Content uploaded by Bernd Tischer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bernd Tischer on Dec 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
advanced NSCLC
LBA2 PR EGFR MUTATION TESTING AND ONCOLOGIST
TREATMENT CHOICE IN ADVANCED NSCLC: GLOBAL
TRENDS AND DIFFERENCES
J. Spicer1, B. Tischer2, M. Peters3
1
Research Oncology Offices, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK
2
Kantar Health, Munich, Germany
3
Respiratory Medicine, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, Australia
Aim: IASLC guidelines recommend EGFRmutation testing shouldbe performed at
diagnosis of advanced NSCLC (except for SCC) and resultsshould guide treatment
decisions. This is important as recent datahas shown that matching mutations to specific
TKI treatmentcan improve overall survival(OS). Our aim was to assess the prevalence of
mutation testing, attitudes and barriersto testing, and how results affect choice of therapy.
Methods: We conducted an online representative survey of 562 oncologists in 10
countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, UK and
USA) between December 2014 and January 2015.
Results: Oncologists reported that EGFR mutation testing was requested prior to first
line therapy in 81% of stage IIIb/IV NSCLC patients. Separate from histology, the main
reasons for not testing were insufficient tissue, poor performance status (PS) and long
turnaround time. PS rarely prevented testing in Asia, compared to North America and
Europe. Mutation test results were available before administration offirst line therapy
in 77% of patients who were tested, with significant differences between countries
(range: 51% in France to 89% in Japan; p < .001). 80% of patients with mutations (M+)
were treated with TKIs (range: 60% in Canada to 91% in Taiwan). 23% of oncologists
do not consider EGFR mutation subtypes in making treatment decisions. In contrast,
49% reported that their decision, including specific TKI selection, is affected by the
mutation detected. 75% of oncologists stated that a clinically relevant increase in OS is
very important when choosing a first line therapy for EGFR M+ NSCLC.
Conclusions: There is incomplete implementation of guidelines for identification and
treatment of EGFR M+ NSCLC. Practices vary between countries and regions. Simple
barriers such as timely delivery of test results should be addressed. The reasons for
many EGFR M+ patients in some countries still receiving first line chemotherapy need
to be understood, especially as recent data shows OS benefit with specific TKI
treatment matched to mutation type. Oncologist education and closer guideline
concordance should improve outcomes.
Disclosure: J. Spicer: I have received payments not exceeding the cost of research for
clinical trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, served on advisory boards, and received
speaker fees from the company. B. Tischer: I do not have any personal financial interest
in products or processes involved in the research which was performed by Kantar
Health and funded by a pharmaceutical company. M. Peters: I do not haveany
personal financial interest in products or processes involved in the research. I have
previously received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim for development and
delivery of CME in unrelated therapy areas.
© European Society for Medical Oncology 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Lung Cancer Conference (ELCC) 2015 organisers.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
abstracts
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv128.4
Annals of Oncology 26 (Supplement 1): i57–i61, 2015
by guest on December 7, 2016http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from