96P - Physician perceptions and the evolving landscape of next generation sequencing (NGS) use across EU4+UK

Background

Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) enables comprehensive genomic profiling of tumours, identifying mutations, gene fusions, and other alterations driving cancer. This information is critical for selecting targeted therapies and improving treatment outcomes. However, full uptake of NGS is hindered by various barriers. This study evaluates real-world data across EU4+UK, analysing trends in testing preference, comfort with NGS reports, NGS use in clinical practice, and barriers to testing.

Methods

Data were collected online from the Ipsos Oncology Molecular Diagnostics Monitor in Q3 2022, Q3 2023 and Q1 2024, from a panel of oncologists and pathologists across France, Germany, Italy, Spain +UK (Q3’22, n= 455; Q3’23, n= 436; Q1’24, n= 384); roughly equal split across regions). Participants were screened for seniority and caseload and answered perceptual questions regarding NGS testing in NSCLC and bladder cancer.

Results

A greater proportion of oncologists cite comfort using / understanding NGS report content from Q3’22 to Q1’24 (46% vs. 69%). The data also shows physicians are increasingly testing their NSCLC patients for NGS: 49% of physician-cited patients/samples tested in Q3’22 vs. 60% in Q1’24). Although reported rates of NGS testing is lower in their bladder cancer cohort, it has also increased over time (32% in Q3’22 vs 44% in Q1’24). Despite a preference for NGS, in 17% of cases in Q1’24, pathologists cite equipment/technology issues and false results in 14% of cases affecting testing. Barriers reported by oncologists remain consistent from Q3’23 to Q1’24, with insufficient samples, slow turn-around times, and insurance coverage being the main obstacles for tissue testing; insurance coverage, limited access, and slow turn-around times are primary barriers for liquid biopsy testing. Country differences exist.

Conclusions

While the uptake and preference for NGS testing are increasing among physicians, significant barriers need to be addressed to fully realise the benefits of NGS in clinical practice. Addressing these barriers could enhance the adoption and efficacy of NGS, ultimately improving patient outcomes. Further research using comparator data is warranted.

Editorial acknowledgement

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Ipsos.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

The author has declared no conflicts of interest.