Sciurti Antonio, Migliara Giuseppe, Baccolini Valentina, De Blasiis Maria Roberta, Di Lorenzo Giuseppe, Mussetto Ilaria, Anniballo Arianna, Iera Jessica, Isonne Claudia, Kaminska Anna Ewa, Pierri Francesco, Pistollato Andrea, Riccio Marianna, Rosso Annalisa, Siena Leonardo Maria, Soccodato Valentina, Marzuillo Carolina, De Vito Corrado, La Torre Giuseppe, Villari Paolo
Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, Rome, 00185, Italy.
Department of Life Sciences, Health, and Health Professions, Link Campus University, Via del Casale di San Pio V 44, Rome, 00165, Italy.
J Transl Med. 2025 Jul 7;23(1):749. doi: 10.1186/s12967-025-06703-z.
Despite advances in precision medicine, the translation of genetic and genomic technologies into routine practice is hampered by a heterogeneous and limited evidence base and the absence of standardized evaluation methodologies. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) plays a critical role in bridging this gap, yet assessment approaches and comprehensiveness vary widely. This systematic review aims to map the landscape of the assessment reports on genetic and genomics applications, analyze their methodological aspects and identify gaps.
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the international HTA database, were searched for assessment reports of genetic/genomic technologies. Information on reports general characteristics, assessment domains and their components, consulted sources of evidence and reported gaps was extracted. Findings were synthesized narratively.
Out of 27,331 screened records, 41 reports were included, predominantly from Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, mainly aimed at informing policy making for single or multiple gene tests for cancer patients. Most reports used a generic HTA methodology and assessment domains varied across reports. Key clinical aspects, such as clinical accuracy and safety, suffered from evidence gaps (39.0% and 22.0%), while personal and societal aspects were the least investigated assessment domain (48.8-78.0%). Overall, lack of evidence and limited generalizability of findings were the most commonly reported gaps across multiple domains.
The review highlighted significant fragmentation in current evaluation methodologies of genetic and genomic applications, with underassessment of analytical/clinical accuracy, safety, and non-health outcomes, alongside evidence gaps and limited generalizability. These issues compromise both evaluation and decision-making process, underscoring the urgent need for alternative study designs and standardized, comprehensive assessment frameworks to facilitate the successful implementation of emerging genetic and genomic technologies.
尽管精准医学取得了进展,但遗传和基因组技术转化为常规实践受到证据基础的异质性和局限性以及缺乏标准化评估方法的阻碍。卫生技术评估(HTA)在弥合这一差距方面发挥着关键作用,然而评估方法和全面性差异很大。本系统评价旨在描绘遗传和基因组应用评估报告的概况,分析其方法学方面并识别差距。
在PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和国际HTA数据库中搜索遗传/基因组技术的评估报告。提取有关报告一般特征、评估领域及其组成部分、所参考的证据来源和报告的差距的信息。采用叙述性方式综合研究结果。
在筛选的27331条记录中,纳入了41份报告,主要来自加拿大、英国和澳大利亚,主要目的是为癌症患者的单基因或多基因检测的政策制定提供信息。大多数报告使用通用的HTA方法,不同报告的评估领域各不相同。关键临床方面,如临床准确性和安全性,存在证据差距(分别为39.0%和22.0%),而个人和社会方面是研究最少的评估领域(48.8 - 78.0%)。总体而言,缺乏证据和研究结果的普遍适用性有限是多个领域最常报告的差距。
该综述强调了当前遗传和基因组应用评估方法存在显著碎片化,分析/临床准确性、安全性和非健康结果评估不足,同时存在证据差距和普遍适用性有限的问题。这些问题损害了评估和决策过程,凸显了迫切需要替代研究设计以及标准化、全面的评估框架,以促进新兴遗传和基因组技术的成功实施。