NCCN molecular testing white paper: Effectiveness, efficiency, and reimbursement

JNCCN Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Volumn 9, Issue SUPPL.6, 2011, Pages

  Engstrom, Paul F ^a   Bloom, Mara G ^b   Demetri, George Daniel ^c   Febbo, Phillip G ^d   Goeckeler, William ^e   Ladanyi, Marc ^f   Loy, Bryan ^g   Murphy, Kate ^h   Nerenberg, Michael ⁱ   Papagni, Paul ^j   Robson, Mark ^f   Sweetman, Robert W ^k   Tunis, Sean ^l   DeMartino, Jessica ^m   Larsen, Jonathan K ^m  

^a FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS INC   (United States)

^f MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^g Humana   (United States)

^h C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition   (United States)

ⁱ Genoptix   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^k PFIZER INC   (United States)

^l Center for Medical Technology Policy   (United States)

^m NONE

more..

Author keywords

Biomarker; Health policy; Molecular testing; NCCN

Indexed keywords

BILLING AND CLAIMS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOLECULAR TEST; ONCOLOGY; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; VALIDITY;

EID: 84855841646     PISSN: 15401405     EISSN: 15401413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2011.0138     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Dancey J, Dobbin K, Groshen S, et al. Guidelines for the development and incorporation of biomarker studies in early clinical trials of novel agents. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:1745-1755.
2. James H, Pepe MS, Bossuyt PM, et al. Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:253-259.
3. Carlson B. Seeking a coding solution for molecular tests. Biotechnol Healthc 2010;7:16-20.
4. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Policy issues in the development of personalized medicine in oncology: workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.
5. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976. Public L No. 94-295, Stat 539.
6. US Department of Health and Human Services. In vitro diagnostic products for human use. 21 CFR §809.3. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/ cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=809.3. Revised April 1, 2011.
7. Draft guidance for industry, clinical laboratories, and FDA staff: in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assays. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ DeviceRegulationandGuidance/ GuidanceDocuments/ucm071455.htm. Accessed August 11, 2011.
8. Medical devices; classification/reclassification; restricted devices; analyte specific reagents - FDA. Final rule. Fed Regist 1997;62:62243-62249.
9. Draft guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff - in vitro companion diagnostic devices (July 14, 2011). US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/ deviceregulationandguidance/ guidancedocuments/ucm262292.htm.
10. FDA approves Zelboraf and companion diagnostic test for late-stage skin cancer. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm268241.htm. Accessed August 24, 2011.
11. FDA approves Xalkori with companion diagnostic for a type of late-stage lung cancer. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm269856.htm. Accessed August 27, 2011.
12. Gulley ML, Braziel RM, Halling KC, et al. Clinical laboratory reports in molecular pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:852-863. (Pubitemid 46906376)
13. Haber D, Gray N, Baselga J. The evolving war on cancer. Cell 2011;145:19-24.
14. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009;11:3-14.
15. McDermott U, Downing JR, Stratton MR. Genomics and the continuum of cancer care. N Engl J Med 2011;364:340-350.
16. Technology Evaluation Center Criteria. BlueCross BlueShield Association Web site. Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/ blueresources/tec/tec-criteria. html. Accessed September 19, 2011.
17. Collins S. Oncology biomarker diagnostics: where we are, where we need to be. Biotechnol Healthc 2010;7:22-25.
18. Meckley LM, Neumann PJ. Personalized medicine: factors influencing reimbursement. Health Policy 2010;94:91-100.
19. Blank PR, Moch H, Szucs TD, et al. KRAS and BRAF mutation analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from a Swiss perspective. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:6338-6346.
20. Shiroiwa T, Motoo Y, Tsutani K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of KRAS testing and cetuximab as last-line therapy for colorectal cancer. Mol Diagn Ther 2010;14:375-384.
21. Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011/Notices. Available at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011-4295.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2011.
22. CPT Editorial Panel: Molecular Pathology Coding Workgroup. American Medical Asscociation Web site. Available at: http:// www.ama-assn.org/resources/ doc/cpt/molecular-pathology-codingworkgroup. pdf. Accessed September 19, 2011.
23. Schulman KA, Tunis SR. A policy approach to the development of molecular diagnostic tests. Nature 2010;28:1157-1159.
24. National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Pharmacogenomic Testing for Warfarin Response. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/medicarecoverage- database/details/ncd- details. Accessed September 19, 2011.
25. Leveque D. Off-label use of anticancer drugs. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:1102-1107.