Generating and evaluating evidence of the clinical utility of molecular diagnostic tests in oncology.

Deverka P1, Messner DA1, McCormack R2, Lyman GH3, Piper M4, Bradley L5, Parkinson D6, Nelson D7, Smith ML8, Jacques L9, Dutta T1, Tunis SR1.

Author information

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 advance online publication 03 December 2015Genetics in Medicine (2015); doi:10.1038/gim.2015.162.