Abstract 927P
Background
Despite guidelines, the uptake of molecular testing and Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) in the community has not been uniformed. The barriers still need to be diagnosed to overcome awareness issues and confusions about testing strategies and decision-making although the evidence-based criteria of ESCAT or OncoKB has been defined.Our study aims to determine for the first time the real-world impact of routine incorporation of molecular tests among Turkish Oncologists across all types of cancer in the context of identification of gaps.
Methods
We conducted this study among the members of TSMO. The survey was carried out on a voluntary basis and sent to all members and of the 450 oncologists, 102 participated. Community-based questionnaire (including 12 questions) is designated to analyze real-world clinical practice of molecular testing including the CGP.
Results
Most of the respondents (97%) reported successful implementation of molecular tests that were ordered for the patients having 90 % of whom had advanced stage and 96 % of oncologists find the effect of testing on the treatment decision is beneficial. On the other hand 58% of participants were not satisfies with the results and and feel that re-testing was necessary. Even though 56 % of the test results were clinically interpreted, non-homogenized and low level of evidence based criteria was used (40 % ESCAT or 25% OncoKB) in the reporting which was one of the most important gap.
Conclusions
Genomic profiling is not only a diagnostic test but predicts any treatment for any cancer. Although these tests can be life saving, they may be time and money consuming when not used rationally in developing countries like Turkey that has high population of cancer patients. Therefore more young/older oncologists should have access to these tests on time and be equipped to evaluate the widespread and commonly accepted reports correctly. We all oncologist should be aware of drug company directed policies controlling both diagnosis and also treatments in cancer at the same time, so both ESMO and TSMO should feel the responsibility for training oncologists against irrational reporting of genomic tests.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.