Barriers preventing the adoption of comprehensive cancer genomic profiling in the clinic

Current published evidence on barriers and proposed strategies for genetic testing implementation in health care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The slow uptake of genetic testing in routine clinical practice warrants the attention of researchers and practitioners to find effective strategies to facilitate implementation.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the barriers to and strategies for pharmacogenetic testing implementation in a health care setting from published literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in August 2021 with an expanded literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, and Google Scholar to identify studies reporting implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in a health care setting, from a health care system's perspective. Articles were screened using DistillerSR and findings were organized using the 5 major domains of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

A total of 3536 unique articles were retrieved from the above sources, with only 253 articles retained after title and abstract screening. Upon screening the full texts, 57 articles (representing 46 unique practice sites) were found matching the inclusion criteria. We found that most reported barriers and their associated strategies to the implementation of pharmacogenetic testing surrounded 2 CFIR domains: intervention characteristics and inner settings. Factors relating to cost and reimbursement were described as major barriers in the intervention characteristics. In the same domain, another major barrier was the lack of utility studies to provide evidence for genetic testing uptake. Technical hurdles, such as integrating genetic information to medical records, were identified as an inner settings barrier. Collaborations and lessons from early implementers could be useful strategies to overcome majority of the barriers across different health care settings. Strategies proposed by the included implementation studies to overcome these barriers are summarized and can be used as guidance in future.

CONCLUSION

Barriers and strategies identified in this scoping review can provide implementation guidance for practice sites that are interested in implementing genetic testing.

Molecular Tumor Board Review and Improved Overall Survival in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

With the introduction of precision medicine, treatment options for non-small-cell lung cancer have improved dramatically; however, underutilization, especially in disadvantaged patients, like those living in rural Appalachian regions, is associated with poorer survival. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) represent a strategy to increase precision medicine use. UK HealthCare at the University of Kentucky (UK) implemented a statewide MTB in January 2017. We wanted to test the impact of UK MTB review on overall survival in Appalachian and other regions in Kentucky.

METHODS

We performed a case-control study of Kentucky patients newly diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer between 2017 and 2019. Cases were reviewed by the UK MTB and were compared with controls without UK MTB review. Controls were identified from the Kentucky Cancer Registry and propensity-matched to cases. The primary end point was the association between MTB review and overall patient survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 956 patients were included, with 343 (39%) residing in an Appalachian region. Seventy-seven (8.1%) were reviewed by the MTB and classified as cases. Cox regression analysis showed that poorer survival outcome was associated with lack of MTB review (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.61; 95% CI, 3.83 to 19.31; P < .0001) and living in an Appalachian region (hazard ratio = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.75; P = .004). Among individuals with MTB review, survival outcomes were similar regardless of whether they lived in Appalachia or other parts of Kentucky.

CONCLUSION

MTB review is an independent positive predictor of overall survival regardless of residence location. MTBs may help overcome some health disparities for disadvantaged populations.

Cancer Biomarkers in the era of precision oncology: Addressing the needs of patients and health systems

Cancer Biomarkers are the key to unlocking the promise of precision oncology, selecting which patients will respond to a more personalised treatment while sparing non-responders the therapy-related toxicity. In this paper, we highlight the primacy of cancer biomarkers, but focus on their importance to patients and to health systems. We also highlight how cancer biomarkers represent value for money. We emphasise the need for cancer biomarkers infrastructure to be embedded into European health systems. We also highlight the need to deploy multiple biomarker testing to deliver the optimal benefit for patients and health systems and consider cancer biomarkers from the perspective of cost, value and regulation. Cancer biomarkers must also be situated in the context of the upcoming In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation, which may pose certain challenges (e.g. non-compliance of laboratory developed tests, leading to cancer biomarker shortages and increased costs) that need to be overcome. Cancer biomarkers must be embedded in the real world of oncology delivery and testing must be implemented across Europe, with the intended aim of narrowing, not widening the inequity gap for patients. Cancer patients must be placed firmly at the centre of a cancer biomarker informed precision oncology care agenda.

Impact of a 40-Gene Targeted Panel Test on Physician Decision Making for Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia

PURPOSE

Physicians treating hematologic malignancies increasingly order targeted sequencing panels to interrogate recurrently mutated genes. The precise impact of these panels on clinical decision making is not well understood.

METHODS

Here, we report our institutional experience with a targeted 40-gene panel (MyeloSeq) that is used to generate a report for both genetic variants and variant allele frequencies for the treating physician (the limit of mutation detection is approximately one AML cell in 50).

RESULTS

In total, 346 sequencing reports were generated for 325 patients with suspected hematologic malignancies over an 8-month period (August 2018 to April 2019). To determine the influence of genomic data on clinical care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), we analyzed 122 consecutive reports from 109 patients diagnosed with AML and surveyed the treating physicians with a standardized questionnaire. The panel was ordered most commonly at diagnosis (61.5%), but was also used to assess response to therapy (22.9%) and to detect suspected relapse (15.6%). The panel was ordered at multiple timepoints during the disease course for 11% of patients. Physicians self-reported that 50 of 114 sequencing reports (44%) influenced clinical care decisions in 44 individual patients. Influences were often nuanced and extended beyond identifying actionable genetic variants with US Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights into how physicians are currently using multigene panels capable of detecting relatively rare AML cells. The most influential way to integrate these tools into clinical practice will be to perform prospective clinical trials that assess patient outcomes in response to genomically driven interventions.

Plasma PIK3CA Mutation Testing in Advanced Breast Cancer Patients for Personalized Medicine: A Value Proposition

BACKGROUND

Even though endocrine therapy is often initially successful in treating advanced breast cancer, most patients inevitably face disease progression. In advanced hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, activation of the PI3K downstream pathway is a critical feature of the mechanism of endocrine resistance. A significant recent advance in treating HR+ advanced breast cancer has been the recent introduction of PI3K inhibitor (PI3Ki) for the treatment of patients with HR+, HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer that harbors PIK3CA mutations. A value proposition concept was applied to assess the potential benefits of cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing to identify patients who might respond to PI3Ki treatment.

CONTENT

By applying the framework of the value proposition to >35 publications, in addition to recommendations from professional organizations, it was evident that robust clinical evidence exists to support the role of ctDNA PIK3CA mutation evaluation in identifying patients with advanced breast cancer who could benefit from PI3Ki treatment.

SUMMARY

Detection of PIK3CA gene mutations in HR+HER2- advanced breast cancer patients allows for the identification of patients who might benefit from more effective personalized treatment with molecularly targeted drugs.

Oncologist Confidence in Genomic Testing and Implications for Using Multimarker Tumor Panel Tests in Practice

PURPOSE

The evolution of precision oncology increasingly requires oncologists to incorporate genomic testing into practice. Yet, providers' confidence with genomic testing is poorly documented. This article describes medical oncologists' confidence with genomic testing and the association between genomic confidence and test use.

METHODS

We used data from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment to characterize oncologists' confidence with genomic testing. Genomic confidence was examined separately by type of test user: next-generation sequencing (NGS) only, gene expression (GE) only, both NGS and GE, or nonuser. Predictors of genomic confidence were examined with multinomial logistic regression. The association between genomic confidence and test use was examined with multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

More than 75% of genomic test users were either moderately or very confident about using results from multimarker tumor panel tests to guide patient care. Confidence with using multimarker tumor panel tests was highest among both NGS and GE test users, with 60.1% very confident in using test results, and lowest among NGS-only test users, with 38.2% very confident in using test results. Oncologists were most confident in using single-gene tests and least confident in using whole-genome or -exome sequencing to guide patient care. Genomic confidence was positively associated with self-reported test use. In adjusted models, training in genomics, larger patient volume, and treating patients with solid tumors predicted higher genomic confidence. Onsite pathology services and receipt of electronic medical record alerts for genomic testing predicted lower genomic confidence.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists' confidence varies by testing platform, patient volume, genomic training, and practice infrastructure. Research is needed to identify modifiable factors that can be targeted to enhance provider confidence with genomic testing.

The clinical impact of using complex molecular profiling strategies in routine oncology practice

Molecular profiling and functional assessment of signalling pathways of advanced solid tumours are becoming increasingly available. However, their clinical utility in guiding patients’ treatment remains unknown. Here, we assessed whether molecular profiling helps physicians in therapeutic decision making by analysing the molecular profiles of 1057 advanced cancer patient samples after failing at least one standard of care treatment using a combination of next-generation sequencing (NGS), immunohistochemistry (IHC) and other specific tests. The resulting information was interpreted and personalized treatments for each patient were suggested. Our data showed that NGS alone provided the oncologist with useful information in 10–50% of cases (depending on cancer type), whereas the addition of IHC/other tests increased extensively the usefulness of the information provided. Using internet surveys, we investigated how therapy recommendations influenced treatment choice of the oncologist. For patients who were still alive after the provision of the molecular information (76.8%), 60.4% of their oncologists followed report recommendations. Most treatment decisions (93.4%) were made based on the combination of NGS and IHC/other tests, and an approved drug- rather than clinical trial enrolment- was the main treatment choice. Most common reasons given by physicians to explain the non-adherence to recommendations were drug availability and cost, which remain barriers to personalised precision medicine. Finally, we observed that 27% of patients treated with the suggested therapies had an overall survival > 12 months. Our study demonstrates that the combination of NGS and IHC/other tests provides the most useful information in aiding treatment decisions by oncologists in routine clinical practice.