Rationale of the Growth Failure in Children with Renal Diseases Study.

J. Chan,I. Greifer,F. Boineau,S. Mendoza,P. Mcenery,C. F. Strife,C. Abitbol,F. Stapleton,S. Roy,J. Strauss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(05)82917-8

IF: 2.99

1990-02-01

Jornal de Pediatria

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends among Adult Patients with Select Advanced Tumor Types: A Real-World Evidence Evaluation

Andrea Ferreira-Gonzalez,Brian Hocum,Gilbert Ko,Sohul Shuvo,Sreevalsa Appukkuttan,Svetlana Babajanyan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2024.01.005

IF: 5.341

2024-02-03

Journal of Molecular Diagnostics

Abstract:There are limited data on the prevalence of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in the United States, especially in light of the increasing importance of identifying actionable oncogenic variants due to molecular biomarker-based therapy approvals. This retrospective study of adult patients with select metastatic solid tumors and central nervous system tumors from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart US health care claims database (January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2021; N = 63,209) examined NGS use trends over time. A modest increase in NGS was observed across tumor types from 2015 (0.0% to 1.5%) to 2021 (2.1% to 17.4%). A similar increase in NGS rates was also observed across key periods; however, rates in the final key period remained <10% for patients with breast, colorectal, head and neck, soft tissue sarcoma, and thyroid cancers, as well as central nervous system tumors. The median time to NGS from diagnosis was shortest among patients with non–small-cell lung cancer and longest for patients with breast cancer. Predictors of NGS varied by tumor type; test rates for minorities in select tumor types appeared comparable to the White population. Despite improving payer policies to expand coverage of NGS and molecular biomarker-based therapy approvals, NGS rates remained low across tumor types. Given the potential for improved patient outcomes with molecular biomarker-based therapy, further efforts to improve NGS rates are warranted.

pathology
Filtering Duplicate Publications in Bibliographic Databases

Xiaoyi Jiang,D. Mojon

2001-07-06

Abstract:
Next-Generation Sequencing of Patients With Breast Cancer in Community Oncology Clinics

Emma G Sturgill,Amanda Misch,Rebecca Lachs,Carissa C Jones,Dan Schlauch,Suzanne F Jones,Mythili Shastry,Denise A Yardley,Howard A Burris 3rd,David R Spigel,Erika P Hamilton,Andrew J McKenzie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00469

Abstract:Purpose: Molecular biomarkers informing disease diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decisions in patients with breast cancer are being uncovered by next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies. In this study, we survey how NGS is used for patients with breast cancer in real-world settings with a focus on physician behaviors and sequencing results. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with breast cancer who received NGS testing from commercial vendors as part of standard of care from 2014 to 2019. A total of 2,635 NGS reports from 2,316 unique breast cancer patients were assessed. Hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 statuses were abstracted from patient medical records. Comparative gene amplification and mutation frequencies were analyzed using Pearson's correlation and Lin's concordance statistics. Results: The number of physicians ordering NGS tests for patients with breast cancer increased more than six-fold from 2014 to 2019. Tissue- and plasma-based tests were ordered roughly equally by 2019, with plasma-based testing ordered most frequently in hormone receptor-positive subtypes. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer were most likely to receive NGS testing. Gene amplifications including ERBB2 were detected less frequently in our real-world data set as compared to previous genomic landscape studies, whereas the opposite was true for gene mutations including ESR1. Pathogenic mutations in the PI3K pathway (38.6%) and DNA damage repair pathway (11.0%) were frequently reported. Alterations were also reported across other cellular pathways. Conclusion: Overall, we found that an increasing number of physicians in community settings are adopting NGS in the care of patients with breast cancer. Discrepancies between our real-world NGS data and previous genomic landscape studies are likely owed to the prevalence of plasma-based testing in community oncology clinics, as the reference data were from tissue-based NGS alone.
Molecular Characterization and Prognostic Analysis of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single Centric Real-World Study.

Hongbin Zhang,Yuan Wang,Qiaoxia Ji,Hongmei Cai,Xiangcun Liang,Jiong Xie,Hua Li,Jun Wang,Guiyun Zhu,Erpeng Tian,Lingling Zhu,Mingming Yuan,Kai Wang,Rongrong Chen,Min Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.e21646

IF: 45.3

2020-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e21646 Background: Identifying targetable genetic variants may help maximize clinical benefit of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we retrospectively analyzed the benefit of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for NSCLC in routine clinical practice. Methods: A total of 59 NSCLC patients were enrolled in the study from Jun. 2018 to Dec. 2019. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues samples were collected and sequenced by NGS, which detects single-nucleotide variants, small insertions/deletions, rearrangements, and copy-number alterations of either 59 or 1021 tumor related genes. The tumor response was evaluated using RECIST v1.1. Results: The detection rate of targetable variants was 59.32% (35/59), including EGFR mutation 49.15% (29/59), ALK rearrangement 5.08% (3/59), ROS1 rearrangement 1.69% (1/59), BRAF V600E mutation 1.69% (1/59), and ERBB2 mutation 1.69% (1/59). Of 29 patients with EGFR mutations, 5 patients (17.24%) had multiple EGFR mutations, including 2 patients (6.89%) with uncommon mutations. 25patients (86.21%) harbored concurrent mutations that may limit the efficacy of EGFR-TKIs, including EGFR amplification, activation of bypass signaling pathways, TP53 exon8 mutation, BCL2L11 deletion polymorphism, and PI3K-AKT-mTOR and cell cycle gene alterations. Among 25 patients received EGFR-TKIs, TKI effectiveness was evaluated in 18 patients. The disease control rate was 100% and overall response rate was 27.78%. The proportion of patients with TMB-H and/or PD-L1≥1, and targetable variants negative was 33.89% (20/59). Only one patient of this group received immunotherapy with pembrolizumab and achieved SD at the 2 nd month. The proportion of patients with targetable variants negative, TMB-L, and PD-L1 < 1 or unknow patients was 6.78% (4/59), two patients of them left hospital without additional treatment, two patients received chemotherapy and the KRAS mutation present in one of them suggested that he might be resistant to EGFR-TKIs. Conclusions: More than half of NSCLC patients have targetable genetic variants and more than 30% patients have a molecular signature that can be treated with immunotherapy. Compared with immunotherapy, targeted therapy has higher acceptability in real-world. NGS-based genetic testing may have clinical value to predict the effectiveness of targeted therapy and immunotherapy. It can be widely implemented and standardized into clinical use.
Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service

Angela Hamblin,Sarah Wordsworth,Jilles M Fermont,Suzanne Page,Kulvinder Kaur,Carme Camps,Pamela Kaisaki,Avinash Gupta,Denis Talbot,Mark Middleton,Shirley Henderson,Anthony Cutts,Dimitrios V Vavoulis,Nick Housby,Ian Tomlinson,Jenny C Taylor,Anna Schuh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002230

2017-02-14

Abstract:Background: Single gene tests to predict whether cancers respond to specific targeted therapies are performed increasingly often. Advances in sequencing technology, collectively referred to as next generation sequencing (NGS), mean the entire cancer genome or parts of it can now be sequenced at speed with increased depth and sensitivity. However, translation of NGS into routine cancer care has been slow. Healthcare stakeholders are unclear about the clinical utility of NGS and are concerned it could be an expensive addition to cancer diagnostics, rather than an affordable alternative to single gene testing. Methods and findings: We validated a 46-gene hotspot cancer panel assay allowing multiple gene testing from small diagnostic biopsies. From 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, solid tumour samples (including non-small-cell lung carcinoma [NSCLC], colorectal carcinoma, and melanoma) were sequenced in the context of the UK National Health Service from 351 consecutively submitted prospective cases for which treating clinicians thought the patient had potential to benefit from more extensive genetic analysis. Following histological assessment, tumour-rich regions of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections underwent macrodissection, DNA extraction, NGS, and analysis using a pipeline centred on Torrent Suite software. With a median turnaround time of seven working days, an integrated clinical report was produced indicating the variants detected, including those with potential diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, or clinical trial entry implications. Accompanying phenotypic data were collected, and a detailed cost analysis of the panel compared with single gene testing was undertaken to assess affordability for routine patient care. Panel sequencing was successful for 97% (342/351) of tumour samples in the prospective cohort and showed 100% concordance with known mutations (detected using cobas assays). At least one mutation was identified in 87% (296/342) of tumours. A locally actionable mutation (i.e., available targeted treatment or clinical trial) was identified in 122/351 patients (35%). Forty patients received targeted treatment, in 22/40 (55%) cases solely due to use of the panel. Examination of published data on the potential efficacy of targeted therapies showed theoretically actionable mutations (i.e., mutations for which targeted treatment was potentially appropriate) in 66% (71/107) and 39% (41/105) of melanoma and NSCLC patients, respectively. At a cost of £339 (US$449) per patient, the panel was less expensive locally than performing more than two or three single gene tests. Study limitations include the use of FFPE samples, which do not always provide high-quality DNA, and the use of "real world" data: submission of cases for sequencing did not always follow clinical guidelines, meaning that when mutations were detected, patients were not always eligible for targeted treatments on clinical grounds. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that more extensive tumour sequencing can identify mutations that could improve clinical decision-making in routine cancer care, potentially improving patient outcomes, at an affordable level for healthcare providers.
Portuguese Consensus Recommendations for Next-Generation Sequencing of Lung Cancer, Rare Tumors, and Cancers of Unknown Primary Origin in Clinical Practice

Manuel R Teixeira,Júlio Oliveira,Paula Borralho,Maria Gabriela O Fernandes,Teresa Almodovar,Isabel Fernandes,Daniela Macedo,Ana Ferreira,Ana Barroso,Encarnação Teixeira,José Carlos Machado

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.17680

2022-09-01

Abstract:Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been implemented in clinical oncology for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic guidance. Among the various NGS applications in molecular oncology, we focused on the following topics: laboratory standards for targeted gene panels (somatic mutations) and therapeutic guidance based on NGS of lung cancer and rare cancers, namely sarcomas and cancers of unknown primary. Multiple quality control checkpoints should be addressed in the pre-analytical phase for good quality and interpretation of the NGS results. It includes tumor size and cellularity, tissue processing and decalcification, tumor fraction, tumor viability, fixatives, and staining. Communication between clinicians and laboratory support is also essential. In lung cancer, all patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer should be tested with a NGS panel, and it should include not only genes with approved targeted therapies (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, MET, NTRK, RET, and ROS1) but also genes with potentially actionable genomic alterations (HER2 and KRAS). Since there is a lack of extensive knowledge regarding the use of NGS in rare tumors performing comprehensive genomic profiling, NGS panels to better manage the disease are recommended. Moreover, other patients with other incurable solid tumors may benefit from being included in biomarker-driven clinical trials. Multidisciplinary tumor boards with the participation of experts with the ability to integrate genomic profiling data are essential to tailor the best strategy for each patient. Considering that there are no national guidelines, this article aims to guide laboratory and clinical practice for the use of NGS in the context of lung cancer, rare tumors, and cancer of unknown primary in Portugal.
Next Generation Sequencing in Oncological Diagnostics: Hype or Hope?

Hallak Rana,Kuepper Manfred,Al Chikh Youssef Amer,Rana Hallak,Manfred Kuepper,Amer Al Chikh Youssef

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/jbm.2024.122019

2024-01-01

Journal of Biosciences and Medicines

Abstract:The understanding of how genetic and epigenetic factors influence tumorigenesis, progression and invasion, is vastly growing since new technologies allow the analysis of the functional genome namely the exome, the transcriptome and the epigenome, besides enabling genome-wide assessment of genetic variations. With the advent of new drugs that are indicated tissue agnostic, depending on certain mutations, there is a growing demand for fast and cost-effective genetic diagnosis. The method in focus that already became an indispensable tool in viral diagnosis is next-generation sequencing (NGS). This approach allows sequencing of literally every DNA molecule in the sample and can either be used to assess numerous genetic markers of one patient at a time, or to assess fewer markers of many patients in parallel, which reduces costs. We submitted 23 samples of different tumor entities to four diagnostic companies with different analysis profiles. The results as disclosed and discussed in this report indicate that so far, the main application of NGS is rather in cancer research than in diagnosis, as none of the reports had a real impact on the therapeutic scheme. We are perfectly aware that such a small cohort cannot be generalized, but considering the costs vs. benefits, NGS should be engaged upon a very stringent evaluation only. However, in cases where obtaining a tissue biopsy is impossible or unfavorable, analysis of liquid biopsy by NGS provides a vital alternative.

English Else
Value of next generation sequencing (NGS) testing in advanced cancer patients

Jesse D. Ortendahl,Gebra Cuyun Carter,Snehal G. Thakkar,Katalin Bognar,David W. Hall,Yara Abdou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2329009

2024-04-04

Journal of Medical Economics

Abstract:Objective The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Assessment of Clinical Benefit of Integrative Genomic Profiling in Advanced Solid Tumors

Erin F. Cobain,Yi-Mi Wu,Pankaj Vats,Rashmi Chugh,Francis Worden,David C. Smith,Scott M. Schuetze,Mark M. Zalupski,Vaibhav Sahai,Ajjai Alva,Anne F. Schott,Megan E. V. Caram,Daniel F. Hayes,Elena M. Stoffel,Michelle F. Jacobs,Chandan Kumar-Sinha,Xuhong Cao,Rui Wang,David Lucas,Yu Ning,Erica Rabban,Janice Bell,Sandra Camelo-Piragua,Aaron M. Udager,Marcin Cieslik,Robert J. Lonigro,Lakshmi P. Kunju,Dan R. Robinson,Moshe Talpaz,Arul M. Chinnaiyan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7987

IF: 33.006

2021-02-25

JAMA Oncology

Abstract:<h3>Importance</h3><p>Use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to identify clinically actionable genomic targets has been incorporated into routine clinical practice in the management of advanced solid tumors; however, the clinical utility of this testing remains uncertain.</p><h3>Objective</h3><p>To determine which patients derived the greatest degree of clinical benefit from NGS profiling.</p><h3>Design, Setting, and Participants</h3><p>Patients in this cohort study underwent fresh tumor biopsy and blood sample collection for genomic profiling of paired tumor and normal DNA (whole-exome or targeted-exome capture with analysis of 1700 genes) and tumor transcriptome (RNA) sequencing. Somatic and germline genomic alterations were annotated and classified according to degree of clinical actionability. Results were returned to treating oncologists. Data were collected from May 1, 2011, to February 28, 2018, and analyzed from May 1, 2011, to April 30, 2020.</p><h3>Main Outcomes and Measures</h3><p>Patients' subsequent therapy and treatment response were extracted from the medical record to determine clinical benefit rate from NGS-directed therapy at 6 months and exceptional responses lasting 12 months or longer.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>During the study period, NGS was attempted on tumors from 1138 patients and was successful in 1015 (89.2%) (MET1000 cohort) (538 men [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 57.7 [13.3] years). Potentially clinically actionable genomic alterations were discovered in 817 patients (80.5%). Of these, 132 patients (16.2%) received sequencing-directed therapy, and 49 had clinical benefit (37.1%). Exceptional responses were observed in 26 patients (19.7% of treated patients). Pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) were identified in 160 patients (15.8% of cohort), including 49 PGVs (4.8% of cohort) with therapeutic relevance. For 55 patients with carcinoma of unknown primary origin, NGS identified the primary site in 28 (50.9%), and sequencing-directed therapy in 13 patients resulted in clinical benefit in 7 instances (53.8%), including 5 exceptional responses.</p><h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3><p>The high rate of therapeutically relevant PGVs identified across diverse cancer types supports a recommendation for directed germline testing in all patients with advanced cancer. The high frequency of therapeutically relevant somatic and germline findings in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary origin and other rare cancers supports the use of comprehensive NGS profiling as a component of standard of care for these disease entities.</p>

oncology
Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator

Albrecht Stenzinger,Brian Cuffel,Noman Paracha,Eric Vail,Jesus Garcia-Foncillas,Clifford Goodman,Ulrik Lassen,Gilles Vassal,Sean D Sullivan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyad005

2023-05-08

Abstract:Background: Adoption of high-throughput, gene panel-based, next-generation sequencing (NGS) into routine cancer care is widely supported, but hampered by concerns about cost. To inform policies regarding genomic testing strategies, we propose a simple metric, cost per correctly identified patient (CCIP), that compares sequential single-gene testing (SGT) vs. multiplex NGS in different tumor types. Materials and methods: A genomic testing cost calculator was developed based on clinically actionable genomic alterations identified in the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets. Using sensitivity/specificity data for SGTs (immunohistochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, and fluorescence in situ hybridization) and NGS and marker prevalence, the number needed to predict metric was monetarized to estimate CCIP. Results: At base case, CCIP was lower with NGS than sequential SGT for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, colorectal, gastric cancers, and cholangiocarcinoma. CCIP with NGS was also favorable for squamous NSCLC, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers, but with overlapping confidence intervals. CCIP favored SGT for prostate cancer. Alternate scenarios using different price estimates for each test showed similar trends, but with incremental changes in the magnitude of difference between NGS and SGT, depending on price estimates for each test. Conclusions: The cost to correctly identify clinically actionable genomic alterations was lower for NGS than sequential SGT in most cancer types evaluated. Decreasing price estimates for NGS and the rapid expansion of targeted therapies and accompanying biomarkers are anticipated to further support NGS as a preferred diagnostic standard for precision oncology.
"PRESCRIBING PRACTICES AND CLINICAL IMPACT OF NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING IN ROUTINE PRACTICE IN SOLID TUMORS REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE IN LMIC"

Adeeba Zaki,Nida E Zehra Sameer,Aqsa Sohail,Zeeshan Ansar,Munira Moosajee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.01.24311330

2024-08-02

Abstract:"Molecular characterization of disease is essential for precision medicine due to novel predictive biomarkers. Multiple next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms are available, but their expense and clinical utility vary. Even if a targetable mutation is detected, corresponding drugs may not be available or affordable. No prior studies in Pakistan have focused on integrating NGS results into patient care to assist with therapeutic decision-making and survival outcomes. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the molecular profiling and therapeutic implications of NGS testing across solid tumors. It included all patients with histologically proven malignancy (metastatic or non-metastatic) who had NGS analysis at Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH) from June 1, 2020, to June 1, 2023. Foundation One was the NGS platform used. From 2020 to 2023, 192 patients underwent NGS. The majority were male (55.2%) and aged over 50 years (71.9%). The most common indications for NGS were carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) and lung cancers, representing 26% and 25% respectively, followed by colon (9%) and breast cancers (8%). Most patients had metastatic disease (98.4%). Common mutations in lung cancer were EGFR (16.3%) and KRAS G12C (14.3%). In unknown primary, breast, and colon cancers, the most common mutations were BRAF (8%), PIK3CA (18%), and KRAS (42.1%), respectively. Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing was performed in 95% of patients, with 6% being MSI high. Actionable alterations were detected in 31.8% of patients, but only 17.2% received genotype-matched treatment, mostly as a first-line treatment for lung cancer. The primary barriers were drug availability and affordability. Our results show that the implementation of NGS analysis supports clinical decision making. However, these results were applicable to a small percentage of patients. For better compliance and applicability, drug availability and cost of treatment needs to be addressed"
Real-World Data and Clinical Implications of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based Analysis in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients

Fabio Canino,Antonio Tornincasa,Stefania Bettelli,Samantha Manfredini,Monica Barbolini,Luca Moscetti,Claudia Omarini,Angela Toss,Fabio Tamburrano,Giuseppina Antonelli,Federica Baglio,Lorenzo Belluzzi,Giulio Martinelli,Salvatore Natalizio,Ornella Ponzoni,Massimo Dominici,Federico Piacentini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25052490

IF: 5.6

2024-02-21

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Abstract:Over the last two decades, the use of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in medical oncology has increased the likelihood of identifying druggable mutations that may be potentially susceptible to targeted treatments. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) currently does not recommend the use of the NGS test to determine the therapeutic course of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in daily clinical practice. However, the aim of this work is to evaluate the potential contribution of the NGS test in selecting targeted therapies for patients with mBC. Data were retrospectively collected from 101 patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer and treated at the Modena Cancer Center between January 2015 and April 2022. A NGS test was performed on the tumor tissue of each patient at the Laboratory of Molecular Pathology of the University Hospital of Modena. This study analyzed the clinical–pathological characteristics and mutational profile of the population using NGS tests, with a focus on actionable mutations that could be targeted in advanced stages of clinical development. The indicator of this study was to quantify the actionable mutations that resulted in a change of cancer treatment. In total, 101 patients with metastatic breast cancer were analyzed, including 86 with luminal phenotype, 10 who were HER2-positive and 5 who were triple-negative. Median age was 52 years. NGS analysis was conducted on 47 samples of primary breast cancer, 52 on metastatic sites of disease and 2 on liquid biopsies. A total of 85 gene mutations were found. The most common mutations were identified in the PIK3CA (47%), FGFR (19%) and ERBB2 genes (12%), and to a lesser extent in other genes. Of the 61 patients with pathogenic mutations, 46 (75%) had at least one actionable mutation. Of these, nine received treatment with a molecular target drug: eight patients with a mutation of the PIK3CA gene were treated with alpelisib and fulvestrant; one patient with FGFR1/2 amplifications received TAS120. Median PFS for these patients was 3.8 months. The study results show that using the NGS test on cancer tissue of metastatic breast cancer could influence the therapeutic choices, considering the small sample size and limited follow-up. About 9% of the study population had their therapy modified based on the results of NGS. The growing number of detectable mutations and increased accessibility of the test may lead to a greater number of potential therapeutic implications for the NGS assay. Perspectives suggest that NGS analysis can be implemented in daily clinical practice, particularly in contexts where a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) is active.

biochemistry & molecular biology,chemistry, multidisciplinary
The Evolution of Cancer Risk Assessment in the Era of Next Generation Sequencing

Heather Fecteau,Kristen J. Vogel,Kristen Hanson,Shannon Morrill‐Cornelius,Shannon Morrill-Cornelius

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9714-7

2014-04-24

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract:Cancer genetics professionals face a new opportunity and challenge in adapting to the availability of cancer genetic testing panels, now available as a result of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. While cancer panels have been available for over a year, we believe that there is not yet enough data to create practice guidelines. Despite this, a year of experience allows us to provide our opinion on points to consider as cancer genetic counselors incorporate this testing technology into genetic counseling practice models. NGS technology offers the ability to potentially diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes more efficiently by testing many genes at once for a fraction of what it would cost to test each gene individually. However, there are limitations and additional risks to consider with these tests. Obtaining informed consent for concurrent testing of multiple genes requires that genetics professionals modify their discussions with patients regarding the potential cancer risks and the associated implications to medical management. We propose dividing the genes on each panel into categories that vary by degree of cancer risk (e.g. penetrance of the syndrome) and availability of management guidelines, with the aim to improve patient understanding of the range of information that can come from this testing. The increased risk for identifying variants of uncertain significance (VUS) when testing many genes at once must be discussed with patients. Pretest genetic counseling must also include the possibility to receive unexpected results as well as the potential to receive a result in the absence of related medical management guidelines. It is also important to consider whether a single gene test remains the best testing option for some patients. As panels expand, it is important that documentation reflects exactly which genes have been analyzed for each patient. While this technology holds the promise of more efficient diagnosis for many of our patients, it also comes with new challenges that we must recognize and address.

genetics & heredity,social sciences, biomedical,health policy & services
The Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Workflows on Outcomes in Advanced Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis at One Academic Health System

Chetan V. Vakkalagadda,Danielle B. Dressler,Zequn Sun,Joseph Fuchs,Yingzhe Liu,Philip Silberman,Avanthi Ragam,Sheetal Kircher,Jyoti D. Patel,Nisha A. Mohindra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16213654

2024-10-30

Cancers

Abstract:Purpose: Broad-based molecular testing with next-generation sequencing (NGS) is now the standard of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two approaches to molecular testing are (1) reflexive testing at pathologic NSCLC confirmation, often using an in-house molecular panel, and (2) send-out testing to private vendors, ordered by a clinician. This study explored the outcomes with reflex versus send-out testing. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients diagnosed with de novo stage IV NSCLC in 2019 and 2020 at three hospitals in the same system, one academic hospital (Northwestern Memorial Hospital, or NMH) utilizing reflex, in-house NGS, and two community-based hospitals (Central DuPage Hospital, or CDH, and Delnor, or D) sending out tissue samples for testing. The outcomes assessed were the time from biopsy to results, biopsy to treatment, the incidence of first-line targetable mutations and the use of first-line targeted therapies, and overall survival. Results: In total, 191 patients met the inclusion criteria, 85 at NMH, 106 at CDH + D, and in total, 131 in 2019 and 60 in 2020. The time to results was significantly shorter with reflexive NGS when compared with send-out testing; the time to treatment was also shorter but not statistically significant. At CDH + D, the time to results was significantly shorter with a limited panel than with comprehensive testing, but the time to treatment was similar. NGS testing rates were 95% at NMH and 84.5% at CDH + D (p = 0.009), with 31.0% at NMH receiving 1L targeted therapies versus 20.8% at CDH + D (p = 0.08). In 2019, the median time from biopsy to treatment was 35 days at NMH and 38 days at CDH and Delnor; in 2020, time to treatment was 26 days and 37 days, respectively. Overall survival trended longer in 2020 relative to 2019 independent of site. Conclusion: Reflexive NGS testing is associated with a shorter time to actionable results and higher rates of first-line targetable mutations than send-out testing. In practices with send-out testing, limited panels had slightly faster turnaround times but no difference in time to treatment. If resources allow, reflexive NGS should be considered in healthcare systems for patients with NSCLC.

oncology
Patient Experience of Complex Genomic Sequencing Exploring Patient Preference, Barriers, and Enablers for Delivery

Kortnye Smith,Sophie O'Haire,Benjamin Markman,Hui K Gan,Kenneth O'Byrne,Michael Millward,Ben Tran,Benjamin J Solomon,Clare Scott,Damien Kee,Grant McArthur,Andrew Fellowes,Dong Anh K Khoung-Quang,Paul Ekert,Paul James,Huiling Xu,Melissa Martyn,Elly Lynch,Rona Weerasuriya,Clara Gaff,Stephen B Fox,Jayesh Desai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.23.00247

Abstract:Purpose: Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting complex genomic sequencing (CGS) in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited. Methods: This mixed-methods, prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGS in the care of patients with advanced cancer. DNA sequencing was undertaken on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor and matched blood was completed with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes via central laboratory. Oncologists performed consent and result delivery. Patients completed pre- and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions and, if eligible, semistructured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians to evaluate processes. Results: One hundred ninety-nine (63%) had ≥1 finding with the potential to affect management, including 172 (55%) whose finding could affect their treatment options, 25 (8%) whose test led to the resolution of diagnostic ambiguity, and 49 (16%) with a pathogenic germline variant. In 6-month follow-up, 50 (16%) participants had their subsequent therapy changed on the basis of their CGS results. Two hundred ninety-three (88% of adult patients) completed surveys at three time points. At consent, patients cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test patients remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGS. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret after participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Clinicians cited collaboration and communication as critical to delivery. Conclusion: Patients undergoing CGS are generally satisfied and place value on its use beyond potential therapeutic benefit. Our results suggest that to improve test utility and delivery of CGS with value to patients and investing institutions, focus must be placed on addressing the additional barriers to its wider implications including efforts to improve process efficiencies, clinician genomic literacy, and decision-making support.
Navigating the Rapids: The Development of Regulated Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Clinical Trial Assays and Companion Diagnostics

Saumya Pant,Russell Weiner,Matthew J. Marton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2014.00078

IF: 4.7

2014-04-17

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Over the past decade, next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has experienced meteoric growth in the aspects of platform, technology, and supporting bioinformatics development allowing its widespread and rapid uptake in research settings. More recently, NGS-based genomic data have been exploited to better understand disease development and patient characteristics that influence response to a given therapeutic intervention. Cancer, as a disease characterized by and driven by the tumor genetic landscape, is particularly amenable to NGS-based diagnostic (Dx) approaches. NGS-based technologies are particularly well suited to studying cancer disease development, progression and emergence of resistance, all key factors in the development of next-generation cancer Dxs. Yet, to achieve the promise of NGS-based patient treatment, drug developers will need to overcome a number of operational, technical, regulatory, and strategic challenges. Here, we provide a succinct overview of the state of the clinical NGS field in terms of the available clinically targeted platforms and sequencing technologies. We discuss the various operational and practical aspects of clinical NGS testing that will facilitate or limit the uptake of such assays in routine clinical care. We examine the current strategies for analytical validation and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approval of NGS-based assays and ongoing efforts to standardize clinical NGS and build quality control standards for the same. The rapidly evolving companion diagnostic (CDx) landscape for NGS-based assays will be reviewed, highlighting the key areas of concern and suggesting strategies to mitigate risk. The review will conclude with a series of strategic questions that face drug developers and a discussion of the likely future course of NGS-based CDx development efforts.

oncology
Combined Focused Next-Generation Sequencing Assays to Guide Precision Oncology in Solid Tumors: A Retrospective Analysis from an Institutional Molecular Tumor Board

Thomas S. Tarawneh,Fiona R. Rodepeter,Julia Teply-Szymanski,Petra Ross,Vera Koch,Clemens Thölken,Jonas A. Schäfer,Niklas Gremke,Hildegard I. D. Mack,Judith Gold,Jorge Riera-Knorrenschild,Christian Wilhelm,Anja Rinke,Martin Middeke,Andreas Klemmer,Marcel Romey,Akira Hattesohl,Moritz Jesinghaus,Christian Görg,Jens Figiel,Ho-Ryun Chung,Thomas Wündisch,Andreas Neubauer,Carsten Denkert,Elisabeth K. M. Mack

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14184430

2022-09-13

Cancers

Abstract:Background: Increasing knowledge of cancer biology and an expanding spectrum of molecularly targeted therapies provide the basis for precision oncology. Despite extensive gene diagnostics, previous reports indicate that less than 10% of patients benefit from this concept. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients referred to our center's Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) from 2018 to 2021. Molecular testing by next-generation sequencing (NGS) included a 67-gene panel for the detection of short-sequence variants and copy-number alterations, a 53- or 137-gene fusion panel and an ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing for the detection of additional copy-number alterations outside the panel's target regions. Immunohistochemistry for microsatellite instability and PD-L1 expression complemented NGS. Results: A total of 109 patients were referred to the MTB. In all, 78 patients received therapeutic proposals (70 based on NGS) and 33 were treated accordingly. Evaluable patients treated with MTB-recommended therapy (n = 30) had significantly longer progression-free survival than patients treated with other therapies (n = 17) (4.3 vs. 1.9 months, p = 0.0094). Seven patients treated with off-label regimens experienced major clinical benefits. Conclusion: The combined focused sequencing assays detected targetable alterations in the majority of patients. Patient benefits appeared to lie in the same range as with large-scale sequencing approaches.

oncology
Clinical Utility of Molecular Tumor Board Review for Identification of Possible Germline Pathogenic Variants on Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing Reports

Taylor A Rives,James Collard,Ning Li,Donglin Yan,Charles S Dietrich,Rachel W Miller,Frederick R Ueland,Justine Pickarski,Jill M Kolesar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.24.00301

Abstract:Purpose: Tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing identifies possible germline pathogenic variants (PGPVs), creating a dilemma for appropriate recognition, triage, and management. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical utility of an institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) in assessing tumor NGS reports for PGPVs. Methods: Our institutional MTB reviews all NGS reports to provide treatment and further testing recommendations, including genetic counseling referral and consideration of genetic testing (GC/GT). We studied the patients reviewed by the MTB who were recommended for GC/GT to determine the frequency of referral to a GC, germline test completion, rate of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs), factors related to PGVs, and germline conversion rate (GCR). Results: Of the 2,355 patients reviewed by the MTB during the study period, 609 (25.9%) had a recommendation for GC/GT. Of the 609 with a GC/GT recommendation, only 181 (29.7%) were referred for GC/GT by their treating physicians, and only 107 (17.6%) completed GT. Of the 107 patients completing GT, 29 (26%) had a confirmed PGV. The only factors significantly associated with PGVs were testing due to a PGPV and higher mean variant allele fraction on the tumor NGS. Only 40 patients with a GC/GT recommendation (14.3%) due to a PGPV completed GT; however, the GCR was 42.5% (n = 17/40). Conclusion: The MTB review of PGPV is clinically valuable, identifying PGPV in 12% of patients undergoing tumor NGS and a GCR of 42.5%. Rates of GC/GT completion were relatively low due to under-referral by treating physicians. Given the high GCR, the authors encourage institutional algorithms to help increase GC/GT rates for patients found to have PGPV following tumor NGS testing.
Effects of beta 2-adrenergic agonists on isolated guinea pig lung mast cells.

H. Lau,P. Wong,C. K. Lai

Agents and Actions

Abstract:The mast cell protective effects of the newly developed long-acting beta 2-agonists salmeterol and formoterol were compared with those of conventionally used beta 2-agonists, non-specific beta-agonists, disodium cromoglycate (DSCG) and theophylline. With the exception of DSCG, all the test agents inhibited ovalbumin-induced histamine release from enzymically dispersed guinea pig lung mast cells in a dose-dependent fashion. At the maximum concentration tested, theophylline produced the highest level of protection, inhibiting up to 90% of ovalbumin-induced histamine release whereas DSCG produced only 10% inhibition. The maximum inhibition produced by all the beta 2-agonists tested was around 45%. While salmeterol was equipotent with salbutamol, formoterol was at least a 100-fold more potent. Hence the present study confirmed the previously reported mast cell stabilizing actions of conventional beta 2-agonists and extended the observation to the newly developed long-acting analogues.
Brief Report on Global Clinician Practices in the First-Line Management of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Arthi Sridhar,Howard (Jack) West,Eric K. Singhi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2024.04.013

IF: 4.84

2024-05-01

Clinical Lung Cancer

Abstract:Introduction In the dynamic landscape of metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) management, marked by several frontline options and the integration of next generation sequencing (NGS) for informed decision-making, barriers persist despite advancements. This includes challenges in clinical trial recruitment. To gain global insights into clinicians' practices, we conducted a survey on their testing and management approaches for patients with mNSCLC. Methods The survey, conducted from July 12 to August 20, 2023, utilized multiple-choice questions and qualitative research questions, employing the Likert Scale for comprehensive insights. Results A total of 127 individuals responded, with 72% affiliated with academic health systems, and 55% practicing in the USA. Regarding testing practices, 93% consistently ordered NGS for non-squamous histology, while 54% did so for squamous cell histology. Concurrent tissue and liquid biopsies were routinely ordered by 28%, while 39% reported ordering both testing platforms concurrently for select cases only. Respondents cited logistical barriers, such as insufficient tissue and lack of infrastructure, as the most common hindrance to molecular testing (76%), followed by reimbursement challenges (56%) and concerns about delayed turnaround time (50%). While most respondents were confident in interpreting NGS results, 22% lacked confidence. Concerning treatment decisions, 72% preferred awaiting molecular testing results before initiating systemic therapy. Less than 50% routinely referred patients for clinical trials in the frontline setting for mNSCLC. For patients with disease expressing high PD-L1 levels, most oncologists preferred pembrolizumab monotherapy. For disease with low PD-L1 expression, a platinum doublet chemotherapy regimen combined with pembrolizumab was favored. In disease cases with negative PD-L1 expression, a platinum doublet chemotherapy regimen with pembrolizumab was preferred. Key factors influencing oncologists' preferred immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) included experience with one ICI over another, preferred status per national guidelines, availability of trial data with a significant follow-up period, and consideration of drug cost. Conclusion Although this study demonstrates an improved awareness and adoption of ordering NGS for the management of mNSCLC, it underscores the persistence of various barriers that must be addressed to improve upon the quality of care for patients diagnosed with mNSCLC.

oncology

Rationale of the Growth Failure in Children with Renal Diseases Study.

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends among Adult Patients with Select Advanced Tumor Types: A Real-World Evidence Evaluation

Filtering Duplicate Publications in Bibliographic Databases

Next-Generation Sequencing of Patients With Breast Cancer in Community Oncology Clinics

Molecular Characterization and Prognostic Analysis of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single Centric Real-World Study.

Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service

Portuguese Consensus Recommendations for Next-Generation Sequencing of Lung Cancer, Rare Tumors, and Cancers of Unknown Primary Origin in Clinical Practice

Next Generation Sequencing in Oncological Diagnostics: Hype or Hope?

Value of next generation sequencing (NGS) testing in advanced cancer patients

Assessment of Clinical Benefit of Integrative Genomic Profiling in Advanced Solid Tumors

Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator

"PRESCRIBING PRACTICES AND CLINICAL IMPACT OF NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING IN ROUTINE PRACTICE IN SOLID TUMORS REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE IN LMIC"

Real-World Data and Clinical Implications of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based Analysis in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients

The Evolution of Cancer Risk Assessment in the Era of Next Generation Sequencing

The Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Workflows on Outcomes in Advanced Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis at One Academic Health System

Patient Experience of Complex Genomic Sequencing Exploring Patient Preference, Barriers, and Enablers for Delivery

Navigating the Rapids: The Development of Regulated Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Clinical Trial Assays and Companion Diagnostics

Combined Focused Next-Generation Sequencing Assays to Guide Precision Oncology in Solid Tumors: A Retrospective Analysis from an Institutional Molecular Tumor Board

Clinical Utility of Molecular Tumor Board Review for Identification of Possible Germline Pathogenic Variants on Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing Reports

Effects of beta 2-adrenergic agonists on isolated guinea pig lung mast cells.

Brief Report on Global Clinician Practices in the First-Line Management of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer