Rapid and continuing advances in biomarker testing are not being matched by take-up in health systems, and this is hampering both patient care and innovation. It also risks costing health systems the opportunity to make their services more efficient and, over time, more economical. This paper sets out the potential of biomarker testing, the unfolding precision and range of possible diagnosis and prediction, and the many obstacles to adoption. It offers case studies of biomarker testing in breast, ovarian, prostate, lung, thyroid and colon cancers, and derives specific lessons as to the potential and actual use of each of them. It also draws lessons about how to improve access and alignment, and to remedy the data deficiencies that impede development. And it suggests solutions to outstanding issues − notably including funding and the tangled web of obtaining reimbursement or equivalent coverage that Europe's fragmented health system implies. It urges a European evolution towards an initial minimum testing scenario, which would guarantee universal access to a suite of biomarker tests for the currently most common conditions, and, further into the future, to an optimum testing scenario in which a much wider range of biomarker tests would be introduced and become part of a more sophisticated health system articulated around personalised medicine. For exploiting genomics to the full, it argues the need for a new policy framework for Europe. Biomarker testing is not an issue that can be treated in isolation, since the purpose of testing is to improve health. Its use is therefore always closely linked to specific health challenges and needs to be viewed in the broader policy context in the EU and more widely. The paper is the result of extensive engagement with experts and decision makers to develop the framework, and consequently represents a wide consensus of views on how healthcare systems should respond from push and pull factors at local, national and cross-border and EU level. It contains strong views and clear ...
Rapid and continuing advances in biomarker testing are not being matched by take-up in health systems, and this is hampering both patient care and innovation. It also risks costing health systems the opportunity to make their services more efficient and, over time, more economical. This paper sets out the potential of biomarker testing, the unfolding precision and range of possible diagnosis and prediction, and the many obstacles to adoption. It offers case studies of biomarker testing in breast, ovarian, prostate, lung, thyroid and colon cancers, and derives specific lessons as to the potential and actual use of each of them. It also draws lessons about how to improve access and alignment, and to remedy the data deficiencies that impede development. And it suggests solutions to outstanding issues - notably including funding and the tangled web of obtaining reimbursement or equivalent coverage that Europe's fragmented health system implies. It urges a European evolution towards an initial minimum testing scenario, which would guarantee universal access to a suite of biomarker tests for the currently most common conditions, and, further into the future, to an optimum testing scenario in which a much wider range of biomarker tests would be introduced and become part of a more sophisticated health system articulated around personalised medicine. For exploiting genomics to the full, it argues the need for a new policy framework for Europe. Biomarker testing is not an issue that can be treated in isolation, since the purpose of testing is to improve health. Its use is therefore always closely linked to specific health challenges and needs to be viewed in the broader policy context in the EU and more widely. The paper is the result of extensive engagement with experts and decision makers to develop the framework, and consequently represents a wide consensus of views on how healthcare systems should respond from push and pull factors at local, national and cross-border and EU level. It contains strong views and clear recommendations springing from the convictions of patients, clinicians, academics, medicines authorities, HTA bodies, payers, the diagnostic, pharmaceutical and ICT industries, and national policy makers.
Evidence on the association between vitamin D status and pancreatic cancer risk is inconsistent. This inconsistency may be partially attributable to variation in vitamin D regulating genes. We selected 11 vitamin D-related genes (GC, DHCR7, CYP2R1, VDR, CYP27B1, CYP24A1, CYP27A1, RXRA, CRP2, CASR and CUBN) totaling 213 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and examined associations with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Our study included 3,583 pancreatic cancer cases and 7,053 controls from the genome-wide association studies of pancreatic cancer PanScans-I-III. We used the Adaptive Joint Test and the Adaptive Rank Truncated Product statistic for pathway and gene analyses, and unconditional logistic regression for SNP analyses, adjusting for age, sex, study and population stratification. We examined effect modification by circulating vitamin D concentration (≤50, >50 nmol/L) for the most significant SNPs using a subset of cohort cases (n = 713) and controls (n = 878). The vitamin D metabolic pathway was not associated with pancreatic cancer risk (p = 0.830). Of the individual genes, none were associated with pancreatic cancer risk at a significance level of p<0.05. SNPs near the VDR (rs2239186), LRP2 (rs4668123), CYP24A1 (rs2762932), GC (rs2282679), and CUBN (rs1810205) genes were the top SNPs associated with pancreatic cancer (p-values 0.008-0.037), but none were statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Associations between these SNPs and pancreatic cancer were not modified by circulating concentrations of vitamin D. These findings do not support an association between vitamin D-related genes and pancreatic cancer risk. Future research should explore other pathways through which vitamin D status might be associated with pancreatic cancer risk. ; This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Please see the Supplemental Information section for a detailed listing of study-specific funding. Co-authors Xiaoqin Xiong (Information Management Systems, Inc.), Dennis Maeder (Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc.) and Michelle Brotzman (Westat) are employed by commercial enterprises, and received salary from these companies to support this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ; Sí
