Precision medicine and multidisciplinary care in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancers: Challenges and practice gaps in community cancer clinics.

385 Background: The advent of biomarker-driven therapeutic strategies brings increasing precision to the treatment of G/GEJ cancer, placing biomarker testing at the forefront of patient management. The management of evolving logistics for testing and related decision-making can be challenging, especially in community clinics. As part of a multi-center quality improvement initiative, we evaluated current gaps in biomarker testing and practice patterns including multidisciplinary care for G/GEJ cancers in community oncology centers. Methods: Between 5/2024 and 8/2024, oncology team members (N = 60) from 5 US-based community oncology practices completed surveys assessing attitudes, knowledge, competence, practice patterns, challenges, and gaps regarding biomarker testing and multidisciplinary care in G/GEJ cancers. Results: Despite practice guidelines, many patients with G/GEJ cancer did not receive testing for recommended biomarkers. While most providers report that biomarkers HER2 (67%) and PD-L1 (62%) are routinely reported in pathology reports, less than half said testing for MSI/MMR, TMB, and BRAF p.V600E were reported, and less than 25% reported analysis of NTRK1/2/3 , RET , CLDN.18.2, and FGFR2 . Biomarkers most frequently requested if not included in the original pathology work-up were PD-L1 (48%), TMB (32%), and BRAF p.V600E (32%). Top challenges reported by providers in integrating biomarker testing into practice were prioritizing testing for limited tissue (38%), determining whether to begin treatment prior to receipt of molecular testing results (35%), and optimizing specimen collection for molecular testing (27%). Only 23% of providers reported feeling very or extremely comfortable (4/5 on 5-point Likert scale) with interpreting and applying biomarker testing results to treatment decision-making. Additional challenges included turnaround time for biomarker testing, uncertainty interpreting biomarker results, and inconsistent or infrequent multidisciplinary tumor boards. Indeed, some providers (12%) reported not participating in multidisciplinary tumor boards at all, while others reported participating weekly (16%), once or twice a month (21%), every other month (12%), or less frequently (23%). Providers believed improving test ordering process (47%), decreasing testing turnaround time (42%), and standardizing panels for biomarker testing (40%) would be most impactful in implementation of biomarker testing into clinical workflows. Conclusions: Although most oncology teams reported use of some form of biomarker testing in treatment of G/GEJ cancer, testing was inconsistent and not as comprehensive as currently recommended. These data will be leveraged to develop multidisciplinary action plans with participating clinics to improve biomarker testing for treatment selection in G/GEJ cancers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-01-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.4_suppl.385
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.36
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Precision medicine and multidisciplinary care in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancers: Challenges and practice gaps in community cancer clinics.

Alexandra M. Vazquez Salgado, Matthew R. Strickland, Jeffrey D. Carter, Cherilyn Heggen et al.
1 citations
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
1.36
article

Precision medicine and multidisciplinary care in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancers: Challenges and practice gaps in community cancer clinics.

Alexandra M. Vazquez Salgado, Matthew R. Strickland, Jeffrey D. Carter, Cherilyn Heggen, Nikoletta Sidiropoulos, Kelly E. McKinnon, Ilona Dewald
article en
1 citations

Abstract

385 Background: The advent of biomarker-driven therapeutic strategies brings increasing precision to the treatment of G/GEJ cancer, placing biomarker testing at the forefront of patient management. The management of evolving logistics for testing and related decision-making can be challenging, especially in community clinics. As part of a multi-center quality improvement initiative, we evaluated current gaps in biomarker testing and practice patterns including multidisciplinary care for G/GEJ cancers in community oncology centers. Methods: Between 5/2024 and 8/2024, oncology team members (N = 60) from 5 US-based community oncology practices completed surveys assessing attitudes, knowledge, competence, practice patterns, challenges, and gaps regarding biomarker testing and multidisciplinary care in G/GEJ cancers. Results: Despite practice guidelines, many patients with G/GEJ cancer did not receive testing for recommended biomarkers. While most providers report that biomarkers HER2 (67%) and PD-L1 (62%) are routinely reported in pathology reports, less than half said testing for MSI/MMR, TMB, and BRAF p.V600E were reported, and less than 25% reported analysis of NTRK1/2/3 , RET , CLDN.18.2, and FGFR2 . Biomarkers most frequently requested if not included in the original pathology work-up were PD-L1 (48%), TMB (32%), and BRAF p.V600E (32%). Top challenges reported by providers in integrating biomarker testing into practice were prioritizing testing for limited tissue (38%), determining whether to begin treatment prior to receipt of molecular testing results (35%), and optimizing specimen collection for molecular testing (27%). Only 23% of providers reported feeling very or extremely comfortable (4/5 on 5-point Likert scale) with interpreting and applying biomarker testing results to treatment decision-making. Additional challenges included turnaround time for biomarker testing, uncertainty interpreting biomarker results, and inconsistent or infrequent multidisciplinary tumor boards. Indeed, some providers (12%) reported not participating in multidisciplinary tumor boards at all, while others reported participating weekly (16%), once or twice a month (21%), every other month (12%), or less frequently (23%). Providers believed improving test ordering process (47%), decreasing testing turnaround time (42%), and standardizing panels for biomarker testing (40%) would be most impactful in implementation of biomarker testing into clinical workflows. Conclusions: Although most oncology teams reported use of some form of biomarker testing in treatment of G/GEJ cancer, testing was inconsistent and not as comprehensive as currently recommended. These data will be leveraged to develop multidisciplinary action plans with participating clinics to improve biomarker testing for treatment selection in G/GEJ cancers.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(4_suppl)
Harvard University (US), University of Vermont Medical Center (US), Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
1.36
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.