A proposal of a new evaluation framework towards implementation of genetic tests

Background The existing frameworks for the evaluation of genetic and genomic applications clearly address the technical and clinical value of a test, but are less concerned with the way genetic services are delivered and organized. We therefore aimed to develop a comprehensive new framework that includes an assessment of service delivery. Methods A new framework was built on the evaluation dimensions identified through a systematic review of the existing frameworks and a Delphi survey of Italian experts in public health genomics. Results Our framework has four sections. The first two sections, respectively, guide the evidence collection process for the genetic test (analytic validity; clinical validity; clinical utility; personal utility) and its delivery models (organizational aspects; economic evaluation; ethical, legal and social implications; patient perspective). The third section guides the formulation of the research priorities to be addressed in future research. Finally, the fourth section suggests three criteria to summarize the collected evidence (net benefit, cost-effectiveness, feasibility). Conclusion We have successfully developed an evaluation framework for the evaluation of genetic tests that includes an assessment of service delivery. It also introduces some neglected evaluation dimensions such as personal utility and patient perspective.

[1]  P. Robinson,et al.  Clinical utility gene card for: Hereditary thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection including next-generation sequencing-based approaches , 2015, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[2]  R. Zimmern,et al.  The evaluation of genetic tests. , 2007, Journal of public health.

[3]  F. Stewart,et al.  How can genetic tests be evaluated for clinical use? Experience of the UK Genetic Testing Network , 2007, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[4]  B. Dallapiccola,et al.  The policy of public health genomics in Italy. , 2013, Health policy.

[5]  C. Marzuillo,et al.  Which BRCA genetic testing programs are ready for implementation in health care? A systematic review of economic evaluations , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  R. Battista.  Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: A research agenda for the next decade , 2006, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[7]  J. Warren,et al.  Unleashing the power of human genetic variation knowledge: New Zealand stakeholder perspectives , 2011, Genetics in Medicine.

[8]  Clinical utility of genetic and genomic services: context matters , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[9]  C. Marzuillo,et al.  Identification of Delivery Models for the Provision of Predictive Genetic Testing in Europe: Protocol for a Multicentre Qualitative Study and a Systematic Review of the Literature , 2017, Front. Public Health.

[10]  Jörg Schmidtke,et al.  The EuroGentest Clinical Utility Gene Cards , 2010, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[11]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? , 2006, Genetics in Medicine.

[12]  Muin J. Khoury,et al.  The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. , 2008, Health affairs.

[13]  J. Kohler,et al.  Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review , 2017, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[14]  C. Marzuillo,et al.  Predictive genetic testing for complex diseases: a public health perspective , 2013, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[15]  S. Boccia,et al.  Current state of genomic policies in healthcare among EU member states: results of a survey of chief medical officers , 2016, European journal of public health.

[16]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  US system of oversight for genetic testing: a report from the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society. , 2008, Personalized medicine.

[17]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  No Shortcuts on the Long Road to Evidence-Based Genomic Medicine. , 2017, JAMA.

[18]  J. Hornberger,et al.  Laboratory-developed test--SynFRAME: an approach for assessing laboratory-developed tests synthesized from prior appraisal frameworks. , 2012, Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers.

[19]  R. Battista,et al.  Genetics in Health Care: An Overview of Current and Emerging Models , 2011, Public Health Genomics.

[20]  Wylie Burke,et al.  Genetic Tests: Clinical Validity and Clinical Utility , 2014, Current protocols in human genetics.

[21]  C. Junien,et al.  Somatic Mosaicism for Partial Paternal Isodisomy in Wiedemann-Beckwith Syndrome: A Post-Fertilization Event , 1993, European journal of human genetics : EJHG.

[22]  B. Wilfond,et al.  Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi study , 2017, Clinical genetics.

[23]  F. Collins,et al.  Implications of the Human Genome Project for medical science. , 2001, JAMA.

[24]  A. Janssens,et al.  Personal utility in genomic testing: is there such a thing? , 2014, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[25]  C. Marzuillo,et al.  How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature , 2018, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[26]  M. Greene,et al.  BRCA mutation‐negative women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: a qualitative study of the BRCA‐negative experience , 2008, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[27]  A. Werner-Lin,et al.  A Multi-Case Report of the Pathways To and Through Genetic Testing and Cancer Risk Management for BRCA Mutation-Positive Women Aged 18–25 , 2013, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[28]  M. Gagnon,et al.  Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences , 2011, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.