Human resources for administrative work to carry out a comprehensive genomic profiling test in Japan

Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests have been nationally reimbursed in Japan since June 2019 under strict restrictions, and over 46,000 patients have taken the test. Core Hospitals and Designated Hospitals host molecular tumor boards, which is more time-consuming than simply participating in them. We sent a questionnaire to government-designated Cancer Genomic Medicine Hospitals, including all 12 Core Hospitals, all 33 Designated Hospitals, and 117 of 188 Cooperative Hospitals. The questionnaire asked how much time physicians and nonphysicians spent on administrative work for cancer genomic medicine. For every CGP test, 7.6 h of administrative work was needed. Physicians spent 2.7 h/patient, while nonphysicians spent 4.9 h/patient. Time spent preparing for molecular tumor boards, called Expert Panels, was the longest, followed by time spent participating in Expert Panels. Assuming an hourly wage of ¥24,000/h for physicians and ¥2800/h for nonphysicians, mean labor cost was ¥78,071/patient. On a monthly basis, more time was spent on administrative work at Core Hospitals compared with Designated Hospitals and Cooperative Hospitals (385 vs. 166 vs. 51 h/month, respectively, p < 0.001). Consequently, labor cost per month was higher at Core Hospitals than at Designated Hospitals and Cooperative Hospitals (¥3,951,854 vs. ¥1,687,167 vs. ¥487,279/month, respectively, p < 0.001). Completing a CGP test for a cancer patient in Japan is associated with significant labor at each hospital, especially at Core Hospitals. Streamlining the exchange of information and simplifying Expert Panels will likely alleviate this burden.

[1]  H. Aburatani,et al.  Clinical utility of Todai OncoPanel in the setting of approved comprehensive cancer genomic profiling tests in Japan , 2023, Cancer science.

[2]  D. Ennishi,et al.  Concordance Between Recommendations From Multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Boards and Central Consensus for Cancer Treatment in Japan , 2022, JAMA network open.

[3]  K. Mertz,et al.  How to read a next-generation sequencing report—what oncologists need to know , 2022, ESMO open.

[4]  D. Ennishi,et al.  Expert panel consensus recommendations on the use of circulating tumor DNA assays for patients with advanced solid tumors , 2022, Cancer science.

[5]  K. Oda,et al.  Current status and issues related to secondary findings in the first public insurance covered tumor genomic profiling in Japan: multi-site questionnaire survey , 2022, Journal of Human Genetics.

[6]  M. Fassan,et al.  The challenge of the Molecular Tumor Board empowerment in clinical oncology practice: A Position Paper on behalf of the AIOM- SIAPEC/IAP-SIBioC-SIC-SIF-SIGU-SIRM Italian Scientific Societies. , 2021, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[7]  K. Ohe,et al.  A clinical specific BERT developed using a huge Japanese clinical text corpus , 2021, PloS one.

[8]  D. Ennishi,et al.  Chronological improvement in precision oncology implementation in Japan , 2021, Cancer science.

[9]  M. Takeda,et al.  Current Status of Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Cancer Genome Profiling Tests in Japan and Prospects for Liquid Biopsy , 2021, Life.

[10]  D. Ennishi,et al.  The initial assessment of expert panel performance in core hospitals for cancer genomic medicine in Japan , 2021, International Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  H. Ueno,et al.  Establishment and implementation of Cancer Genomic Medicine in Japan , 2020, Cancer science.

[12]  H. Aburatani,et al.  Clinical practice guidance for next-generation sequencing in cancer diagnosis and treatment (edition 2.1) , 2020, International Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  A. Grothey,et al.  Establishment of a Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) and Uptake of Recommendations in a Community Setting , 2020, Journal of personalized medicine.

[14]  H. Mano Cancer genomic medicine in Japan , 2020, Proceedings of the Japan Academy. Series B, Physical and biological sciences.

[15]  S. Fröhling,et al.  Support systems to guide clinical decision-making in precision oncology: The Cancer Core Europe Molecular Tumor Board Portal , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[16]  Claudio Luchini,et al.  Molecular Tumor Boards in Clinical Practice. , 2020, Trends in cancer.

[17]  A. Khorana,et al.  Genetic Counseling and Germline Testing in the Era of Tumor Sequencing: A Cohort Study , 2020, JNCI cancer spectrum.

[18]  M. McGowan,et al.  Experiences of a Multidisciplinary Genomic Tumor Board Interpreting Risk for Underlying Germline Variants in Tumor-Only Sequencing Results. , 2019, JCO precision oncology.

[19]  Akihiko Yoshida,et al.  Feasibility and utility of a panel testing for 114 cancer‐associated genes in a clinical setting: A hospital‐based study , 2019, Cancer science.

[20]  C. Swanton,et al.  Prospective analysis of 895 patients on a UK Genomics Review Board , 2019, ESMO Open.

[21]  R. Erlich,et al.  Effect of a Collaboration Between a Health Plan, Oncology Practice, and Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Company from the Payer Perspective. , 2019, Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy.

[22]  O. Mariani,et al.  Relevance of a molecular tumour board (MTB) for patients’ enrolment in clinical trials: experience of the Institut Curie , 2018, ESMO Open.

[23]  S. Sleijfer,et al.  Molecular Tumor Boards: current practice and future needs , 2017, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[24]  Thomas S. Winokur,et al.  Implementation and utilization of the molecular tumor board to guide precision medicine , 2017, Oncotarget.

[25]  Gavin R. Oliver,et al.  Experience with precision genomics and tumor board, indicates frequent target identification, but barriers to delivery , 2017, Oncotarget.

[26]  S. Lippman,et al.  Molecular tumor board: the University of California-San Diego Moores Cancer Center experience. , 2014, The oncologist.