Bridging the divide: addressing discrepancies between clinical guidelines, policy guidelines, and biomarker utilization

Denis Horgan; Paul Hofman; Reinhard Buttner; Olaf Rieß; Iwona Lugowska; France Dube; Jaya Singh; Ernest Nadal; Tomasz Stokłosa; Elīna Sīviņa; Marc Van der Buckle; Silvia Mosoiu; Luca Bertolaccini; Nicolas Girard; Jan Van Meerbeeck; Imran Omar; Ettore D Capoluongo; Stefan Bielack; Tanya Hills; David Baldwin; Vivek Subbiah

doi:10.1515/dx-2024-0092

Bridging the divide: addressing discrepancies between clinical guidelines, policy guidelines, and biomarker utilization

Diagnosis (Berl). 2024 Aug 1. doi: 10.1515/dx-2024-0092. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Denis Horgan^{1

2}, Paul Hofman³, Reinhard Buttner⁴, Olaf Rieß⁵, Iwona Lugowska⁶, France Dube⁷, Jaya Singh¹, Ernest Nadal⁸, Tomasz Stokłosa⁹, Elīna Sīviņa¹⁰, Marc Van der Buckle¹¹, Silvia Mosoiu¹², Luca Bertolaccini¹³, Nicolas Girard¹⁴, Jan Van Meerbeeck¹⁵, Imran Omar¹⁶, Ettore D Capoluongo¹⁷, Stefan Bielack¹⁸, Tanya Hills¹⁹, David Baldwin²⁰, Vivek Subbiah²¹

Affiliations

¹ European Alliance for Personalised Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.
² Department of Molecular and Cellular Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jacob Institute of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj, India.
³ European Liquid Biopsy Society, Hamburg, Germany.
⁴ Lung Cancer Group Cologne, Institute of Pathology and Medical Faculty, Center for Integrated Oncology Co-logne/Bonn, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
⁵ Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
⁶ Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute and Oncology Centre (MSCI), Warsaw, Poland.
⁷ Astra Zeneca, Concord Pike, Wilmington, DE, USA.
⁸ Catalan Institute of Oncology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
⁹ University Clinical Center, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
¹⁰ Tumour Clinical Research Department, Institute of Oncology, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.
¹¹ Belgian Cancer Centre, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
¹² Oncology Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila" Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
¹³ Department of Thoracic Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
¹⁴ Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France.
¹⁵ Department of Thoracic Oncology, MOCA, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
¹⁶ Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
¹⁷ Department of Clinical Pathology and Genomics, Azienda Ospedaliera Per L'Emergenza Cannizzaro, Catania, Italy.
¹⁸ Department of Pediatric Oncology, Hematology, Immunology, Stuttgart Cancer Center, Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
¹⁹ Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
²⁰ Institute of War & Peace Studies, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
²¹ Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN, USA.

PMID: 39088796
DOI: 10.1515/dx-2024-0092

Abstract

Objectives: This paper aims to identify and address gaps in cancer treatment and diagnosis within European health services, focusing specifically on discrepancies between clinical guidelines and policy guidelines. It seeks to highlight how the underutilization of advanced diagnostic techniques recommended by medical societies contributes to missed opportunities for improving patient outcomes.

Methods: A comprehensive analysis was conducted across multiple European countries to assess the compliance and integration of clinical guidelines with the availability of advanced diagnostic technologies. Secondary data related to clinical and policy guidelines in cancer care were collected and analyzed. Key indicators of adoption and utilization of next-generation sequencing and liquid biopsy were examined to evaluate their impact on health service efficiency and patient care.

Results: The analysis revealed significant discrepancies between the recommendations of medical societies regarding advanced diagnostic techniques and their adoption in health policy decisions across Europe. Country-specific assessments indicated varying levels of alignment between clinical guidelines and the availability of advanced diagnostics. These findings underscored missed opportunities for optimizing patient care and health service efficiency through better alignment and integration of clinical guidelines with policy decisions.

Conclusions: This study concludes that there is a critical need for health policy decision-makers to prioritize the adoption of clinical guidelines in resource allocation and health service organization. Greater attention to the recommendations of medical societies regarding advanced diagnostic techniques could significantly enhance diagnostic accuracy, treatment efficacy, and overall patient outcomes in cancer care. The paper advocates for policy reforms that acknowledge and leverage the potential benefits of advanced diagnostics in improving health service performance and patient-centered care across Europe.

Keywords: advanced diagnostics; cancer care; clinical guidelines; liquid biopsy; next-generation sequencing; policy guidelines.