Jake R Conway1,2, Jeremy L Warner3, Wendy S Rubinstein4, Robert S Miller4. 1. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 3. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. 4. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor and germline DNA is foundational for precision oncology, with rapidly expanding diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Although few question the importance of NGS in modern oncology care, the process of gathering primary molecular data, integrating it into electronic health records, and optimally using it as part of a clinical workflow remains far from seamless. Numerous challenges persist around data standards and interoperability, and clinicians frequently face difficulties in managing the growing amount of genomic knowledge required to care for patients and keep up to date. METHODS: This review provides a descriptive analysis of genomic data workflows for NGS data in clinical oncology and issues that arise from the inconsistent use of standards for sharing data across systems. Potential solutions are described. RESULTS: NGS technology, especially for somatic genomics, is well established and widely used in routine patient care, quality measurement, and research. Available genomic knowledge bases play an evolving role in patient management but lack harmonization with one another. Questions about their provenance and timeliness of updating remain. Potentially useful standards for sharing genomic data, such as HL7 FHIR and mCODE, remain primarily in the research and/or development stage. Nonetheless, their impact will likely be seen as uptake increases across care settings and laboratories. The specific use case of ASCO CancerLinQ, as a clinicogenomic database, is discussed. CONCLUSION: Because the electronic health records of today seem ill suited for managing genomic data, other solutions are required, including universal data standards and applications that use application programming interfaces, along with a commitment on the part of sequencing laboratories to consistently provide structured genomic data for clinical use.
PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor and germline DNA is foundational for precision oncology, with rapidly expanding diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Although few question the importance of NGS in modern oncology care, the process of gathering primary molecular data, integrating it into electronic health records, and optimally using it as part of a clinical workflow remains far from seamless. Numerous challenges persist around data standards and interoperability, and clinicians frequently face difficulties in managing the growing amount of genomic knowledge required to care for patients and keep up to date. METHODS: This review provides a descriptive analysis of genomic data workflows for NGS data in clinical oncology and issues that arise from the inconsistent use of standards for sharing data across systems. Potential solutions are described. RESULTS: NGS technology, especially for somatic genomics, is well established and widely used in routine patient care, quality measurement, and research. Available genomic knowledge bases play an evolving role in patient management but lack harmonization with one another. Questions about their provenance and timeliness of updating remain. Potentially useful standards for sharing genomic data, such as HL7 FHIR and mCODE, remain primarily in the research and/or development stage. Nonetheless, their impact will likely be seen as uptake increases across care settings and laboratories. The specific use case of ASCO CancerLinQ, as a clinicogenomic database, is discussed. CONCLUSION: Because the electronic health records of today seem ill suited for managing genomic data, other solutions are required, including universal data standards and applications that use application programming interfaces, along with a commitment on the part of sequencing laboratories to consistently provide structured genomic data for clinical use.
Authors: Liza-Marie Johnson; Jessica M Valdez; Emily A Quinn; April D Sykes; Rose B McGee; Regina Nuccio; Stacy J Hines-Dowell; Justin N Baker; Chimene Kesserwan; Kim E Nichols; Belinda N Mandrell Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Marilyn M Li; Michael Datto; Eric J Duncavage; Shashikant Kulkarni; Neal I Lindeman; Somak Roy; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Cindy L Vnencak-Jones; Daynna J Wolff; Anas Younes; Marina N Nikiforova Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Jeremy L Warner; Matthew J Rioth; Kenneth D Mandl; Joshua C Mandel; David A Kreda; Isaac S Kohane; Daniel Carbone; Ross Oreto; Lucy Wang; Shilin Zhu; Heming Yao; Gil Alterovitz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-03-27 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Scott L Carter; Kristian Cibulskis; Elena Helman; Aaron McKenna; Hui Shen; Travis Zack; Peter W Laird; Robert C Onofrio; Wendy Winckler; Barbara A Weir; Rameen Beroukhim; David Pellman; Douglas A Levine; Eric S Lander; Matthew Meyerson; Gad Getz Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Malachi Griffith; Nicholas C Spies; Kilannin Krysiak; Joshua F McMichael; Adam C Coffman; Arpad M Danos; Benjamin J Ainscough; Cody A Ramirez; Damian T Rieke; Lynzey Kujan; Erica K Barnell; Alex H Wagner; Zachary L Skidmore; Amber Wollam; Connor J Liu; Martin R Jones; Rachel L Bilski; Robert Lesurf; Yan-Yang Feng; Nakul M Shah; Melika Bonakdar; Lee Trani; Matthew Matlock; Avinash Ramu; Katie M Campbell; Gregory C Spies; Aaron P Graubert; Karthik Gangavarapu; James M Eldred; David E Larson; Jason R Walker; Benjamin M Good; Chunlei Wu; Andrew I Su; Rodrigo Dienstmann; Adam A Margolin; David Tamborero; Nuria Lopez-Bigas; Steven J M Jones; Ron Bose; David H Spencer; Lukas D Wartman; Richard K Wilson; Elaine R Mardis; Obi L Griffith Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Ana Szarfman; Jonathan G Levine; Joseph M Tonning; Frank Weichold; John C Bloom; Janice M Soreth; Mark Geanacopoulos; Lawrence Callahan; Matthew Spotnitz; Qin Ryan; Meg Pease-Fye; John S Brownstein; W Ed Hammond; Christian Reich; Russ B Altman Journal: Commun Med (Lond) Date: 2022-07-18
Authors: Danielle Potter; Raven Brothers; Andrej Kolacevski; Jacob E Koskimaki; Amy McNutt; Robert S Miller; Jatin Nagda; Anil Nair; Wendy S Rubinstein; Andrew K Stewart; Iris J Trieb; George A Komatsoulis Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-10
Authors: Samuel M Rubinstein; Tarsheen Sethi; Neeta K Venepalli; Bishal Gyawali; Candice Schwartz; Donna R Rivera; Peter C Yang; Jeremy L Warner Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-01
Authors: Erica Shen; Amanda E D Van Swearingen; Meghan J Price; Ketan Bulsara; Roeland G W Verhaak; César Baëta; Brice D Painter; Zachary J Reitman; April K S Salama; Jeffrey M Clarke; Carey K Anders; Peter E Fecci; C Rory Goodwin; Kyle M Walsh Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Maria Guarnaccia; Laura Guarnaccia; Valentina La Cognata; Stefania Elena Navone; Rolando Campanella; Antonella Ampollini; Marco Locatelli; Monica Miozzo; Giovanni Marfia; Sebastiano Cavallaro Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-06-24
Authors: Ryan S Nelson; Nathan D Seligson; Sal Bottiglieri; Estrella Carballido; Alex Del Cueto; Iman Imanirad; Richard Levine; Alexander S Parker; Sandra M Swain; Emma M Tillman; J Kevin Hicks Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 6.639