TY - JOUR
T1 - The initial assessment of expert panel performance in core hospitals for cancer genomic medicine in Japan
AU - Sunami, Kuniko
AU - Naito, Yoichi
AU - Aimono, Eriko
AU - Amano, Toraji
AU - Ennishi, Daisuke
AU - Kage, Hidenori
AU - Kanai, Masashi
AU - Komine, Keigo
AU - Koyama, Takafumi
AU - Maeda, Takahiro
AU - Morita, Sachi
AU - Sakai, Daisuke
AU - Kohsaka, Shinji
AU - Tsuchihara, Katsuya
AU - Yoshino, Takayuki
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors are grateful to C-CAT and Mitsui Knowledge Industry Co., Ltd. for the creation of the mock C-CAT Findings of the simulated cases, which was undertaken on a voluntary basis. We also thank all EP members at 11 core hospitals, Hideki Ueno and Yuichiro Ohe for supporting this study. This study was supported by grants from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
Funding Information:
The authors are grateful to C-CAT and Mitsui Knowledge Industry Co., Ltd. for the creation of the mock C-CAT Findings of the simulated cases, which was undertaken on a voluntary basis. We also thank all EP members at 11 core hospitals, Hideki Ueno and Yuichiro Ohe for supporting this study. This study was supported by grants from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
Funding Information:
This work was supported by The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Health Labour Sciences Special Research Grant (19EA1007).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Background: Since June 2019, cancer genomic profiling (CGP) tests have been reimbursed by the National Health Insurance system in Japan, with restrictions for government-designated hospitals with a molecular tumor board composed of multidisciplinary specialists, known as an expert panel (EP). The standardization of EPs is a critical challenge for implementing precision oncology in the clinical setting. Methods: Data on consecutive cases who underwent the CGP tests at 11 core hospitals between June 2019 and January 2020 were collected. We evaluated the proportions of cases that received genomically matched treatments, including investigational new drugs (INDs) based on CGP results, and/or for which genetic counseling was recommended. Two simulated cases were annotated by each EP. The annotated reports were then centrally assessed. Results: Each EP mainly discussed the applicability to genomically matched treatments and the necessity of performing genetic counseling. A pre-review of the report by key members in each EP reportedly made the EP conference more interactive and efficient, and thereby saved time. A total of 747 cases underwent CGP tests, 28 cases (3.7%) received genomically matched treatment, and 17 cases (2.3%) were referred for genetic counseling. Annotated reports for the simulated cases varied across the EPs, particularly the number of recommended IND trials, which seemed to be associated with the actual number of participants in IND trials. Conclusions: This investigation provides reference data for the application of precision oncology in a clinical setting. Further investigations on the standardization of clinical annotations are warranted.
AB - Background: Since June 2019, cancer genomic profiling (CGP) tests have been reimbursed by the National Health Insurance system in Japan, with restrictions for government-designated hospitals with a molecular tumor board composed of multidisciplinary specialists, known as an expert panel (EP). The standardization of EPs is a critical challenge for implementing precision oncology in the clinical setting. Methods: Data on consecutive cases who underwent the CGP tests at 11 core hospitals between June 2019 and January 2020 were collected. We evaluated the proportions of cases that received genomically matched treatments, including investigational new drugs (INDs) based on CGP results, and/or for which genetic counseling was recommended. Two simulated cases were annotated by each EP. The annotated reports were then centrally assessed. Results: Each EP mainly discussed the applicability to genomically matched treatments and the necessity of performing genetic counseling. A pre-review of the report by key members in each EP reportedly made the EP conference more interactive and efficient, and thereby saved time. A total of 747 cases underwent CGP tests, 28 cases (3.7%) received genomically matched treatment, and 17 cases (2.3%) were referred for genetic counseling. Annotated reports for the simulated cases varied across the EPs, particularly the number of recommended IND trials, which seemed to be associated with the actual number of participants in IND trials. Conclusions: This investigation provides reference data for the application of precision oncology in a clinical setting. Further investigations on the standardization of clinical annotations are warranted.
KW - Comprehensive genomic profiling tests
KW - Core hospitals
KW - Expert panel
KW - Genetic counseling
KW - Investigational new drug trials
KW - Precision oncology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098500802&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85098500802&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10147-020-01844-1
DO - 10.1007/s10147-020-01844-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 33385275
AN - SCOPUS:85098500802
SN - 1341-9625
VL - 26
SP - 443
EP - 449
JO - International Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - International Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 3
ER -