The Cancer Genomics Resource List 2014.

CONTEXT: Genomic sequencing for cancer is offered by commercial for-profit laboratories, independent laboratory networks, and laboratories in academic medical centers and integrated health networks. The variability among the tests has created a complex, confusing environment. OBJECTIVE: To address the complexity, the Personalized Health Care (PHC) Committee of the College of American Pathologists proposed the development of a cancer genomics resource list (CGRL). The goal of this resource was to assist the laboratory pathology and clinical oncology communities. DESIGN: The PHC Committee established a working group in 2012 to address this goal. The group consisted of site-specific experts in cancer genetic sequencing. The group identified current next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based cancer tests and compiled them into a usable resource. The genes were annotated by the working group. The annotation process drew on published knowledge, including public databases and the medical literature. RESULTS: The compiled list includes NGS panels offered by 19 laboratories or vendors, accompanied by annotations. The list has 611 different genes for which NGS-based mutation testing is offered. Surprisingly, of these 611 genes, 0 genes were listed in every panel, 43 genes were listed in 4 panels, and 54 genes were listed in 3 panels. In addition, tests for 393 genes were offered by only 1 or 2 institutions. Table 1 provides an example of gene mutations offered for breast cancer genomic testing with the annotation as it appears in the CGRL 2014. CONCLUSIONS: The final product, referred to as the Cancer Genomics Resource List 2014, is available as supplemental digital content.

The business of genomic testing: a survey of early adopters.

PURPOSE: The practice of "genomic" (or "personalized") medicine requires the availability of appropriate diagnostic testing. Our study objective was to identify the reasons for health systems to bring next-generation sequencing into their clinical laboratories and to understand the process by which such decisions were made. Such information may be of value to other health systems seeking to provide next-generation sequencing testing to their patient populations. METHODS: A standardized open-ended interview was conducted with the laboratory medical directors and/or department of pathology chairs of 13 different academic institutions in 10 different states. RESULTS: Genomic testing for cancer dominated the institutional decision making, with three primary reasons: more effective delivery of cancer care, the perceived need for institutional leadership in the field of genomics, and the premise that genomics will eventually be cost-effective. Barriers to implementation included implementation cost; the time and effort needed to maintain this newer testing; challenges in interpreting genetic variants; establishing the bioinformatics infrastructure; and curating data from medical, ethical, and legal standpoints. Ultimate success depended on alignment with institutional strengths and priorities and working closely with institutional clinical programs. CONCLUSION: These early adopters uniformly viewed genomic analysis as an imperative for developing their expertise in the implementation and practice of genomic medicine.