晚期癌症综合基因组剖析广泛技术评估的因素,系统综述。

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY Critical reviews in oncology/hematology Pub Date : 2024-07-14 DOI:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104441
L.F. van Schaik , E.G. Engelhardt , E.A. Wilthagen , N. Steeghs , A. Fernández Coves , M.A. Joore , W.H. van Harten , V.P. Retèl
{"title":"晚期癌症综合基因组剖析广泛技术评估的因素,系统综述。","authors":"L.F. van Schaik ,&nbsp;E.G. Engelhardt ,&nbsp;E.A. Wilthagen ,&nbsp;N. Steeghs ,&nbsp;A. Fernández Coves ,&nbsp;M.A. Joore ,&nbsp;W.H. van Harten ,&nbsp;V.P. Retèl","doi":"10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) allows for the identification of many targets. Reimbursement decision-making is, however, challenging because besides the health benefits of on-label treatments and costs, other factors related to diagnostic and treatment pathways may also play a role. The aim of this study was to identify which other factors are relevant for the technology assessment of CGP and to summarize the available evidence for these factors. After a scoping search and two expert sessions, five factors were identified: feasibility, test journey, wider implications of diagnostic results, organisation of laboratories, and “scientific spillover”. Subsequently, a systematic search identified 83 studies collecting mainly evidence for the factors “test journey” and “wider implications of diagnostic results”. Its nature was, however, of limited value for decision-making. We recommend the use of comparative strategies, uniformity in outcome definitions, and the inclusion of a comprehensive set of factors in future evidence generation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11358,"journal":{"name":"Critical reviews in oncology/hematology","volume":"202 ","pages":"Article 104441"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors for a broad technology assessment of comprehensive genomic profiling in advanced cancer, a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"L.F. van Schaik ,&nbsp;E.G. Engelhardt ,&nbsp;E.A. Wilthagen ,&nbsp;N. Steeghs ,&nbsp;A. Fernández Coves ,&nbsp;M.A. Joore ,&nbsp;W.H. van Harten ,&nbsp;V.P. Retèl\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) allows for the identification of many targets. Reimbursement decision-making is, however, challenging because besides the health benefits of on-label treatments and costs, other factors related to diagnostic and treatment pathways may also play a role. The aim of this study was to identify which other factors are relevant for the technology assessment of CGP and to summarize the available evidence for these factors. After a scoping search and two expert sessions, five factors were identified: feasibility, test journey, wider implications of diagnostic results, organisation of laboratories, and “scientific spillover”. Subsequently, a systematic search identified 83 studies collecting mainly evidence for the factors “test journey” and “wider implications of diagnostic results”. Its nature was, however, of limited value for decision-making. We recommend the use of comparative strategies, uniformity in outcome definitions, and the inclusion of a comprehensive set of factors in future evidence generation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11358,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical reviews in oncology/hematology\",\"volume\":\"202 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104441\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical reviews in oncology/hematology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040842824001847\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical reviews in oncology/hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040842824001847","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综合基因组分析(CGP)可以确定许多靶点。然而,报销决策具有挑战性,因为除了标示治疗的健康益处和成本外,与诊断和治疗途径相关的其他因素也可能发挥作用。本研究旨在确定哪些其他因素与 CGP 的技术评估相关,并总结这些因素的现有证据。经过范围检索和两次专家会议后,确定了五个因素:可行性、测试旅程、诊断结果的广泛影响、实验室组织和 "科学外溢"。随后,通过系统检索,确定了 83 项研究,主要收集了 "测试过程 "和 "诊断结果的更广泛影响 "这两个因素的证据。然而,这些研究对决策的价值有限。我们建议使用比较策略,统一结果定义,并在未来的证据生成中纳入一整套因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Factors for a broad technology assessment of comprehensive genomic profiling in advanced cancer, a systematic review

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) allows for the identification of many targets. Reimbursement decision-making is, however, challenging because besides the health benefits of on-label treatments and costs, other factors related to diagnostic and treatment pathways may also play a role. The aim of this study was to identify which other factors are relevant for the technology assessment of CGP and to summarize the available evidence for these factors. After a scoping search and two expert sessions, five factors were identified: feasibility, test journey, wider implications of diagnostic results, organisation of laboratories, and “scientific spillover”. Subsequently, a systematic search identified 83 studies collecting mainly evidence for the factors “test journey” and “wider implications of diagnostic results”. Its nature was, however, of limited value for decision-making. We recommend the use of comparative strategies, uniformity in outcome definitions, and the inclusion of a comprehensive set of factors in future evidence generation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
213
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology publishes scholarly, critical reviews in all fields of oncology and hematology written by experts from around the world. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology is the Official Journal of the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the International Society of Liquid Biopsy.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Erratum to “Unleashing precision: A review of targeted approaches in pleural mesothelioma” [Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 203C (2024) 104481] Corrigendum to “The emerging HER2 landscape in Colorectal Cancer: The key to unveil the future treatment algorithm?” [Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 204 (2024) 104515] Corrigendum to “Navigating the complexity of PI3K/AKT pathway in HER-2 negative breast cancer: Biomarkers and beyond” [Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 200C (2024) 104404] Corrigendum to “Prevalence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with antibody-drug conjugates in metastatic breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis” [Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 204 (2024) 104527]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1