Literature DB >> 24155644

Benefits, issues, and recommendations for personalized medicine in oncology in Canada.

C Butts1, S Kamel-Reid, G Batist, S Chia, C Blanke, M Moore, M B Sawyer, C Desjardins, A Dubois, J Pun, K Bonter, F D Ashbury.   

Abstract

The burden of cancer for Canadian citizens and society is large. New technologies have the potential to increase the use of genetic information in clinical decision-making, furthering prevention, surveillance, and safer, more effective drug therapies for cancer patients. Personalized medicine can have different meanings to different people. The context for personalized medicine in the present paper is genetic testing, which offers the promise of refining treatment decisions for those diagnosed with chronic and life-threatening illnesses. Personalized medicine and genetic characterization of tumours can also give direction to the development of novel drugs. Genetic testing will increasingly become an essential part of clinical decision-making. In Canada, provinces are responsible for health care, and most have unique policies and programs in place to address cancer control. The result is inconsistency in access to and delivery of therapies and other interventions, beyond the differences expected because of demographic factors and clinical education. Inconsistencies arising from differences in resources, policy, and application of evidence-informed personalized cancer medicine exacerbate patient access to appropriate testing and quality care. Geographic variations in cancer incidence and mortality rates in Canada-with the Atlantic provinces and Quebec having higher rates, and British Columbia having the lowest rates-are well documented. Our purpose here is to provide an understanding of current and future applications of personalized medicine in oncology, to highlight the benefits of personalized medicine for patients, and to describe issues and opportunities for improvement in the coordination of personalized medicine in Canada. Efficient and more rapid adoption of personalized medicine in oncology in Canada could help overcome those issues and improve cancer prevention and care. That task might benefit from the creation of a National Genetics Advisory Panel that would review research and provide recommendations on tests for funding or reimbursement, guidelines, service delivery models, laboratory quality assurance, education, and communication. More has to be known about the current state of personalized cancer medicine in Canada, and strategies have to be developed to inform and improve understanding and appropriate coordination and delivery. Our hope is that the perspectives emphasized in this paper will stimulate discussion and further research to create a more informed response.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Personalized medicine; genetic testing; guidelines; patient care; policy; practice; quality

Year:  2013        PMID: 24155644      PMCID: PMC3805416          DOI: 10.3747/co.20.1253

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  33 in total

1.  Canadian Expert Group consensus recommendations: KRAS testing in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  F Aubin; S Gill; R Burkes; B Colwell; S Kamel-Reid; S Koski; A Pollett; B Samson; M Tehfe; R Wong; S Young; D Soulières
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Predictive and prognostic molecular markers for cancer medicine.

Authors:  Sunali Mehta; Andrew Shelling; Anita Muthukaruppan; Annette Lasham; Cherie Blenkiron; George Laking; Cristin Print
Journal:  Ther Adv Med Oncol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 8.168

3.  KRAS mutation testing in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer with anti-EGFR therapies.

Authors:  D Soulières; W Greer; Anthony M Magliocco; D Huntsman; S Young; M-S Tsao; S Kamel-Reid
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 4.  HER2 testing to manage patients with breast cancer or other solid tumors.

Authors:  Jerome Seidenfeld; David J Samsom; Barbara M Rothenberg; Claudia J Bonnell; Kathleen M Ziegler; Naomi Aronson
Journal:  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep)       Date:  2008-11

5.  Expression of epiregulin and amphiregulin and K-ras mutation status predict disease control in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab.

Authors:  Shirin Khambata-Ford; Christopher R Garrett; Neal J Meropol; Mark Basik; Christopher T Harbison; Shujian Wu; Tai W Wong; Xin Huang; Chris H Takimoto; Andrew K Godwin; Benjamin R Tan; Smitha S Krishnamurthi; Howard A Burris; Elizabeth A Poplin; Manuel Hidalgo; Jose Baselga; Edwin A Clark; David J Mauro
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Rafael G Amado; Michael Wolf; Marc Peeters; Eric Van Cutsem; Salvatore Siena; Daniel J Freeman; Todd Juan; Robert Sikorski; Sid Suggs; Robert Radinsky; Scott D Patterson; David D Chang
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-03-03       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Personalised medicine in Canada: a survey of adoption and practice in oncology, cardiology and family medicine.

Authors:  Katherine Bonter; Clarissa Desjardins; Nathan Currier; Jason Pun; Fredrick D Ashbury
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients.

Authors:  Laurel A Habel; Steven Shak; Marlena K Jacobs; Angela Capra; Claire Alexander; Mylan Pho; Joffre Baker; Michael Walker; Drew Watson; James Hackett; Noelle T Blick; Deborah Greenberg; Louis Fehrenbacher; Bryan Langholz; Charles P Quesenberry
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2006-05-31       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 9.  American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy.

Authors:  Carmen J Allegra; J Milburn Jessup; Mark R Somerfield; Stanley R Hamilton; Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Pamela K McAllister; Roscoe F Morton; Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-02-02       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Association of progression-free survival with patient-reported outcomes and survival: results from a randomised phase 3 trial of panitumumab.

Authors:  S Siena; M Peeters; E Van Cutsem; Y Humblet; P Conte; E Bajetta; D Comandini; G Bodoky; G Van Hazel; T Salek; M Wolf; G Devercelli; M Woolley; R G Amado
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-11-27       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  6 in total

1.  Comprehensive strategy for the design of precision drugs and identification of genetic signature behind proneness of the disease-a pharmacogenomic approach.

Authors:  Preethi M Iyer; S Karthikeyan; P Sanjay Kumar; P K Krishnan Namboori
Journal:  Funct Integr Genomics       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 3.410

2.  Impact of Recurrence Score on type and duration of chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  K Willemsma; W Yip; N LeVasseur; K Dobosz; C Illmann; S Baxter; C Lohrisch; C E Simmons
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Cost-effectiveness of using a gene expression profiling test to aid in identifying the primary tumour in patients with cancer of unknown primary.

Authors:  M B Hannouf; E Winquist; S M Mahmud; M Brackstone; S Sarma; G Rodrigues; P Rogan; J S Hoch; G S Zaric
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 3.550

4.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of multigene expression profiling assays to guide adjuvant therapy decisions in women with invasive early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Malek B Hannouf; Gregory S Zaric; Phillip Blanchette; Christine Brezden-Masley; Mike Paulden; Christopher McCabe; Jacques Raphael; Muriel Brackstone
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 3.550

5.  A Survey Exploring Personalised Medicine amongst Radiography Academics within the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Jerome Atutornu; Christopher M Hayre
Journal:  J Med Imaging Radiat Sci       Date:  2020-07-01

6.  Treatment preferences for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastasis: a large-scale survey from Chinese oncologists.

Authors:  Yongfeng Yu; Jie Qian; Lan Shen; Wenxiang Ji; Shun Lu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.