Christine Q Chang1, Sharna R Tingle1, Kelly K Filipski1, Muin J Khoury2, Tram Kim Lam1, Sheri D Schully1, John P A Ioannidis3. 1. Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA. 2. 1] Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA [2] Office of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 3. 1] Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA [2] Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA [3] Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA [4] Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the translational trajectory of genomic tests in cancer screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, we reviewed tests that have been assessed by recommendation and guideline developers. METHODS: For each test, we marked translational milestones by determining when the genomic association with cancer was first discovered and studied in patients, and when a health application for a specified clinical use was successfully demonstrated and approved or cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration. To identify recommendations and guidelines, we reviewed the websites of cancer, genomic, and general guideline developers and professional organizations. We searched the in vitro diagnostics database of the US Food and Drug Administration for information, and we searched PubMed for translational milestones. Milestones were examined against type of recommendation, Food and Drug Administration approval or clearance, disease rarity, and test purpose. RESULTS: Of the 45 tests we identified, 9 received strong recommendations for their usage in clinical settings, 14 received positive but moderate recommendations, and 22 were not currently recommended. For 18 tests, two or more different sources had issued recommendations, with 67% concordance. Only five tests had Food and Drug Administration approval, and an additional five had clearance. The median time from discovery to recommendation statement was 14.7 years. CONCLUSION: In general, there were no associations found between translational trajectory and recommendation category.Genet Med 17 6, 431-440.
PURPOSE: To understand the translational trajectory of genomic tests in cancer screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, we reviewed tests that have been assessed by recommendation and guideline developers. METHODS: For each test, we marked translational milestones by determining when the genomic association with cancer was first discovered and studied in patients, and when a health application for a specified clinical use was successfully demonstrated and approved or cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration. To identify recommendations and guidelines, we reviewed the websites of cancer, genomic, and general guideline developers and professional organizations. We searched the in vitro diagnostics database of the US Food and Drug Administration for information, and we searched PubMed for translational milestones. Milestones were examined against type of recommendation, Food and Drug Administration approval or clearance, disease rarity, and test purpose. RESULTS: Of the 45 tests we identified, 9 received strong recommendations for their usage in clinical settings, 14 received positive but moderate recommendations, and 22 were not currently recommended. For 18 tests, two or more different sources had issued recommendations, with 67% concordance. Only five tests had Food and Drug Administration approval, and an additional five had clearance. The median time from discovery to recommendation statement was 14.7 years. CONCLUSION: In general, there were no associations found between translational trajectory and recommendation category.Genet Med 17 6, 431-440.
Authors: Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis; George A Alexiou; Theodore C Gouvias; John P A Ioannidis Journal: Science Date: 2008-09-05 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Frederick E Dewey; Megan E Grove; Cuiping Pan; Benjamin A Goldstein; Jonathan A Bernstein; Hassan Chaib; Jason D Merker; Rachel L Goldfeder; Gregory M Enns; Sean P David; Neda Pakdaman; Kelly E Ormond; Colleen Caleshu; Kerry Kingham; Teri E Klein; Michelle Whirl-Carrillo; Kenneth Sakamoto; Matthew T Wheeler; Atul J Butte; James M Ford; Linda Boxer; John P A Ioannidis; Alan C Yeung; Russ B Altman; Themistocles L Assimes; Michael Snyder; Euan A Ashley; Thomas Quertermous Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Phillip G Febbo; Marc Ladanyi; Kenneth D Aldape; Angelo M De Marzo; M Elizabeth Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; A John Iafrate; R Kate Kelley; Guido Marcucci; Shuji Ogino; William Pao; Dennis C Sgroi; Marian L Birkeland Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Michael T Marrone; Corinne E Joshu; Sarah B Peskoe; Angelo M De Marzo; Christopher M Heaphy; Shawn E Lupold; Alan K Meeker; Elizabeth A Platz Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Yasir Rahmatallah; Magomed Khaidakov; Keith K Lai; Hannah E Goyne; Laura W Lamps; Curt H Hagedorn; Galina Glazko Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 3.063