Genomic testing among patients (pts) with newly diagnosed advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in the United States: A contemporary clinical practice patterns study.

Authors

null

Adam Gondos

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Pharmaceutical Division, Personalized Healthcare Center of Excellence, Basel, Switzerland

Adam Gondos , Luis G. Paz-Ares , Diego Saldana , Marlene Thomas , Céline Mascaux , Lukas Bubendorf , Fabrice Barlesi

Organizations

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Pharmaceutical Division, Personalized Healthcare Center of Excellence, Basel, Switzerland, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain, INSERM UMR 1068, CNRS UMR 725, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille (CRCM), Aix-Marseille Université, Department of Multidisciplinary Oncology and Innovative Therapeutics, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille (AP-HM), Marseille, France, Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland

Research Funding

Other
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland

Background: We describe contemporary clinical patterns of guideline-mandated genomic testing in newly diagnosed US pts with aNSCLC. Methods: From the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified database, we included pts with newly diagnosed advanced non-squamous cell carcinoma of the lung between 1.1.2018–6.30.2019 who had received first-line (1L) therapy. We defined inadequate testing as no successful test for at least one of four examined genes: ALK, BRAF, EGFR, and ROS1. We grouped pts according to testing received into users of next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing, including a subgroup using comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP, exemplified by Foundation Medicine, Inc.), users of non-NGS testing, and no testing. We describe the following aspects of genomic testing before the start of 1L therapy: occurrence of testing, patterns of use of testing technologies, occurrence of inadequate testing, test failures, percentage of pts with potentially missed targeted therapy with US Food and Drug Administration approval (no positive test and <4 successful tests), and recent trends in genomic testing. Results: Among 2971 included pts, 690 (23.2%) had no genomic testing before 1L treatment. Among pts who had a test (n=2281), 59.4% (n=1355) received NGS (CGP: 18.8%, n=429), while 40.6% (n=926) received non-NGS tests only. In the CGP user group, 79.7% of pts received no other type of test, compared with 29.8% of pts in the other NGS group. Inadequate testing was recorded in 13.4% of NGS-tested pts (CGP: 4.9%), compared with 52.5% of pts tested by non-NGS only. Test failures contributed to unsuccessful testing in 4.2% of pts tested by NGS (CGP: 1.2%) and in 6.8% of pts who received non-NGS tests. In the NGS group, 10.1% (CGP: 3.0%) of patients potentially missed a targeted therapy option, compared with 40.3% in the non-NGS group. EGFR and ALK testing were performed in ≥95% of pts, regardless of the testing group; however, only 83.6% and 55.7% of pts received tests for ROS1 and BRAF, respectively, in the non-NGS group. In the latter group, for the first 6 months of 2019, 88.4% and 58.2% of pts were tested for ROS1 and BRAF mutations, respectively. Conclusions: Not performing any, or performing only inadequate genomic testing in pts with newly diagnosed aNSCLC remains a concern in clinical practice. The use of NGS, particularly CGP, may help to avoid suboptimal testing, minimize test failures, and improve uptake of testing for newly introduced biomarkers, enabling individualized, targeted therapy.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2020 ASCO Virtual Scientific Program

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Lung Cancer—Non-Small Cell Metastatic

Track

Lung Cancer

Sub Track

Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Citation

J Clin Oncol 38: 2020 (suppl; abstr 9592)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.9592

Abstract #

9592

Poster Bd #

358

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts