Generating and evaluating evidence of the clinical utility of molecular diagnostic tests in oncology

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 780-787

  Deverka, Patricia ^a   Messner, Donna A ^a   Mccormack, Robert ^b   Lyman, Gary H ^c   Piper, Margaret ^d   Bradley, Linda ^e   Parkinson, David ^f   Nelson, David ^g   Smith, Mary Lou ^h   Jacques, Louis ⁱ   Dutta, Tania ^a   Tunis, Sean R ^a  

^a Center for Medical Technology Policy   (United States)

^b JOHNSON AND JOHNSON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

^e BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f New Enterprise Assoct Inc   (United States)

^g Epic Sciences Inc   (United States)

^h Media Relations and Special Projects   (United States)

ⁱ ADVI   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical utility; comparative effectiveness research; molecular diagnostic test; patient reported outcome; stakeholder engagement

Indexed keywords

CANCER SUSCEPTIBILITY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONSULTATION; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EVALUATION STUDY; EXPECTATION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; INTERNAL VALIDITY; INTERVIEW; MODEL; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSIS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; ONCOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCIENTIST; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GENETICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NEOPLASM; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84981164811     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.162     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Khoury MJ, Berg A, Coates R, Evans J, Teutsch SM, Bradley LA. The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008; 27: 1600-1611
2. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al. EGAPP Working Group. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009; 11: 3-14
3. Hresko A, Haga SB. Insurance coverage policies for personalized medicine. J Pers Med 2012; 2: 201-216
4. Deverka PA, Messner DA, Dutta T. Evaluation of clinical validity and clinical utility of actionable molecular diagnostic tests in adult oncology. Cent Med Technol Policy http://www.cmtpnet.org/docs/resources/MDX-EGD.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2015
5. Haddow J, Palomaki G. ACCE: a model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests. In: Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. Oxford University Press: New York, 2003: 217-233
6. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Cancer Cytopathol 2011; 119: 92-101
7. Altman DG, McShane LM, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. BMC Med 2012; 10: 51
8. Sun F, Bruening W, Erinoff E, Schoelles KM. Addressing Challenges in Genetic Test Evaluation: Evaluation Frameworks and Assessment of Analytic Validity. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): Rockville, MD, 2011
9. McShane LM, Hayes DF. Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 4223-4232
10. Freidlin B, McShane LM, Korn EL. Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 152-160
11. Simon R. Clinical trial designs for evaluating the medical utility of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in oncology. Per Med 2010; 7: 33-47
12. Mandrekar SJ, Sargent DJ. Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: one size does not fit all. J Biopharm Stat 2009; 19: 530-542
13. Royston P, Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y. Prognosis and prognostic research: developing a prognostic model. BMJ 2009; 338: b604
14. Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG. Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 2009; 338: b605
15. Janes H, Pepe MS, Bossuyt PM, Barlow WE. Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 253-259
16. Simon R. Development and validation of therapeutically relevant multi-gene biomarker classifiers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 866-867
17. Pepe MS, Janes HE. Gauging the performance of SNPs, biomarkers, and clinical factors for predicting risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 978-979
18. Pepe MS, Janes H, Gu JW. Letter by Pepe et al regarding article, 'Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction'. Circulation 2007; 116: e132; author reply e134
19. Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P. Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice. BMJ 2009; 338: b606
20. Moons KG, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee DE, Altman DG. Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? BMJ 2009; 338: b375
21. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25
22. Institute of Medicine. Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012
23. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Bossuyt PM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med Decis Making 2009; 29: E1-E12
24. Basch E, Abernethy AP, Mullins CD, et al. Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 4249-4255
25. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry, enrichment strategies for clinical trials to support approval of human drugs and biologic products. 2012. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm332181.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2015
26. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1446-1452
27. Berger ML, Dreyer N, Anderson F, Towse A, Sedrakyan A, Normand SL. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health 2012; 15: 217-230
28. Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 2007; 26: 20-36
29. Glicklich R, Dreyer N, Leavy N, eds. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide. 3rd edn. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, 2014
30. Velentgas P, Dreyer N, Nourjah P, eds. Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User's Guide. AHRQ publication no. 12(13)-EHC099. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, 2013
31. Dreyer NA, Schneeweiss S, McNeil BJ, et al. GRACE Initiative. GRACE principles: recognizing high-quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Am J Manag Care 2010; 16: 467-471
32. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M; ISPORSMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Med Decis Making 2012; 32: 678-689
33. Trikalinos TA, Kulasingam S, Lawrence WF. Chapter 10: deciding whether to complement a systematic review of medical tests with decision modeling. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27: 76-82
34. Blue Cross Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. November2011. http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/vols/26/26-07.pdf
35. Parkinson DR, McCormack RT, Keating SM, et al. Evidence of clinical utility: an unmet need in molecular diagnostics for patients with cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20: 1428-1444
36. McShane LM, Cavenagh MM, Lively TG, et al. Criteria for the use of omicsbased predictors in clinical trials: explanation and elaboration. BMC Med 2013; 11: 220
37. Febbo P, Ladany M, Aldape K, et al. NCCN Task Force report: evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2011; 9(suppl 5): S1-S32; quiz S 33
38. Lyman GH, Levine M. Comparative effectiveness research in oncology: an overview. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 4181-4184
39. Center for Medical Technology Policy. Initial Medical Policy and Model Coverage Guidelines for Clinical Next Generation Sequencing in Oncology, Report and Recommendations. August 2015. http://www.cmtpnet.org/docs/resources/Full-Release-Version-August-13-2015.pdf. Accessed 28 August 2015
40. Institute of Medicine. Generating Evidence for Genomic Diagnostic Test Development: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2011