Comparative effectiveness research, genomics-enabled personalized medicine, and rapid learning health care: A common bond

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 30, Issue 34, 2012, Pages 4233-4242

  Ginsburg, Geoffrey S ^a   Kuderer, Nicole M ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

BIOSTATISTICS; CANCER GENETICS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE; PATIENT CARE; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RAPID LEARNING HEALTH CARE; REVIEW;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84870664207     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.6114     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:10-29, 2012
2. Dancey JE, Bedard PL, Onetto N, et al: The genetic basis for cancer treatment decisions. Cell 148:409-420, 2012
3. Schilsky RL: Tumor heterogeneity as the foundation of personalized cancer treatment. Semin Oncol 38:171-172, 2011
4. Freedman AN, Sansbury LB, Figg WD, et al: Cancer pharmacogenomics and pharmacoepidemiology: Setting a research agenda to accelerate translation. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:1698-1705, 2010
5. National Cancer Institute: The National Genome Atlas. http://cancergenome.nih.gov/
6. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, et al: Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:8418-8423, 2003
7. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, et al: Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 27:1160-1167, 2009
8. Lyman GH: Comparative effectiveness research in oncology: The need for clarity, transparency and vision. Cancer Invest 27:593-597, 2009
9. Lyman GH, Hirsch B: Comparative effectiveness research and genomic personalized medicine. Personalized Med 7:223-227, 2010
10. Jacobson GA: Comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness research: Background, history, and overview. Washington, DC, Congressional Research Service, 2007
11. Ginsburg GS, Willard HF: Genomic and personalized medicine: Foundations and applications. Transl Res 154:277-287, 2009
12. Sox HC, Goodman SN: The methods of comparative effectiveness research. Annu Rev Public Health 33:425-445, 2012
13. Somerfield MR, Einhaus K, Hagerty KL, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines: Opportunities and challenges. J Clin Oncol 26:4022-4026, 2008
14. Febbo PG, Ladanyi M, Aldape KD, et al: NCCN Task Force report: Evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 5:S1-S32, 2011 (suppl 9)
15. Centers for Disease Control: Office of Public Health Genomics. http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/index.htm
16. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS): U.S. System of Oversight of Genetic Testing: A Response to the Charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/sacghs/ reports/sacghs-oversight-report.pdf
17. Jordan VC, Collins MM, Rowsby L, et al: A monohydroxylated metabolite of tamoxifen with potent antioestrogenic activity. J Endocrinol 75:305-316, 1977
18. Goetz MP, Rae JM, Suman VJ, et al: Pharmacogenetics of tamoxifen biotransformation is associated with clinical outcomes of efficacy and hot flashes. J Clin Oncol 23:9312-9318, 2005
19. Schroth W, Antoniadou L, Fritz P, et al: Breast cancer treatment outcome with adjuvant tamoxifen relative to patient CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes. J Clin Oncol 25:5187-5193, 2007
20. Kuderer NM, Peppercorn J: CYP2D6 testing in breast cancer: Ready for prime time? Oncology (Williston Park) 23:1223-1232, 2009
21. Higgins MJ, Rae JM, Flockhart DA, et al: Pharmacogenetics of tamoxifen: Who should undergo CYP2D6 genetic testing? J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7:203-213, 2009
22. Kelly CM, Pritchard KI: CYP2D6 genotype as a marker for benefit of adjuvant tamoxifen in postmenopausal women: Lessons learned. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:427-428, 2012
23. Rae JM, Drury S, Hayes DF, et al: CYP2D6 and UGT2B7 genotype and risk of recurrence in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:452-460, 2012
24. Regan MM, Leyland-Jones B, Bouzyk M, et al: CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen response in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: The Breast International Group 1-98 Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:441-451, 2012
25. Leyland-Jones B, Regan MM, Bouzyk M, et al: Outcome according to CYP2D6 genotype among postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early invasive breast cancer randomized in the BIG 1-98 Trial. 33rd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TX, December 8-12, 2010 (abstr S1-8)
26. Rae JM, Drury S, Hayes DF, et al: Lack of correlation between gene variants in tamoxifen metabolizing enzymes with primary endpoints in the ATAC Trial. 33rd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, San Antonio, TX, December 8-12, 2010 (abstr S-1-7)
27. Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: Testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol 27:2091-2096, 2009
28. US Food and Drug Administration, Office of Medical Products and Tobacco: Cetuximab (Erbitux) and panitumumab (Vectibix): Class labeling changes to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, cetuximab (Erbitux) and panitumumab (Vectibix) - KRAS Mutations. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/ OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm172905.htm
29. Rutgers E, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Bogaerts J, et al: The EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial is feasible: Results of the pilot phase. Eur J Cancer 47:2742-2749, 2011
30. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Patient Education Materials Available for TAILORx. http://www.ecog.org/general/tailorx.html
31. SWOG: SWOG RxPONDER trial (S1007): Patient information. http://www.swog.org/Visitors/S1007/patients.asp
32. Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, et al: Tumor marker utility grading system: A framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1456-1466, 1996
33. Altman DG, Lyman GH: Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 52:289-303, 1998
34. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF: Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1446-1452, 2009
35. 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 11:3-14, 2009
36. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP): EGAPP Working Group recommendations. http://www.egappreviews.org/ recommendations/index.htm
37. Wizemann T, Berger AC: Generating Evidence for Genomic Diagnostic Test Development: Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health Board on Health Sciences Policy. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, 2011
38. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC): EORTC trial 10041 (BIG 3-04): MINDACT (Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy). http://www.eortc.be/ services/unit/mindact/MINDACT-websiteii.asp
39. National Cancer Institute: The TAILORx breast cancer trial (Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment [Rx]). http://www.cancer.gov/ clinicaltrials/noteworthy-trials/tailorx
40. The Genomedical Connection. http://www.genomedical.com/
41. I-SPY 2 trial. http://ispy2.org/
42. National Cancer Institute: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). http://cancergenome.nih.gov/
43. Ramsey SD, Veenstra D, Tunis SR, et al: How comparative effectiveness research can help advance 'personalized medicine' in cancer treatment. Health Aff (Millwood) 30:2259-2268, 2011
44. Kuderer NM, Culakova E, Huang M, et al: Quality appraisal of clinical validation studies for multigene prediction assays of chemotherapy response in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:214s, 2011 (suppl 15; abstr 3082)
45. Goddard KAB, Knaus WA, Whitlock E, et al: Decision-making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research. Genet Med 14:633-642, 2012
46. Etheredge LM: Creating a high-performance system for comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood) 29:1761-1767, 2010
47. Abernethy AP, Etheredge LM, Ganz PA, et al: Rapid-learning system for cancer care. J Clin Oncol 28:4268-4274, 2010
48. Ginsburg GS, Staples J, Abernethy AP: Academic medical centers: Ripe for rapid-learning personalized health care. Sci Transl Med 3:101cm27, 2011
49. Lyman GH, Kuderer NM, Crawford J, et al: Predicting individual risk of neutropenic complications in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Cancer 117:1917-1927, 2011
50. Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Culakova E, et al: Development and validation of a predictive model for chemotherapy-associated thrombosis. Blood 111:4902-4907, 2008
51. Subramanian J, Simon R: Gene expression-based prognostic signatures in lung cancer: Ready for clinical use? J Natl Cancer Inst 102:464-474, 2010
52. Subramanian J, Simon R: What should physicians look for in evaluating prognostic gene-expression signatures? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7:327-334, 2010
53. Culakova E, Poniewierski MS, Huang M, et al: Assessment of genomic prognostic signatures as predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early stage breast cancer. 34th San Antonio Breast Conference, San Antonio, TX, December 6-10, 2011 (abstr P3-14-04)
54. Lyman GH, Culakova E, Poniewierski MS, et al: Multigene signature assays in patients with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: An NCI-funded systematic review and evidence summary of predictive performance. 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Conference, San Antonio, TX, December 6-10, 2011 (abstr P5-13-17)
55. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, et al: REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Br J Cancer 93:387-391, 2005
56. Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, et al: STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): An extension of the STROBE Statement. Ann Intern Med 150:206-215, 2009
57. Dupuy A, Simon RM: Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:147-157, 2007
58. Compton C, Kelly A: Biospecimen banking in the post genome era, in Willard H, Ginsburg GS (eds): Genomic and Personalized Medicine (ed 2). Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Elsevier, 2012
59. Ginsburg GS, Burke TW, Febbo P: Centralized biorepositories for genetic and genomic research. JAMA 299:1359-1361, 2008