Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research

Kathryn A Phillips, Patricia A Deverka, Harold C Sox, Muin J Khoury, Lewis G Sandy, Geoffrey S Ginsburg, Sean R Tunis, Lori A Orlando, Michael P Douglas, Kathryn A Phillips, Patricia A Deverka, Harold C Sox, Muin J Khoury, Lewis G Sandy, Geoffrey S Ginsburg, Sean R Tunis, Lori A Orlando, Michael P Douglas

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in genomic medicine (GM) measures the clinical utility of using genomic information to guide clinical care in comparison to appropriate alternatives. We summarized findings of high-quality systematic reviews that compared the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of GM tests. We focused on clinical utility findings to summarize CER-derived evidence about GM and identify evidence gaps and future research needs. We abstracted key elements of study design, GM interventions, results, and study quality ratings from 21 systematic reviews published in 2010 through 2015. More than half (N = 13) of the reviews were of cancer-related tests. All reviews identified potentially important clinical applications of the GM interventions, but most had significant methodological weaknesses that largely precluded any conclusions about clinical utility. Twelve reviews discussed the importance of patient-centered outcomes, although few described evidence about the impact of genomic medicine on these outcomes. In summary, we found a very limited body of evidence about the effect of using genomic tests on health outcomes and many evidence gaps for CER to address.Genet Med advance online publication 13 April 2017.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design. We conducted a structured literature review by abstracting information from each included review and then summarizing the results (Table 1; Supplementary Materials online). The reviews, along with interviews and assessments by the Technical Working Group, were used to develop the landscape analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
PRISMA diagram. We conducted a structured literature review and identified 348 total evidence reviews on the Technical Assessment Websites. After screening, we included 21 in the study.

References

    1. Ginsburg GS, Kuderer NM. Comparative effectiveness research, genomics-enabled personalized medicine, and rapid learning health care: a common bond. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:4233–4242.
    1. Khoury MJ, Rich EC, Randhawa G, Teutsch SM, Niederhuber J. Comparative effectiveness research and genomic medicine: an evolving partnership for 21st century medicine. Genet Med 2009;11:707–711.
    1. Deverka PA, Haga SB. Comparative effectiveness research and demonstrating clinical utility for molecular diagnostic tests. Clin Chem 2015;61:142–144.
    1. IJzerman M, Manca A, Keizer J, Ramsey S. Implementation of comparative effectiveness research in personalized medicine applications in oncology: current and future perspectives. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;5:65–72.
    1. 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 (Millwood) 2011;30:2259–2268.
    1. Thariani R, Wong W, Carlson JJ, et al.; Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics (CANCERGEN). Prioritization in comparative effectiveness research: the CANCERGEN Experience. Med Care 2012;50:388–393.
    1. Phillips KA, Trosman JR, Kelley RK, Pletcher MJ, Douglas MP, Weldon CB. Genomic sequencing: assessing the health care system, policy, and big-data implications. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014;33:1246–1253.
    1. Phillips KA. Closing the evidence gap in the use of emerging testing technologies in clinical practice. JAMA 2008;300:2542–2544.
    1. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S (eds). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2011.
    1. Thariani R, Wong W, Carlson JJ, et al.; Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics (CANCERGEN). Prioritization in comparative effectiveness research: the CANCERGEN Experience. Med Care 2012;50:388–393.
    1. Ramsey SD, Barlow WE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Integrating comparative effectiveness design elements and endpoints into a phase III, randomized clinical trial (SWOG S1007) evaluating oncotypeDX-guided management for women with breast cancer involving lymph nodes. Contemp Clin Trials 2013;34:1–9.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Archived EPC Evidence Reports. . Accessed 9 September 2016.
    1. PCORI: Generation and Prioritization of Topics for Funding Announcements. 2015. . Accessed 13 April 2016.
    1. Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:249–266.
    1. Gregg AR, Skotko BG, Benkendorf JL, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2016;18:1056–1065.
    1. Langlois S, Brock JA, Wilson RD, et al.; Genetics Committee. Current status in non-invasive prenatal detection of Down syndrome, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13 using cell-free DNA in maternal plasma. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013;35:177–183.
    1. Norton ME, Wapner RJ. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2582.
    1. Zhang H, Gao Y, Jiang F, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146,958 pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:530–538.
    1. Chou R, Buckley D, Fu R, et al. Emerging Approaches to Diagnosis and Treatment of Non–Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. AHRQ: Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center. 25 October 2015.
    1. Meleth S, Reeder-Hayes K, Ashok M, et al. Technology Assessment of Molecular Pathology Testing for the Estimation of Prognosis for Common Cancers. AHRQ: RTI International–University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center. 29 May 2014.
    1. Bradley L, Palomaki G, Gutman S, Samson D, Aronson N. PCA3 Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Prostate Cancer. AHRQ: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center. April 2013.
    1. Meleth S, Whitehead N, Swinson-Evans T, Lux L. Technology Assessment on Genetic Testing or Molecular Pathology Testing of Cancer with Unknown Primary Site to Determine Origin. AHRQ: RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center. 20 February 2013.
    1. Ratko T. Gene Expression Analysis for Prostate Cancer Management. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. January 2015.
    1. Glacy J, Chopra R. Gene Expression Profiling in Women with Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer to Select Adjuvant Chemotherapy. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. October 2014.
    1. Mark D, Ratko T. Special Report: Multiple Molecular Testing of Cancer to Identify Targeted Therapies. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. June 2013.
    1. Black E, Falzon L, Aronson N. Gene Expression Profiling for Predicting Outcomes in Stage II Colon Cancer. AHRQ: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center. December 2012.
    1. Terasawa T, Dahabreh I, Castaldi P, Trikalinos T. Systematic Reviews on Selected Pharmacogenetic Tests for Cancer Treatment: CYP2D6 for Tamoxifen in Breast Cancer, KRAS for anti-EGFR antibodies in Colorectal Cancer, and BCR-ABL1 for Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. AHRQ: Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center. 7 June 2010.
    1. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2005–2014.
    1. Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, et al.; MINDACT Investigators. 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:717–729.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Genetic Testing—Genomic Tests and Family Health History by Levels of Evidence. 2015. . Accessed 12 April 2016.
    1. Nelson H, Fu R, Goddard K, et al. Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-related Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. AHRQ: Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center. December 2013.
    1. Lin J, Webber E, Beil T, Goddard K, Whitlock E. Fecal DNA Testing in Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Average-Risk Adults. AHRQ: Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center. 29 February 2012.
    1. Mark D. Fecal DNA Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. December 2014.
    1. Hilgart J, Coles B, Iredale R. Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;CD003721.
    1. Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1055–1062.
    1. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:271–281.
    1. Grant M, Chopra R. Special Report: Chromosomal Microarray for the Genetic Evaluation of Patients With Global Developmental Delay, Intellectual Disability, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. August 2015.
    1. Sun F, Oristaglio J, Levy S, et al. Genetic Testing for Developmental Disabilities, Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder. AHRQ: ECRI Institute–Penn Medicine Evidence-based Practice Center. 29 June 2015.
    1. Dahabreh I, Moorthy D, Lamont J, Chen M, Kent D, Lau J. Testing of CYP2C19 Variants and Platelet Reactivity for Guiding Antiplatelet Treatment. AHRQ: Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center. 25 September 2013.
    1. Glacy J. CYP2D6 Pharmacogenomics of Tamoxifen Treatment. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. January 2014.
    1. Klein T. Mayo Clinic Studying Genomics of Antiplatelet Heart Medication. 2016. .
    1. PharmGkb. Drug Labels. 2016. . Accessed 2 November 2016.
    1. Kimmel SE, French B, Kasner SE, et al.; COAG Investigators. A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing. N Engl J Med 2013;369:2283–2293.
    1. Pirmohamed M, Burnside G, Eriksson N, et al.; EU-PACT Group. A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin. N Engl J Med 2013;369:2294–2303.
    1. Verhoef TI, Ragia G, de Boer A, et al.; EU-PACT Group. A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon. N Engl J Med 2013;369:2304–2312.
    1. Plumpton CO, Roberts D, Pirmohamed M, Hughes DA. A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing for prevention of adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoeconomics 2016;34:771–793.
    1. Bielinski SJ, Olson JE, Pathak J, et al. Preemptive genotyping for personalized medicine: design of the right drug, right dose, right time-using genomic data to individualize treatment protocol. Mayo Clin Proc 2014;89:25–33.
    1. Ratko T, Chopra R. Noninvasive Prenatal Cell-Free Fetal DNA-based screening for Aneuploidies Other Than Trisomy 21. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. December 2014.
    1. Piper M, Civic D, Grant M, Lefevre F. Sequencing-Based Tests to Determine Fetal Down Syndrome (Trisomy 21) form Maternal Plasma DNA. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. April 2013.
    1. Marteau T, French D, Griffin S, et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;CD007275.
    1. Piper M, Grant M. Special Report: Exome Sequencing for Clinical Diagnosis for Patients with Suspected Genetic Disorders. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. August 2013.
    1. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al.; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;15:565–574.
    1. ACMG Board of Directors. ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med 2015;17:68–69.
    1. Schully SD, Lam TK, Dotson WD, et al. Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects. Genet Med 2015;17:63–67.
    1. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Micheel CM, Nass SJ, Omenn GS (eds). Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012.
    1. Deverka P, Messner DA, McCormack R, et al. Generating and evaluating evidence of the clinical utility of molecular diagnostic tests in oncology. Genet Med 2016;18:780–787.
    1. 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.
    1. Basch E, Spertus J, Dudley RA, et al. Methods for Developing Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measures (PRO-PMs). Value Health 2015;18:493–504.
    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Biomarker Tests for Molecularly Targeted Therapies: Key to Unlocking Precision Medicine. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2016.
    1. Tetreault M, Bareke E, Nadaf J, Alirezaie N, Majewski J. Whole-exome sequencing as a diagnostic tool: current challenges and future opportunities. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2015;15:749–760.
    1. Weitzel KW, Elsey AR, Langaee TY, et al. Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation: approaches, successes, and challenges. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2014;166C:56–67.
    1. Chang KL, Weitzel K, Schmidt S. Pharmacogenetics: using genetic information to guide drug therapy. Am Fam Physician 2015;92:588–594.
    1. Saffitz JE. Genomic pathology: a disruptive innovation. Medicine (Baltimore). 2012:237–239.
    1. Meric-Bernstam F, Farhangfar C, Mendelsohn J, Mills GB. Building a personalized medicine infrastructure at a major cancer center. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1849–1857.
    1. Trosman JR, Weldon CB, Kelley RK, Phillips KA. Challenges of coverage policy development for next-generation tumor sequencing panels: experts and payers weigh in. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015;13:311–318.
    1. Phillips K, Trosman J, Weldon C, Chambers J, Deverka P, Douglas M. Few insurer policies currently cover multi-gene panels: findings from a systematic registry. Nat Biotechnol, in press.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa