Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects.

PURPOSE: With the accelerated implementation of genomic medicine, health-care providers will depend heavily on professional guidelines and recommendations. Because genomics affects many diseases across the life span, no single professional group covers the entirety of this rapidly developing field. METHODS: To pursue a discussion of the minimal elements needed to develop evidence-based guidelines in genomics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute jointly held a workshop to engage representatives from 35 organizations with interest in genomics (13 of which make recommendations). The workshop explored methods used in evidence synthesis and guideline development and initiated a dialogue to compare these methods and to assess whether they are consistent with the Institute of Medicine report "Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust." RESULTS: The participating organizations that develop guidelines or recommendations all had policies to manage guideline development and group membership, and processes to address conflicts of interests. However, there was wide variation in the reliance on external reviews, regular updating of recommendations, and use of systematic reviews to assess the strength of scientific evidence. CONCLUSION: Ongoing efforts are required to establish criteria for guideline development in genomic medicine as proposed by the Institute of Medicine.

NCCN Working Group report: designing clinical trials in the era of multiple biomarkers and targeted therapies.

Defining treatment-susceptible or -resistant populations of patients with cancer through the use of genetically defined biomarkers has revolutionized cancer care in recent years for some disease/patient groups. Research continues to show that histologically defined diseases are diverse in their expression of unique mutations or other genetic alterations, however, which presents opportunities for the development of personalized cancer treatments, but increased difficulty in testing these therapies, because potential patient populations are divided into ever smaller numbers. To address some of the growing challenges in biomarker development and clinical trial design, NCCN assembled a group of experts across specialties and solid tumor disease types to begin to define the problems and to consider alternate ways of designing clinical trials in the era of multiple biomarkers and targeted therapies. Results from that discussion are presented, focusing on issues of clinical trial design from the perspective of statisticians, clinical researchers, regulators, pathologists, and information developers.

NCCN Task Force report: Evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology.

The molecular analysis of biomarkers in oncology is rapidly advancing, but the incorporation of new molecular tests into clinical practice will require a greater understanding of the genetic changes that drive malignancy, the assays used to measure the resulting phenotypes and genotypes, and the regulatory processes that new molecular biomarkers must face to be accepted for clinical use. To address these issues and provide an overview of current molecular testing in 6 major malignancies, including glioma, breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and acute myelogenous leukemia, an NCCN Task Force was convened on the topic of evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology. The output of this meeting, contained within this report, describes the ways biomarkers have been developed and used; defines common terminology, including prognostic, predictive, and companion diagnostic markers, and analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility; and proposes the use of a combination level of evidence score to aid in the evaluation of novel biomarker tests as they arise. The current state of regulatory oversight and anticipated changes in the regulation of molecular testing are also addressed.

Optimizing the Clinical Utility of Biomarkers in Oncology: The NCCN Biomarkers Compendium.

CONTEXT: The rapid development of commercial biomarker tests for oncology indications has led to confusion about which tests are clinically indicated for oncology care. By consolidating biomarker testing information recommended within National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines), the NCCN Biomarkers Compendium aims to ensure that patients have access to appropriate biomarker testing based on the evaluations and recommendations of the expert NCCN panel members. OBJECTIVES: To present the recently launched NCCN Biomarkers Compendium. DATA SOURCES: Biomarker testing information recommended within NCCN Clinical Treatment Guidelines as well as published resources for genetic and biological information. CONCLUSIONS: The NCCN Biomarkers Compendium is a continuously updated resource for clinicians who need access to relevant and succinct information about biomarker testing in oncology and is linked directly to the recommendations provided within the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Evolutionary relationships of Aurora kinases: implications for model organism studies and the development of anti-cancer drugs.

BACKGROUND: As key regulators of mitotic chromosome segregation, the Aurora family of serine/threonine kinases play an important role in cell division. Abnormalities in Aurora kinases have been strongly linked with cancer, which has lead to the recent development of new classes of anti-cancer drugs that specifically target the ATP-binding domain of these kinases. From an evolutionary perspective, the species distribution of the Aurora kinase family is complex. Mammals uniquely have three Aurora kinases, Aurora-A, Aurora-B, and Aurora-C, while for other metazoans, including the frog, fruitfly and nematode, only Aurora-A and Aurora-B kinases are known. The fungi have a single Aurora-like homolog. Based on the tacit assumption of orthology to human counterparts, model organism studies have been central to the functional characterization of Aurora kinases. However, the ortholog and paralog relationships of these kinases across various species have not been rigorously examined. Here, we present comprehensive evolutionary analyses of the Aurora kinase family. RESULTS: Phylogenetic trees suggest that all three vertebrate Auroras evolved from a single urochordate ancestor. Specifically, Aurora-A is an orthologous lineage in cold-blooded vertebrates and mammals, while structurally similar Aurora-B and Aurora-C evolved more recently in mammals from a duplication of an ancestral Aurora-B/C gene found in cold-blooded vertebrates. All so-called Aurora-A and Aurora-B kinases of non-chordates are ancestral to the clade of chordate Auroras and, therefore, are not strictly orthologous to vertebrate counterparts. Comparisons of human Aurora-B and Aurora-C sequences to the resolved 3D structure of human Aurora-A lends further support to the evolutionary scenario that vertebrate Aurora-B and Aurora-C are closely related paralogs. Of the 26 residues lining the ATP-binding active site, only three were variant and all were specific to Aurora-A. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that invertebrate Aurora-A and Aurora-B kinases are highly divergent protein families from their chordate counterparts. Furthermore, while the Aurora-A family is ubiquitous among all vertebrates, the Aurora-B and Aurora-C families in humans arose from a gene duplication event in mammals. These findings show the importance of understanding evolutionary relationships in the interpretation and transference of knowledge from studies of model organism systems to human cellular biology. In addition, given the important role of Aurora kinases in cancer, evolutionary analysis and comparisons of ATP-binding domains suggest a rationale for designing dual action anti-tumor drugs that inhibit both Aurora-B and Aurora-C kinases.