Gray, Stacy W.

Abstract Next-generation sequencing has transformed cancer care by providing essential insights for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. However, variability in testing timing, reporting practices, and interpretation challenges limits its clinical impact. This article highlights key opportunities to optimize somatic reporting, emphasizing the importance of timely testing throughout the cancer care continuum to maximize the diagnostic and therapeutic relevance of findings. Technical factors such as test design, sequencing depth, and the use of liquid biopsy substantially influence result accuracy and interpretation, underscoring the need for careful integration with clinical history. Standardized reporting practices that clearly delineate diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic findings can enhance the clinical utility of next-generation sequencing results. Streamlined formats and curated clinical trial data further support actionable decision making. Additionally, direct patient engagement and education are essential for empowering patients to navigate genomic testing and make informed decisions about their care. By leveraging multidisciplinary tumor boards, decision-support tools, and emerging artificial intelligence technologies, clinicians can better navigate the complexities of somatic reports. Standardization and clarity in reporting are critical to advancing precision oncology, empowering providers and patients to make informed treatment decisions and improve outcomes.

PURPOSEAn ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors.CLINICAL CONTEXTAn increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection.PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINIONPatients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel–based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker–linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines .

6531 Background: This survey of Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study physicians examined use, attitudes, and perception of tumor genomic testing (TGT), defined as any DNA test performed on tumor specimen/plasma. TAPUR is a multibasket study of marketed agents targeting tumor genomics. Methods: 333 physicians at 54 TAPUR sites were surveyed (2016-2017). Survey domains included use of TGT, barriers to ordering TGT, and genomic confidence. Surveys included 3 scenarios for TGT ordering 1) pretreated advanced cancer patients (pts) without options, 2) newly diagnosed, untreated, metastatic pts and 3) early stage/potentially curable pts with standard options. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: 112 physicians responded (33%). The table displays demographics and genomic confidence. Respondents reported a median of 25% of their pts had TGT in past 12 months for trials/routine care (range 0-85%). Barriers to testing included access to tumor specimen (86%), insurance coverage (67%), concerns that results will not be actionable (55%), and test issues (wait time, unsure which test/lab to use, test accuracy) (54%). TGT was ordered most often for scenario 1 (96%) and 2 pts (70%). Few respondents (32%) would order testing in scenario 3. Of those who reported testing for scenarios 1 & 2, most told pts that results could inform treatment/prognosis/trials (97%) or may be uninformative (84%). In all scenarios, pt expectations of TGT results were discussed prior to testing. A minority reported frequently telling pts in advance that results could inform heritable cancer susceptibility (37%). Conclusions: Confidence in using TGT was high. TGT was performed most for pts with advanced cancer and few options. Availability of specimens was largest barrier reported, indicating the importance of blood-based tests. Few respondents discussed implications of germline findings in advance, despite growing evidence of germline findings in somatic testing. [Table: see text]

Policy Points: The policy context of direct‐to‐consumer personal genomic testing (DTC‐PGT) has been evolving over the last decade, with little empirical data available about consumers’ perspectives. A majority of consumers of DTC‐PGT supported expanded access to services and their integration into the medical context and opposed more governmental regulation. Consumers’ attitudes about access to services and regulation did not vary based on the specific genetic risk information they received from companies, but may vary based on whether consumers perceived their DTC experience negatively. ContextWhile policymakers have been considering the appropriateness of direct‐to‐consumer personal genomic testing (DTC‐PGT) for more than a decade, there is little empirical data on consumers’ views regarding the regulation of these products. No research has assessed whether consumers’ personal experience with testing is related to their views about access to and regulation of DTC tests.MethodsData were analyzed from the PGen Study, a longitudinal prospective cohort of DTC‐PGT customers of 23andMe (n = 564) and Pathway Genomics (n = 377; total N = 941). Consumers were sent an electronic survey before receiving genetic test results and again 6 months after receipt of results.FindingsAt the 6‐month follow‐up, more than 80% of participants believed that people have a right to access genetic information directly, that parents should be able to get DTC‐PGT testing for their children, and that genetic information should be kept private. Participants supported health insurance coverage of PGT (60%), wider availability of PGT (68%), and inclusion of genetic information in medical records (63%). Participants were less supportive of government regulation (28%) and restricting testing to clinical settings (14%). Conservative political ideology was associated with less support for government regulation (P < 0.001), as was feeling more confident in one's genetic knowledge (P < 0.05). Participants’ level of computed genetic risk for common diseases, as indicated by their actual test results received from companies, showed no relationship with attitudes. However, those who perceived that they had received elevated risk results expressed lower support for expanded availability and incorporation of PGT into health care (P < 0.01). Those who reported being upset by their genetic test results were less likely to endorse access to DTC products without a medical professional (P < 0.01).ConclusionsPGT consumers supported expanded access to these services and opposed additional regulation. Users who had a negative personal experience with PGT testing were less supportive of expanded availability without a medical professional.

Abstract Objective Clinicians’ ability to use and interpret genetic information depends upon how those data are displayed in electronic health records (EHRs). There is a critical need to develop systems to effectively display genetic information in EHRs and augment clinical decision support (CDS). Materials and Methods The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research and Electronic Medical Records & Genomics EHR Working Groups conducted a multiphase, iterative process involving working group discussions and 2 surveys in order to determine how genetic and genomic information are currently displayed in EHRs, envision optimal uses for different types of genetic or genomic information, and prioritize areas for EHR improvement. Results There is substantial heterogeneity in how genetic information enters and is documented in EHR systems. Most institutions indicated that genetic information was displayed in multiple locations in their EHRs. Among surveyed institutions, genetic information enters the EHR through multiple laboratory sources and through clinician notes. For laboratory-based data, the source laboratory was the main determinant of the location of genetic information in the EHR. The highest priority recommendation was to address the need to implement CDS mechanisms and content for decision support for medically actionable genetic information. Conclusion Heterogeneity of genetic information flow and importance of source laboratory, rather than clinical content, as a determinant of information representation are major barriers to using genetic information optimally in patient care. Greater effort to develop interoperable systems to receive and consistently display genetic and/or genomic information and alert clinicians to genomic-dependent improvements to clinical care is recommended.