TY - JOUR
T1 - Factors for a broad technology assessment of comprehensive genomic profiling in advanced cancer, a systematic review
AU - van Schaik, L. F.
AU - Engelhardt, E. G.
AU - Wilthagen, E. A.
AU - Steeghs, N.
AU - Fernández Coves, A.
AU - Joore, M. A.
AU - van Harten, W. H.
AU - Retèl, V. P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2024/10
Y1 - 2024/10
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85198714804&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104441
DO - 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104441
M3 - Review article
C2 - 39002790
AN - SCOPUS:85198714804
SN - 1040-8428
VL - 202
JO - Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
JF - Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
M1 - 104441
ER -