Stacy W Gray1, Benjamin Kim1, Lynette Sholl1, Angel Cronin1, Aparna R Parikh1, Carrie N Klabunde1, Katherine L Kahn1, David A Haggstrom1, Nancy L Keating1. 1. City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica; University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; Brigham & Women's Hospital; Harvard Medical School; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center; and Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Genomic testing improves outcomes for many at-risk individuals and patients with cancer; however, little is known about how genomic testing for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is used in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists who care for patients in diverse practice and health care settings across the United States about their use of guideline- and non-guideline-endorsed genetic tests. Multivariable regression models identified factors that are associated with greater test use. RESULTS: Of oncologists, 337 completed the survey (participation rate, 53%). Oncologists reported higher use of guideline-endorsed tests (eg, KRAS for CRC; EGFR for NSCLC) than non-guideline-endorsed tests (eg, Onco typeDX Colon; ERCC1 for NSCLC). Many oncologists reported having no patients with CRC who had mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (24%) or germline Lynch syndrome (32%) testing, and no patients with NSCLC who had ALK testing (11%). Of oncologists, 32% reported that five or fewer patients had KRAS and EGFR testing for CRC and NSCLC, respectively. Oncologists, rather than pathologists or surgeons, ordered the vast majority of tests. In multivariable analyses, fewer patients in nonprofit integrated health care delivery systems underwent testing than did patients in hospital or office-based single-specialty group settings (all P < .05). High patient volume and patient requests (CRC only) were also associated with higher test use (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: Genomic test use for CRC and NSCLC varies by test and practice characteristics. Research in specific clinical contexts is needed to determine whether the observed variation reflects appropriate or inappropriate care. One potential way to reduce unwanted variation would be to offer widespread reflexive testing by pathology for guideline-endorsed predictive somatic tests.
PURPOSE: Genomic testing improves outcomes for many at-risk individuals and patients with cancer; however, little is known about how genomic testing for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is used in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists who care for patients in diverse practice and health care settings across the United States about their use of guideline- and non-guideline-endorsed genetic tests. Multivariable regression models identified factors that are associated with greater test use. RESULTS: Of oncologists, 337 completed the survey (participation rate, 53%). Oncologists reported higher use of guideline-endorsed tests (eg, KRAS for CRC; EGFR for NSCLC) than non-guideline-endorsed tests (eg, Onco typeDX Colon; ERCC1 for NSCLC). Many oncologists reported having no patients with CRC who had mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (24%) or germline Lynch syndrome (32%) testing, and no patients with NSCLC who had ALK testing (11%). Of oncologists, 32% reported that five or fewer patients had KRAS and EGFR testing for CRC and NSCLC, respectively. Oncologists, rather than pathologists or surgeons, ordered the vast majority of tests. In multivariable analyses, fewer patients in nonprofit integrated health care delivery systems underwent testing than did patients in hospital or office-based single-specialty group settings (all P < .05). High patient volume and patient requests (CRC only) were also associated with higher test use (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: Genomic test use for CRC and NSCLC varies by test and practice characteristics. Research in specific clinical contexts is needed to determine whether the observed variation reflects appropriate or inappropriate care. One potential way to reduce unwanted variation would be to offer widespread reflexive testing by pathology for guideline-endorsed predictive somatic tests.
Authors: David S Ettinger; Douglas E Wood; Dara L Aisner; Wallace Akerley; Jessica Bauman; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Malcolm M DeCamp; Thomas J Dilling; Michael Dobelbower; Robert C Doebele; Ramaswamy Govindan; Matthew A Gubens; Mark Hennon; Leora Horn; Ritsuko Komaki; Rudy P Lackner; Michael Lanuti; Ticiana A Leal; Leah J Leisch; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Jules Lin; Billy W Loo; Renato Martins; Gregory A Otterson; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Steven E Schild; Theresa A Shapiro; James Stevenson; Scott J Swanson; Kurt Tauer; Stephen C Yang; Kristina Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Aparna R Parikh; Nancy L Keating; Pang-Hsiang Liu; Stacy W Gray; Carrie N Klabunde; Katherine L Kahn; David A Haggstrom; Sapna Syngal; Benjamin Kim Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Helen M Parsons; James W Begun; Patricia M McGovern; Todd M Tuttle; Karen M Kuntz; Beth A Virnig Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Julian C Schink; Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Kalliopi P Siziopikou; Gregory J Tsongalis; Alfred W Rademaker; Jyoti D Patel; Al B Benson; Edith A Perez; William J Gradishar Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Fiona A Miller; Paul Krueger; Robert J Christensen; Catherine Ahern; Ronald F Carter; Suzanne Kamel-Reid Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Katrina A B Goddard; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Laurel A Habel; Sharon Hensley Alford; Catherine A McCarty; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Adedayo A Onitilo; Alanna K Rahm; Jennifer A Webster Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Jingxuan Zhao; Janet S de Moor; Helmneh M Sineshaw; Andrew N Freedman; Zhiyuan Zheng; Xuesong Han; Ashish Rai; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rebecca Wellmann; Brittany A Borden; Keith Danahey; Rita Nanda; Blase N Polite; Walter M Stadler; Mark J Ratain; Peter H O'Donnell Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anastassia Demeshko; David J Pennisi; Sushil Narayan; Stacy W Gray; Matthew A Brown; Aideen M McInerney-Leo Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Bin Huang; Quan Chen; Derek Allison; Riham El Khouli; Keng Hee Peh; James Mobley; Abigail Anderson; Eric B Durbin; Donald Goodin; John L Villano; Rachel W Miller; Susanne M Arnold; Jill M Kolesar Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-09-29
Authors: Danielle Riley; Mary Charlton; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Sneha Phadke; Brian J Smith; Adam Skibbe; Charles F Lynch Journal: Breast J Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 2.269
Authors: Aline F Fares; Pedro H Martinez; Pedro H Farina; Isaac Bicalho de Souza; Daniel V Araújo; Narayana S Paiva; Ligia F Orlando; Tatiana Elias Colombo; Eldsamira Mascarenhas; Ana Caroline Z Gelatti; Clarissa Baldotto; Mauro Zukin; Luiz Henrique Araujo; Clarissa Mathias; Gustavo Werutsky; Gilberto de Castro; Vladmir C Cordeiro de Lima Journal: JTO Clin Res Rep Date: 2022-08-30
Authors: Kara L Larson; Bin Huang; Quan Chen; Thomas Tucker; Marissa Schuh; Susanne M Arnold; Jill M Kolesar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 3.240