***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Purpose .To provide a practical quantitative tool for appraising the quality of  cost-effectiveness ( CE ) studies . Methods .A committee comprised of health economists selected a set of criteria for the instrument from an item pool . Data collected with a conjoint analysis survey on 120 international health economists were used to estimate weights for each criterion with a r and om effects regression model . To vali date the grading system , a survey was sent to 60 individuals with health economics expertise . Participants first rated the quality  of three CE studies  on a visual analogue scale , and then evaluated each study using the  grading system . Spearman rho and Wilcoxon tests were used to detect convergent validity and analysis of covariance ( ANCOVA ) for discriminant validity . Agreement between the global rating by experts and the grading system was also examined . Results .Sixteen criteria were selected . Their coefficient estimates ranged from 1.2 to 8.9 , with a sum of 93.5 on a 100-point scale . The only insignificant criterion was “ use of subgroup analyses . ” Both convergent validity and discriminant validity of the grading system were shown by the results of the Spearman rho ( correlation coefficient = 0.78 , P < 0.0001 ) , Wilcoxon test ( P = 0.53 ) , and ANCOVA ( F3,146 = 5.97 , P = 0.001 ) . The grading system had good agreement with global rating by experts . Conclusions . The instrument appears to be simple , internally consistent , and valid for measuring the perceived quality of CE studies . Applicability for use in clinical and re source allocation decision-making deserves further study UNLABELLED In February 2010 , the Medical Advisory Secretariat ( MAS ) began work on evidence -based review s of the literature surrounding three pharmacogenomic tests . This project came about when Cancer Care Ontario ( CCO ) asked MAS to provide evidence -based analyses on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three oncology pharmacogenomic tests currently in use in Ontario . Evidence -based analyses have been prepared for each of these technologies . These have been completed in conjunction with internal and external stakeholders , including a Provincial Expert Panel on Pharmacogenomics ( PEPP ) . Within the PEPP , subgroup committees were developed for each disease area . For each technology , an economic analysis was also completed by the Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative ( THETA ) and is summarized within the reports . THE FOLLOWING REPORTS CAN BE PUBLICLY ACCESSED AT THE MAS WEBSITE AT : www.health.gov.on.ca/mas or at www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/mas_about.htmlGENE EXPRESSION PROFILING FOR GUIDING ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY DECISIONS IN WOMEN WITH EARLY BREAST CANCER : An Evidence -Based and Economic Analysis Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation ( EGFR ) Testing for Prediction of Response to EGFR-Targeting Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor ( TKI ) Drugs in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer : an Evidence -Based and Economic Analysis K-RAS testing in Treatment Decisions for Advanced Colorectal Cancer : an Evidence -Based and Economic Analysis . OBJECTIVE The objective of this systematic review is to determine the predictive value of KRAS testing in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer ( mCRC ) with two anti-EGFR agents , cetuximab and panitumumab . Economic analyses are also being conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of KRAS testing . CLINICAL NEED CONDITION AND TARGET POPULATION Metastatic colorectal cancer ( mCRC ) is usually defined as stage IV disease according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumour node metastasis ( TNM ) system or stage D in the Duke 's classification system . Patients with advanced colorectal cancer ( mCRC ) either present with metastatic disease or develop it through disease progression . KRAS ( Kristen-RAS , a member of the rat sarcoma virus ( ras ) gene family of oncogenes ) is frequently mutated in epithelial cancers such as colorectal cancer , with mutations occurring in mutational hotspots ( codons 12 and 13 ) of the KRAS protein . Involved in EGFR-mediated signalling of cellular processes such as cell proliferation , resistance to apoptosis , enhanced cell motility and neoangiogenesis , a mutation in the KRAS gene is believed to be involved in cancer pathogenesis . Such a mutation is also hypothesized to be involved in resistance to targeted anti-EGFR ( epidermal growth factor receptor with tyrosine kinase activity ) treatments such as cetuximab and panitumumab , hence , the important in evaluating the evidence on the predictive value of KRAS testing in this context . KRAS MUTATION TESTING IN ADVANCED COLORECTAL CANCER : Both cetuximab and panitumumab are indicated by Health Canada in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumours are WT for the KRAS gene .  Cetuximab may be offered as monotherapy in patients intolerant to irinotecan-based chemotherapy or in patients who have failed both irinotecan and oxaliplatin-based regimens and who received a fluoropyrimidine .  It can also be administered in combination with irinotecan in patients refractory to other irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimens . Panitumumab is only indicated as a single agent after failure of fluoropyrimidine- , oxaliplatin- , and irinotecan-containing chemotherapy regimens . In Ontario , patients with advanced colorectal cancer who are refractory to chemotherapy may be offered the targeted anti-EGFR treatments cetuximab or panitumumab . Eligibility for these treatments is based on the KRAS status of their tumour , derived from tissue collected from surgical or biopsy specimens . It is believed that KRAS status is not affected by treatments , therefore , for patients for whom surgical tissue is available for KRAS testing , additional biopsies prior to treatment with these targeted agents is not necessary . For patients that have not undergone surgery or for whom surgical tissue is not available , a biopsy of either the primary or metastatic site is required to determine their KRAS status . This is possible as status at the metastatic and primary tumour sites is considered to be similar . RESEARCH QUESTION To determine if there is predictive value of KRAS testing in guiding treatment decisions with anti-EGFR targeted therapies in advanced colorectal cancer patients refractory to chemotherapy . RESEARCH METHODS LITERATURE SEARCH The Medical Advisory Secretariat followed its st and ard procedures and on May 18 , 2010 , search ed the following electronic data bases : Ovid MEDLINE , EMBASE , Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials , Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s and The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment data base . The subject headings and keywords search ed included colorectal cancer , cetuximab , panitumumab , and KRAS testing . The search was further restricted to English- language articles published between January 1 , 2009 and May 18 , 2010 result ing in 1335 articles for review . Excluded were case reports , comments , editorials , non  systematic review s , and letters . Studies published from January 1 , 2005 to December 31 , 2008 were identified in a health technology assessment conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ( AHRQ ) , published in 2010 . In total , 14 observational studies were identified for inclusion in this EBA : 4 for cetuximab monotherapy , 7 for the cetuximab-irinotecan combination therapy , and 3 to be included in the review for panitumumab monotherapy INCLUSION CRITERIA English- language articles , and English or French- language HTAs published from January 2005 to May 2010 , inclusive . R and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) or observational studies , including single arm treatment studies that include KRAS testing . Studies with data on main outcomes of interest , overall and progression-free survival . Studies of third line treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab in patients with advanced colorectal cancer refractory to chemotherapy . For the cetuximab-irinotecan evaluation , studies in which at least 70 % of patients in the study received this combination therapy . EXCLUSION CRITERIA Studies whose entire sample was included in subsequent publications which have been included in this EBA . Studies in pediatric population s . Case reports , comments , editorials , or letters . OUTCOMES OF INTEREST Overall survival ( OS ) , medianProgression-free-survival ( PFS ) , median . Response rates . Adverse event rates . Quality of life ( QOL ) . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW : CETUXIMAB OR PANITUMUMAB MONOTHERAPY : Based on moderate GRADE observational evidence , there is improvement in PFS and OS favouring patients without the KRAS mutation ( KRAS wildtype , or KRAS WT ) compared to those with the mutation . CETUXIMAB-IRINOTECAN COMBINATION THERAPY : There is low GRADE evidence that testing for KRAS may optimize survival benefits in patients without the KRAS mutation ( KRAS wildtype , or KRAS WT ) compared to those with the mutation . However , cetuximab-irinotecan combination treatments based on KRAS status discount any effect of cetuximab in possibly reversing resistance to irinotecan in patients with the mutation , as observed effects were lower than for patients without the mutation . Clinical experts have raised concerns about the biological plausibility of this observation and this conclusion would , therefore , be regarded as hypothesis generating . ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses were conducted incorporating estimates of effectiveness from this systematic review . Evaluation of relative cost-effectiveness , based on a decision-analytic cost-utility analysis , assessed testing for KRAS genetic mutations versus no testing in the context of treatment with cetuximab monotherapy , panitumumab monotherapy , cetuximab in combination with irinotecan , and best supportive care . Of importance to note is that the cost-effectiveness analysis focused on the impact of testing for KRAS mutations compared to no testing in the context of different treatment options , and does not assess the cost-effectiveness of the drug treatments alone . CONCLUSIONS KRAS status is predictive of outcomes in cetuximab and panitumumab monotherapy , and in cetuximab-irinotecan combination therapy . While KRAS testing is cost-effective for all strategies considered , it is not equally cost-effective for all treatment options 
    Output:
    
Some studies reported that biomarkers were cost-effective , while their corresponding therapies were not cost-effective .
Conclusion Cancer biomarkers for targeted therapies in mCRC were mostly found to be cost-effective ; otherwise , they at least improved the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies by saving some costs .
However , this did not necessarily make their corresponding therapies cost-effective .
While companion biomarkers reduced therapy costs , the savings were not sufficient to make the corresponding agents cost-effective .