Translating genomics in cancer care

JNCCN Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Volumn 11, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 1343-1353

  Bombard, Yvonne ^a,b,c   Bach, Peter B ^a   Offit, Kenneth ^b  

^a International Center for Health Related Outcomes and Research   (United States)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

B RAF KINASE; BCR ABL PROTEIN; BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR; ERLOTINIB; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; GEFITINIB; IMATINIB; MISMATCH REPAIR PROTEIN PMS2; MIXED LINEAGE LEUKEMIA PROTEIN; NICOTINAMIDE ADENINE DINUCLEOTIDE ADENOSINE DIPHOSPHATE RIBOSYLTRANSFERASE INHIBITOR; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR; PROTEIN MLH1; PROTEIN MSH2; PROTEIN MSH6; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR E2A; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR PBX1; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR RUNX1; TRASTUZUMAB; UVOMORULIN;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER CARE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FAMILIAL CANCER; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC RISK; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LABORATORY TEST; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MENTAL STRESS; MISMATCH REPAIR; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; MORBIDITY; ONCOGENE; ONCOGENE K RAS; ONCOGENE NEU; OVARY CANCER; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT COUNSELING; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENE;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84891911182     PISSN: 15401405     EISSN: 15401413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0158     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Pasche B, Absher D. Whole-genome sequencing: a step closer to personalized medicine. JAMA 2011;305:1596-1597.
2. Hamburg MA, Collins FS. The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med 2010;363:301-304.
3. Burke W, Psaty BM. Personalized medicine in the era of genomics. JAMA 2007;298:1682-1684.
4. Offit K. Personalized medicine: new genomics, old lessons. Hum Genet 2011;130:3-14.
5. Chan IS, Ginsburg GS. Personalized medicine: progress and promise. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2011;12:217-244.
6. Robson M, Offit K. Clinical practice. Management of an inherited predisposition to breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:154-162.
7. Weitzel JN, Blazer KR, Macdonald DJ, et al. Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: state of the art and future directions in the era of personalized medicine. CA Cancer J Clin, in press.
8. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2817-2826.
9. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3726-3734.
10. Kris MG, Natale RB, Herbst RS, et al. Efficacy of gefitinib, an inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, in symptomatic patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2003;290:2149-2158.
11. Perez-Soler R, Chachoua A, Hammond LA, et al. Determinants of tumor response and survival with erlotinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3238-3247.
12. Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, et al. Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:141-150.
13. 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.
14. Stadler ZK, Thom P, Robson ME, et al. Genome-wide association studies of cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4255-4267.
15. Bamshad MJ, Ng SB, Bigham AW, et al. Exome sequencing as a tool for Mendelian disease gene discovery. Nat Rev Genet 2011;12:745-755.
16. Domchek SM, Bradbury A, Garber JE, et al. Multiplex genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: out on the high wire without a net? J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1267-1270.
17. Bombard Y, Robson ME, Offit K. Revealing the incidentalome when targeting the tumor genome. JAMA 2013;310:795-796.
18. Cassa CA, Savage SK, Taylor PL, et al. Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility. Genome Res 2012;22:421-428.
19. Bombard Y, Offit K, Robson ME. Risks to relatives in genomic research: a duty to warn? Am J Bioeth 2012;12:12-14.
20. Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert JS. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J Med Ethics 2008;34:210-213.
21. Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E, et al. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet 2011;27:41-47.
22. Knoppers BM, Joly Y, Simard J, Durocher F. The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet 2006;14:1170-1178.
23. 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;13:499-504.
24. Biesecker LG. Incidental variants are critical for genomics. Am J Hum Genet 2013;92:648-651.
25. Goddard KA, Whitlock EP, Berg JS, et al. Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies. Genet Med 2013;15:721-728.
26. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;15:565-574.
27. Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 2006;296:212-215.
28. Biesecker LG, Burke W, Kohane I, et al. Next-generation sequencing in the clinic: are we ready? Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:818-824.
29. McGuire AL, Burke W. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 2008;300:2669-2671.
30. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med 2009;11:35-41.
31. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Assessment Program 2011;25:1-29.
32. Nakano H, Soda H, Takasu M, et al. Heterogeneity of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations within a mixed adenocarcinoma lung nodule. Lung Cancer 2008;60:136-140.
33. Schrijver I, Aziz N, Farkas DH, et al. Opportunities and challenges associated with clinical diagnostic genome sequencing: a report of the association for molecular pathology. J Mol Diagn 2012;14:525-540.
34. Ormond KE, Wheeler MT, Hudgins L, et al. Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet 2011;375:1749-1751.
35. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer? Genet Med 2009;11:66-73.
36. Conti R, Veenstra DL, Armstrong K, et al. Personalized medicine and genomics: challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities. Med Decis Making 2010;30:328-340.
37. Lam HY, Clark MJ, Chen R, et al. Performance comparison of whole-genome sequencing platforms. Nat Biotechnol 2011;30:78-82.
38. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:355-361.
39. McBride CM, Bowen D, Brody LC, et al. Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. Am J Prev Med 2011;38:556-565.
40. Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med 2006;8:448-450.
41. Lammens CR, Aaronson NK, Wagner A, et al. Genetic testing in Li-Fraumeni syndrome: uptake and psychosocial consequences. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3008-3014.
42. Hayden MR, Bombard Y. Psychosocial effects of predictive testing for Huntington's disease. Adv Neurol 2005;96:226-239.
43. Wiggins S, Whyte P, Huggins M, et al. The psychological consequences of predictive testing for Huntington's disease. Canadian Collaborative Study of Predictive Testing. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1401-1405.
44. Lammens CR, Bleiker EM, Aaronson NK, et al. Regular surveillance for Li-Fraumeni syndrome: advice, adherence and perceived benefits. Fam Cancer 2010;9:647-654.
45. Aspinwall LG, Leaf SL, Dola ER, et al. CDKN2A/p16 genetic test reporting improves early detection intentions and practices in high-risk melanoma families. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:1510-1519.
46. Partridge AH, Winer EP. Informing clinical trial participants about study results. JAMA 2002;288:363-365.
47. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Medicine 2008;5:e91.
48. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, et al. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008;8:36-43.
49. Bloss CS, Ornowski L, Silver E, et al. Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genet Med 2010;12:556-566.
50. Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Darst BF, et al. Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. J Med Genet 2013;50:393-400.
51. Facio FM, Brooks S, Loewenstein J, et al. Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:1213-1217.
52. Gollust SE, Gordon ES, Zayac C, et al. Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:22-30.
53. 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;14:633-642.
54. Palmer S, Byford S, Raftery J. Economics notes: types of economic evaluation. BMJ 1999;318:1349.
55. Mvundura M, Grosse SD, Hampel H, Palomaki GE. The cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies for Lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer. Genet Med 2010;12:93-104.
56. Health Quality Ontario. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFR) testing for prediction of response to EGFR-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2010;10:1-48.
57. Culyer AJ, Bombard Y. An equity framework for health technology assessments. Med Decis Making 2012;32:428-441.
58. Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, Hornberger J. Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer 2007;109:1011-1018.
59. Yauch RL, Settleman J. Recent advances in pathway-targeted cancer drug therapies emerging from cancer genome analysis. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2012;22:45-49.
60. Palomaki GE, McClain MR, Melillo S, et al. EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Genet Med 2009;11:42-65.
61. Hall MJ. Counterpoint: implementing population genetic screening for Lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients - will the ends justify the means? J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010;8:606-611.
62. Kaye CI. Genetic service delivery: infrastructure, assessment and information. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:164-171.
63. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:9-16.
64. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting social values and ethics in health technology assessment: a participatory approach. Soc Sci Med 2011;73:135-144.
65. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E, Seymour-Smith S. Opening the Box: Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. London: School of Health & Social Welfare and Psychology Discipline, The Open University; 2005.
66. DeJean D, Giacomini M, Schwartz L, Miller FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: a descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:463-469.
67. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Citizens' perspectives on personalized medicine: a qualitative public deliberation study. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:1197-1201.
68. Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ 2012;344:e3502.
69. Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Yoon PW, et al. The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genet Med 2007;9:665-674.
70. Anderson K, Jacobson JS, Heitjan DF, et al. Cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies for women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:397-406.
71. Health Quality Ontario. Gene expression profiling for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in women with early breast cancer: an evidence-based and economic analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2010;10:1-57.