Shannon Fortin Ensign1, Maya Hrachova2, Susan Chang3, Maciej M Mrugala4. 1. Department of Hematology-Oncology, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona. 2. Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California. 3. Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurosurgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Molecular testing (MT) is utilized in neuro-oncology with increasing frequency. The aim of this study was to determine clinical practice patterns to acquire this information, interpret and utilize MT for patient care, and identify unmet needs in the practical clinical application of MT. METHODS: We conducted a voluntary online survey of providers within the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) membership database between March and April 2019. RESULTS: We received 152 responses out of 2022 SNO members (7.5% of membership). 88.8% of respondents routinely order MT for newly diagnosed gliomas. Of those who do not, testing is preferentially performed in younger patients or those with midline tumors. 82.8% use MT in recurrent gliomas. Other common indications included: metastatic tumors, meningioma, and medulloblastoma. Many providers utilize more than one resource (36.0%), most frequently using in-house (41.8%) over commercially available panels. 78.1% used the results for clinical decision-making, with BRAF, EGFR, ALK, and H3K27 mutations most commonly directing treatment decisions. Approximately, half (48.5%) of respondents have molecular tumor boards at their institutions. Respondents would like to see SNO-endorsed guidelines on MT, organized lists of targeted agents available for specific mutations, a database of targetable mutations and clinical trials, and more educational programs on MT. CONCLUSION: This survey was marked by several limitations including response rate and interpretation of MT. Among respondents, there is routine use of MT in Neuro-Oncology, however, there remains a need for increased guidance for providers to effectively incorporate the expanding genomic data resulting from MT into daily Neuro-Oncology practice.
BACKGROUND: Molecular testing (MT) is utilized in neuro-oncology with increasing frequency. The aim of this study was to determine clinical practice patterns to acquire this information, interpret and utilize MT for patient care, and identify unmet needs in the practical clinical application of MT. METHODS: We conducted a voluntary online survey of providers within the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) membership database between March and April 2019. RESULTS: We received 152 responses out of 2022 SNO members (7.5% of membership). 88.8% of respondents routinely order MT for newly diagnosed gliomas. Of those who do not, testing is preferentially performed in younger patients or those with midline tumors. 82.8% use MT in recurrent gliomas. Other common indications included: metastatic tumors, meningioma, and medulloblastoma. Many providers utilize more than one resource (36.0%), most frequently using in-house (41.8%) over commercially available panels. 78.1% used the results for clinical decision-making, with BRAF, EGFR, ALK, and H3K27 mutations most commonly directing treatment decisions. Approximately, half (48.5%) of respondents have molecular tumor boards at their institutions. Respondents would like to see SNO-endorsed guidelines on MT, organized lists of targeted agents available for specific mutations, a database of targetable mutations and clinical trials, and more educational programs on MT. CONCLUSION: This survey was marked by several limitations including response rate and interpretation of MT. Among respondents, there is routine use of MT in Neuro-Oncology, however, there remains a need for increased guidance for providers to effectively incorporate the expanding genomic data resulting from MT into daily Neuro-Oncology practice.
Authors: Marc Remke; Thomas Hielscher; Paul A Northcott; Hendrik Witt; Marina Ryzhova; Andrea Wittmann; Axel Benner; Andreas von Deimling; Wolfram Scheurlen; Arie Perry; Sidney Croul; Andreas E Kulozik; Peter Lichter; Michael D Taylor; Stefan M Pfister; Andrey Korshunov Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maria Schwaederle; Barbara A Parker; Richard B Schwab; Gregory A Daniels; David E Piccioni; Santosh Kesari; Teresa L Helsten; Lyudmila A Bazhenova; Julio Romero; Paul T Fanta; Scott M Lippman; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Josh F Peterson; Dan M Roden; Lori A Orlando; Andrea H Ramirez; George A Mensah; Marc S Williams Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel J Brat; Kenneth Aldape; Howard Colman; Eric C Holland; David N Louis; Robert B Jenkins; B K Kleinschmidt-DeMasters; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Roger Stupp; Andreas von Deimling; Michael Weller Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Christian Rolfo; Paolo Manca; Roberto Salgado; Peter Van Dam; Amelie Dendooven; Jose Ferri Gandia; Annemie Rutten; Willem Lybaert; Joanna Vermeij; Thomas Gevaert; Christine Weyn; Anneke Lefebure; Sofie Metsu; Steven Van Laere; Marc Peeters; Patrick Pauwels; Andreia Machado Coelho Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2018-07-23
Authors: Annelieke E C A B Willemsen; Sarah Krausz; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Katrien Grünberg; Harry J M Groen; Emile E Voest; Edwin P J G Cuppen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Carla M L van Herpen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 7.640