Physician Experiences and Understanding of Genomic Sequencing in Oncology

The amount of information produced by genomic sequencing is vast, technically complicated, and can be difficult to interpret. Appropriately tailoring genomic information for nonâ geneticists is an essential next step in the clinical use of genomic sequencing. To initiate development of a framework for genomic results communication, we conducted eighteen qualitative interviews with oncologists who had referred adult cancer patients to a matched tumorâ normal tissue genomic sequencing study. In our qualitative analysis, we found varied levels of clinician knowledge relating to sequencing technology, the scope of the tumor genomic sequencing study, and incidental germline findings. Clinicians expressed a perceived need for more genetics education. Additionally, they had a variety of suggestions for improving results reports and possible resources to aid in results interpretation. Most clinicians felt genetic counselors were needed when incidental germline findings were identified. Our research suggests that more consistent genetics education is imperative in ensuring the proper utilization of genomic sequencing in cancer care. Clinician suggestions for results interpretation resources and results report modifications could be used to improve communication. Cliniciansâ perceived need to involve genetic counselors when incidental germline findings were found suggests genetic specialists could play a critical role in ensuring patients receive appropriate followâ up.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147187/1/jgc40187.pd

Qualitative study of system-level factors related to genomic implementation

PURPOSE: Research on genomic medicine integration has focused on applications at the individual level, with less attention paid to implementation within clinical settings. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify system-level factors that played a role in implementation of genomic medicine within Implementing GeNomics In PracTicE (IGNITE) Network projects. METHODS: Up to four study personnel, including principal investigators and study coordinators from each of six IGNITE projects, were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide that asked interviewees to describe study site(s), progress at each site, and factors facilitating or impeding project implementation. Interviews were coded following CFIR inner-setting constructs. RESULTS: Key barriers included (1) limitations in integrating genomic data and clinical decision support tools into electronic health records, (2) physician reluctance toward genomic research participation and clinical implementation due to a limited evidence base, (3) inadequate reimbursement for genomic medicine, (4) communication among and between investigators and clinicians, and (5) lack of clinical and leadership engagement. CONCLUSION: Implementation of genomic medicine is hindered by several system-level barriers to both research and practice. Addressing these barriers may serve as important facilitators for studying and implementing genomics in practice

Erlotinib and Onalespib Lactate Focused on EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A California Cancer Consortium Phase I/II Trial (NCI 9878).

BackgroundOnalespib is a novel heat shock protein 90 inhibitor (HSP90i). Previous preclinical and clinical studies with HSP90i have demonstrated activity in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study sought to determine the safety and tolerability of onalespib plus erlotinib in EGFR-mutant NSCLC and to evaluate the preliminary efficacy of the combination in epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertion (EGFRex20ins) NSCLC.Patients and methodsStandard 3+3 dose escalation was followed by a phase II expansion in EGFRex20ins. The phase II component targeted a response rate of 25% versus a background rate of 5%. Prospective next-generation sequencing (NGS) of 70 cancer-related genes, including EGFR, via plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was performed. Toxicity was graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4, and response was determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1.ResultsEleven patients were treated (nine dose escalation, two dose expansion). Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in dose level (DL) 0 and zero in DL -1 (minus). In 10 EGFRex20ins patients, no responses were observed, median progression-free survival was 5.4 months (95% confidence interval, 0.9-5.7), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 40% (median, 3.5 months). EGFRex20ins was detected in nine of 10 ctDNA samples at baseline; on-treatment ctDNA clearance was not observed. Grade 3 diarrhea was the predominant toxicity in 45% of patients. The recommended phase II dose is DL -1 (minus): erlotinib 150 mg orally every morning and onalespib 120 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days.ConclusionOverlapping toxicities of erlotinib and onalespib, mainly diarrhea, limited the tolerability of this combination, and limited clinical activity was observed, so the trial was closed early. Plasma EGFRex20ins ctDNA was detected in the majority of patients; failure to clear ctDNA was consistent with lack of tumor response (NCT02535338)