Wide Variation in Use and Interpretation of Gene Mutation Profiling Panels Among Health Care Providers of Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS): Results of a Large Web-Based Survey
Authors: Pine Alexander B , Chokr Nora B , Stahl Maximilian , Steensma David P. , Sekeres Mikkael A. , Litzow Mark R. , Luger Selina , Stone Richard M. , Greenberg Peter L , Bejar Rafael , Gore Steven D. , Zeidan Amer M. 
Published: October 2019

Background. Gene mutation profiling is increasingly employed for diagnosis, risk stratification, and clinical management in patients with MDS. However, current World Health Organization MDS classification is still based on histologic findings (with the exception of SF3B1 for MDS-RS), and guidelines generally suggest that clinical decisions be guided by clinico-pathologic risk stratification tools such as Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). We sought to study beliefs and patterns of practice with respect to gene mutation profiling among health care providers who manage patients with MDS.

Methods. A link to a 23-question web-based survey was emailed to members of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance), and the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), and the Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU) on 5/1/2018 with 6 subsequent weekly reminders. The Qualtrics survey platform was used to record anonymous responses. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. No incentive was provided for responses.

Results. Of 371 received responses, 262 were received from providers who did not manage MDS patients or lacked analyzable data and therefore were excluded. Of 109 eligible responses, 108 responders were from institutions representing 31 US states (one respondent was from South America). Median age of respondents was 48 years (range, 33-75); 43 (39%) were women. A third of responders (32%) worked at a university hospital, while 25%, 17%, and 5% worked at a community hospital, private practice, or other settings, respectively.

While 37% of participants worked at institutions with guidelines for clinical care of MDS patients, 28% reported that their institutional guidelines recommended MDS-specific gene mutation profiling. Such testing was performed at institutions of 13% participants; institutions of 26% of responders tested a general AML panel that included MDS-specific genes. The total number of respondents whose institutions sent out either an MDS-specific gene panel or a general AML gene panel with MDS-specific genes was similar, 25% and 12%, respectively (Fig. 1). Of those who routinely perform molecular testing, 94% do so at diagnosis, 56% at relapse, 33% during preparation for stem cell transplant, 31% after the failure of hypomethylating agents (HMA), 24% during screening for a clinical trial, and 15% at initial treatment (Fig. 2).

MDS gene mutation profiling was felt to be most helpful in diagnosis (rarely 11%; sometimes 49%; often 30%; always 9%), risk stratification (sometimes 31%; often 51%; always 15%), and prognosis (sometimes 31%; often 51%; always 14%); its role was more limited in response assessment (never 12%; rarely 25%; sometimes 44%; often 14%) and to predict responses to HMAs (never 5%; rarely 28%; sometimes 52%, often 14%) (Fig. 3).

Various types of evidence were used to stratify MDS risk and prognosis: genetic mutations were used by nearly everyone (95%); 70% relied on morphologic findings, while gene expression/transcriptome profiling was used by 40%. Eighty-four percent of responders reported relying on conventional prognostic models like IPSS-R to identify high-risk patients for whom they would consider intensive treatment options. For this purpose, 62% would also rely on mutation profiling, and 32% would also consider higher frequency of gene mutations. While mutations in the p53 pathway were felt to be helpful in terms of risk stratification and treatment decisions by 70% of responders, 43%, 39%, 31%, 26% 23%, 20%, and 3% considered mutations in spliceosome, DNA methylation, transcription factors, histone modification, signaling, RAS pathway, and cohesin genes, respectively, to be useful as well. Approximately 31% of responders were not certain as to which mutations would affect risk stratification and management choices and said they needed to review literature. The respondents also cited multiple limitations to wider clinical use of MDS gene mutation profiling (Fig. 4).

Conclusions. Our survey demonstrates widespread use of gene mutation profiling in the management of patients with MDS, but also reveals substantial variability in beliefs, practices, testing logistics, and interpretation of molecular profiling. Our findings emphasize the need for high-quality data to develop consensus evidence-based guidelines for gene profiling of MDS patients.

Disclosures

Sekeres: Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bejar:AbbVie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Astex/Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Modus Outcomes: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genoptix: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.