Health technology assessment in the era of personalized health care

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 118-126

  Becla, Lidia ^a,b,j   Lunshof, Jeantine E ^a,c,j   Gurwitz, David ^d   Schulte In Den Bäumen, Tobias ^a,j   Westerhoff, Hans V ^c,e,f,g   Lange, Bodo M H ^h,i   Brand, Angela ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Agency for Health Technology Assessment in Poland   (Poland)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^e Netherlands Institute for Systems Biology   (Netherlands)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^h FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

ⁱ MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR GENETICS   (Germany)

^j MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

more..

Author keywords

Health technology assessment; Mutanom; Personalized cancer therapy; Public health genomics; Systems biology

Indexed keywords

CANCER THERAPY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; MUTANOM; PUBLIC HEALTH GENOMICS; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY;

DISEASES; HEALTH CARE; INNOVATION; RATING; TECHNOLOGY;

HEALTH;

ARTICLE; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE CONCEPTS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; PERSONALIZED HEALTH CARE; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; EUROPE; GENETICS; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MASS COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASM; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW;

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EUROPE; GENOMICS; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH RESOURCES; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; NEOPLASMS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 79961113774     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026646231100002X     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Aggarwal S. Targeted cancer therapies. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:427-428.
2. Ashley EA, Butte AJ, Wheeler MT, et al. Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. Lancet. 2010;375:1525-1535.
3. Atreja A, Achkar J-P, Jain AK, Harris CM, Lashner BA. Using technology to promote gastrointestinal outcomes research: A case for electronic health records. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2171-2178.
4. Barker AD, Sigman CC, Hylton NM, Berry DA, Esserman LJ. I-SPY2: An adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86:97-100.
5. Bies RR, Gastonguay MR, Schwartz SL. Mathematics for understanding disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83:904-908.
6. Brenner S. Sequences and consequences. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365:207-212.
7. Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. Norwich: Crown copyright; 2006. http://www.hm-treasury.gov. uk/d/pbr06-cooksey-final-report- 636.pdf (accessed June 1, 2010).
8. Economist Intelligence Unit. Breakaway: The global burden of cancer-challenges and opportunities. London, New York, Hong Kong: 2009. http://graphics.eiu.com/marketing/pdf/EIU-LIVESTRONG-Global-Cancer-Burden.pdf (accessed June 1, 2010).
9. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Definition of HTA. http://www.eunethta.net/HTA (accessed June 1, 2010).
10. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924-926.
11. Hornberg JJ, Bruggeman FJ, Westerhoff HV, Lankelma J. Cancer: A systems biology disease. BioSystems. 2006;83:81-90.
12. NGFN-Plus Integrated Genome Research Network-Mutanom. www.ngfn.de/en/mutanom.html; http://www.mutanom.org/(accessed June 1, 2010).
13. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. HTA resources. http://www.inahta.org/HTA/ (accessed June 1, 2010).
14. Kohane IS. The twin questions of personalized medicine: Who are you and whom do you most resemble? Genome Med. 2009;1:4.
15. Kravitz RL, Duan N, White RH. N-of-1 Trials of expensive biological therapies: A third way? Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1030-1033.
16. Leary RJ, Kinde I, Diehl F, et al. Development of personalized tumor biomarkers using massively parallel sequencing. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2:20ra14.
17. Lunshof JE. Personalized medicine: How much can we afford? A bioethics perspective. Per Med. 2005;2:43-47.
18. Murgo AJ, Kumar S, Rubinstein L, et al. Designing phase 0 cancer clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:3675-3682.
19. Ogilvie D, Craig P, Griffin S, Macintyre S, Wareham NJ. A translational framework for public health research. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:116-125.
20. Retel VP, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Hummel MJM, et al. Constructive technology assessment (CTA) as a tool in coverage with evidence development: The case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:73-83.
21. Rogowski WH, Hartz SC, John JH. Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: A framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:194.
22. Rosenkötter N, Vondeling H, Blancquaert I, et al. The contribution of health technology assessment, health needs assessment, and health impact assessment to the assessment and translation of technologies in the field of public health genomics. Public Health Genomics. 2011;14:43-52.
23. Samani NJ, Tomaszewski M, Schunkert H. The personal genome-the future of personalized medicine? Lancet. 2010;375:1497-1498.
24. Schulman K, Valverde Vidal A, Ackerly DC. Personalized medicine and disruptive innovation: Implications for technology assessment. Genet Med. 2009;11:577-581.
25. Shabo A. Clinical genomics data standards for pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics. 2006;7:247-253.
26. Westerhoff HV, Palsson BO. The evolution of molecular biology into systems biology. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;10:1249-1252.