M R Sung1, P M Ellis2, S Verma3, E Duncan4, N B Leighl1. 1. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON; 2. Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON; 3. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON; 4. converge Advertising ( care staff), Toronto, ON.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite its importance for patient outcomes, biomarker testing for lung cancer is not uniformly integrated into the Canadian health care system. To better understand current practice patterns for lung cancer biomarker testing, we assessed physician perspectives by specialty and region. METHODS: A national survey of Canadian lung cancer specialists was conducted to understand their perspectives on biomarker testing in lung cancer. The 11-item survey assessed the current practice and challenges of testing. The survey was sent to 375 specialists. RESULTS: The overall response rate for the survey was 36%. Nearly all specialists reported that knowing tumour genotyping results affects patient outcome and influences the treatment decision. Medical oncologists most commonly initiated molecular testing; however, most respondents suggested a shared model involving medical oncologists and pathologists. More than half of all responding specialists had the perception that fewer than 25% of test results are available for first-line treatment decisions. Identified barriers to routine testing for all lung cancer patients included cost, lack of funding, tissue availability, and sample quality. CONCLUSIONS: There was clear agreement that biomarker testing is important in determining appropriate treatment for patients. There is a need for general consensus on who should initiate molecular testing. Clear clinical guidance for pathologists has to be established for molecular testing, including defining the population to be tested, the timing of testing, and the tests to be performed. Testing could be facilitated by including more information on diagnostic sample requisitions, such as clinical suspicion of primary lung cancer, cancer history, and other samples already collected.
BACKGROUND: Despite its importance for patient outcomes, biomarker testing for lung cancer is not uniformly integrated into the Canadian health care system. To better understand current practice patterns for lung cancer biomarker testing, we assessed physician perspectives by specialty and region. METHODS: A national survey of Canadian lung cancer specialists was conducted to understand their perspectives on biomarker testing in lung cancer. The 11-item survey assessed the current practice and challenges of testing. The survey was sent to 375 specialists. RESULTS: The overall response rate for the survey was 36%. Nearly all specialists reported that knowing tumour genotyping results affects patient outcome and influences the treatment decision. Medical oncologists most commonly initiated molecular testing; however, most respondents suggested a shared model involving medical oncologists and pathologists. More than half of all responding specialists had the perception that fewer than 25% of test results are available for first-line treatment decisions. Identified barriers to routine testing for all lung cancerpatients included cost, lack of funding, tissue availability, and sample quality. CONCLUSIONS: There was clear agreement that biomarker testing is important in determining appropriate treatment for patients. There is a need for general consensus on who should initiate molecular testing. Clear clinical guidance for pathologists has to be established for molecular testing, including defining the population to be tested, the timing of testing, and the tests to be performed. Testing could be facilitated by including more information on diagnostic sample requisitions, such as clinical suspicion of primary lung cancer, cancer history, and other samples already collected.
Authors: Rafael Rosell; Enric Carcereny; Radj Gervais; Alain Vergnenegre; Bartomeu Massuti; Enriqueta Felip; Ramon Palmero; Ramon Garcia-Gomez; Cinta Pallares; Jose Miguel Sanchez; Rut Porta; Manuel Cobo; Pilar Garrido; Flavia Longo; Teresa Moran; Amelia Insa; Filippo De Marinis; Romain Corre; Isabel Bover; Alfonso Illiano; Eric Dansin; Javier de Castro; Michele Milella; Noemi Reguart; Giuseppe Altavilla; Ulpiano Jimenez; Mariano Provencio; Miguel Angel Moreno; Josefa Terrasa; Jose Muñoz-Langa; Javier Valdivia; Dolores Isla; Manuel Domine; Olivier Molinier; Julien Mazieres; Nathalie Baize; Rosario Garcia-Campelo; Gilles Robinet; Delvys Rodriguez-Abreu; Guillermo Lopez-Vivanco; Vittorio Gebbia; Lioba Ferrera-Delgado; Pierre Bombaron; Reyes Bernabe; Alessandra Bearz; Angel Artal; Enrico Cortesi; Christian Rolfo; Maria Sanchez-Ronco; Ana Drozdowskyj; Cristina Queralt; Itziar de Aguirre; Jose Luis Ramirez; Jose Javier Sanchez; Miguel Angel Molina; Miquel Taron; Luis Paz-Ares Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ji-Youn Han; Keunchil Park; Sang-We Kim; Dae Ho Lee; Hyae Young Kim; Heung Tae Kim; Myung Ju Ahn; Tak Yun; Jin Seok Ahn; Cheolwon Suh; Jung-Shin Lee; Sung Jin Yoon; Jong Hee Han; Jae Won Lee; Sook Jung Jo; Jin Soo Lee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Lim; M S Tsao; L W Le; F A Shepherd; R Feld; R L Burkes; G Liu; S Kamel-Reid; D Hwang; J Tanguay; G da Cunha Santos; N B Leighl Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Vincent A Miller; Vera Hirsh; Jacques Cadranel; Yuh-Min Chen; Keunchil Park; Sang-We Kim; Caicun Zhou; Wu-Chou Su; Mengzhao Wang; Yan Sun; Dae Seog Heo; Lucio Crino; Eng-Huat Tan; Tsu-Yi Chao; Mehdi Shahidi; Xiuyu Julie Cong; Robert M Lorence; James Chih-Hsin Yang Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pasi A Jänne; Alice T Shaw; José Rodrigues Pereira; Gaëlle Jeannin; Johan Vansteenkiste; Carlos Barrios; Fabio Andre Franke; Lynda Grinsted; Victoria Zazulina; Paul Smith; Ian Smith; Lucio Crinò Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Véronique Tack; Kelly Dufraing; Zandra C Deans; Han J van Krieken; Elisabeth M C Dequeker Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2017-03-26 Impact factor: 4.064