Mitchell S von Itzstein1,2, Mary L Smith3, Elda Railey3, Carol B White3,4, Julianne S Dieterich3,4, Liz Garrett-Mayer5, Suanna S Bruinooge5, Andrew N Freedman6, Janet De Moor6, Stacy W Gray7, Jason Y Park8, Jingsheng Yan9, Anh Quynh Hoang9, Hong Zhu9, David E Gerber1,2,3,9. 1. Division on Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 2. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 3. Research Advocacy Network, Plano, TX. 4. CBWhite, Evanston, IL. 5. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA. 6. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 7. Department of Population Sciences and Medical Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte, CA. 8. Department of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 9. Department of Population and Data Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Advances in genomic techniques have led to increased use of next-generation sequencing (NGS). We evaluated the extent to which these tests guide treatment decisions. METHODS: We developed and distributed a survey assessing NGS use and outcomes to a survey pool of ASCO members. Comparisons between groups were performed with Wilcoxon two-sample, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Among 178 respondents, 62% were male, 54% White, and 67% affiliated with academic centers. More than half (56%) indicated that NGS provided actionable information to a moderate or great extent. Use was highest (median ≥ 70% of cases) for lung and gastric cancer, and lowest (median < 25% of cases) in head and neck and genitourinary cancers. Approximately one third of respondents reported that, despite identification of an actionable molecular variant, patients were sometimes or often unable to access the relevant US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy. When NGS did not provide actionable results, individuals reporting great or moderate guidance overall from NGS in treatment recommendations were more likely to request the compassionate use of an unapproved drug (P < .001), enroll on a clinical trial (P < .01), or treat off-label with a drug approved for another indication (P = .02). CONCLUSION: When NGS identifies an actionable result, a substantial proportion of clinicians reported encountering challenges obtaining approved therapies on the basis of these results. Perceived overall impact of NGS appears associated with clinical behavior unrelated to actionable NGS test results, including pursuing off-label or compassionate use of unapproved therapies or referring to a clinical trial.
PURPOSE: Advances in genomic techniques have led to increased use of next-generation sequencing (NGS). We evaluated the extent to which these tests guide treatment decisions. METHODS: We developed and distributed a survey assessing NGS use and outcomes to a survey pool of ASCO members. Comparisons between groups were performed with Wilcoxon two-sample, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Among 178 respondents, 62% were male, 54% White, and 67% affiliated with academic centers. More than half (56%) indicated that NGS provided actionable information to a moderate or great extent. Use was highest (median ≥ 70% of cases) for lung and gastric cancer, and lowest (median < 25% of cases) in head and neck and genitourinary cancers. Approximately one third of respondents reported that, despite identification of an actionable molecular variant, patients were sometimes or often unable to access the relevant US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy. When NGS did not provide actionable results, individuals reporting great or moderate guidance overall from NGS in treatment recommendations were more likely to request the compassionate use of an unapproved drug (P < .001), enroll on a clinical trial (P < .01), or treat off-label with a drug approved for another indication (P = .02). CONCLUSION: When NGS identifies an actionable result, a substantial proportion of clinicians reported encountering challenges obtaining approved therapies on the basis of these results. Perceived overall impact of NGS appears associated with clinical behavior unrelated to actionable NGS test results, including pursuing off-label or compassionate use of unapproved therapies or referring to a clinical trial.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Himisha Beltran; Kenneth Eng; Juan Miguel Mosquera; Alexandros Sigaras; Alessandro Romanel; Hanna Rennert; Myriam Kossai; Chantal Pauli; Bishoy Faltas; Jacqueline Fontugne; Kyung Park; Jason Banfelder; Davide Prandi; Neel Madhukar; Tuo Zhang; Jessica Padilla; Noah Greco; Terra J McNary; Erick Herrscher; David Wilkes; Theresa Y MacDonald; Hui Xue; Vladimir Vacic; Anne-Katrin Emde; Dayna Oschwald; Adrian Y Tan; Zhengming Chen; Colin Collins; Martin E Gleave; Yuzhuo Wang; Dimple Chakravarty; Marc Schiffman; Robert Kim; Fabien Campagne; Brian D Robinson; David M Nanus; Scott T Tagawa; Jenny Z Xiang; Agata Smogorzewska; Francesca Demichelis; David S Rickman; Andrea Sboner; Olivier Elemento; Mark A Rubin Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Funda Meric-Bernstam; Lauren Brusco; Kenna Shaw; Chacha Horombe; Scott Kopetz; Michael A Davies; Mark Routbort; Sarina A Piha-Paul; Filip Janku; Naoto Ueno; David Hong; John De Groot; Vinod Ravi; Yisheng Li; Raja Luthra; Keyur Patel; Russell Broaddus; John Mendelsohn; Gordon B Mills Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Pishvaian; Edik M Blais; R Joseph Bender; Shruti Rao; Simina M Boca; Vincent Chung; Andrew E Hendifar; Sam Mikhail; Davendra P S Sohal; Paula R Pohlmann; Kathleen N Moore; Kai He; Bradley J Monk; Robert L Coleman; Thomas J Herzog; David D Halverson; Patricia DeArbeloa; Emanuel F Petricoin; Subha Madhavan Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2019-10-07