Survey study of barriers to evidence-based decision-making in oncology care using next-generation sequencing.

Authors

null

Elizabeth A. Szamreta

Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ

Elizabeth A. Szamreta , Allysen Kaminski , Ruchit Shah , Ning Ning , Jyoti Aggarwal , Arif Hussain , Gboyega Adeboyeje

Organizations

Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, Pharmerit-an OPEN Health Company, Bethesda, MD, Pharmeri-an OPEN Health Company, Newton, MA, University of Maryland Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Merck & Co., Inc

Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has the potential to accelerate precision medicine in oncology by informing efficient and improved clinical treatment decision-making. However, discussions on the utility of NGS in clinical practice are ongoing. This survey study examined clinical utility barriers to adoption of NGS into oncologic care. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was sent to a nationally representative sample of oncologists/hematologists, surgeons, and pathologists (N=201). The survey gathered information on physician demographics, practice characteristics, perceived barriers to NGS testing, and potential strategies for increasing adoption. Results: Almost all physicians in the sample (99.5%) reported using NGS. Physicians reported the following aspects of NGS as the most valuable: ability to guide decision-making (73.1%), more accurate identification of corresponding treatment (56.7%), comprehensive genomic coverage (54.2%), efficient technology with faster turnaround time (49.8%), and more accurate diagnosis or prognosis (41.3%). Physicians reported that NGS results guided treatment decisions for 63% of patients (Range: 2% - 100%). Over 85% of physicians reported that confidence in interpreting results and availability of clinical guidelines were important in undertaking NGS. Correspondingly, limited evidence of clinical utility was a top barrier to testing (80.1%), with pathologists and surgeons more likely than oncologists/hematologists to consider this. Overall, 76% of physicians shared that strategies to alleviate these clinical utility barriers included increased evidence, standardized guidelines, and interpretation support. Conclusions: Given the high uptake of NGS testing in this physician sample, but the lower rates of application of test results to guide treatment, the clinical impact of NGS may not be fully optimized. This discrepancy highlights the ongoing need for real-world evidence to better understand and further optimize the evolving role of NGS in the context of the overall management of the cancer patient.

Percentage of Physicians Reporting Most Valuable Aspects of NGS Testing, by Physician Specialty, %.


Total Column

(N=201)
Oncology/Hematology

(N=100)
Pathology

(N=51)
Surgery

(N=50)
More accurate/precise diagnosis or prognosis
41.3
42.0
41.2
40.0
More accurate/precise identification of corresponding treatment
56.7
56.0
58.8
56.0
Ability to guide decision-making
73.1
75.0
66.7
76.0
Efficient/timely technology
49.8
53.0
52.9
40.0
Comprehensive genomic coverage
54.2
51.0
56.9
58.0
Smaller biopsy sizes
27.4
30.0
23.5
26.0
Cost-effective
21.9
24.0
15.7
24.0

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

2021 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Publication Only

Session Title

Publication Only: Health Services Research and Quality Improvement

Track

Quality Care/Health Services Research

Sub Track

Real-World Data/Outcomes

Citation

J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 15; abstr e18757)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.e18757

Abstract #

e18757

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Allysen Kaminski

First Author: Jin Ho Choi