A systematic review of value criteria for next-generation sequencing/ comprehensive genomic profiling to inform value framework development

Objectives: To comprehensively identify and map an exhaustive list of value criteria for the assessment of next-generation sequencing/comprehensive genomic profiling (NGS/CGP), to be used as an aid in decision making. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify existing value frameworks (VFs) applicable to any type of healthcare technology. VFs and criteria were mapped to a previously published Latin American (LA) VF to harmonize definitions and identify additional criteria and or subcriteria. Based on this analysis, we extracted a comprehensive, evidence-based list of criteria and subcriteria to be considered in the design of a NGS/CGP VF. Results: A total of 42 additional VFs were compared with the LA VF, 88% were developed in high-income countries, 30% targeted genomic testing, and 16% specifically targeted oncology. A total of 242 criteria and subcriteria were extracted; 227 (94%) were fully/partially included in the LA VF; and 15 (6%) were new. Clinical benefit and economic aspects were the most common criteria. VFs oriented to genomic testing showed significant overlap with other VFs. Considering all criteria and subcriteria, a total of 18 criteria and 36 individual subcriteria were identified. Conclusions: Our study provides an evidence-based set of criteria and subcriteria for healthcare decision making useful for NGS/CGP as well as other health technologies. The resulting list can be beneficial to inform decision making and will serve as a foundation to co-create a multistakeholder NGS/CGP VF that is aligned with the needs and values of health systems and could help to improve patient access to high-value technologies

LI-RADS 4 or 5 categorization may not be clinically relevant for decision-making processes: A prospective cohort study

Introduction and objectives: The liver imaging reporting data system (LI-RADS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was proposed to standardize and enhance consensus of reporting. However, clinical utility of LI-RADS has not been evaluated in Latin America. We therefore sought to compare LI-RADS categories with histopathology findings in liver transplant (LT) explants in a regional center. Materials and methods: Prospective cohort study conducted between 2012 and 2018 in a single center from Argentina including patients with HCC listed for LT. LI-RADS definitions were applied to magnetic resonance images (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) abdominal scans at time of listing and at final pre-LT reassessment and compared to explant pathology findings; specifically, major nodule (NOD1). Results: Of 130 patients with HCC listed for LT (96.1% with cirrhosis and 35.6% with hepatitis C virus infection), 72 underwent LT. Overall, 65% had imaging HCC diagnosis based on MRI (n = 84), 26% with CT (n = 34) and 9% (n = 12) with both methods. Among LT patients with pre-transplant imaging at our institution (n = 42/72), 69% of the NOD1 were LR-5, 21% LR-4 and 10% LR-3. Definite HCC diagnosis was 50% in LR-3 NOD1 (CI 18–90); none presented microvascular invasion. In LR-4 NOD1, HCC was confirmed in 89% (CI 59–98), of which 11% showed microvascular invasion; whereas in LR-5 NOD1 77% (CI 64–87) had confirmed HCC, 17% with microvascular invasion. Conclusions: LI-RADS was useful to standardize reports; however, no significant differences were observed between LR-4 and LR-5 HCC probability when compared to explant pathology

A New Method for the Assessment of Myalgia in Interstitial Lung Disease: Association with Positivity for Myositis-Specific and Myositis-Associated Antibodies

In this study, it was found that myositis-specific and myositis-associated antibodies (MSAs and MAAs) improved the recognition of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) in interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients. The objective of this study is to propose a clinical method to evaluate myalgia in respiratory settings as a possible tool for the recognition of MSA/MAA positivity in ILD patients. We prospectively enrolled 167 ILD patients with suspected myositis, of which 63 had myalgia evoked at specific points (M+ILD+). We also enrolled in a 174 patients with only myalgia (M+ILD-) in a rheumatological setting. The patients were assessed jointly by rheumatologists and pulmonologists and were tested for autoantibodies. M+ILD+ patients were positive for at least one MAA/MSA in 68.3% of cases, as were M-ILD+ patients in 48.1% of cases and M+ILD- patients in 17.2% of cases (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02). Myalgia was significantly associated with positivity for MSA/MAAs in ILD patients (p = 0.01, X2: 6.47). In conclusion, myalgia in ILD patients with suspected myositis is associated with MSA/MAA positivity, and could support a diagnosis of IIM. A significant proportion of M+ILD- patients also had MSA/MAA positivity, a phenomenon warranting further study to evaluate its clinical meaning