Article

Building the evidence base for decision making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research.

Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 6.44). 04/2012; DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.16
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The clinical utility is uncertain for many cancer genomic applications. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can provide evidence to clarify this uncertainty. The aim of this study was to identify approaches to help stakeholders make evidence-based decisions and to describe potential challenges and opportunities in using CER to produce evidence-based guidance. We identified general CER approaches for genomic applications through literature review, the authors' experiences, and lessons learned from a recent, seven-site CER initiative in cancer genomic medicine. Case studies illustrate the use of CER approaches. Evidence generation and synthesis approaches used in CER include comparative observational and randomized trials, patient-reported outcomes, decision modeling, and economic analysis. Significant challenges to conducting CER in cancer genomics include the rapid pace of innovation, lack of regulation, and variable definitions and evidence thresholds for clinical and personal utility. Opportunities to capitalize on CER methods in cancer genomics include improvements in the conduct of evidence synthesis, stakeholder engagement, increasing the number of comparative studies, and developing approaches to inform clinical guidelines and research prioritization. CER offers a variety of methodological approaches that can address stakeholders' needs and help ensure an effective translation of genomic discoveries.Genet Med advance online publication 19 April 2012.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Gary H Lyman, Jun 30, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
142 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 04/2012; DOI:10.1038/gim.2012.3 · 6.44 Impact Factor
  • 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; DOI:10.1038/gim.2012.43 · 6.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose:Prioritization of translational research on genomic tests is critically important given the rapid pace of innovation in genomics. The goal of this study was to evaluate a stakeholder-informed priority-setting framework in cancer genomics.Methods:An external stakeholder advisory group including patients/consumers, payers, clinicians, and test developers used a modified Delphi approach to prioritize six candidate cancer genomic technologies during a 1-day meeting. Nine qualitative priority-setting criteria were considered. We used a directed, qualitative content-analysis approach to investigate the themes of the meeting discussion.Results:Stakeholders primarily discussed six of the original nine criteria: clinical benefits, population health impacts, economic impacts, analytical and clinical validity, clinical trial implementation and feasibility, and market factors. Several new priority-setting criteria were identified from the workshop transcript, including "patient-reported outcomes," "clinical trial ethics," and "trial recruitment." The new criteria were incorporated with prespecified criteria to develop a novel priority-setting framework.Conclusion:This study highlights key criteria that stakeholders can consider when prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer genomic applications. Applying an explicit priority-setting framework to inform investment in comparative effectiveness research can help to ensure that critical factors are weighed when deciding between many potential research questions and trial designs.Genet Med advance online publication 4 October 2012.Genetics in Medicine (2012); doi:10.1038/gim.2012.103.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 10/2012; 15(2). DOI:10.1038/gim.2012.103 · 6.44 Impact Factor