search

menu

  • Research Research
    • Where science meets inspired minds

    • Back
    • Research
    • Our Science
    • Research Groups
    • Facilities & Platforms
    • Clinical research
    • Find a researcher
    • Publications
    • Knowledge Transfer
  • Careers & study Careers & study
    • Become a leader in cancer research

    • Back
    • Careers & study
    • Vacancies
    • Faculty
    • Scientific staff
    • Scientific support staff
    • Postdoctoral fellows
    • PhD Students
    • Operational staff
    • Clinical fellows
    • Life in Amsterdam
    • Student internships
  • News & Events News & Events
    • Check out our stories and events

    • Back
    • News & Events
    • News
    • Media & Press
    • Calendar
  • About us About us
    • Maximum impact for cancer patients

    • Back
    • About us
    • Our vision
    • Organization
    • Collaborations
    • Responsible Research
    • Support us
    • Visit us
    • Contact us
  • Support us
Support us
  • Home
  • Publications
  • Research
  • Publications
  • Article

Factors for a broad technology assessment of comprehensive genomic profiling in advanced cancer, a systematic review.

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

Abstract

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.

More about this publication

Critical reviews in oncology/hematology

Volume 202
Pages 104441
Publication date 01-10-2024

Full text links

Publisher website (DOI) 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104441
Europe PubMed Central 39002790
Pubmed 39002790

Where science meets inspired minds

Contact

Plesmanlaan 121
1066CX Amsterdam

020 512 9111 communicatie@nki.nl

Quick links

  • Vacancies
  • News
  • Contact us
  • Media & Press

Follow us on

Disclaimer
Privacy statement
Cookies
Change cookie settings

This site uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.