Coordinating an Oncology Precision Medicine Clinic Within an Integrated Health System: Lessons Learned in Year One

Precision medicine is a term describing strategies to promote health and prevent and treat disease based on an individual’s genetic, molecular, and lifestyle characteristics. Oncology precision medicine (OPM) is a cancer treatment approach targeting cancer-specific genetic and molecular alterations. Implementation of an OPM clinical program optimally involves the support and collaboration of multiple departments, including administration, medical oncology, pathology, interventional radiology, genetics, research, and informatics. In this review, we briefly introduce the published evidence regarding OPM’s potential effect on patient outcomes and discuss what we have learned over the first year of operating an OPM program within an integrated health care system (Aurora Health Care, Milwaukee, WI) comprised of multiple hospitals and clinics. We also report our experience implementing a specific OPM software platform used to embed molecular panel data into patients’ electronic medical records

Coordinating an Oncology Precision Medicine Clinic Within an Integrated Health System: Lessons Learned in Year One

Precision medicine is a term describing strategies to promote health and prevent and treat disease based on an individual’s genetic, molecular, and lifestyle characteristics. Oncology precision medicine (OPM) is a cancer treatment approach targeting cancer-specific genetic and molecular alterations. Implementation of an OPM clinical program optimally involves the support and collaboration of multiple departments, including administration, medical oncology, pathology, interventional radiology, genetics, research, and informatics. In this review, we briefly introduce the published evidence regarding OPM’s potential effect on patient outcomes and discuss what we have learned over the first year of operating an OPM program within an integrated health care system (Aurora Health Care, Milwaukee, WI) comprised of multiple hospitals and clinics. We also report our experience implementing a specific OPM software platform used to embed molecular panel data into patients’ electronic medical records

Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists

Background: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists\u27 biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. Methods: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. Results: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents(42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). Conclusions: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience

A randomized study of genetic education versus usual care in tumor profiling for advanced cancer in the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (EAQ152)

Background: Enthusiasm for precision oncology may obscure the psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with the implementation of tumor genetic sequencing. Methods: Patients with advanced cancer undergoing tumor-only genetic sequencing in the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial were randomized to a web-based genetic education intervention or usual care. The primary outcomes were knowledge, anxiety, depression, and cancer-specific distress collected at baseline (T0), posteducation (T1) and after results (T2). Two-sided, 2-sample t tests and univariate and multivariable generalized linear models were used. Results: Five hundred ninety-four patients (80% from NCI Community Oncology Research Program sites) were randomized to the web intervention (n = 293) or usual care (n = 301) before the receipt of results. Patients in the intervention arm had greater increases in knowledge (P for T1-T0 \u3c .0001; P for T2-T0 = .003), but there were no significant differences in distress outcomes. In unadjusted moderator analyses, there was a decrease in cancer-specific distress among women (T0-T1) in the intervention arm but not among men. Patients with lower health literacy in the intervention arm had greater increases in cancer-specific distress and less decline in general anxiety (T0-T1) and greater increases in depression (T0-T2) in comparison with those receiving usual care. Conclusions: Web-based genetic education before tumor-only sequencing results increases patient understanding and reduces distress in women. Refinements to the intervention could benefit low-literacy groups and men

Overall survival in the OlympiA phase III trial of adjuvant olaparib in patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and high-risk, early breast cancer

International audienc