Literature DB >> 22147853

How comparative effectiveness research can help advance 'personalized medicine' in cancer treatment.

Scott D Ramsey1, David Veenstra, Sean R Tunis, Louis Garrison, John J Crowley, Laurence H Baker.   

Abstract

The use of biomarkers to "personalize" cancer treatment--identifying discrete genes, proteins, or other indicators that can differentiate one type of cancer from another and enable the use of highly tailored therapies--offers tremendous potential for improved outcomes and lower treatment costs. However, the rapid development of cancer biomarker, or genomic, tests--combined with a paucity of evidence to support the effectiveness of the tests--presents a challenge for patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders. In this article we propose that comparative effectiveness research be used to strengthen what is now a haphazard process for developing and marketing cancer biomarker tests. We suggest novel funding approaches and a systematic process for moving from regulatory approval to the generation of evidence that meets the needs of stakeholders and, ultimately, patients.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2011        PMID： 22147853      PMCID： PMC3477796          DOI： 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0637

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN： 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  11 in total

Review 1.  Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer.

Authors:  M P Rojas; E Telaro; A Russo; R Fossati; C Confalonieri; A Liberati
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2000

2.  Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right.

Authors:  Harold C Sox
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Access with evidence development: the US experience.

Authors:  Penny E Mohr; Sean R Tunis
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Personal genomics: information can be harmful.

Authors:  D F Ransohoff; M J Khoury
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.686

Review 5.  What are pragmatic trials?

Authors:  M Roland; D J Torgerson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-01-24

6.  Incidence of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and the feasibility of molecular screening for the disease.

Authors:  L A Aaltonen; R Salovaara; P Kristo; F Canzian; A Hemminki; P Peltomäki; R B Chadwick; H Kääriäinen; M Eskelinen; H Järvinen; J P Mecklin; A de la Chapelle
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-05-21       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: diagnostic strategies and their implications.

Authors:  Peter A Bonis; Thomas A Trikalinos; Mei Chung; Priscilla Chew; Stanley Ip; Deirdre A DeVine; Joseph Lau
Journal:  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep)       Date:  2007-05

Review 8.  American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer.

Authors:  Lyndsay Harris; Herbert Fritsche; Robert Mennel; Larry Norton; Peter Ravdin; Sheila Taube; Mark R Somerfield; Daniel F Hayes; Robert C Bast
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 9.  EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Glenn E Palomaki; Monica R McClain; Stephanie Melillo; Heather L Hampel; Stephen N Thibodeau
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer?

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.822
View more
  12 in total

1.  Preserving Institutional Privacy in Distributed binary Logistic Regression.

Authors:  Yuan Wu; Xiaoqian Jiang; Lucila Ohno-Machado
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2012-11-03

2.  Cost Implications of Value-Based Pricing for Companion Diagnostic Tests in Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Gregory S Zaric
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Facilitating comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics: evaluating stakeholder perceptions of the engagement process.

Authors:  Patricia A Deverka; Danielle C Lavallee; Priyanka J Desai; Joanne Armstrong; Mark Gorman; Leah Hole-Curry; James O'Leary; B W Ruffner; John Watkins; David L Veenstra; Laurence H Baker; Joseph M Unger; Scott D Ramsey
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.744

Review 4.  Comparative effectiveness research, genomics-enabled personalized medicine, and rapid learning health care: a common bond.

Authors:  Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Nicole M Kuderer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007).

Authors:  William B Wong; Scott D Ramsey; William E Barlow; Louis P Garrison; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics and precision medicine: current landscape and future prospects.

Authors:  Naoko I Simonds; Muin J Khoury; Sheri D Schully; Katrina Armstrong; Wendy F Cohn; David A Fenstermacher; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Katrina A B Goddard; William A Knaus; Gary H Lyman; Scott D Ramsey; Jianfeng Xu; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Value-of-information analysis within a stakeholder-driven research prioritization process in a US setting: an application in cancer genomics.

Authors:  Josh J Carlson; Rahber Thariani; Josh Roth; Julie Gralow; N Lynn Henry; Laura Esmail; Pat Deverka; Scott D Ramsey; Laurence Baker; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Scenario drafting to anticipate future developments in technology assessment.

Authors:  Valesca P Retèl; Manuela A Joore; Sabine C Linn; Emiel J T Rutgers; Wim H van Harten
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2012-08-16

9.  Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options.

Authors:  Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova; James Buchanan; Heleen Vellekoop; Simone Huygens; Matthijs Versteegh; Maureen Rutten-van Mölken; László Szilberhorn; Tamás Zelei; Balázs Nagy; Sarah Wordsworth; Apostolos Tsiachristas
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Prospective molecular profiling of canine cancers provides a clinically relevant comparative model for evaluating personalized medicine (PMed) trials.

Authors:  Melissa Paoloni; Craig Webb; Christina Mazcko; David Cherba; William Hendricks; Susan Lana; E J Ehrhart; Brad Charles; Heather Fehling; Leena Kumar; David Vail; Michael Henson; Michael Childress; Barbara Kitchell; Christopher Kingsley; Seungchan Kim; Mark Neff; Barbara Davis; Chand Khanna; Jeffrey Trent
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 3.240
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.