Module 7 Discussion: Cancer and Companion Diagnostics
In your readings (Jorgensen, 2021) and lectures, almost all of the FDA-approved companion diagnostic (CDx) tests as of early 2021 have targeted various types of cancers. This discussion forum will focus on certain aspects of CDx tests, especially with respect towards cancer disease management. There are two areas of focus.
Topic 1: Provide a rationalization for why CDx tests have at least for the first 20 years of their existence been primarily focused on cancers. This should address the evolving understanding of cancer biology and the efficacy of treatments before and after CDx tests existed and using at least one real world example.
Topic 2: PCR and NGS tests have been by far the most prevalent for CDx tests but early on most of the CDx tests were using in situ hybridization (ISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Explain why there has been this evolution of testing platforms for CDx testing. This should include include the disadvantages of ISH and IHC, as well as the advantages of PCR and NGS.
Each topic covered in the original post should have between 125-350 words to qualify for full credit for their respective areas in the grading rubric. Make sure that all posts have at least two references for original posts and one reference for each response to your peers (the references and citations should follow the APA style guidelines as described.
Post your original response early in the week by clicking Reply. The original post is due on Thursday, February 24, 2022, by 11:59 pm MST. Then return later to respond to the posts of at least two of your peers, by the end of the course week. The responses are due on Sunday, February 27, 2022, by 11:59 pm MST. Your instructor will evaluate your participation according to the rubric for this discussion.
Rubric Details
- APA Formatting, References and in-text citations must be formatted according to APA style standards. 5 pts Excellent
- Topic 1: Cancer companion diagnostics. This requires two major deliverables. First is an explanation of how understanding the biology of various cancers has led to a strong bias for CDx testing to be paired up with specific therapeutics. The second deliverable focuses on the evolution of CDx tests going from IHC and ISH platforms to PCR and NGS with a rationalization for this evolution. 15 pts Excellent to highly proficient. This provides a clear and detailed account for Topic 1 concerned about the bias towards CDx tests being directed almost exclusively to various cancers. Topic 1 description should be between 125-300 words in length. There should be at least one reference with a corresponding citation for this task.
- Topic 2: Evolution of CDx testing to PCR and NGS. This requires a well thought out rationalization for the evolution of CDx testing platforms that started off with mainly ISH and IHC and now dominated by PCR and NGS. This must have functional comparisons between the two sets of platforms. Must clearly provide reason(s) for this transition that includes at least several parameters that can include but not only time to result, quality of data, and actionable data. 15 pts Excellent to highly proficient. This provides a clear, insightful and detailed account when addressing the prompt for Topic 2. Must have descriptions and criteria for rationalizing the switch from one set up assay platforms to the other set. Topic 2 portion of the post should be between 125-350 words in length. There should be at least one reference with a corresponding citation for this task.
- Responses to peers. There should be posts responding to at least two peers. The responses should be insightful and goes beyond what the peer wrote. Need to avoid simple statements of agreement. There should be supporting information from external sources which require being listed as references with corresponding in-text citations. 15 pts Excellent to highly proficient. There are at least two responses to peers which are between 100-250 word in length for each response. The response must be clear and insightful which expands the scope of what the peer wrote in their original post. Each post must have at least one reference with a corresponding in-text citation. (This rubric will be done later on after the original post)
PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!