Patricia Deverka1, Donna A Messner1, Robert McCormack2, Gary H Lyman3, Margaret Piper4, Linda Bradley5, David Parkinson6, David Nelson7, Howard L McLeod, Mary Lou Smith8, Louis Jacques9, Tania Dutta1, Sean R Tunis1. 1. Center for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Janssen Oncology, Johnson & Johnson, Raritan, New Jersey, USA. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon, USA. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 6. New Enterprise Associates, Inc., Menlo Park, California, USA. 7. Epic Sciences, San Diego, California, USA. 8. Research Advocacy Network, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 9. ADVI, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Enthusiasm for molecular diagnostic (MDx) testing in oncology is constrained by the gaps in required evidence regarding its impact on patient outcomes (clinical utility (CU)). This effectiveness guidance document proposes recommendations for the design and evaluation of studies intended to reflect the evidence expectations of payers, while also reflecting information needs of patients and clinicians. METHODS: Our process included literature reviews and key informant interviews followed by iterative virtual and in-person consultation with an expert technical working group and an advisory group comprising life-sciences industry experts, public and private payers, patients, clinicians, regulators, researchers, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Treatment decisions in oncology represent high-risk clinical decision making, and therefore the recommendations give preference to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for demonstrating CU. The guidance also describes circumstances under which alternatives to RCTs could be considered, specifying conditions under which test developers could use prospective-retrospective studies with banked biospecimens, single-arm studies, prospective observational studies, or decision-analytic modeling techniques that make a reasonable case for CU. CONCLUSION: Using a process driven by multiple stakeholders, we developed a common framework for designing and evaluating studies of the clinical validity and CU of MDx tests, achieving a balance between internal validity of the studies and the relevance, feasibility, and timeliness of generating the desired evidence.Genet Med 18 8, 780-787.
PURPOSE: Enthusiasm for molecular diagnostic (MDx) testing in oncology is constrained by the gaps in required evidence regarding its impact on patient outcomes (clinical utility (CU)). This effectiveness guidance document proposes recommendations for the design and evaluation of studies intended to reflect the evidence expectations of payers, while also reflecting information needs of patients and clinicians. METHODS: Our process included literature reviews and key informant interviews followed by iterative virtual and in-person consultation with an expert technical working group and an advisory group comprising life-sciences industry experts, public and private payers, patients, clinicians, regulators, researchers, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Treatment decisions in oncology represent high-risk clinical decision making, and therefore the recommendations give preference to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for demonstrating CU. The guidance also describes circumstances under which alternatives to RCTs could be considered, specifying conditions under which test developers could use prospective-retrospective studies with banked biospecimens, single-arm studies, prospective observational studies, or decision-analytic modeling techniques that make a reasonable case for CU. CONCLUSION: Using a process driven by multiple stakeholders, we developed a common framework for designing and evaluating studies of the clinical validity and CU of MDx tests, achieving a balance between internal validity of the studies and the relevance, feasibility, and timeliness of generating the desired evidence.Genet Med 18 8, 780-787.
Authors: Marc L Berger; Nancy Dreyer; Fred Anderson; Adrian Towse; Art Sedrakyan; Sharon-Lise Normand Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Helen M Moore; Andrea B Kelly; Scott D Jewell; Lisa M McShane; Douglas P Clark; Renata Greenspan; Daniel F Hayes; Pierre Hainaut; Paula Kim; Elizabeth A Mansfield; Olga Potapova; Peter Riegman; Yaffa Rubinstein; Edward Seijo; Stella Somiari; Peter Watson; Heinz-Ulrich Weier; Claire Zhu; Jim Vaught Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Lisa M McShane; Margaret M Cavenagh; Tracy G Lively; David A Eberhard; William L Bigbee; P Mickey Williams; Jill P Mesirov; Mei-Yin C Polley; Kelly Y Kim; James V Tricoli; Jeremy M G Taylor; Deborah J Shuman; Richard M Simon; James H Doroshow; Barbara A Conley Journal: BMC Med Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Ryon P Graf; Melanie Hullings; Ethan S Barnett; Emily Carbone; Ryan Dittamore; Howard I Scher Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James D Chambers; Cayla J Saret; Jordan E Anderson; Patricia A Deverka; Michael P Douglas; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Patricia A Deverka; Harold C Sox; Muin J Khoury; Lewis G Sandy; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Sean R Tunis; Lori A Orlando; Michael P Douglas Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Andrew P Dervan; Patricia A Deverka; Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Michael P Douglas; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Lorraine M Elit; Anthony W Fyles; Chu-Shu Gu; Gregory R Pond; David D'Souza; Rajiv Samant; Margaret Anthes; Gillian Thomas; Marc Filion; Julie Arsenault; Ian Dayes; Timothy J Whelan; Karen Y Gulenchyn; Ur Metser; Kavita Dhamanaskar; Mark N Levine Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-09-07