Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Measuring clinical utility in the context of genetic testing: a scoping review

Abstract

Standardized approaches to measuring clinical utility will enable more robust evaluations of genetic tests. To characterize how clinical utility has been measured, this scoping review examined outcomes used to operationalize this concept in the context of genetic testing, spanning relevant literature (2015–2017). The search strategy and analysis were guided by the Fryback and Thornbury hierarchical model of efficacy (FT Model). Through searches in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science, 194 publications were identified for inclusion. Two coders reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts to determine eligibility. Results were analyzed using thematic and frequency analyses. This review generated a catalog of outcomes mapped to the efficacy domains of the FT Model. The degree of representation observed in each domain varied by the clinical purpose and clinical indication of genetic testing. Diagnostic accuracy (68%), technical (28.4%), and patient outcome (28.4%) efficacy studies were represented at the highest rate. Findings suggest that the FT Model is suitable for the genetics context however domain refinements may be warranted. More diverse clinical settings, robust study designs, and novel strategies for measuring clinical utility are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram.
Fig. 2: Outcome measures by FT model efficacy domain.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Van ElCG, Cornel MC, Borry P, Hastings RJ, Fellmann F, Hodgson SV. et al. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:580–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Xue Y, Ankala A, Wilcox WR, Hegde MR. Solving the molecular diagnostic testing conundrum for Mendelian disorders in the era of next-generation sequencing: Single-gene, gene panel, or exome/genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2015;17:444–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Caulfield T, Evans J, McGuire A, McCabe C, Bubela T, Cook-Deegan R, et al. Reflections on the cost of “low-cost” whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate. PLoS Biol. 2013;11:7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nelson B. Ensuring quality in genomic medicine: amid the rise in complex laboratory-developed tests, regulatory officials are seeking the right balance on quality assurance. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122:855–6. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/cncy.21499

  5. Sun F, Bruening W, Erinoff E, Schoelles KM. Addressing challenges in genetic test evaluation. addressing challenges genet test. Eval Eval Fram Assess Anal Validity. 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21834175

  6. Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med. 2006;8:448–50. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1097/01.gim.0000227935.26763.c6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burke W. Genetic tests: clinical validity and clinical utility. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2014;81:9.15.1–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24763995

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. An evidence framework for genetic testing. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine; 2017.

  9. Watson M. Clinical utility of genetic and genomic services: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2015;17:505–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bossuyt PMM, Reitsma JB, Linnet K, Moons KGM. Beyond diagnostic accuracy: the clinical utility of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem. 2012;58:1636–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Willke RJ, Basu A, Danzon PM, Doshi JA. et al. A health economics approach to US value assessment frameworks—summary and recommendations of the ISPOR Special Task Force Report [7]. Value Heal. 2018;21:161–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pitini E, Vito C De, Marzuillo C, Andrea ED, Rosso A, Federici A, et al. How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;605–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0095-5

  13. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, Haddow JE, Piper M, Calonge N, et al. The evaluation of genomic applications in practice and prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP working group. Hum Genome Epidemiol Build Evid Using Genet Inf Improv Heal Prev Dis Second Ed. 2010;11:3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Medical Test reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.

  15. Ferrante Di Ruffano L, Hyde CJ, McCaffery KJ, Bossuyt PMM, Deeks JJ. Assessing the value of diagnostic tests: a framework for designing and evaluating trials. BMJ. 2012;344:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Mak. 1991;11:88–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pr. 2005;8:19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. WHO. Statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision. World Health Organization; 2016. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/

  19. Botkin JR, Teutsch SM, Kaye CI, Hayes M, Haddow JE, Bradley LA, et al. Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests. Genet Med. 2010;12:228–35. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181cdde04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. European Commission. Regulatory framework: the new Regulations on medical devices. European Commision; 2018. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/medical-devices/regulatory-framework/

  21. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC). Decision determinants guidance document: the Ontario Health technology advisory committee (OHTAC) decision-making process for the development of evidence-based recommendations. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee; 2010. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/pub/guide_decision.pdf

  22. Hayeems RZ, Luca S, Ungar WJ, Bhatt A, Chad L, Pullenayegum E. et al. The development of the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE): a novel strategy for measuring the clinical utility of genetic testing. Genet Med. 2020;22:95–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0620-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. NIH National Cancer Institute. Cancer genomics research. 2018. https://www.cancer.gov/research/areas/genomics

  24. Mccarthy JJ, Mcleod HL, Ginsburg GS. Genomic medicine: a decade of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:189sr4. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3005785

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Calonge N, Klein RD, Berg AO, Berg JS, Armstrong K, Botkin J, et al. The EGAPP initiative: lessons learned. Genet Med. 2014;16:217–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project Grant (PJT-152880).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robin Z. Hayeems.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walcott, S.E., Miller, F.A., Dunsmore, K. et al. Measuring clinical utility in the context of genetic testing: a scoping review. Eur J Hum Genet 29, 378–386 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00744-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00744-2

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links