Skip to main content

Health technology assessment in the era of personalized health care

  • Lidia Becla (a1), Jeantine E. Lunshof (a2), David Gurwitz (a3), Tobias Schulte in den Bäumen (a4), Hans V. Westerhoff (a5), Bodo M. H. Lange (a6) and Angela Brand (a4)...

Objectives: This article examines the challenges for health technology assessment (HTA) in the light of new developments of personalized health care, focusing on European HTA perspectives.

Methods: Using the example of the Integrated Genome Research Network – Mutanom (IG Mutanom) project, with focus on personalized cancer diagnostics and treatment, we assess the scope of current HTA and examine it prospectively in the context of the translation of basic and clinical research into public health genomics and personalized health care.

Results: The approaches developed within the IG-Mutanom project are based on innovative technology potentially providing targeted therapies for cancer; making translation into clinical practice requires a novel course of action, however. New models of HTA are needed that can account for the unique types of evidence inherent to individualized targeted therapies. Using constructive health technology assessment (CTA) models is an option, but further suitable models should be developed.

Conclusions: Integrative, systems biology-based approaches toward personalized medicine call for novel assessment methods. The translation of their highly innovative technologies into the practice of health care requires the development of new HTA concepts.

Hide All
1. Aggarwal, S. Targeted cancer therapies. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:427428.
2. Ashley, EA, Butte, AJ, Wheeler, MT, et al. Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. Lancet. 2010;375:15251535.
3. Atreja, A, Achkar, J-P, Jain, AK, Harris, CM, Lashner, BA. Using technology to promote gastrointestinal outcomes research: A case for electronic health records. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:21712178.
4. Barker, AD, Sigman, CC, Hylton, NM, Berry, DA, Esserman, LJ. I-SPY2: An adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86:97100.
5. Bies, RR, Gastonguay, MR, Schwartz, SL. Mathematics for understanding disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83:904908.
6. Brenner, S. Sequences and consequences. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365:207212.
7. Cooksey, D. A review of UK health research funding. Norwich: Crown copyright; 2006. (accessed June 1, 2010).
8. Economist Intelligence Unit. Breakaway: The global burden of cancer—challenges and opportunities. London, New York, Hong Kong: 2009. (accessed June 1, 2010).
9. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Definition of HTA. (accessed June 1, 2010).
10. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924926.
11. Hornberg, JJ, Bruggeman, FJ, Westerhoff, HV, Lankelma, J. Cancer: A systems biology disease. BioSystems. 2006;83:8190.
12. NGFN-Plus Integrated Genome Research Network–Mutanom.; (accessed June 1, 2010).
13. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. HTA resources. (accessed June 1, 2010).
14. Kohane, IS. The twin questions of personalized medicine: Who are you and whom do you most resemble? Genome Med. 2009;1:4.
15. Kravitz, RL, Duan, N, White, RH. N-of-1 Trials of expensive biological therapies: A third way? Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:10301033.
16. Leary, RJ, Kinde, I, Diehl, F, et al. Development of personalized tumor biomarkers using massively parallel sequencing. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2:20ra14.
17. Lunshof, JE. Personalized medicine: How much can we afford? A bioethics perspective. Per Med. 2005;2:4347.
18. Murgo, AJ, Kumar, S, Rubinstein, L, et al. Designing phase 0 cancer clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:36753682.
19. Ogilvie, D, Craig, P, Griffin, S, Macintyre, S, Wareham, NJ. A translational framework for public health research. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9:116125.
20. Retel, VP, Bueno-de-Mesquita, JM, Hummel, MJM, et al. Constructive technology assessment (CTA) as a tool in coverage with evidence development: The case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:7383.
21. Rogowski, WH, Hartz, SC, John, JH. Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: A framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:194.
22. Rosenkötter, N, Vondeling, H, Blancquaert, I, et al. The contribution of health technology assessment, health needs assessment, and health impact assessment to the assessment and translation of technologies in the field of public health genomics. Public Health Genomics. 2011;14:4352.
23. Samani, NJ, Tomaszewski, M, Schunkert, H. The personal genome—the future of personalized medicine? Lancet. 2010;375:14971498.
24. Schulman, K, Valverde Vidal, A, Ackerly, DC. Personalized medicine and disruptive innovation: Implications for technology assessment. Genet Med. 2009;11:577581.
25. Shabo, A. Clinical genomics data standards for pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics. 2006;7:247253.
26. Westerhoff, HV, Palsson, BO. The evolution of molecular biology into systems biology. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;10:12491252.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 18
Total number of PDF views: 64 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 370 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st May 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.