Stakeholder Perspectives on Navigating Evidentiary and Decision Uncertainty in Precision Oncology

Molecular methods in cancer diagnostics: a short review

BACKGROUND

One of the ailments with the greatest fatality rates in the 21st century is cancer. Globally, molecular methods are widely employed to treat cancer-related disorders, and the body of research on this subject is growing yearly. A thorough and critical summary of the data supporting molecular methods for illnesses linked to cancer is required.

OBJECTIVE

In order to guide clinical practice and future research, it is important to examine and summarize the systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the efficacy and safety of molecular methods for disorders associated to cancer.

METHODS

We developed a comprehensive search strategy to find relevant articles from electronic databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science (WoS), or Scopus. We looked through the literature and determined which diagnostic methods in cancer genetics were particularly reliable. We used phrases like 'cancer genetics', genetic susceptibility, Hereditary cancer, cancer risk assessment, 'cancer diagnostic tools', cancer screening', biomarkers, and molecular diagnostics, reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy and safety of molecular therapies for cancer-related disorders. Research that only consider treatment modalities that don't necessitate genetic or molecular diagnostics fall under the exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The results of this comprehensive review clearly demonstrate the transformative impact of molecular methods in the realm of cancer genetics.This review underscores how these technologies have empowered researchers and clinicians to identify and understand key genetic alterations that drive malignancy, ranging from point mutations to structural variations. Such insights are instrumental in pinpointing critical oncogenic drivers and potential therapeutic targets, thus opening the door for methods in precision medicine that can significantly improve patient outcomes.

LIMITATION

The search does not specify a timeframe for publication inclusion, it may have missed recent advancements or changes in the field's landscape of molecular methods for cancer. As a result, it may not have included the most recent developments in the field.

CONCLUSION

After conducting an in-depth study on the molecular methods in cancer genetics, it is evident that these cutting-edge technologies have revolutionized the field of oncology, providing researchers and clinicians with powerful tools to unravel the complexities of cancer at the genetic level. The integration of molecular methods techniques has not only enhanced our understanding of cancer etiology, progression, and treatment response but has also opened new avenues for personalized medicine and targeted therapies, leading to improved patient outcomes.

Addressing immortal time bias in precision medicine: Practical guidance and methods development

OBJECTIVE

To compare theoretical strengths and limitations of common immortal time adjustment methods, propose a new approach using multiple imputation (MI), and provide practical guidance for using MI in precision medicine evaluations centered on a real-world case study.

STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN

Methods comparison, guidance, and real-world case study based on previous literature. We compared landmark analysis, time-distribution matching, time-dependent analysis, and our proposed MI application. Guidance for MI spanned (1) selecting the imputation method; (2) specifying and applying the imputation model; and (3) conducting comparative analysis and pooling estimates. Our case study used a matched cohort design to evaluate overall survival benefits of whole-genome and transcriptome analysis, a precision medicine technology, compared to usual care for advanced cancers, and applied both time-distribution matching and MI. Bootstrap simulation characterized imputation sensitivity to varying data missingness and sample sizes.

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE

Case study used population-based administrative data and single-arm precision medicine program data from British Columbia, Canada for the study period 2012 to 2015.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

While each method described can reduce immortal time bias, MI offers theoretical advantages. Compared to alternative approaches, MI minimizes information loss and better characterizes statistical uncertainty about the true length of the immortal time period, avoiding false precision. Additionally, MI explicitly considers the impacts of patient characteristics on immortal time distributions, with inclusion criteria and follow-up period definitions that do not inadvertently risk biasing evaluations. In the real-world case study, survival analysis results did not substantively differ across MI and time distribution matching, but standard errors based on MI were higher for all point estimates. Mean imputed immortal time was stable across simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Precision medicine evaluations must employ immortal time adjustment methods for unbiased, decision-grade real-world evidence generation. MI is a promising solution to the challenge of immortal time bias.

Stakeholders' expectations of precision medicine: A qualitative study to identify areas of (mis)alignment

Background and Aims

To sustainably address challenges in implementing precision medicine (PM), coordinated efforts of different stakeholders are required. Understanding their expectations represents a first key step toward aligning on future actions and strategies. Here, we aimed to explore the expectations of different stakeholders from themselves and each other regarding PM.

Methods

This collaborative qualitative study was initiated by the global multistakeholder consortium From Testing to Targeted Treatments (FT3). Structured interviews were conducted with participants from five stakeholder groups: patients/patient advocates, healthcare providers (HCPs), researchers, policymakers/regulators/payers and industry representatives. A broad reach across geography, roles, experiences, and disease areas was sought. Results were analyzed by grounded theory methodology.

Results

All stakeholders stated that optimal implementation of PM can only be achieved through collaboration; industry representatives were the biggest promoters of collaboration. Stakeholders agreed that PM should be implemented focusing on the patient's best interest; HCPs were seen as important gatekeepers for PM by interacting directly with patients, and policymakers/payers were perceived as the most important drivers of access to PM. Areas of misalignment included the role of industry in clinical trial design and in access to PM (perceived as important by patients, HCPs and policymakers but not by industry representatives), and the stakeholders responsible for elaborating guidelines on PM use (patients indicated policymakers, while researchers indicated themselves). Priorities for optimal PM implementation and suggested actions included the need for enhancing high-level policy focus, improving genomic literacy, optimizing the health technology assessment for PM, advocating for equitable access, promoting collaboration between industry and other stakeholder groups and development of reliable research standards.

Conclusion

Stakeholder expectations revealed in this study suggested that no stakeholder group can drive change on its own; a global, multistakeholder collaborative approach that brings together current programs and best practices to support universal access to PM is needed.