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.
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.
Authors: Rahber Thariani; William Wong; Josh J Carlson; Louis Garrison; Scott Ramsey; Patricia A Deverka; Laura Esmail; Sneha Rangarao; Carolyn J Hoban; Laurence H Baker; David L Veenstra Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Patricia A Deverka; Danielle C Lavallee; Priyanka J Desai; Laura C Esmail; Scott D Ramsey; David L Veenstra; Sean R Tunis Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Rena Conti; David L Veenstra; Katrina Armstrong; Lawrence J Lesko; Scott D Grosse Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Kristin Berry; Ruth Etzioni; Robert M Kaplan; Sean D Sullivan; Douglas E Wood Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Katrina A B Goddard; William A Knaus; Evelyn Whitlock; Gary H Lyman; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Sheri D Schully; Scott Ramsey; Sean Tunis; Andrew N Freedman; Muin J Khoury; David L Veenstra Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Steven M Teutsch; Linda A Bradley; Glenn E Palomaki; James E Haddow; Margaret Piper; Ned Calonge; W David Dotson; Michael P Douglas; Alfred O Berg Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Sarah Barger; Sean D Sullivan; Ari Bell-Brown; Brad Bott; Anne Marie Ciccarella; John Golenski; Mark Gorman; Judy Johnson; Karma Kreizenbeck; Florence Kurttila; Ginny Mason; Jamie Myers; Carole Seigel; James L Wade; Guneet Walia; Kate Watabayashi; Gary H Lyman; Scott D Ramsey Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Nicole M Rankin; Deborah McGregor; Phyllis N Butow; Kate White; Jane L Phillips; Jane M Young; Sallie A Pearson; Sarah York; Tim Shaw Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Ilda Hoxhaj; Laurenz Govaerts; Steven Simoens; Walter Van Dyck; Isabelle Huys; Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea; Stefania Boccia Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.390