Pinkie Chambers1,2, Kenneth K C Man1,3,4, Vivian W Y Lui5, Sheila Mpima6, Paola Nasuti6, Martin D Forster7, Ian C K Wong1,2,3. 1. Research Department of Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom. 2. University College London Hospitals (UCLH) National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust/University College London Hospital-UCL Centre for Medicines Optimisation Research and Education, Cancer Division, London, United Kingdom. 3. Centre for Safe Medication and Practice Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China. 6. IQVIA Real-World & Analytics Solutions, London, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute/UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The growth in understanding of molecular biology and genomics has augmented the development of targeted cancer treatments; however, challenges exist in access to molecular testing, an essential precursor to treatment decision-making. We used data from a cross-sectional survey to evaluate the differences in uptake of molecular testing. METHODS: Using the aggregated results of a questionnaire developed and distributed to clinicians by IQVIA, including treatment details and investigations undertaken for patients, we compared proportions of patients receiving molecular testing and targeted treatment by cancer type for the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, South Korea, Japan, and China. We used multivariable logistic regression methods to understand the effect of country on the odds of receiving a molecular test. RESULTS: There was a total of 61,491 cases. Across countries and cancer types, uptake rates for molecular testing ranged between 2% and 98%, with the greatest differences seen in gastric cancers (range, 23% to 70%), and significant variations were observed for both European and Asian countries. China consistently demonstrated a significantly reduced uptake for all molecular tests assessed; however; uptake of drug treatment in gastric cancers after testing positive for the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 gene was higher than in some European countries (China, 85%; European range, 8% to 66%). The uptake of epidermal growth factor receptor gene testing was greater in some Asian countries relative to the United Kingdom, where incidence of lung cancer is higher (Japan: odds ratio, 3.1 [95% CI, 2.6 to 3.8]; South Korea: odds ratio, 2.7 [95% CI, 2 to 3.4]). CONCLUSION: We have highlighted inequity in access to molecular testing and subsequent treatments across countries, which warrants improvements.
PURPOSE: The growth in understanding of molecular biology and genomics has augmented the development of targeted cancer treatments; however, challenges exist in access to molecular testing, an essential precursor to treatment decision-making. We used data from a cross-sectional survey to evaluate the differences in uptake of molecular testing. METHODS: Using the aggregated results of a questionnaire developed and distributed to clinicians by IQVIA, including treatment details and investigations undertaken for patients, we compared proportions of patients receiving molecular testing and targeted treatment by cancer type for the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, South Korea, Japan, and China. We used multivariable logistic regression methods to understand the effect of country on the odds of receiving a molecular test. RESULTS: There was a total of 61,491 cases. Across countries and cancer types, uptake rates for molecular testing ranged between 2% and 98%, with the greatest differences seen in gastric cancers (range, 23% to 70%), and significant variations were observed for both European and Asian countries. China consistently demonstrated a significantly reduced uptake for all molecular tests assessed; however; uptake of drug treatment in gastric cancers after testing positive for the humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 gene was higher than in some European countries (China, 85%; European range, 8% to 66%). The uptake of epidermal growth factor receptor gene testing was greater in some Asian countries relative to the United Kingdom, where incidence of lung cancer is higher (Japan: odds ratio, 3.1 [95% CI, 2.6 to 3.8]; South Korea: odds ratio, 2.7 [95% CI, 2 to 3.4]). CONCLUSION: We have highlighted inequity in access to molecular testing and subsequent treatments across countries, which warrants improvements.
Authors: A Hochhaus; S Saussele; G Rosti; F-X Mahon; J J W M Janssen; H Hjorth-Hansen; J Richter; C Buske Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Paolo Marchetti; Nicolai Maass; Joseph Gligorov; Karin Berger; Finlay MacDougall; Jukka Montonen; Jan Lewis Journal: Breast Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Dennis Slamon; Wolfgang Eiermann; Nicholas Robert; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Miguel Martin; Michael Press; John Mackey; John Glaspy; Arlene Chan; Marek Pawlicki; Tamas Pinter; Vicente Valero; Mei-Ching Liu; Guido Sauter; Gunter von Minckwitz; Frances Visco; Valerie Bee; Marc Buyse; Belguendouz Bendahmane; Isabelle Tabah-Fisch; Mary-Ann Lindsay; Alessandro Riva; John Crown Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-10-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E Van Cutsem; A Cervantes; R Adam; A Sobrero; J H Van Krieken; D Aderka; E Aranda Aguilar; A Bardelli; A Benson; G Bodoky; F Ciardiello; A D'Hoore; E Diaz-Rubio; J-Y Douillard; M Ducreux; A Falcone; A Grothey; T Gruenberger; K Haustermans; V Heinemann; P Hoff; C-H Köhne; R Labianca; P Laurent-Puig; B Ma; T Maughan; K Muro; N Normanno; P Österlund; W J G Oyen; D Papamichael; G Pentheroudakis; P Pfeiffer; T J Price; C Punt; J Ricke; A Roth; R Salazar; W Scheithauer; H J Schmoll; J Tabernero; J Taïeb; S Tejpar; H Wasan; T Yoshino; A Zaanan; D Arnold Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Olga Efimova; Brygida Berse; Daniel W Denhalter; Scott L DuVall; Kelly K Filipski; Michael Icardi; Michael J Kelley; Julie A Lynch Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Crispin T Hiley; John Le Quesne; George Santis; Rowena Sharpe; David Gonzalez de Castro; Gary Middleton; Charles Swanton Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christoph Roderburg; Sven H Loosen; Laura Hoyer; Tom Luedde; Karel Kostev Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-12-12 Impact factor: 4.322
Authors: Markus S Jördens; Simon Labuhn; Tom Luedde; Laura Hoyer; Karel Kostev; Sven H Loosen; Christoph Roderburg Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 3.677