The promises of genomic screening: building a governance infrastructure. Special issue: genetics and democracy

New screening possibilities become available at a high rate, both useful and unsound possibilities. All screening programmes do harm, and only few have more advantages than disadvantages at reasonable cost. Horizon scanning is needed to identify those few possibilities with more pros than cons. Attunement is needed between actors involved: scientists developing new high-throughput screening techniques and treatment, health care workers, patients and consumers and governmental agencies. The product of a process of attunement may be a quality mark as a norm for professional conduct, rather than legal measures, as the field is moving fast. As actors may have varying perspectives, a governance structure is needed to develop an agenda that is agreed upon by all or most actors involved. A standing committee might oversee the evaluation of benefits and disadvantages in an integrated approach, taking evidence, economics and ethics into account. A proactive role of governmental agencies is needed to facilitate agenda setting and attunement. Policy making has to be transparent and open to stakeholder engagement

Personalized medicine: new genomics, old lessons

Personalized medicine uses traditional, as well as emerging concepts of the genetic and environmental basis of disease to individualize prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Personalized genomics plays a vital, but not exclusive role in this evolving model of personalized medicine. The distinctions between genetic and genomic medicine are more quantitative than qualitative. Personalized genomics builds on principles established by the integration of genetics into medical practice. Principles shared by genetic and genomic aspects of medicine, include the use of variants as markers for diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, as well as targets for treatment, the use of clinically validated variants that may not be functionally characterized, the segregation of these variants in non-Mendelian as well as Mendelian patterns, the role of gene–environment interactions, the dependence on evidence for clinical utility, the critical translational role of behavioral science, and common ethical considerations. During the current period of transition from investigation to practice, consumers should be protected from harms of premature translation of research findings, while encouraging the innovative and cost-effective application of those genomic discoveries that improve personalized medical care

The EGAPP initiative: lessons learned.

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group was first convened in 2005 to develop and test evidence-based methods for the evaluation of genomic tests in transition from research to clinical and public health practice. Over the ensuing years, the Working Group has met 26 times, publishing eight recommendation statements, two methods papers, and one outcomes paper, as well as planning and serving as technical experts on numerous associated systematic reviews. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention methods have evolved to address implications of the proliferation of genome-wide association studies and are currently expanding to face challenges expected from clinical implementation of whole-genome sequencing tests. In this article, we review the work of the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group over the first 8 years of its existence with an emphasis on lessons learned throughout the process. It is hoped that in addition to the published methods of the Working Group, the lessons we have learned along the way will be informative to others who are producers and consumers of evidence-based guidelines in the field of genomic medicine

The EGAPP initiative: lessons learned.

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group was first convened in 2005 to develop and test evidence-based methods for the evaluation of genomic tests in transition from research to clinical and public health practice. Over the ensuing years, the Working Group has met 26 times, publishing eight recommendation statements, two methods papers, and one outcomes paper, as well as planning and serving as technical experts on numerous associated systematic reviews. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention methods have evolved to address implications of the proliferation of genome-wide association studies and are currently expanding to face challenges expected from clinical implementation of whole-genome sequencing tests. In this article, we review the work of the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group over the first 8 years of its existence with an emphasis on lessons learned throughout the process. It is hoped that in addition to the published methods of the Working Group, the lessons we have learned along the way will be informative to others who are producers and consumers of evidence-based guidelines in the field of genomic medicine

Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Inherited mutations in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair (MMR) genes lead to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), gynaecological cancers and other cancers, known as Lynch syndrome (LS). Risk-reducing interventions can be offered to individuals with known LS-causing mutations. The mutations can be identified by comprehensive testing of the MMR genes, but this would be prohibitively expensive in the general population. Tumour-based tests - microsatellite instability (MSI) and MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) - are used in CRC patients to identify individuals at high risk of LS for genetic testing. MLH1 (MutL homologue 1) promoter methylation and BRAF V600E testing can be conducted on tumour material to rule out certain sporadic cancers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether testing for LS in CRC patients using MSI or IHC (with or without MLH1 promoter methylation testing and BRAF V600E testing) is clinically effective (in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome and improving outcomes for patients) and represents a cost-effective use of NHS resources. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted of the published literature on diagnostic test accuracy studies of MSI and/or IHC testing for LS, end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients and economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC patients. A model-based economic evaluation was conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic test accuracy review. The model was extended from a model previously developed by the authors. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of MSI and/or IHC testing for identifying LS in CRC patients. For MSI testing, sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 61.1% to 92.5%. For IHC, sensitivity ranged from 80.8% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 80.5% to 91.9%. When tumours showing low levels of MSI were treated as a positive result, the sensitivity of MSI testing increased but specificity fell. No end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients were identified. Nine economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC were identified. None of the included studies fully matched the decision problem and hence a new economic evaluation was required. The base-case results in the economic evaluation suggest that screening for LS in CRC patients using IHC, BRAF V600E and MLH1 promoter methylation testing would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was £11,008 per QALY compared with no screening. Screening without tumour tests is not predicted to be cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: Most of the diagnostic test accuracy studies identified were rated as having a risk of bias or were conducted in unrepresentative samples. There was no direct evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes. No probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review evidence suggests that MSI- and IHC-based testing can be used to identify LS in CRC patients, although there was heterogeneity in the methods used in the studies identified and the results of the studies. There was no high-quality empirical evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes and so an evidence linkage approach using modelling was necessary. Key determinants of whether or not screening is cost-effective are the accuracy of tumour-based tests, CRC risk without surveillance, the number of relatives identified for cascade testing, colonoscopic surveillance effectiveness and the acceptance of genetic testing. Future work should investigate screening for more causes of hereditary CRC and screening for LS in endometrial cancer patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033879. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Researc