NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Sun F, Bruening W, Erinoff E, et al. Addressing Challenges in Genetic Test Evaluation: Evaluation Frameworks and Assessment of Analytic Validity [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Jun.

Cover of Addressing Challenges in Genetic Test Evaluation

Addressing Challenges in Genetic Test Evaluation: Evaluation Frameworks and Assessment of Analytic Validity [Internet].

Show details

References and Included Studies

1.
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. U.S. system of oversight of genetic testing: a response to the charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: Department of Health & Human Services; 2008. Available at: http://www4​.od.nih.gov​/oba/SACGHS/reports​/SACGHS_oversight_report.pdf.
2.
Sun F, Bruening W, Uhl S, et al. Quality, Regulation and Clinical Utility of Laboratory-Developed Molecular Tests, Technology Assessment Report (Prepared by ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-1063 I) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May, 2010. Available at: http://www​.cms.gov/determinationprocess​/downloads/id72TA.pdf.
3.
Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al. on behalf of the EGAPP Working Group. The evaluation of genomic applications in practice and prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med. 2009 Jan;11(1):3–14. [PMC free article: PMC2743609] [PubMed: 18813139]
4.
Marchionni L, Wilson RF, Marinopoulos SS, et al. Impact of Gene Expression Profiling Tests on Breast Cancer Outcomes, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 160 (Prepared by The Johns Hopkins University Evidence based Practice Center under contract No. 290-02-0018) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Jan, 2008. AHRQ Publication No. 08-E002. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/downloads​/pub/evidence​/pdf/brcancergene/brcangene.pdf.
5.
Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, Dotson WD. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment. Can UGT1A1 Genotyping Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Irinotecan? (Prepared by RTI International under Project No. 0208235.036) Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group; Jan, 2009. Available at: http://www​.egappreviews​.org/docs/topics_colorectal.pdf.
6.
McClain MR, Palomaki GE, Piper M, et al. A rapid-ACCE review of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 alleles testing to inform warfarin dosing in adults at elevated risk for thrombotic events to avoid serious bleeding. Genet Med. 2008 Feb;10(2):89–98. [PubMed: 18281915]
7.
Seidenfeld J, Samson DJ, Rothenberg BM, et al. HER2 Testing to Manage Patients With Breast Cancer or Other Solid Tumors, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 172 (Prepared by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0026) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research; Nov, 2009. AHRQ Publication No. 09-E001. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/downloads​/pub/evidence/pdf/her2/her2.pdf.
8.
Matcher DB, Thakur ME, Grossman I, et al. Testing for Cytochrome P450 Polymorphisms in Adults With Non-Psychotic Depression Treated With Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 146 (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0025) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Jan, 2007. AHRQ Publication No. 07-E002. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/downloads​/pub/evidence​/pdf/cyp450/cyp450.pdf.
9.
Chen B, Gagnon M, Shahangian S, et al. Good laboratory practices for molecular genetic testing for heritable diseases and conditions. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2009 Jun 12;58(RR-6):1–37. quiz CE-1–4. [PubMed: 19521335]
10.
Wilson JA, Zoccoli MA, Jacobson JW, et al. Verification and validation of multiplex nucleic acid assays; approved guideline [MM17-A] Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI); 2008. Available at: http://www​.clsi.org/source​/orders/free/mm17-a.pdf.
11.
International Organization for Standardization. International vocabulary of basic and general terms in metrology (VIM) Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2007.
12.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC guide 2: standardization and related activities - general vocabulary. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2004.
13.
Current CLIA regulations (including all changes through 1/24/2004) Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; [January 28, 2008]. Available at: http://wwwn​.cdc.gov/clia/regs/toc.aspx.
14.
Lijmer JG, Leeflang M, Bossuyt PM. Proposals for a Phased Evaluation of Medical Tests. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Nov, 2009. (Medical Tests–White Paper Series). http://www​.effectivehealthcare​.ahrq.gov/index​.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports​/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid&=350. [PubMed: 21290784]
15.
Yerushalmy J. Statistical problems in assessing methods of medical diagnosis, with special reference to x-ray techniques. Public Health Rep. 1947 Oct 4;62(39):1432–49. [PubMed: 20340527]
16.
Ledley RS, Lusted LB. Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis. Science. 1959 Jul 3;130(3366):9–21. [PubMed: 13668531]
17.
Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285–93. [PubMed: 3287615]
18.
Swets JA, Pickett RM. Evaluation of diagnostics systems - methods from signal detection theory. New York: Academic Press; 1982. pp. 1–24. Introduction and chapter 1: fundamentals of accuracy analysis.
19.
Loop JW, Lusted LE. American College of Radiology Diagnostic Efficacy Studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1978 Jul;131(1):173–9. [PubMed: 97976]
20.
Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, et al. A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. CMAJ. 1986 Mar 15;134(6):587–94. [PMC free article: PMC1490902] [PubMed: 3512062]
21.
Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991 Apr-Jun;11(2):88–94. [PubMed: 1907710]
22.
Kent DL, Larson EB. Disease, level of impact, and quality of research methods. Three dimensions of clinical efficacy assessment applied to magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 1992 Mar;27(3):245–54. [PubMed: 1551777]
23.
van der Schouw YT, Verbeek AL, Ruijs SH. Guidelines for the assessment of new diagnostic tests. Invest Radiol. 1995 Jun;30(6):334–40. [PubMed: 7490184]
24.
Pearl WS. A hierarchical outcomes approach to test assessment. Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Jan;33(1):77–84. [PubMed: 9867891]
25.
Zweig MH, Robertson EA. Why we need better test evaluations. Clin Chem. 1982 Jun;28(6):1272–6. [PubMed: 7074932]
26.
Freedman LS. Evaluating and comparing imaging techniques: a review and classification of study designs. Br J Radiol. 1987 Nov;60(719):1071–81. [PubMed: 3318997]
27.
Taylor CR, Elmore JG, Sun K, et al. Technology assessment in diagnostic imaging. A proposal for a phased approach to evaluating radiology research. Invest Radiol. 1993 Feb;28(2):155–61. [PubMed: 8444573]
28.
Pepe MS. Evaluating technologies for classification and prediction in medicine. Stat Med. 2005 Dec 30;24(24):3687–96. [PubMed: 16320261]
29.
Gatsonis C. Design of evaluations of imaging technologies: development of a paradigm. Acad Radiol. 2000 Sep;7(9):681–3. [PubMed: 10987328]
30.
Sunshine JH, McNeil BJ. Rapid method for rigorous assessment of radiologic imaging technologies. Radiology. 1997 Feb;202(2):549–57. [PubMed: 9015089]
31.
Houn F, Bright RA, Bushar HF, et al. Study design in the evaluation of breast cancer imaging technologies. Acad Radiol. 2000 Sep;7(9):684–92. [PubMed: 10987329]
32.
Jarvik JG. Study design for the new millennium: changing how we perform research and practice medicine, Radiology. Mar 1, 2002. pp. 593–4. Available at: http://radiology​.rsnajnls​.org/cgi/reprint/222/3/593. [PubMed: 11867770]
33.
Hunink MG, Krestin GP. Study design for concurrent development, assessment, and implementation of new diagnostic imaging technology, Radiology. Mar 1, 2002. pp. 604–14. Available at: http://radiology​.rsnajnls​.org/cgi/reprint/222/3/604. [PubMed: 11867773]
34.
Sackett DL, Hatnes RB. Evidence base of clinical diagnosis The architecture of diagnostic research, BMJ Online. Mar 2, 2002. pp. 324pp. 539–41. Available at: http://www​.bmj.com.
35.
Lumbreras B, Porta M, Marquez S, et al. QUADOMICS: An adaptation of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Assessment (QUADAS) for the evaluation of the methodological quality of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of ‘-omics’-based technologies. Clin Biochem. 2008 Nov;41(16–17):1316–25. [PubMed: 18652812]
36.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force procedure manual. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Jul, 2008.
37.
ACCE model system for collecting, analyzing and disseminating information on genetic tests. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; [May 3, 2007]. Available at: http://www​.cdc.gov/genomics​/gtesting/ACCE/fbr.htm.
38.
ACCE model system for collecting, analyzing and disseminating information on genetic tests. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; [January 6, 2010]. Available at: http://www​.cdc.gov/genomics​/gtesting/ACCE/FBR/index.htm.
39.
Methods Work Group, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/clinic​/ajpmsuppl/review.pdf.
40.
Segal JB, Brotman DJ, Emadi A, et al. Outcomes of Genetic Testing in Adults With a History of Venous Thromboembolism, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 180 (Prepared by Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-100610-I) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Jun, 2009. AHRQ Publication No. 09-E011. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/downloads​/pub/evidence​/pdf/factorvleiden/fvl.pdf.
41.
Bonis PA, Trikalinos TA, Chung M, et al. Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer: Diagnostic Strategies and Their Implications, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 150 (Prepared by Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0022) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May, 2007. AHRQ Publication No. 07-E008. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/downloads​/pub/evidence/pdf/hnpcc/hnpcc​.pdf.
42.
AACE draft genetic test review: cystic fibrosis. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Available at: http://www​.cdc.gov/genomics​/gtesting/ACCE/FBR/index.htm.
43.
AACE draft genetic test review: Hemochromatosis. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Available at: http://www​.cdc.gov/genomics​/gtesting/ACCE/FBR/index.htm.
44.
AACE draft genetic test review: venous thromboembolism. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Available at: http://www​.cdc.gov/genomics​/gtesting/ACCE/FBR/index.htm.
45.
AACE draft genetic test review: breast & ovarian cancer. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Available at: http://www​.cdc.gov/genomics​/gtesting/ACCE/FBR/index.htm.
46.
AACE draft genetic test review: colorectal cancer. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Available at: http://www​.cdc.gov/genomics​/gtesting/ACCE/FBR/index.htm.
47.
Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, et al. Genomic Tests for Ovarian Cancer Detection and Management, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 145 (Prepared by the Duke University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0025) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Oct, 2006. AHRQ Publication No. 07-E001. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/downloads​/pub/evidence​/pdf/genomicovc/genovc.pdf.
48.
Nelson HD, Huffman LH, Fu R, et al. Genetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility: Evidence Synthesis, Evidence Synthesis No. 37 (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0024) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Sep, 2005. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/downloads​/pub/prevent/pdfser/brcagensyn​.pdf.
49.
Paez A, Skiest D. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: From the Hospital to the Community. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2008 Mar;10(1):14–21. [PubMed: 18377810]
50.
Raman G, Chew P, Trikalinos TA, et al. Genetic Tests for Non-Cancer Diseases/Conditions: A Horizon Scan, Technology Assessment Program (Prepared by the Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0022) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Aug, 2007. Available at: http://www​.cms.hhs.gov​/determinationprocess​/downloads/id49TA.pdf.
51.
Raman G, Wallace B, Chung M, et al. Update on Genetic Tests for Non-Cancer Diseases/Conditions: A Horizon Scan [draft] (Prepared by Tufts Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10055I) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Dec, 2009. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/clinic​/ta/genetictests.pdf.
52.
Palomaki GE, Bradley LA, Douglas MP, et al. Can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? An evidence-based review Gen Med. 2009 Jan 1;11(1):21–34. [PMC free article: PMC2743611] [PubMed: 19125129]
53.
Palomaki GE, McClain MR, Melillo S, et al. EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Genet Med. 2009 Jan;11(1):42–65. [PMC free article: PMC2743613] [PubMed: 19125127]
54.
Raman G, Trikalinos TA, Zintzaras E, et al. Reviews of selected pharmacogenetic tests for non-cancer and cancer conditions [final report] (Prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0022) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Nov, 2008. Available at: http://www​.cms.hhs.gov​/determinationprocess​/downloads/id61TA.pdf.
55.
Meeting summary. Analytic validity of genetic and laboratory tests: workgroup meeting #1; Rockville, MD. 2009 May 13; p. 10.
56.
Meeting summary. Analytic validity of genetic and laboratory tests: workgroup meeting #2; Rockville, MD. 2009 Nov 3; p. 16.
57.
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) [January 26, 2010]. Available at: http://www​.fda.gov/opacom​/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm.
58.
The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Draft evaluation frameworks for genetic tests [Power Point slideshow] The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP); 2005.
59.
Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. A review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001 Apr;20(3 Suppl):21–35. [PubMed: 11306229]
60.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments: Overview. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; [January 26, 2010]. Available at: http://www​.cms.hhs.gov/clia/
61.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Newborn screening quality assurance program. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jan 22, 2010. [January 26, 2010]. Available at: http://www​.cdc.gov/labstandards/nsqap​.htm.
62.
Cochrane Collaboration. Glossary. Cochrane Library. [January 10, 2011]. Available at: http://www​.cochrane.org/glossary/5.
63.
Lohr KN, Carey TS. Assessing ‘best evidence’: issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1999 Sep;25(9):470–9. [PubMed: 10481816]
64.
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Nov 10;3(25):1–42. [PMC free article: PMC305345] [PubMed: 14606960]
65.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for medical test reviews [draft] Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Nov, 2010. Available at: http://www​.effectivehealthcare​.ahrq.gov/tasks​/sites/ehc/assets​/File/methods_guide_for_medical_tests​.pdf.
66.
Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, BMJ. Jun 19, 2004. p. 1490. Available at: http://bmj​.bmjjournals​.com/cgi/reprint/328/7454/1490. [PMC free article: PMC428525] [PubMed: 15205295]
67.
West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by Research Triangle Institute - University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract no. 290-97-0011) Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Apr, 2002. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Available at: http://www​.ncbi.nlm.nih​.gov/books/NBK33881/
68.
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, et al. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004 Jun;8(25):iii–79. [PubMed: 15193208]
69.
Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) STARD checklist for the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. Amsterdam: Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD); [January 11, 2010]. Available at: http://www​.stard-statement​.org/pdf%20and%20word%20documents​/Checklist.PDF.
70.
McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, et al. Statistics Subcommittee of the NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. Reporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK), Nature Clin Pract Urol. Aug, 2005. pp. 416–22. Available at: http://www​.nature.com​/nrclinonc/journal/v2​/n8/pdf/ncponc0252.pdf. [PubMed: 16482653]
71.
Little J, Bradley L, Bray MS, et al. Reporting, appraising, and integrating data on genotype prevalence and gene-disease associations, Am J Epidemiol. Aug 15, 2002. pp. 300–10. Available at: http://www​.cdc.gov/genomics​/hugenet/file/print/genedata.pdf. [PubMed: 12181099]
72.
Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Health Research Institute; [May 11, 2006]. Available: http://www​.ohri.ca/programs​/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm.
73.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) procedure manual, Appendix VII, criteria for assessing internal validity of individual studies. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 1999. AHRQ Publication No. 08-05118-EF. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/clinic​/uspstf08/methods/procmanualap7​.htm.
74.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) procedure manual, Appendix VIII, criteria for assessing external validity (generalizability) of individual studies. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. Available at: http://www​.ahrq.gov/clinic​/uspstf08/methods/procmanualap8​.htm.
75.
Draft guidance for industry and FDA staff: Nucleic Acid Based In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for Detection of Microbial Pathogens (Draft) Rockville MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Dec 8, 2005. Available at: http://www​.fda.gov/cdrh​/oivd/guidance/1560.pdf.
76.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry and FDA staff. Pharmacogenetic tests and genetic tests for heritable markers. Rockville, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Available at: http://www​.fda.gov/MedicalDevices​/DeviceRegulationandGuidance​/GuidanceDocuments/ucm077862.htm.
77.
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. In vitro diagnostic multivariate index assays. Draft guidance for industry, clinical laboratories, and FDA staff [Docket # 2006D-0347] Rockville, MD: Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; Jul 26, 2007. p. 15.
78.
State of New York Department of Health. Checklist for genetic testing validation packages. Albany, NY: State of New York Department of Health; Apr 30, 2009. p. 3.
79.
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews, BMC Med Res Methodol. Nov 10, 2003. p. 25. Available at: http://www​.biomedcentral​.com/content/pdf/1471-2288-3-25.pdf. [PMC free article: PMC305345] [PubMed: 14606960]
80.
Bast RC Jr, Feeney M, Lazarus H, et al. Reactivity of a monoclonal antibody with human ovarian carcinoma. J Clin Invest. 1981 Nov;68(5):1331–7. [PMC free article: PMC370929] [PubMed: 7028788]
81.
Kobayashi H, Tamura M, Satoh T, et al. Clinical evaluation of new cancer-associated antigen CA125 II in epithelial ovarian cancers: comparison with CA125. Clin Biochem. 1993 Jun;26(3):213–19. [PubMed: 8330391]
82.
bioMerieux, Inc. 510(k) summary for VIDAS CA 125 II assay. K080561. Rockville, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2008. Available at: http://www​.accessdata​.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/K080561.pdf.
83.
Tso E, Elson P, Vanlente F, et al. The “real-life” variability of CA-125 in ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Oct;103(1):141–4. [PubMed: 16537090]
84.
Kenemans P, Verstraeten AA, van Kamp GJ, et al. The second generation CA 125 assays. Ann Med. 1995 Feb;27(1):107–13. [PubMed: 7741988]
85.
Tamakoshi K, Kikkawa F, Shibata K, et al. Clinical value of CA125, CA19-9, CEA, CA72-4, and TPA in borderline ovarian tumor. Gynecol Oncol. 1996 Jul;62(1):67–72. [PubMed: 8690294]
86.
Mongia SK, Rawlins ML, Owen WE, et al. Performance characteristics of seven automated CA 125 assays. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006 Jun;125(6):921–7. [PubMed: 16690492]
87.
Davelaar EM, Schutter EM, Von Mensdorff-Pouilly S, et al. Clinical and technical evaluation of the ACS:OV serum assay and comparison with three other CA125-detecting assays. Ann Clin Biochem. 2003 Nov;40(6):663–73. [PubMed: 14629806]
88.
Clement M, Bischof P, Gruffat C, et al. Clinical validation of the new ELSA-CA 125 II assay: report of a European multicentre evaluation. Int J Cancer. 1995 Jan 17;60(2):199–203. [PubMed: 7829216]
89.
Fisken J, Leonard RC, Roulston JE. Immunoassay of CA125 in ovarian cancer: A comparison of three assays for use in diagnosis and monitoring. Dis Markers. 1989;7(1):61–7. [PubMed: 2653700]
90.
Shelley MD, Fish RG. Evaluation of an immunoradiometric assay for the detection of an ovarian tumour marker, CA125, in serum. Ann Clin Biochem. 1986 May;23(Pt 3):292–6. [PubMed: 3466568]
91.
FDA News, FDA approves updated Warfarin (Coumadin) prescribing information. New genetic information may help providers improve initial dosing estimates of the anticoagulant for individual patients. Seattle, WA: Genelex Corporation; [December 6, 2007]. Available at: http://www​.fda.gov/bbs​/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01684.html.
92.
Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in adults with nonpsychotic depression treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Genet Med. 2007 Dec;9(12):819–25. [PMC free article: PMC2743615] [PubMed: 18091431]
93.
Pauletti G, Godolphin W, Press MF, et al. Detection and quantitation of HER-2/neu gene amplification in human breast cancer archival material using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Oncogene. 1996 Jul 4;13(1):63–72. [PubMed: 8700555]
94.
Middleton LP, Price KM, Puig P, et al. Implementation of America. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009 May;133(5):775–80. [PubMed: 19415952]
95.
Rubin I, Yarden Y. The basic biology of HER2. Ann Oncol. 2001;12(Suppl 1):S3–S8. [PubMed: 11521719]
96.
Yarden Y. Biology of HER2 and its importance in breast cancer. Oncology. 2001;61(Suppl 2):1–13. [PubMed: 11694782]
97.
Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(1):18–43. [PubMed: 19548375]
98.
Chen C, Peng J, Xia HS, et al. Quantum dots-based immunofluorescence technology for the quantitative determination of HER2 expression in breast cancer. Biomaterials. 2009 May;30(15):2912–18. [PubMed: 19251316]
99.
Moelans CB, de Weger RA, Ezendam C, et al. HER-2/neu amplification testing in breast cancer by Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification: Influence of manual- and laser microdissection. BMC Cancer. 2009 Jan 5;9:4. [PMC free article: PMC2631004] [PubMed: 19123950]
100.
Rosa FE, Silveira SM, Silveira CGT, et al. Quantitative real-time RT-PCR and chromogenic in situ hybridization: Precise methods to detect HER-2 status in breast carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2009 Mar 23;9:90. [PMC free article: PMC2667535] [PubMed: 19309522]
101.
Egervari K, Toth J, Nemes Z, et al. An alternative and reliable real-time quantitative PCR method to determine HER2/neu amplification in breast cancer. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2009 May;17(3):247–54. [PubMed: 19098680]
102.
Francis GD, Jones MA, Beadle GF, et al. Bright-field in situ hybridization for HER2 gene amplification in breast cancer using tissue microarrays: correlation between chromogenic (CISH) and automated silver-enhanced (SISH) methods with patient outcome. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2009 Jun;18(2):88–95. [PubMed: 19430296]
103.
Giltnane JM, Molinaro A, Cheng H, et al. Comparison of quantitative immunofluorescence with conventional methods for HER2/neu testing with respect to response to trastuzumab therapy in metastatic breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Oct;132(10):1635–47. [PubMed: 18834223]
104.
Egervari K, Szollosi Z, Nemes Z. Immunohistochemical antibodies in breast cancer HER2 diagnostics. A comparative immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization study. Tumour Biol. 2008;29(1):18–27. [PubMed: 18497545]
105.
Lourenco HM, Pereira TP, Fonseca RR, et al. HER2/neu detection by immunohistochemistry: optimization of in-house protocols. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2009 Mar;17(2):151–7. [PubMed: 18971784]
106.
Hofmann M, Stoss O, Gaiser T, et al. Central HER2 IHC and FISH analysis in a trastuzumab (Herceptin) phase II monotherapy study: assessment of test sensitivity and impact of chromosome 17 polysomy. J Clin Pathol. 2008 Jan;61(1):89–94. [PubMed: 17412870]
107.
O'Malley FP, Thomson T, Julian J, et al. HER2 testing in a population-based study of patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with trastuzumab. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Jan;132(1):61–5. [PubMed: 18181675]
108.
Kammori M, Kurabayashi R, Kashio M, et al. Prognostic utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization for determining HER2 gene amplification in breast cancer. Oncol Rep (Athens) 2008 Mar;19(3):651–6. [PubMed: 18288397]
109.
Masmoudi H, Hewitt SM, Petrick N, et al. Automated quantitative assessment of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical expression in breast cancer. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009 Jun;28(6):916–25. [PubMed: 19164073]
110.
Theodosiou Z, Kasampalidis IN, Karayannopoulou G, et al. Evaluation of FISH image analysis system on assessing HER2 amplification in breast carcinoma cases. Breast. 2008 Feb;17(1):80–4. [PubMed: 17889539]
111.
Xiao Y, Gao X, Maragh S, et al. Cell lines as candidate reference materials for quality control of ERBB2 amplification and expression assays in breast cancer. Clin Chem. 2009 Jul 1;55(7):1307–15. [PubMed: 19443566]
112.
AHRQ guidance for the evaluation of medical tests [draft] Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Dec, 2009.
113.
FDA/CDRH Public Meeting: Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs), date July 19-20, 2010. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; [September 20, 2010]. Available at: http://www​.fda.gov/MedicalDevices​/NewsEvents​/WorkshopsConferences/ucm212830.htm.
114.
U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Genetic testing registry. U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health; [September 20, 2010]. Available at: http://www​.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/
115.
Levin B. Molecular screening testing for colorectal cancer, Clin Cancer Res. Sep 1, 2006. pp. 5014–5017. Available at: http:​//clincancerres​.aacrjournals.org/content/12/17/5014​.long. [PubMed: 16951215]
116.
Abruzzo LV, Barron LL, Anderson K, et al. Identification and validation of biomarkers of IgV(H) mutation status in chronic lymphocytic leukemia using microfluidics quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction technology, J Mol Diagn. Sep, 2007. pp. 546–55. Available at: http://jmd​.amjpathol​.org/cgi/reprint/9/4/546. [PMC free article: PMC1975107] [PubMed: 17690214]
117.
Stoppler M. CA 125. New York, NY: WebMD; [January 28, 2010]. Available at: http://www​.medicinenet​.com/script/main/art​.asp?articlekey=8099.
118.
Paynter NP, Chasman DI, Buring JE, et al. Cardiovascular disease risk prediction with and without knowledge of genetic variation at chromosome 9p21.3, Ann Intern Med. Jan 20, 2009. pp. 65–72. Available at: http://www​.ncbi.nlm.nih​.gov/pmc/articles​/PMC2629586/pdf/nihms-75716.pdf. [PMC free article: PMC2629586] [PubMed: 19153409]

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (918K)

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...