Andrew N Freedman1, Carrie N Klabunde1, Kristine Wiant1, Lindsey Enewold1, Stacy W Gray1, Kelly K Filipski1, Nancy L Keating1, Debra G B Leonard1, Tracy Lively1, Timothy S McNeel1, Lori Minasian1, Arnold L Potosky1, Donna R Rivera1, Richard L Schilsky1, Deborah Schrag1, Naoko I Simonds1, Helmneh M Sineshaw1, Jeffery P Struewing1, Gordon Willis1, Janet S de Moor1. 1. Andrew N. Freedman, Lindsey Enewold, Kelly K. Filipski, Tracy Lively, Lori Minasian, Donna R. Rivera, Gordon Willis, and Janet S. de Moor, National Cancer Institute; Timothy S. McNeel, Information Management Services, Rockville; Carrie N. Klabunde, National Institutes of Health; Jeffery P. Struewing, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda; Naoko I. Simonds, Scientific Consulting Group, Gaithersburg, MD; Kristine Wiant, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC; Stacy W. Gray, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Nancy L. Keating, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital; Deborah Schrag, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Debra G.B. Leonard, University of Vermont Health Network and the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; Arnold L. Potosky, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Richard L. Schilsky, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; and Helmneh M. Sineshaw, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are no nationally representative data on oncologists' use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing in practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate how oncologists in the United States use NGS tests to evaluate patients with cancer and to inform treatment recommendations. METHODS: The study used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, which was mailed to a nationally representative sample of oncologists in 2017 (N = 1,281; cooperation rate = 38%). Weighted percentages were calculated to describe NGS test use. Multivariable modeling was conducted to assess the association of test use with oncologist practice characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 75.6% of oncologists reported using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions. Of these oncologists, 34.0% used them often to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced refractory disease, 29.1% to determine eligibility for clinical trials, and 17.5% to decide on off-label use of Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs. NGS test results informed treatment recommendations often for 26.8%, sometimes for 52.4%, and never or rarely for 20.8% of oncologists. Oncologists younger than 50 years of age, holding a faculty appointment, having genomics training, seeing more than 50 unique patients per month, and having access to a molecular tumor board were more likely to use NGS tests. CONCLUSION: In 2017, most oncologists in the United States were using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions for their patients. More research is needed to establish the clinical usefulness of these tests, to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines for their use in practice, and to ensure that patients who can benefit from these new technologies receive appropriate testing and treatment.
PURPOSE: There are no nationally representative data on oncologists' use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing in practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate how oncologists in the United States use NGS tests to evaluate patients with cancer and to inform treatment recommendations. METHODS: The study used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, which was mailed to a nationally representative sample of oncologists in 2017 (N = 1,281; cooperation rate = 38%). Weighted percentages were calculated to describe NGS test use. Multivariable modeling was conducted to assess the association of test use with oncologist practice characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 75.6% of oncologists reported using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions. Of these oncologists, 34.0% used them often to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced refractory disease, 29.1% to determine eligibility for clinical trials, and 17.5% to decide on off-label use of Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs. NGS test results informed treatment recommendations often for 26.8%, sometimes for 52.4%, and never or rarely for 20.8% of oncologists. Oncologists younger than 50 years of age, holding a faculty appointment, having genomics training, seeing more than 50 unique patients per month, and having access to a molecular tumor board were more likely to use NGS tests. CONCLUSION: In 2017, most oncologists in the United States were using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions for their patients. More research is needed to establish the clinical usefulness of these tests, to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines for their use in practice, and to ensure that patients who can benefit from these new technologies receive appropriate testing and treatment.
Authors: Coren A Milbury; James Creeden; Wai-Ki Yip; David L Smith; Varun Pattani; Kristi Maxwell; Bethany Sawchyn; Ole Gjoerup; Wei Meng; Joel Skoletsky; Alvin D Concepcion; Yanhua Tang; Xiaobo Bai; Ninad Dewal; Pei Ma; Shannon T Bailey; James Thornton; Dean C Pavlick; Garrett M Frampton; Daniel Lieber; Jared White; Christine Burns; Christine Vietz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Natalie M Reizine; Keith Danahey; Tien M Truong; David George; Larry K House; Theodore G Karrison; Xander M R van Wijk; Kiang-Teck J Yeo; Mark J Ratain; Peter H O'Donnell Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Miguel Cordova-Delgado; Mauricio P Pinto; Carlos Regonesi; Luis Cereceda; José Miguel Reyes; Laura Itriago; Alejandro Majlis; Pablo Rodríguez; André Fassler; Mauricio Mahave; María Elisa León; Jorge Gallardo; María Paz Rodríguez Z; Alejandro Berkovits; Patricio Manque; Juvenal A Ríos; Benjamín Garcia-Bloj; Marcelo Garrido Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-01-31
Authors: Khalil Choucair; Bassam Ibrahim Mattar; Quoc Van Truong; Travis Koeneke; Phu Van Truong; Christopher Dakhil; Michael W Cannon; Seth Joel Page; Jeremy Michael Deutsch; Eric Carlson; Dennis Frederic Moore; Nassim H Nabbout; K James Kallail; Shaker R Dakhil; Pavan S Reddy Journal: Oncologist Date: 2022-03-11