NCCN Molecular Testing White Paper: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Reimbursement

Restricted access

Personalized medicine in oncology is maturing and evolving rapidly, and the use of molecular biomarkers in clinical decision-making is growing. This raises important issues regarding the safe, effective, and efficient deployment of molecular tests to guide appropriate care, specifically regarding laboratory-developed tests and companion diagnostics. In May 2011, NCCN assembled a work group composed of thought leaders from NCCN Member Institutions and other organizations to identify challenges and provide guidance regarding molecular testing in oncology and its corresponding utility from clinical, scientific, and coverage policy standpoints. The NCCN Molecular Testing Work Group identified challenges surrounding molecular testing, including health care provider knowledge, determining clinical utility, coding and billing for molecular tests, maintaining clinical and analytic validity of molecular tests, efficient use of specimens, and building clinical evidence.

  • 1

    DanceyJDobbinKGroshenS. Guidelines for the development and incorporation of biomarker studies in early clinical trials of novel agents. Clin Cancer Res2010;16:17451755.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    JamesHPepeMSBossuytPM. Measuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisions. Ann Intern Med2011;154:253259.

  • 3

    CarlsonB. Seeking a coding solution for molecular tests. Biotechnol Healthc2010;7:1620.

  • 4

    IOM (Institute of Medicine). Policy issues in the development of personalized medicine in oncology: workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    The Medical Device Amendments of 1976. Public L No. 94-295 90 Stat 539.

  • 6

    US Department of Health and Human Services. In vitro diagnostic products for human use. 21 CFR §809.3. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=809.3. Revised April 1 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Draft guidance for industry clinical laboratories and FDA staff: in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assays. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm071455.htm. Accessed August 11 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Medical devices; classification/reclassification; restricted devices; analyte specific reagents—FDA. Final rule. Fed Regist1997;62:6224362249.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Draft guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff – in vitro companion diagnostic devices (July142011). US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm262292.htm.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    FDA approves Zelboraf and companion diagnostic test for late-stage skin cancer. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm268241.htm. Accessed August 24 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    FDA approves Xalkori with companion diagnostic for a type of late-stage lung cancer. US Food and Drug Administration Web site. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm269856.htm. Accessed August 27 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    GulleyMLBrazielRMHallingKC. Clinical laboratory reports in molecular pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med2007;131:852863.

  • 13

    HaberDGrayNBaselgaJ. The evolving war on cancer. Cell2011;145:1924.

  • 14

    TeutschSMBradleyLAPalomakiGE. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med2009;11:314.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    McDermottUDowningJRStrattonMR. Genomics and the continuum of cancer care. N Engl J Med2011;364:340350.

  • 16

    Technology Evaluation Center Criteria. BlueCross BlueShield Association Web site. Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/tec-criteria.html. Accessed September 19 2011.

  • 17

    CollinsS. Oncology biomarker diagnostics: where we are, where we need to be. Biotechnol Healthc2010;7:2225.

  • 18

    MeckleyLMNeumannPJ. Personalized medicine: factors influencing reimbursement. Health Policy2010;94:91100.

  • 19

    BlankPRMochHSzucsTD. KRAS and BRAF mutation analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from a Swiss perspective. Clin Cancer Res2011;17:63386346.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    ShiroiwaTMotooYTsutaniK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of KRAS testing and cetuximab as last-line therapy for colorectal cancer. Mol Diagn Ther2010;14:375384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Federal Register / Vol. 76 No. 38 / Friday February 25 2011/Notices. Available at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011-4295.pdf. Accessed November 21 2011.

  • 22

    CPT Editorial Panel: Molecular Pathology Coding Workgroup. American Medical Asscociation Web site. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cpt/molecular-pathology-coding-workgroup.pdf. Accessed September 19 2011.

  • 23

    SchulmanKATunisSR. A policy approach to the development of molecular diagnostic tests. Nature2010;28:11571159.

  • 24

    National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Pharmacogenomic Testing for Warfarin Response. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details. Accessed September 19 2011.

  • 25

    LevequeD. Off-label use of anticancer drugs. Lancet Oncol2008;9:11021107.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1081 1080 63
PDF Downloads 299 299 30
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0