetic testing versus conventional clinical screening in India. Mol. Diagn. 8, 237-243 (2004).
27. Grosse, S. D., Wordsworth, S. & Payne, K. Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet. Med. 10, 648-654 (2008).
28. Dodge, J. A., Lewis, P. A., Stanton, M. & Wilsher, J. Cystic fibrosis mortality and survival in the UK: 1947-2003. Eur. Respir. J. 29, 522-526 (2007).
29. Claxton, K., Sculpher, M. & Drummond, M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 360, 711-715 (2002).
30. Rogowski, W. H., Hartz, S. C. & John, J. H. Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: a framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv. Res. 8, 1-12 (2008).
31. Garber, A. M. Cost-effectiveness and evidence evaluation as criteria for coverage policy. Health Aff. (Millwood) [online], 〈http://content. healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/short/hlthaff.w4.284〉 (2004).
32. Taylor, R. S., Drummond, M. F., Salkeld, G. & Sullivan, S. D. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 329, 972-975 (2004).
33. Vegter, S. et al. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programmes: a systematic review on content and adherence to guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 569-587 (2008).
34. Boulenger, S. et al. Can economic evaluations be made more transferable? Eur. J. Health Econ. 6, 334-346 (2005).
35. Carlson, J. J., Henrikson, N. B., Veenstra, D. L. & Ramsey, S. D. Economic analyses of human genetics services: a systematic review. Genet. Med. 7, 519-523 (2005).
36. Olsen, J. A. Theories of justice and their implications for priority setting in health care. J. Health Econ. 16, 625-639 (1997).
37. Bleichrodt, H., Crainich, D. & Eeckhoudt, L. Aversion to health inequalities and priority setting in health care. J. Health Econ. 27, 1594-1604 (2008).
38. Callahan, D. & Milbank Memorial Fund. What Price Better Health? Hazards of the Research Imperative (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 2003).
39. Claxton, K. P. & Sculpher, M. J. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics 24, 1055-1068 (2006).
40. Grosse, S. D. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 8, 165-178 (2008).
41. Moyer, V. A., Calonge, N., Teutsch, S. M. & Botkin, J. R. Expanding newborn screening: process, policy, and priorities. Hastings Cent. Rep. 38, 32-39 (2008).
42. Green, N. S. et al. Committee Report: advancing the current recommended panel of conditions for newborn screening. Genet. Med. 9, 792-796 (2007).
43. Baily, M. A. & Murray, T. H. Ethics, evidence, and cost in newborn screening. Hastings Cent. Rep. 38, 23-31 (2008).
44. Hurst, S. A. et al. Prevalence and determinants of physician bedside rationing: data from Europe. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 21, 1138-1143 (2006).
45. Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B. & Weinstein, M. C. (eds). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1996).
46. Wasson, K., Cook, E. D. & Helzlsouer, K. Direct-to-consumer online genetic testing and the four principles: an analysis of the ethical issues. Ethics Med. 22, 83-91 (2006).
47. Daniels, N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2008).
48. Philips, Z., Bojke, L., Sculpher, M., Claxton, K. & Golder, S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 24, 355-371 (2006).
49. Cassiman, J. J. Research network: EuroGentest - a European Network of Excellence aimed at harmonizing genetic testing services. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 13, 1103-1105 (2005).
50. Health Council of the Netherlands. Screening: between hope and hype. Publication no. 2008/05E. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands [online], 〈http://www.gr.nl/pdf.php?ID=1702&p=1〉 (2008).
51. Walton, S. M. et al. Prioritizing future research on off-label prescribing: results of a quantitative evaluation. Pharmacotherapy 28, 1443-1452 (2008).
52. Noorani, H. Z., Husereau, D. R., Boudreau, R. & Skidmore, B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23, 310-315 (2007).
53. Hutton, J., Trueman, P. & Henshall, C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23, 425-432 (2007).
54. Commission of the European Communities. Implementation of the Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening (2003/878/EC). European Commision [online], 〈http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph-determinants/ genetics/documents/com-2008-882.en.pdf〉 (2008).
55. Ramsey, S. D., Burke, W. & Clarke, L. An economic viewpoint on alternative strategies for identifying persons with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Genet. Med. 5, 353-363 (2003).
56. Grosse, S. D. et al. Population screening for genetic disorders in the 21st century: evidence, economics, and ethics. Public Health Genomics (in the press).
57. Welte, R., Feenstra, T., Jager, H. & Leidl, R. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics 22, 857-876 (2004).
58. Phillips, K. A. Closing the evidence gap in the use of emerging testing technologies in clinical practice. JAMA 300, 2542-2544 (2008).
59. Wolff, A. C. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 118-145 (2007).