Special series on comparative effectiveness research: Challenges to real-world solutions to quality improvement in personalized medicine

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 30, Issue 34, 2012, Pages 4188-4191

  Browman, George P ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

^c Canadian Partnership Against Cancer   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; BREAST CANCER; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SOCIOECONOMICS; VALIDATION STUDY;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; PUBLISHING; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84870714044     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.8225     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. McShane LM, Hayes DF: Publication of tumor marker research results: The necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol 30:4223-4232, 2012
2. Ginsburg GS, Kuderer NM: Comparative effectiveness research, genomics-enabled personalized medicine, and rapid learning health care: A common bond. J Clin Oncol 30:4233-4242, 2012
3. 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; abstr 3082)
4. Conway PH, Clancy C: Comparative-effectiveness research: Implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's report. N Engl J Med 361:328-330, 2009
5. Menon D, Stafinski T: Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value in Health 12:S14-S19, 2009 (suppl 2)
6. Schwarzer R, Siebert U: Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: Comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25:305-314, 2009
7. Smart A: A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility. Int J Qual Health Care 18:377-382, 2006
8. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration: Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0621: Proposal to withdraw approval for the breast cancer indication for AVASTIN (bevacizumab). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/ Newsroom/UCM280546.pdf
9. Burstein HJ: Bevacizumab for advanced breast cancer: All tied up with a RIBBON. J Clin Oncol 29:1232-1235, 2011
10. Wennberg J, Gittelsohn A: Small area variations in health care delivery. Science 182:1102-1108, 1973
11. Health Services Research Group: Small area variations: What are they and what do they mean? Can Med Assoc J 146:467-470, 1992
12. Garber AM, Tunis SR: Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N Engl J Med 360:1925-1927, 2009
13. Altman DG: Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: Survey of instructions for authors. BMJ 330:1056-1057, 2005
14. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al: Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10, 2007
15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al: GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924-926, 2008 (Pubitemid 351632017)
16. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al: Development of the AGREE II, part 2: Assessment of validity of items and tools to support application. CMAJ 182:e472-e478, 2010
17. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, et al: Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). J Proteome Res 10:3429-3438, 2011
18. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, et al: Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1180-1184, 2005 (Pubitemid 41258223)
19. 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
20. 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
21. Evensen AE, Sanson-Fisher R, D'Este C, et al: Trends in publications regarding evidence-practice gaps: A literature review. Implement Sci 5:11, 2010
22. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al: Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map. J Contin Educ Health Prof 26:13-24, 2006
23. Woolf SH: The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 299:211-213, 2008
24. Eccles MP, Armstrong D, Baker R, et al: An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci 4:18, 2009
25. Cheah S, Dee S, Cole A, et al: An online tool for improving biospecimen reporting. Biopreserv Biobank 10, 2012 (abstr 211)
26. Micheel CM, Nass SJ, Omenn GS (eds): Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2012
27. Lewis S: Toward a general theory of indifference to research-based evidence. J Health Serv Res Policy 12:166-172, 2007
28. Office of Population Genetics Government of Western Australia Department of Health: Guidelines for human biobanks, genetic research databases and associated data. http://www.genomics.health.wa.gov.au/publications/docs/ guidelines-for-human- biobanks.pdf
29. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECQ):OECD guidelines on human biobanks and genetic research databases. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/47/44054609.pdf
30. National Cancer Institute: National Cancer Institute best practices for biospecimen resources. http://www.allirelandnci.com/pdf/NCI-Best-Practices- 060507.pdf
31. UK Biobank: Ethics and governance framework: version 3.0. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/EGF20082.pdf
32. International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories: 2012 best practices for repositories: Collection, storage, retrieval, and distribution of biological materials for research. http://online.liebertpub.com/ doi/pdfplus/10.1089/bio.2012.1022
33. Canadian Tumour Repository Network: Standard operating procedures. http://www.ctrnet.ca/operating-procedures
34. American College of Physicians (ACP): ACP journal club: The best new evidence for patient care. http://www.annals.org/site/acpjc/index.xhtml
35. Government of Canada Internal Advisory Panel on Research Ethics Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. http:// www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/ chapter11-chapitre11/
36. Lexchin J: Coverage with evidence development for pharmaceuticals: A policy evolution? Int J Health Serv 41:337-354, 2011