Literature DB >> 24634466

Evidence of clinical utility: an unmet need in molecular diagnostics for patients with cancer.

David R Parkinson1, Robert T McCormack, Susan M Keating, Steven I Gutman, Stanley R Hamilton, Elizabeth A Mansfield, Margaret A Piper, Patricia Deverka, Felix W Frueh, J Milburn Jessup, Lisa M McShane, Sean R Tunis, Caroline C Sigman, Gary J Kelloff.   

Abstract

This article defines and describes best practices for the academic and business community to generate evidence of clinical utility for cancer molecular diagnostic assays. Beyond analytical and clinical validation, successful demonstration of clinical utility involves developing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a diagnostic test results in an improvement in patient outcomes. This discussion is complementary to theoretical frameworks described in previously published guidance and literature reports by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Institute of Medicine, and Center for Medical Technology Policy, among others. These reports are comprehensive and specifically clarify appropriate clinical use, adoption, and payer reimbursement for assay manufacturers, as well as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratories, including those that develop assays (laboratory developed tests). Practical criteria and steps for establishing clinical utility are crucial to subsequent decisions for reimbursement without which high-performing molecular diagnostics will have limited availability to patients with cancer and fail to translate scientific advances into high-quality and cost-effective cancer care. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, "The Precision Medicine Conundrum: Approaches to Companion Diagnostic Co-development." ©2014 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24634466     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  39 in total

1.  Assessment of the Validity of Nuclear-Localized Androgen Receptor Splice Variant 7 in Circulating Tumor Cells as a Predictive Biomarker for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Howard I Scher; Ryon P Graf; Nicole A Schreiber; Anuradha Jayaram; Eric Winquist; Brigit McLaughlin; David Lu; Martin Fleisher; Sarah Orr; Lori Lowes; Amanda Anderson; Yipeng Wang; Ryan Dittamore; Alison L Allan; Gerhardt Attard; Glenn Heller
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 2.  Current status of molecular biomarkers in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  H M J Werner; H B Salvesen
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.075

3.  Trial Design and Objectives for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3.

Authors:  Howard I Scher; Michael J Morris; Walter M Stadler; Celestia Higano; Ethan Basch; Karim Fizazi; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Tomasz M Beer; Michael A Carducci; Kim N Chi; Paul G Corn; Johann S de Bono; Robert Dreicer; Daniel J George; Elisabeth I Heath; Maha Hussain; Wm Kevin Kelly; Glenn Liu; Christopher Logothetis; David Nanus; Mark N Stein; Dana E Rathkopf; Susan F Slovin; Charles J Ryan; Oliver Sartor; Eric J Small; Matthew Raymond Smith; Cora N Sternberg; Mary-Ellen Taplin; George Wilding; Peter S Nelson; Lawrence H Schwartz; Susan Halabi; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Evaluation of Urine Aquaporin-1 and Perilipin-2 Concentrations as Biomarkers to Screen for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Jeremiah J Morrissey; Vincent M Mellnick; Jingqin Luo; Marilyn J Siegel; R Sherburne Figenshau; Sam Bhayani; Evan D Kharasch
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 5.  Developing precision medicine in a global world.

Authors:  Eric H Rubin; Jeffrey D Allen; Jan A Nowak; Susan E Bates
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Enhancing the efficacy of radiation therapy: premises, promises, and practicality.

Authors:  C Norman Coleman; Theodore S Lawrence; David G Kirsch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Biomarker development in the context of urologic cancers.

Authors:  Gary J Kelloff; Caroline C Sigman; Howard I Scher
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 3.498

8.  Impact of Availability of Companion Diagnostics on the Clinical Development of Anticancer Drugs.

Authors:  Ariadna Tibau; Laura Díez-González; Beatriz Navarro; Eva M Galán-Moya; Arnoud J Templeton; Bostjan Seruga; Atanasio Pandiella; Eitan Amir; Alberto Ocana
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 9.  Assessment of benefits and risks in development of targeted therapies for cancer--The view of regulatory authorities.

Authors:  Francesco Pignatti; Bertil Jonsson; Gideon Blumenthal; Robert Justice
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 6.603

10.  Cancer biomarker discovery and validation.

Authors:  Nicolas Goossens; Shigeki Nakagawa; Xiaochen Sun; Yujin Hoshida
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.