The use, safety and effectiveness of crizotinib as part of the management of ROS1-rearranged NSCLC patients in a real-world Canadian clinical cohort was the focus of this retrospective review. Twenty-one ROS1-rearranged patients with advanced/metastatic disease receiving crizotinib between 2014–2020 were identified; crizotinib demonstrated tolerability and effectiveness in this population where outcomes were similar to those described in other crizotinib-treated real-world cohorts, but lower than those of the PROFILE 1001 clinical trial population. Systemic anti-cancer therapy prior to crizotinib initiation occurred in half of the study cohort, with platin-pemetrexed and immune checkpoint inhibitors being most common. Platin-pemetrexed showed good effectiveness in this cohort, but despite high prevalence of upregulated PD-L1 expression, immune checkpoint inhibitors showed poor effectiveness in his cohort. Among all systemic therapies received, crizotinib showed the most effective disease control, although longer intervals between diagnosis and crizotinib initiation were more common among those showing a lack of clinical response to crizotinib, and patients with brain metastases at the time of crizotinib initiation also showed increased diagnosis to crizotinib initiation intervals and decreased clinical response to crizotinib. This study reveals crizotinib has clinical benefit, but timely identification of ROS1-rearrangements and initiation targeted therapies appears important to maximize outcome in this population.

(1) Background: As genomic testing is becoming a part of the mainstream oncology practice, it is vital to ensure that our patients fully understand the implications of these tests. This study aimed to compare the attitudes and expectations of cancer patients with those of their physicians regarding the role of biomarker testing in clinical decision making. (2) Methods: Two separate, complimentary, self-administered questionnaires for patients with cancer and their physicians, respectively, were collected in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Out of 117, 113 completed patient surveys were included in the statistical analysis, constituting a 96.4% response rate. These surveys were subsequently matched with those of their corresponding oncologists to determine the concordance rates. (3) Results: Overall, patients demonstrated a good understanding of general cancer biology (80.0%) and diagnostic processes (90.0%) associated with precision oncology. Most patients wanted their tumours to be tested to guide treatment, and the oncologists broadly shared these views (concordance 65.1%). However, there were discrepancies between the knowledge and expectations regarding the applications of test results on actual diagnosis and prognosis between patients and their oncologists (concordance 26.1% and 36.0%, respectively). While only 28.0% of patients thought they had enough knowledge to make informed decisions, the majority (68.0%) said they needed more information. (4) Conclusion: Our study shows that patients and cancer physicians do not always agree with the roles and applications of genomic tests, which could lead to misplaced expectations and poor health outcomes. More research is needed to devise strategies to improve education and communication to align these expectations and improve the quality of clinical decision making.