Comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics and precision medicine: Current landscape and future prospects

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 105, Issue 13, 2013, Pages 929-936

  Simonds, Naoko I ^a   Khoury, Muin J ^a,b   Schully, Sheri D ^a   Armstrong, Katrina ^c   Cohn, Wendy F ^d   Fenstermacher, David A ^e   Ginsburg, Geoffrey S ^f   Goddard, Katrina A B ^g   Knaus, William A ^h   Lyman, Gary H ⁱ   Ramsey, Scott D ^j   Xu, Jianfeng ^k   Freedman, Andrew N ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

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

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^e H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^g CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

^h NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM   (United States)

ⁱ DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^j Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^k WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DUTASTERIDE; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR;

BIOINFORMATICS; BREAST CANCER; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER GENETICS; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESEARCH PRIORITY; REVIEW; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT; ANIMALS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS, HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GENOMICS; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (U.S.); NEOPLASM PROTEINS; NEOPLASMS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84880198830     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djt108     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Gwinn M, Grossniklaus DA, Yu W, et al. Horizon scanning for new genomic tests. Genet Med. 2011;13(2):161-165.
2. United Healthcare. Personalized medicine: trends and prospects for the new science of genetic testing and molecular diagnostics. United Healthcare Working Paper. 2012.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CancerGEM KB (Cancer Genomic Evidence-based Medicine Knowledge Base): An Integrated, Searchable Knowledge Base of Human Genome Epidemiology and Genomic Applications in Cancer Care and Prevention. Atlanta: CDC; 2012.
4. Ramsey SD, Veenstra D, Tunis SR, Garrison L, Crowley JJ, Baker LH. How comparative effectiveness research can help advance "personalized medicine" in cancer treatment. Health Aff. 2011;30(12):2259-2268.
5. Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center Criteria. 2012. Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/ blueresources/tec/tec-criteria.html. Accessed November 26, 2012.
6. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention. 2012. Available at: http://www.egappreviews.org/recommendations/index.htm. Accessed November 26, 2012.
7. Lyman GH. Comparative effectiveness research in oncology: the need for clarity, transparency and vision. Cancer Invest. 2009;27(6):593-597.
8. 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. 2011;9(suppl):1-32.
9. Insitute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
10. Rich EC. The policy debate over public investment in comparative effectiveness research. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):752-757.
11. Congressional Budget Office. Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments. 2007. Available at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/ doc8891-12-18-ComparativeEffectiveness.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2013.
12. Orszag P. Health costs are the real deficit threat. Wall Street Journal. May 15, 2009.
13. Ginsburg GS, Kuderer NM. Comparative effectiveness research in oncology: the need for clarity, transparency and vision. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(34):4233-4242.
14. Fenstermacher DA, Wenham RM, Rollison DE, Dalton WS. Implementing personalized medicine in a cancer center. Cancer J. 2011;17(6):528-36.
15. Cogle CR, Craig BM, Rollison DE, List AF Incidence of the myelodys-plastic syndromes using a novel claims-based algorithm: high number of uncaptured cases by cancer registries. Blood. 2011;117(26):7121-7125.
16. Craig BM, Rollison DE, List AF, Cogle CR. Diagnostic testing, treatment, cost of care, and survival among registered and non-registered patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Leuk Res. 2011;35(11):1453-1456.
17. Craig BM, Rollison DE, List AF, Cogle CR. Underreporting of myeloid malignancies by United States cancer registries. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(3):474-481.
18. Han G, Schell MJ, Kim J. Comparing two exponential distributions using the exact likelihood ratio test. Stat Biopharm Res. 2012;4(4):348-356.
19. Cohn WF, Ropka ME, Pelletier SL, et al. Health Heritage: a web-based tool for the collection and assessment of family health history: initial user experience and analytic validity. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(7-8):477-491.
20. Kuderer NM, Culakova E, Huang M, et al., eds. Quality appraisal of clinical validation studies for multigene prediction assays of chemotherapy response in early-stage breast cancer. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology; June 2011; Chicago, IL
21. Culakova E, Poniewierski MS, Huang M, et al., eds. Assessment of genomic prognostic signatures as predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early stage breast cancer. Paper presented at the American Association for Cancer Research-San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; November 2011; San Antonio, TX.
22. Kuderer NM. Prognostic markers in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a cross-platform comparison of genomic signatures and identification of novel prognostic genes and pathways. Paper presented at the American Association for Cancer Research-San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; November 2012; San Antonio, TX.
23. Goddard KA, Knaus WA, Whitlock E, et al. Building the evidence base for decision making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research. Genet Med. 2012;14(7):633-642.
24. Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: plicy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med. 2010;29(19):1963-1976.
25. Lyman GH, Culakova E, Poniewierski MS, et al., eds. Multigene signature assays in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and evidence summary of predictive performance. Paper presented at the American Association for Cancer Research-San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; November 2011; San Antonio, TX.
26. Lyman GH. Ki67 as a predictive markers of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and evidence summary. Paper presented at the American Assocation for Cancer Research-San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; November 2012; San Antonio, TX.
27. Lin JS, Webber EM, Senger CA, Holmes RS, Whitlock EP Systematic review of pharmacogenetic testing for predicting clinical benefit to anti-EGFR therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Am J Cancer Res. 2011;1(5):650-662.
28. Claxton KP, Schulper M.J. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research. Pharamacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1055-1068.
29. Thariani R, Wong W, Carlson JJ, et al. Prioritization in comparative effectiveness research: the CANCERGEN Experience. Med Care. 2012;50(5):388-393.
30. Behl AS, Goddard KA, Flottemesch TJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for KRAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(23):1785-1795.
31. Deverka PA, Schully SD, Ishibe N, et al. Stakeholder assessment of the evidence for cancer genomic tests: insights from three case studies. Genet Med. 2012;14(7):656-662.
32. Institute of Medicine. Genome-Based Diagnostics: Clarifying Pathways to Clinical Use-Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.
33. Ginsburg GS, Staples J, Abernethy AP. Academic medical centers: ripe for rapid-learning personalized health care. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(101):101cm27.
34. Institute of Medicine. Informatics Needs and Challenges in Cancer Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.
35. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQs Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) Institutional Award (K12) Fact Sheet. 2012. http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/training/pcork12.htm. Accessed January 7, 2013.
36. Veenstra DL, Roth JA, Garrison LP Jr, Ramsey SD, Burke W. A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice. Genet Med. 2010;12(11):686-693.
37. Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med. 2011;13(6):499-504.
38. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
39. World Bank. Health Expenditure, Total (% of GDP). http://data.world-bank. org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS. Accessed April 12, 2013.