Search

Benjamin Q Duong,1 Meghan J Arwood,2 J Kevin Hicks,3 Amber L Beitelshees,4 Francesco Franchi,5 John T Houder,2 Nita A Limdi,6 Kelsey J Cook,7,8 Aniwaa Owusu Obeng,9 Natasha Petry,10 Sony Tuteja,11 Amanda R Elsey,2 Larisa H Cavallari,2 Kristin Wiisanen2 on behalf of the IGNITE Network1Department of Precision Medicine, Nemours/Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE, USA; 2Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research and Center for Pharmacogenomics & Precision Medicine, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, FL, USA; 3Department of Individualized Cancer Management, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; 4Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 5Department of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA; 6University of Alabama School at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA; 7Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Jacksonville, FL, USA; 8Department of Precision Medicine, Nemours Children’s Specialty Care, Jacksonville, FL, USA; 9The Charles Bronfman Institute for Personalized Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; 10Department of Pharmacy Practice, North Dakota State University College of Health Professions, Fargo, ND, USA; 11Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USACorrespondence: Kristin WiisanenDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research and Center for Pharmacogenomics & Precision Medicine, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, P.O. Box 100486, Gainesville, FL 32610-0486, USATel +1 352-273-5114Email kwiisanen@cop.ufl.eduIntroduction: Clinical adoption of genomic medicine has lagged behind the pace of scientific discovery. Practice-based resources can help overcome implementation challenges.Methods: In 2015, the IGNITE (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE) Network created an online genomic medicine implementation resource toolbox that was expanded in 2017 to incorporate the ability for users to create targeted implementation guides. This expansion was led by a multidisciplinary team that developed an evidence-based, structured framework for the guides, oversaw the technical process/build, and pilot tested the first guide, CYP2C19-Clopidogrel Testing Implementation.Results: Sixty-five resources were collected from 12 institutions and categorized according to a seven-step implementation framework for the pilot CYP2C19-Clopidogrel Testing Implementation Guide. Five months after its launch, 96 CYP2C19-Clopidogrel Testing Implementation Guides had been created. Eighty percent of the resources most frequently selected by users were created by IGNITE to fill an identified resource gap. Resources most often included in guides were from the test reimbursement (22%), Implementation support gathering (22%), EHR integration (17%), and genetic testing workflow steps (17%).Conclusion: Lessons learned from this implementation guide development process provide insight for prioritizing development of future resources and support the value of collaborative efforts to create resources for genomic medicine implementation.Keywords: pharmacogenomics, CYP2C19, clopidogrel, implementation, precision medicine, personalized medicine, clinical pharmacogenomics, CYP2D6

The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines for HLA-B Genotype and Abacavir Dosing were originally published in April 2012. We reviewed recent literature and concluded that none of the evidence would change the therapeutic recommendations in the original guideline; therefore, the original publication remains clinically current. However, we have updated the Supplementary Material online and included additional resources for applying CPIC guidelines to the electronic health record. Up-to-date information can be found at PharmGKB (http://www.pharmgkb.org).

Background: Limited data are available regarding the anticancer activity of PARP inhibitors (PARPis) in pancreatic cancer with mutations in HRR genes other than BRCA and PALB2 ., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of 48 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer harboring pathogenic germline and/or somatic HRR mutations who were treated with PARPis., Results: Thirty patients had germline (g)HRR mutations only, twelve had somatic (s)HRR mutations only, and six had concomitant gHRR and sHRR mutations. The objective response rate (ORR) was 22%. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and overall survival (mOS) were 6.9 and 11.5 months, respectively. Five patients received olaparib in the front-line setting due to borderline performance status. Their ORR was 20%, and their mPFS and mOS were both 11.3 months. The ORR was higher in patients with BRCA or PALB2 mutations (germline or somatic) than in those with non- BRCA / PALB2 mutations. Patients with somatic non- BRCA / PALB2 variants had a shorter mPFS. Patients with concomitant gHRR/sHRR mutations or gHRR mutations alone had a significantly longer mPFS than those with sHRR mutations only., Conclusions: PARP inhibitors may be considered for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer harboring pathogenic alterations of BRCA who cannot tolerate standard chemotherapy. Maintenance PARPis can be considered in selected patients with non- BRCA /non- PALB2 HRR mutations.

Pharmacogenetics promises to optimize treatment-related outcomes by informing optimal drug selection and dosing based on an individual's genotype in conjunction with other important clinical factors. Despite significant evidence of genetic associations with drug response, pharmacogenetic testing has not been widely implemented into clinical practice. Among the barriers to broad implementation are limited guidance for how to successfully integrate testing into clinical workflows and limited data on outcomes with pharmacogenetic implementation in clinical practice. The Pharmacogenomics Global Research Network Implementation Working Group seeks to engage institutions globally that have implemented pharmacogenetic testing into clinical practice or are in the process or planning stages of implementing testing to collectively disseminate data on implementation strategies, metrics, and health-related outcomes with the use of genotype-guided drug therapy to ultimately help advance pharmacogenetic implementation. This paper describes the goals, structure, and initial projects of the group in addition to implementation priorities across sites and future collaborative opportunities., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study describes the validation of a clinical RNA expression panel with evaluation of concordance between gene copy gain by a next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay and high gene expression by an RNA expression panel. The RNA Salah Targeted Expression Panel (RNA STEP) was designed with input from oncologists to include 204 genes with utility for clinical trial prescreening and therapy selection. RNA STEP was validated with the nanoString platform using remnant formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded-derived RNA from 102 patients previously tested with a validated clinical NGS panel. The repeatability, reproducibility, and concordance of RNA STEP results with NGS results were evaluated. RNA STEP demonstrated high repeatability and reproducibility, with excellent correlation (r > 0.97, P < 0.0001) for all comparisons. Comparison of RNA STEP high gene expression (log2 ratio ≥ 2) versus NGS DNA-based gene copy number gain (copies ≥ 5) for 38 mutually covered genes revealed an accuracy of 93.0% with a positive percentage agreement of 69.4% and negative percentage agreement of 93.8%. Moderate correlation was observed between platforms (r = 0.53, P < 0.0001). Concordance between high gene expression and gene copy number gain varied by specific gene, and some genes had higher accuracy between assays. Clinical implementation of RNA STEP provides gene expression data complementary to NGS and offers a tool for prescreening patients for clinical trials., Competing Interests: Disclosure Statement T.A.B. and J.M.K. have a contract with Bristol Myers Squibb unrelated to this research. E.B.H. consults for Revolution Medicines, Janssen, Ellipses Pharma, Amgen, Kanaph Therapeutics, and ORI Capital, and holds a patent for protein-protein interactions as biomarkers; and research funding from Janssen, Novartis, Revolution Medicines, AstraZeneca, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech, all unrelated to this research. A.N.S. has clinical trial funding to his institution from AstraZeneca, BioAtla, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lily, Genentech, Genmab, Memgen, Mersana, Novartis, and Turning Point Therapeutics; and has participated in advisory boards for Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, and Zymeworks, all unrelated to this research., (Copyright © 2024 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency are at high risk for severe and fatal toxicity from fluoropyrimidine (FP) chemotherapy. Pre-treatment DPYD testing is standard of care in many countries, but not the United States (US). This survey assessed pre-treatment DPYD testing approaches in the US to identify best practices for broader adoption., Methods: From August to October 2023, a 22-item Qualtrics XM survey was sent to institutions and clinicians known to conduct pre-treatment DPYD testing and broadly distributed through relevant organizations and social networks. Responses were analyzed using descriptive analysis., Results: Responses from 24 unique US sites that have implemented pre-treatment DPYD testing or have a detailed implementation plan in place were analyzed. Only 33% of sites ordered DPYD testing for all FP-treated patients; at the remaining sites, patients were tested depending on disease characteristics or clinician preference. Almost 50% of sites depend on individual clinicians to remember to order testing without the assistance of electronic alerts or workflow reminders. DPYD testing was most often conducted by commercial laboratories that tested for at least the four or five DPYD variants considered clinically actionable. Approximately 90% of sites reported receiving results within 10 days of ordering., Conclusion: Implementing DPYD testing into routine clinical practice is feasible and requires a coordinated effort among the healthcare team. These results will be used to develop best practices for the clinical adoption of DPYD testing to prevent severe and fatal toxicity in cancer patients receiving FP chemotherapy., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Pharmacogenomics is a growing area of medicine, and pharmacists across clinical practice settings have the opportunity to individualize medication selection and dosing using genetic data. However, many practicing pharmacists may feel ill-equipped to interpret pharmacogenomic test results because of insufficient education and training. Evidence-based, updated, and freely available resources such as the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines can help pharmacists interpret and apply pharmacogenomic test results to patient care. Although gaps for the application of pharmacogenomic information exist, this commentary aims to demystify the interpretation of pharmacogenomic test results and empower pharmacists to apply genetic data alongside other clinical variables to optimize medication-related outcomes for their patients. An "ABCD" framework is proposed to guide pharmacists through the steps: (1) A ctionability - Are the gene(s) clinically relevant for the patient? (2) B e Mindful of Limitations - What are the caveats with pharmacogenomic test results and reports? (3) C linical Practice Guidelines - How do you use pharmacogenomic test results to guide clinical decision-making? and (4) D ocument and Discuss - How do you educate the patient about their pharmacogenomic test results and document the results for future use? Key concepts are illustrated using a psychiatric patient case example., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest K.E.C., J.M.H., and R.S.G. are all partly funded by the National Institutes of Health for CPIC (U24HG010135). Dr. Caudle is a member of the JACCP editorial board.

Background: Germline pathogenic variants in CHEK2 are associated with a moderate increase in the lifetime risk for breast cancer. Increased risk for other cancers, including non-medullary thyroid cancer (NMTC), has also been suggested. To date, data implicating CHEK2 variants in NMTC predisposition primarily derive from studies within Poland, driven by a splice site variant (c.444 + 1G>A) that is uncommon in other populations. In contrast, the predominant CHEK2 variants in non-Polish populations are c.1100del and c.470T>C/p.I157T, representing 61.1% and 63.8%, respectively, of all CHEK2 pathogenic variants in two large U.S.-based commercial laboratory datasets. To further delineate the impact of common CHEK2 variants on thyroid cancer, we aimed to investigate the association of three CHEK2 founder variants (c.444 + 1G>A, c.1100del, and c.470T>C/p.Ile157Thr) on NMTC susceptibility in three groups of unselected NMTC patients. Methods: The presence of three CHEK2 founder variants was assessed within three groups: (1) 1544 NMTC patients (and 1593 controls) from previously published genome-wide association study (GWAS) analyses, (2) 789 NMTC patients with germline exome sequencing (Oncology Research Information Exchange Network [ORIEN] Avatar), and (3) 499 NMTC patients with germline sequence data available in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). A case-control study design was utilized with odds ratios (ORs) calculated by comparison of all three groups with the Ohio State University GWAS control group. Results: The predominant Polish variant (c.444 + 1G>A) was present in only one case. The proportion of patients with c.1100del was 0.92% in the GWAS group, 1.65% in the ORIEN Avatar group, and 0.80% in the TCGA group. The ORs (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for NMTC associated with c.1100del were 1.71 (0.73-4.29), 2.64 (0.95-7.63), and 2.5 (0.63-8.46), respectively. The proportion of patients with c.470T>C/p.I157T was 0.91% in the GWAS group, 0.76% in the ORIEN Avatar group, and 0.80% in the TCGA group, respectively. The ORs (with CIs) for NMTC associated with c.470T>C/p.I157T were 1.75 (0.74-4.39), 1.52 (0.42-4.96), and 2.31 (0.58-7.90), respectively. Conclusions: Our analyses of unselected patients with NMTC suggest that CHEK2 variants c.1100del and c.470T>C/p.I157T have only a modest impact on thyroid cancer risk. These results provide important information for providers regarding the relatively low magnitude of thyroid cancer risk associated with these CHEK2 variants.

The epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFR, is frequently activated in lung cancer and glioblastoma by genomic alterations including missense mutations. The different mutation spectra in these diseases are reflected in divergent responses to EGFR inhibition: significant patient benefit in lung cancer, but limited in glioblastoma. Here, we report a comprehensive mutational analysis of EGFR function. We perform saturation mutagenesis of EGFR and assess function of ~22,500 variants in a human EGFR-dependent lung cancer cell line. This approach reveals enrichment of erlotinib-insensitive variants of known and unknown significance in the dimerization, transmembrane, and kinase domains. Multiple EGFR extracellular domain variants, not associated with approved targeted therapies, are sensitive to afatinib and dacomitinib in vitro. Two glioblastoma patients with somatic EGFR G598V dimerization domain mutations show responses to dacomitinib treatment followed by within-pathway resistance mutation in one case. In summary, this comprehensive screen expands the landscape of functional EGFR variants and suggests broader clinical investigation of EGFR inhibition for cancers harboring extracellular domain mutations., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: Successful treatment with tacrolimus to prevent graft versus host disease (GVHD) and minimize tacrolimus-related toxicities among allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) recipients is contingent upon quickly achieving and maintaining concentrations within a narrow therapeutic range. The primary objective was to investigate associations between CYP3A4, CYP3A5 or ABCB1 genotype and the proportion of patients that attained an initial tacrolimus goal concentration following initiation of intravenous (iv.) and conversion to oral administration. Materials & methods: We retrospectively evaluated 86 patients who underwent HLA-matched (8/8) related donor alloHCT and were prescribed a tacrolimus-based regimen for GVHD prophylaxis. Results & conclusion: The findings of the present study suggests that CYP3A5 genotype may impact attainment of initial therapeutic tacrolimus concentrations with oral administration in alloHCT recipients.

Introduction: The CYP2D6 enzyme metabolizes opioids commonly prescribed for cancer-related pain, and CYP2D6 polymorphisms may contribute to variability in opioid response. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing for patients with cancer and reported pilot outcome data., Methods: Adult patients from two cancer centers were prospectively enrolled into a hybrid implementation-effectiveness clinical trial and randomized to CYP2D6-genotype-guided opioid selection, with clinical recommendations, or usual care. Implementation metrics, including provider response, medication changes consistent with recommendations, and patient-reported pain and symptom scores at baseline and up to 8 weeks, were assessed., Results: Most (87/114, 76%) patients approached for the study agreed to participate. Of 85 patients randomized, 71% were prescribed oxycodone at baseline. The median (range) time to receive CYP2D6 test results was 10 (3-37) days; 24% of patients had physicians acknowledge genotype results in a clinic note. Among patients with CYP2D6-genotype-guided recommendations to change therapy (n = 11), 18% had a change congruent with recommendations. Among patients who completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires (n = 48), there was no difference in change in mean composite pain score (-1.01 ± 2.1 vs. -0.41 ± 2.5; p = 0.19) or symptom severity at last follow-up (3.96 ± 2.18 vs. 3.47 ± 1.78; p = 0.63) between the usual care arm (n = 26) and genotype-guided arm (n = 22), respectively., Conclusion: Our study revealed high acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing as part of a clinical trial among patients with cancer pain. However, provider response to genotype-guided recommendations was low, impacting assessment of pain-related outcomes. Addressing barriers to utility of pharmacogenetics results and clinical recommendations will be critical for implementation success., (© 2023 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Fluoropyrimidine (FP) chemotherapy is associated with severe, life-threatening toxicities, particularly among patients who carry deleterious germline variants in the DPYD gene. Pretreatment DPYD testing is standard of care throughout most of Europe; however, it has not been recommended in clinical practice guidelines in the United States. Due to increased risk of severe toxicity, a Citizen's Petition asked the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to update language in FP drug labels to recommend DPYD testing as part of a boxed warning and recommend FP dose reduction in patients carrying deleterious germline variants. In response, the FDA updated the capecitabine package insert to inform patients about the toxicity risk and test availability and consider DPYD testing. However, the FDA did not include a testing recommendation or requirement, or a boxed warning. Additionally, the FDA did not recommend FP dose adjustment in DPYD variant carriers. This review provides a critical assessment of the DPYD-FP pharmacogenetic association using the FDA's previously published Pharmacogenetic Pyramid, demonstrating that the evidence is compelling for recommending DPYD testing prior to FP treatment. Additionally, the FDA's stated concerns about recommending DPYD testing and DPYD-guided FP dose adjustment are addressed and discussed in the context of the FDA's other genetic testing and dose adjustment recommendations. We call on the FDA to follow our European counterparts in recommending DPYD testing and genotype-based dose adjustment to ensure patients with cancer receive safe and effective FP chemotherapy., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Precision medicine has revolutionized clinical care for patients with cancer through the development of targeted therapy, identification of inherited cancer predisposition syndromes and the use of pharmacogenetics to optimize pharmacotherapy for anticancer drugs and supportive care medications. While germline (patient) and somatic (tumor) genomic testing have evolved separately, recent interest in paired germline/somatic testing has led to an increase in integrated genomic testing workflows. However, paired germline/somatic testing has generally lacked the incorporation of germline pharmacogenomics. Integrating pharmacogenomics into paired germline/somatic genomic testing would be an efficient method for increasing access to pharmacogenomic testing. In this perspective, the authors argue for the benefits of implementing a comprehensive approach integrating somatic and germline testing that is inclusive of pharmacogenomics in clinical practice.

Molecular modifiers of KRASG12C inhibitor (KRASG12Ci) efficacy in advanced KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC are poorly defined. In a large unbiased clinicogenomic analysis of 424 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we identified and validated coalterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as major independent determinants of inferior clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy. Collectively, comutations in these three tumor suppressor genes segregated patients into distinct prognostic subgroups and captured ∼50% of those with early disease progression (progression-free survival ≤3 months) with KRASG12Ci. Pathway-level integration of less prevalent coalterations in functionally related genes nominated PI3K/AKT/MTOR pathway and additional baseline RAS gene alterations, including amplifications, as candidate drivers of inferior outcomes with KRASG12Ci, and revealed a possible association between defective DNA damage response/repair and improved KRASG12Ci efficacy. Our findings propose a framework for patient stratification and clinical outcome prediction in KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC that can inform rational selection and appropriate tailoring of emerging combination therapies., Significance: In this work, we identify co-occurring genomic alterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as independent determinants of poor clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy in advanced NSCLC, and we propose a framework for patient stratification and treatment personalization based on the comutational status of individual tumors. See related commentary by Heng et al., p. 1513. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1501., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; i.e., citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (i.e., desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, and venlafaxine), and serotonin modulators with SSRI-like properties (i.e., vilazodone and vortioxetine) are primary pharmacologic treatments for major depressive and anxiety disorders. Genetic variation in CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP2B6 influences the metabolism of many of these antidepressants, which may potentially affect dosing, efficacy, and tolerability. In addition, the pharmacodynamic genes SLC6A4 (serotonin transporter) and HTR2A (serotonin-2A receptor) have been examined in relation to efficacy and side effect profiles of these drugs. This guideline updates and expands the 2015 Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes and SSRI dosing and summarizes the impact of CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP2B6, SLC6A4, and HTR2A genotypes on antidepressant dosing, efficacy, and tolerability. We provide recommendations for using CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP2B6 genotype results to help inform prescribing these antidepressants and describe the existing data for SLC6A4 and HTR2A, which do not support their clinical use in antidepressant prescribing., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2023 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are highly effective for treatment of EGFR- or ALK -mutated lung cancer. Nevertheless, they are associated with several unique toxicities. Although the available US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug label can provide guidance for safety monitoring, its integration into clinical practice has not been previously described. We studied the conduct of safety monitoring activity (SMA) at a large academic institution. On the basis of FDA-approved drug labels, two drug-specific SMAs were identified for osimertinib, crizotinib, alectinib, or lorlatinib. Electronic medical records of patients initiated on these drugs from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Each course of treatment was evaluated for the occurrence of SMAs and the corresponding adverse events. Analyses included 130 treatment courses from 111 unique patients. For each SMA evaluated, the prevalence of SMA conduct ranged from 10.0% to 84.6%. The most frequently conducted SMA was ECG for lorlatinib therapy and the least was creatine phosphokinase analysis for alectinib. We observed none of the assessed SMAs being conducted in 41 treatment courses (31.5%). EGFR inhibitor predicted a higher likelihood of both SMAs being conducted than ALK inhibitors ( P = .02). Serious, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 21 treatment courses (16.2%), including one grade 4 transaminitis related to alectinib. On the basis of our experience, the conduct of SMA was more challenging to implement for ALK inhibitor than for EGFR inhibitor. Clinicians should be vigilant and review the FDA-approved drug label before prescribing.

The development of targeted therapies over the past two decades has led to a dramatic change in the management of EGFR -mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there are currently five approved EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for treating EGFR -mutant NSCLC in the first-line setting, therapy selection after progression on EGFR TKIs remains complex. Multiple groups are investigating novel therapies and drug combinations to determine the optimal therapy and treatment sequence for these patients. In this review, we summarize the landmark trials and history of the approval of EGFR TKIs, their efficacy and tolerability, and the role of these therapies in patients with central nervous system metastasis. We also briefly discuss the mechanisms of resistance to EGFR TKIs, ongoing attempts to overcome resistance and improve outcomes, and finalize by offering treatment sequencing recommendations.

Background: Despite the increased demand for pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing to guide antidepressant use, little is known about how to implement testing in clinical practice. Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a stated preferences technique for determining the relative importance of alternative scenarios and is increasingly being used as a healthcare assessment tool, with potential applications in implementation research. We conducted a BWS experiment to evaluate the relative importance of implementation factors for PGx testing to guide antidepressant use., Methods: We surveyed 17 healthcare organizations that either had implemented or were in the process of implementing PGx testing for antidepressants. The survey included a BWS experiment to evaluate the relative importance of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs from the perspective of implementing sites., Results: Participating sites varied on their PGx testing platform and methods for returning recommendations to providers and patients, but they were consistent in ranking several CFIR constructs as most important for implementation: patient needs/resources, leadership engagement, intervention knowledge/beliefs, evidence strength and quality, and identification of champions., Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using choice experiments to systematically evaluate the relative importance of implementation determinants from the perspective of implementing organizations. BWS findings can inform other organizations interested in implementing PGx testing for mental health. Further, this study demonstrates the application of BWS to PGx, the findings of which may be used by other organizations to inform implementation of PGx testing for mental health disorders., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) comprises a heterogeneous collection of malignancies that are typically associated with a poor prognosis and a lack of effective treatment options. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical utility of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) among CUP patients to assist with diagnosis and identify opportunities for molecularly guided therapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with a CUP at Moffitt Cancer Center who underwent NGS between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019, were eligible for study inclusion. Next-generation sequencing results were assessed to determine the frequency of clinically actionable molecular alterations, and chart reviews were performed to ascertain the number of patients receiving molecularly guided therapy., Results: Ninety-five CUP patients were identified for analysis. Next-generation sequencing testing identified options for molecularly guided therapy for 55% (n = 52) of patients. Among patients with molecularly guided therapy options, 33% (n = 17) were prescribed a molecularly guided therapy. The median overall survival for those receiving molecularly guided therapy was 23.6 months. Among the evaluable patients, the median duration of treatment for CUP patients (n = 7) receiving molecular-guided therapy as a first-line therapy was 39 weeks. The median duration of treatment for CUP patients (n = 8) treated with molecularly guided therapy in the second- or later-line setting was 13 weeks. Next-generation sequencing results were found to be suggestive of a likely primary tumor type for 15% (n = 14) of patients., Conclusion: Next-generation sequencing results enabled the identification of treatment options in a majority of patients and assisted with the identification of a likely primary tumor type in a clinically meaningful subset of patients., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

There is growing interest in utilizing pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing to guide antidepressant use, but there is lack of clarity on how to implement testing into clinical practice. We administered two surveys at 17 sites that had implemented or were in the process of implementing PGx testing for antidepressants. Survey 1 collected data on the process and logistics of testing. Survey 2 asked sites to rank the importance of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs using best-worst scaling choice experiments. Of the 17 sites, 13 had implemented testing and four were in the planning stage. Thirteen offered testing in the outpatient setting, and nine in both outpatient/inpatient settings. PGx tests were mainly ordered by psychiatry (92%) and primary care (69%) providers. CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 were the most commonly tested genes. The justification for antidepressants selected for PGx guidance was based on Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines (94%) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; 75.6%) guidance. Both institutional (53%) and commercial laboratories (53%) were used for testing. Sites varied on the methods for returning results to providers and patients. Sites were consistent in ranking CFIR constructs and identified patient needs/resources, leadership engagement, intervention knowledge/beliefs, evidence strength and quality, and the identification of champions as most important for implementation. Sites deployed similar implementation strategies and measured similar outcomes. The process of implementing PGx testing to guide antidepressant therapy varied across sites, but key drivers for successful implementation were similar and may help guide other institutions interested in providing PGx-guided pharmacotherapy for antidepressant management., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Purpose: The increased availability of clinical pharmacogenetic (PGx) guidelines and decreasing costs for genetic testing have slowly led to increased utilization of PGx testing in clinical practice. Pre-emptive PGx testing, where testing is performed in advance of drug prescribing, is one means to ensure results are available at the time of prescribing decisions. However, the most efficient and effective methods to clinically implement this strategy remain unclear., Methods: In this report, we compare and contrast implementation strategies for pre-emptive PGx testing by 15 early-adopter institutions. We surveyed these groups, collecting data on testing approaches, team composition, and workflow dynamics, in addition to estimated third-party reimbursement rates., Results: We found that while pre-emptive PGx testing models varied across sites, institutions shared several commonalities, including methods to identify patients eligible for testing, involvement of a precision medicine clinical team in program leadership, and the implementation of pharmacogenes with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines available. Finally, while reimbursement rate data were difficult to obtain, the data available suggested that reimbursement rates for pre-emptive PGx testing remain low., Conclusion: These findings should inform the establishment of future implementation efforts at institutions considering a pre-emptive PGx testing program., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.)

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations typically occur in exons 18-21 and are established driver mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) 1-3 . Targeted therapies are approved for patients with 'classical' mutations and a small number of other mutations 4-6 . However, effective therapies have not been identified for additional EGFR mutations. Furthermore, the frequency and effects of atypical EGFR mutations on drug sensitivity are unknown 1,3,7-10 . Here we characterize the mutational landscape in 16,715 patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, and establish the structure-function relationship of EGFR mutations on drug sensitivity. We found that EGFR mutations can be separated into four distinct subgroups on the basis of sensitivity and structural changes that retrospectively predict patient outcomes following treatment with EGFR inhibitors better than traditional exon-based groups. Together, these data delineate a structure-based approach for defining functional groups of EGFR mutations that can effectively guide treatment and clinical trial choices for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and suggest that a structure-function-based approach may improve the prediction of drug sensitivity to targeted therapies in oncogenes with diverse mutations., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The value of utilizing a multigene pharmacogenetic panel to tailor pharmacotherapy is contingent on the prevalence of prescribed medications with an actionable pharmacogenetic association. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) has categorized over 35 gene-drug pairs as "level A," for which there is sufficiently strong evidence to recommend that genetic information be used to guide drug prescribing. The opportunity to use genetic information to tailor pharmacotherapy among adult patients was determined by elucidating the exposure to CPIC level A drugs among 11 Implementing Genomics In Practice Network (IGNITE)-affiliated health systems across the US. Inpatient and/or outpatient electronic-prescribing data were collected between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016 for patients ≥ 18 years of age who had at least one medical encounter that was eligible for drug prescribing in a calendar year. A median of ~ 7.2 million adult patients was available for assessment of drug prescribing per year. From 2011 to 2016, the annual estimated prevalence of exposure to at least one CPIC level A drug prescribed to unique patients ranged between 15,719 (95% confidence interval (CI): 15,658-15,781) in 2011 to 17,335 (CI: 17,283-17,386) in 2016 per 100,000 patients. The estimated annual exposure to at least 2 drugs was above 7,200 per 100,000 patients in most years of the study, reaching an apex of 7,660 (CI: 7,632-7,687) per 100,000 patients in 2014. An estimated 4,748 per 100,000 prescribing events were potentially eligible for a genotype-guided intervention. Results from this study show that a significant portion of adults treated at medical institutions across the United States is exposed to medications for which genetic information, if available, should be used to guide prescribing., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2021 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is rapidly expanding into routine oncology practice. Genetic variations in both the cancer and inherited genomes are informative for hereditary cancer risk, prognosis, and treatment strategies. Herein, we focus on the clinical perspective of integrating NGS results into patient care to assist with therapeutic decision making. Five key considerations are addressed for operationalization of NGS testing and application of results to patient care as follows: (1) NGS test ordering and workflow design; (2) result reporting, curation, and storage; (3) clinical consultation services that provide test interpretations and identify opportunities for molecularly guided therapy; (4) presentation of genetic information within the electronic health record; and (5) education of providers and patients. Several of these key considerations center on informatics tools that support NGS test ordering and referencing back to the results for therapeutic purposes. Clinical decision support tools embedded within the electronic health record can assist with NGS test utilization and identifying opportunities for targeted therapy including clinical trial eligibility. Challenges for project and change management in operationalizing NGS-supported, evidence-based patient care in the context of current information technology systems with appropriate clinical data standards are discussed, and solutions for overcoming barriers are provided., Competing Interests: The following represents disclosure information provided by the authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center. Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments). J. Kevin Hicks Consulting or Advisory Role: Quest Diagnostics, 23andMe Research Funding: OneOmeKaren K. Fields Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer, AbbVie Honoraria: NCCN, NACCME, Pacific Group on Business, HMP, MJH Healthcare Holdings LLC Consulting or Advisory Role: United Health Group Speakers' Bureau: Genentech/Roche Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech/Roche, CBI, Discern Health, Tapestry, NACCME, Cigna Health Care, FLASCOJhanelle E. Gray Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Inivata, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Axiom Healthcare Strategies, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Scientific Affairs Research Funding: Array BioPharma, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Inivata, Merck, EMD Serono, NovartisBryan McIver Honoraria: Eisai, Loxo/Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, Exelixis Consulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Loxo/Lilly, Exelixis Speakers' Bureau: Loxo/LillyMandy F. O'Leary Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol Myers SquibbRanda M. Perkins Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Progyny Other Relationship: Centene Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/263299Jamie K. Teer Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent application: Large Data Set Negative Information Storage ModelJoseph Markowitz Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Intel, Aflac, CVS, Amdocs, Consolidated Edison Honoraria: Springer Consulting or Advisory Role: Idera, Newlink Genetics, Array Biopharma Research Funding: Reata Pharmaceuticals, Macrogenics, Morphogenesis, Genoptix, Idera, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Merck Other Relationship: SpringerDana E. Rollison Leadership: NanoString Technologies Stock and Other Ownership Interests: NanoString Technologies Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I am a co-inventor on a provisional patent application filed in July of 2020. The patent pertains to the use of spectrophotometer-measured UV radiation exposure in combination with regulatory T-cells measured in circulation to predict risk of subsequent skin cancer Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Caserta Analytics Inc (not a healthcare company specifically, but they do business with healthcare companies), NanoString Technologies No other potential conflicts of interest were reported., (© 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Multi-gene assays often include UGT1A1 and, in certain instances, may report associated toxicity risks for irinotecan, belinostat, pazopanib, and nilotinib. However, guidance for incorporating UGT1A1 results into therapeutic decision-making is mostly lacking for these anticancer drugs. We summarized meta-analyses, genome-wide association studies, clinical trials, drug labels, and guidelines relating to the impact of UGT1A1 polymorphisms on irinotecan, belinostat, pazopanib, or nilotinib toxicities. For irinotecan, UGT1A1*28 was significantly associated with neutropenia and diarrhea, particularly with doses ≥ 180 mg/m 2 , supporting the use of UGT1A1 to guide irinotecan prescribing. The drug label for belinostat recommends a reduced starting dose of 750 mg/m 2 for UGT1A1*28 homozygotes, though published studies supporting this recommendation are sparse. There was a correlation between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and pazopanib-induced hepatotoxicity, though further studies are needed to elucidate the role of UGT1A1 -guided pazopanib dose adjustments. Limited studies have investigated the association between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and nilotinib-induced hepatotoxicity, with data currently insufficient for UGT1A1 -guided nilotinib dose adjustments.

It has recently been described that alternative oncogenic drivers may be found in KRAS wild-type ( KRAS WT ) pancreatic cancers. This study aimed to determine the incidence of targetable gene fusions present in KRAS WT pancreatic adenocarcinoma and response to targeted therapy., Methods: One hundred consecutive patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent targeted next-generation sequencing using DNA sequencing with RNA sequencing (n = 47) or without RNA sequencing (n = 53) at a single institution were included in the study. The frequency and landscape of targetable fusions in KRAS WT pancreatic adenocarcinoma was characterized and compared with the frequency of fusions in KRAS -mutated ( KRAS MUT ) pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Results were validated in two independent cohorts using data from AACR GENIE (n = 1,252) and TCGA (n = 150). The clinical history of fusion-positive patients who received targeted treatment is described., Results: Pancreatic cancers from 13 of 100 patients (13%) were found to be KRAS WT . Targetable fusions were identified in 4/13 (31%) KRAS WT tumors compared with 0/87 (0%) KRAS MUT pancreatic adenocarcinomas ( P = .0002). One patient with a novel MET fusion had a complete response to targeted therapy with crizotinib that is ongoing at 12+ months of treatment. In the validation cohorts, gene fusions were identified in 18/97 (19%) and 2/10 (20%) KRAS WT tumors reported in the AACR GENIE and TCGA cohorts, respectively., Conclusion: Oncogene fusions are present in KRAS WT pancreatic adenocarcinomas at an increased frequency when compared with KRAS MUT pancreatic adenocarcinomas. As these fusions may be susceptible to targeted therapy, molecular analyses for the detection of fusions in KRAS WT pancreatic adenocarcinomas may warrant increased consideration., (© 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Within the exon 18 of EGFR, a complex, in-frame deletion-delE709&#95;T710ins-has been described among pulmonary adenocarcinomas with an estimated prevalence of 0.3%. Available evidences suggest that some EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have activity against this cancer. However, due to the rarity of this mutation, it remains unclear which TKI is the most effective., Methods: We reported our experience using afatinib followed by osimertinib in a patient with this mutation. We performed a systematic review of literature and conducted a pooled analysis to compare the outcomes of treatment with first generation TKIs vs. afatinib. Cases with compound mutations were excluded., Results: Our patient achieved a partial response to afatinib with a progression-free survival of 11 months. Upon disease progression, osimertinib failed to control the disease. Literature review identified 14 cases being reported: 8 received first generation TKI and 6 received afatinib. Among those with tumor response assessed, partial response occurred in 2 out of 7 patients (28.6%) treated with first generation TKI compared with 6 out of 6 patients (100%) treated with afatinib, p = 0.03. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.1 months vs. 7.0 months, respectively, p = 0.005. Insufficient evidences were available to assess for the efficacy of osimertinib., Conclusion: Based on currently available data, afatinib was associated with a greater tumor response rate and a longer PFS than the first generation TKIs., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Importance: Genotype-guided prescribing in pediatrics could prevent adverse drug reactions and improve therapeutic response. Clinical pharmacogenetic implementation guidelines are available for many medications commonly prescribed to children. Frequencies of medication prescription and actionable genotypes (genotypes where a prescribing change may be indicated) inform the potential value of pharmacogenetic implementation., Objective: To assess potential opportunities for genotype-guided prescribing in pediatric populations among multiple health systems by examining the prevalence of prescriptions for each drug with the highest level of evidence (Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium level A) and estimating the prevalence of potential actionable prescribing decisions., Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study of prescribing prevalences in 16 health systems included electronic health records data from pediatric inpatient and outpatient encounters from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2017. The health systems included academic medical centers with free-standing children's hospitals and community hospitals that were part of an adult health care system. Participants included approximately 2.9 million patients younger than 21 years observed per year. Data were analyzed from June 5, 2018, to April 14, 2020., Exposures: Prescription of 38 level A medications based on electronic health records., Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual prevalence of level A medication prescribing and estimated actionable exposures, calculated by combining estimated site-year prevalences across sites with each site weighted equally., Results: Data from approximately 2.9 million pediatric patients (median age, 8 [interquartile range, 2-16] years; 50.7% female, 62.3% White) were analyzed for a typical calendar year. The annual prescribing prevalence of at least 1 level A drug ranged from 7987 to 10 629 per 100 000 patients with increasing trends from 2011 to 2014. The most prescribed level A drug was the antiemetic ondansetron (annual prevalence of exposure, 8107 [95% CI, 8077-8137] per 100 000 children). Among commonly prescribed opioids, annual prevalence per 100 000 patients was 295 (95% CI, 273-317) for tramadol, 571 (95% CI, 557-586) for codeine, and 2116 (95% CI, 2097-2135) for oxycodone. The antidepressants citalopram, escitalopram, and amitriptyline were also commonly prescribed (annual prevalence, approximately 250 per 100 000 patients for each). Estimated prevalences of actionable exposures were highest for oxycodone and ondansetron (>300 per 100 000 patients annually). CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 substrates were more frequently prescribed than medications influenced by other genes., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that opportunities for pharmacogenetic implementation among pediatric patients in the US are abundant. As expected, the greatest opportunity exists with implementing CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 pharmacogenetic guidance for commonly prescribed antiemetics, analgesics, and antidepressants.

A risk mitigation strategy was implemented to determine if a higher prophylactic voriconazole dosage in patients with CYP2C19 rapid metabolizer neutropenic acute myeloid leukemia (AML) reduces the incidence of subtherapeutic trough concentrations. Patients with AML (n = 263) were preemptively genotyped for CYP2C19*2, *3, and *17 alleles as part of a single-center prospective, interventional, quality improvement study. CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers (CYP2C19*1/*17) were recommended to receive interventional voriconazole 300 mg twice daily, ultrarapid metabolizers (CYP2C19*17/*17) were recommended to avoid voriconazole, and all others received the standard prophylactic dosage of 200 mg twice daily. In this real-world setting, 202 patients (76.8%) were prescribed prophylactic voriconazole, and of these patients 176 (87.1%) received CYP2C19-guided prophylactic dosing. Voriconazole trough concentrations were obtained for 41 of the 58 (70.7%) CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers prescribed prophylactic voriconazole. Interventional voriconazole resulted in higher plasma trough concentrations (median 2.7 μg/mL) compared with the standard prophylactic dosage (median 0.6 μg/mL; P = 0.001). Subtherapeutic concentrations were avoided in 83.8% of CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers receiving interventional dosage compared to 46.2% receiving standard dosage (P = 0.02). CYP2C19 genotyping to preemptively guide prophylactic voriconazole dosing is feasible and may be a potential strategy for reducing the risk of subtherapeutic trough concentrations that potentiate breakthrough fungal infections., (© 2019 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2019 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Pharmacogenomics, ie, the study of how an individual's genomic profile influences his or her response to drugs, has emerged as a clinical tool to optimize drug therapy. Certain variants in some genes increase the risk of severe, life-threatening adverse effects from certain drugs. Integrating pharmacogenomics into clinical practice to assist in drug selection and dosing has the potential to improve the outcomes of treatment, reduce the risk of drug-induced morbidity and death, and be cost-effective., (Copyright © 2020 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.)

Purpose: A number of institutions have clinically implemented CYP2D6 genotyping to guide drug prescribing. We compared implementation strategies of early adopters of CYP2D6 testing, barriers faced by both early adopters and institutions in the process of implementing CYP2D6 testing, and approaches taken to overcome these barriers., Methods: We surveyed eight early adopters of CYP2D6 genotyping and eight institutions in the process of adoption. Data were collected on testing approaches, return of results procedures, applications of genotype results, challenges faced, and lessons learned., Results: Among early adopters, CYP2D6 testing was most commonly ordered to assist with opioid and antidepressant prescribing. Key differences among programs included test ordering and genotyping approaches, result reporting, and clinical decision support. However, all sites tested for copy-number variation and nine common variants, and reported results in the medical record. Most sites provided automatic consultation and had designated personnel to assist with genotype-informed therapy recommendations. Primary challenges were related to stakeholder support, CYP2D6 gene complexity, phenotype assignment, and sustainability., Conclusion: There are specific challenges unique to CYP2D6 testing given the complexity of the gene and its relevance to multiple medications. Consensus lessons learned may guide those interested in pursuing similar clinical pharmacogenetic programs.