Stakeholder assessment of the evidence for cancer genomic tests: Insights from three case studies

Center for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 7.33). 04/2012; 14(7). DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.3
Source: PubMed


Purpose:Insufficient evidence on the net benefits and harms of genomic tests in real-world settings is a translational barrier for genomic medicine. Understanding stakeholders' assessment of the current evidence base for clinical practice and coverage decisions should be a critical step in influencing research, policy, and practice.Methods:Twenty-two stakeholders participated in a workshop exploring the evidence of genomic tests for clinical and coverage decision making. Stakeholders completed a survey prior to and during the meeting. They also discussed if they would recommend for or against current clinical use of each test.Results:At baseline, the level of confidence in the clinical validity and clinical utility of each test varied, although the group expressed greater confidence for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation and Lynch syndrome testing than for Oncotype DX. Following the discussion, survey results reflected even less confidence for Oncotype DX and epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing, but not for Lynch syndrome testing. The majority of stakeholders would consider clinical use for all three tests, but under the conditions of additional research or a shared clinical decision-making approach.Conclusion:Stakeholder engagement in unbiased settings is necessary to understand various perspectives about evidentiary thresholds in genomic medicine. Participants recommended the use of various methods for evidence generation and synthesis.Genet Med advance online publication 5 April 2012.

Download full-text


Available from: Sheri D Schully, Dec 23, 2013
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adoption of personalized medicine in practice has been slow, in part due to the lack of evidence of clinical benefit provided by these technologies. Coverage by insurers is a critical step in achieving widespread adoption of personalized medicine. Insurers consider a variety of factors when formulating medical coverage policies for personalized medicine, including the overall strength of evidence for a test, availability of clinical guidelines and health technology assessments by independent organizations. In this study, we reviewed coverage policies of the largest U.S. insurers for genomic (disease-related) and pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests to determine the extent that these tests were covered and the evidence basis for the coverage decisions. We identified 41 coverage policies for 49 unique testing: 22 tests for disease diagnosis, prognosis and risk and 27 PGx tests. Fifty percent (or less) of the tests reviewed were covered by insurers. Lack of evidence of clinical utility appears to be a major factor in decisions of non-coverage. The inclusion of PGx information in drug package inserts appears to be a common theme of PGx tests that are covered. This analysis highlights the variability of coverage determinations and factors considered, suggesting that the adoption of personal medicine will affected by numerous factors, but will continue to be slowed due to lack of demonstrated clinical benefit.
    10/2012; 2(4):201-16. DOI:10.3390/jpm2040201
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three articles in this issue of Genetics in Medicine describe examples of "knowledge integration," involving methods for generating and synthesizing rapidly emerging information on health-related genomic technologies and engaging stakeholders around the evidence. Knowledge integration, the central process in translating genomic research, involves three closely related, iterative components: knowledge management, knowledge synthesis, and knowledge translation. Knowledge management is the ongoing process of obtaining, organizing, and displaying evolving evidence. For example, horizon scanning and "infoveillance" use emerging technologies to scan databases, registries, publications, and cyberspace for information on genomic applications. Knowledge synthesis is the process of conducting systematic reviews using a priori rules of evidence. For example, methods including meta-analysis, decision analysis, and modeling can be used to combine information from basic, clinical, and population research. Knowledge translation refers to stakeholder engagement and brokering to influence policy, guidelines and recommendations, as well as the research agenda to close knowledge gaps. The ultrarapid production of information requires adequate public and private resources for knowledge integration to support the evidence-based development of genomic medicine.Genet Med advance online publication 3 May 2012.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 05/2012; 14(7). DOI:10.1038/gim.2012.43 · 7.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Knowledge integration includes knowledge management, synthesis, and translation processes. It aims to maximize the utility of collected scientific information and accelerate translation of discoveries into individual and population health benefits. Accumulated evidence in cancer epidemiology constitutes a large share of the 2.7 million papers on cancer in PubMed. We examine the landscape of knowledge integration in cancer epidemiology. Past approaches have mostly used retrospective efforts of knowledge management and traditional systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic searches identify 2,332 meta-analyses, about half of which are on genetics and epigenetics. Meta-analyses represent 1:86-1:1162 of published articles in various cancer sub-fields. Recently there are more collaborative meta-analyses with individual-level data, including those with prospective collection of measurements (e.g. genotypes in genome-wide association studies); this may help increase the reliability of inferences in the field. However, most meta-analyses are still done retrospectively with published information. There is also a flurry of candidate gene meta-analyses with spuriously prevalent "positive" results. Prospective design of large research agendas, registration of datasets, and public availability of data and analyses may improve our ability to identify knowledge gaps, maximize and accelerate translational progress or - at a minimum - recognize dead ends in a more timely fashion.
    Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 10/2012; 22(1). DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1144 · 4.13 Impact Factor
Show more