Purpose: Biomarker data are critical to the delivery of precision cancer care. The average turnaround of next-generation sequencing (NGS) reports is over 2 weeks, and in-house availability is typically limited to academic centers. Lengthy turnaround times for biomarkers can adversely affect outcomes. Traditional workflows involve moving specimens through multiple facilities. This study evaluates the feasibility of rapid comprehensive NGS using the Genexus integrated sequencer and a novel streamlined workflow in a community setting. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to assess the early experience and performance characteristics of a novel approach to biomarker testing at a large community center. This approach to NGS included an automated workflow utilizing the Genexus integrated sequencer, validated for clinical use. NGS testing was further integrated within a routine immunohistochemistry (IHC) service, utilizing histotechnologists to perform technical aspects of NGS, with results reported directly by anatomic pathologists. Results: Between October 2020 and October 2021, 578 solid tumor samples underwent genomic profiling. Median turnaround time for biomarker results was 3 business days (IQR: 2–5). Four hundred eighty-one (83%) of the cases were resulted in fewer than 5 business days, and 66 (11%) of the cases were resulted simultaneously with diagnosis. Tumor types included lung cancer (310), melanoma (97), and colorectal carcinoma (68), among others. NGS testing detected key driver alterations at expected prevalence rates: lung EGFR (16%), ALK (3%), RET (1%), melanoma BRAF (43%), colorectal RAS/RAF (67%), among others. Conclusion: This is the first study demonstrating clinical implementation of rapid NGS. This supports the feasibility of automated comprehensive NGS performed and interpreted in parallel with diagnostic histopathology and immunohistochemistry. This novel approach to biomarker testing offers considerable advantages to clinical cancer care.

In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), patients with actionable genomic alterations may derive additional clinical benefit from targeted treatment compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Current guidelines recommend extensive testing with next generation sequencing (NGS) panels. We investigated the impact of using a targeted NGS panel (TruSight Tumor 15, Illumina) as reflex testing for NSCLC samples at a single institution. Molecular analysis examined 15 genes for hotspot mutation variants, including AKT1, BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2, FOXL2, GNA11, GNAQ, KIT, KRAS, MET, NRAS, PDGFRA, PIK3CA, RET and TP53 genes. Between February 2017 and October 2020, 1460 samples from 1395 patients were analyzed. 1201 patients (86.1%) had at least one variant identified, most frequently TP53 (47.5%), KRAS (32.2%) or EGFR (24.2%). Among these, 994 patients (71.3%) had clinically relevant variants eligible for treatment with approved therapies or clinical trial enrollment. The incremental cost of NGS beyond single gene testing (EGFR, ALK) was CAD $233 per case. Reflex upfront NGS identified at least one actionable variant in more than 70% of patients with NSCLC, with minimal increase in testing cost. Implementation of NGS panels remains essential as treatment paradigms continue to evolve.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tumor CBV is a prognostic and predictive marker for patients with gliomas. Tumor CBV can be measured noninvasively with different MR imaging techniques; however, it is not clear which of these techniques most closely reflects histologically-measured tumor CBV. Our aim was to investigate the correlations between dynamic contrast-enhanced and DSC-MR imaging parameters and immunohistochemistry in patients with gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients with a new diagnosis of glioma underwent a preoperative MR imaging examination with dynamic contrast-enhanced and DSC sequences. Unnormalized and normalized cerebral blood volume was obtained from DSC MR imaging. Two sets of plasma volume and volume transfer constant maps were obtained from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Plasma volume obtained from the phase-derived vascular input function and bookend T1 mapping (Vp_Φ) and volume transfer constant obtained from phase-derived vascular input function and bookend T1 mapping (K^trans_Φ) were determined. Plasma volume obtained from magnitude-derived vascular input function (Vp_SI) and volume transfer constant obtained from magnitude-derived vascular input function (K^trans_SI) were acquired, without T1 mapping. Using CD34 staining, we measured microvessel density and microvessel area within 3 representative areas of the resected tumor specimen. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for differences according to grade and degree of enhancement. The Spearman correlation was performed to determine the relationship between dynamic contrast-enhanced and DSC parameters and histopathologic measurements. RESULTS: Microvessel area, microvessel density, dynamic contrast-enhanced, and DSC-MR imaging parameters varied according to the grade and degree of enhancement (P < .05). A strong correlation was found between microvessel area and Vp_Φ and between microvessel area and unnormalized blood volume (r_s ≥ 0.61). A moderate correlation was found between microvessel area and normalized blood volume, microvessel area and Vp_SI, microvessel area and K^trans_Φ, microvessel area and K^trans_SI, microvessel density and Vp_Φ, microvessel density and unnormalized blood volume, and microvessel density and normalized blood volume (0.44 ≤ r_s ≤ 0.57). A weaker correlation was found between microvessel density and K^trans_Φ and between microvessel density and K^trans_SI (r_s ≤ 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: With dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, use of a phase-derived vascular input function and bookend T1 mapping improves the correlation between immunohistochemistry and plasma volume, but not between immunohistochemistry and the volume transfer constant. With DSC-MR imaging, normalization of tumor CBV could decrease the correlation with microvessel area.

Liquid biopsy is rapidly becoming an indispensable tool in the oncologist’s arsenal; however, this technique remains elusive in a publicly funded healthcare system, and real-world evidence is needed to demonstrate utility and feasibility. Here, we describe the first experience of an in-house point of care liquid biopsy program at a Canadian community hospital. A retrospective review of consecutive cases that underwent plasma-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) was conducted. Liquid biopsy was initiated at the discretion of clinicians. Sequencing followed a point of care workflow using the Genexus™ integrated sequencer and the Oncomine precision assay, performed by histotechnologists. Results were reported by the attending pathologist. Eligible charts were reviewed for outcomes of interest, including the intent of the liquid biopsy, results of the liquid biopsy, and turnaround time from blood draw to results available. A total of 124 cases, with confirmed or suspected cancer, underwent liquid biopsy between January 2021 and November 2023. The median turnaround time for liquid biopsy results was 3 business days (range 1–12 days). The sensitivity of liquid biopsies was 71%, compared to tissue testing in cases with matched tissue results available for comparison. Common mutations included EGFR (29%), in 86 lung cancer patients, and PIK3CA (22%), identified in 13 breast cancer patients. Healthcare providers ordered liquid biopsies to inform diagnostic investigations and treatment decisions, and to determine progression or resistance mechanisms, as these reasons often overlapped. This study demonstrates that rapid in-house liquid biopsy using point of care methodology is feasible. The technique facilitates precision treatment and offers many additional advantages for cancer care.

Standard molecular testing for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Canadian publicly funded health system includes single gene testing for EGFR, ALK, and ROS-1. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) may broaden treatment options for patients. This study examined the impact of CGP in a publicly funded health system. Consenting patients with stage IV NSCLC without known targetable alterations underwent CGP on diagnostic samples. Patients that had progressed on targeted therapy were also eligible. The CGP assay was a hybrid capture next generation sequencing (NGS) panel (Oncomine Comprehensive Assay Version 3, ThermoFisher). The number of actionable alterations, changes in treatment, clinical trial eligibility and costs as a result of CGP were evaluated and patient willingness-to-pay. Of 182 screened patients,134 (74%) had successful CGP testing. Twenty percent had received prior targeted therapy. Incremental actionable alterations were identified in 31% of patients. The most common novel targets identified were mutations in ERBB2 (exon 20 insertions), MET (exon 14 skipping) and KRAS (G12C). At data cut off (31/12/2020), 16% of patients had a change in treatment as a result of CGP. Additional clinical trial options were identified for 75% of patients. The incremental direct laboratory cost for CGP beyond public reimbursement for single gene tests was $747 CAD/case. CGP identifies additional actionable targets beyond single gene tests with a direct impact on patient treatment and increased clinical trial eligibility. These benefits highlight the value of CGP in patients with NSCLC in public health systems.

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors across cancer programs has created the need for standardized patient assessment, education, monitoring, and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, a practical step-wise approach detailing the implementation of cancer immunotherapy in routine practice was developed. The approach focuses on four key steps: (1) identification of patient educators; (2) development of patient education materials; (3) development of patient monitoring tools; (4) involvement and education of multidisciplinary teams. Here, we provide an in-depth description of what was included in each step and how we integrated the different elements of the program. For each step, resources, tools, and materials that may be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and multidisciplinary teams were developed or modified based on existing materials. At our centre, the program led to improved patient comprehension of irAEs, the ability to act on symptoms (patient self-efficacy), and low rates of emergency room visits at first presentation for irAEs. We recognize that centres may need to tailor the approaches to their institutional policies and encourage centres to adapt and modify the forms and tools according to their needs and requirements.