Scholarlink

Background <p>Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) has been widely introduced into precision oncology; however, its real-world implementation in gynecologic oncology remains unclear. This study evaluated nationwide CGP utilization, treatment translation, and management of secondary germline findings in Japanese gynecologic oncology.</p> Methods <p>A nationwide survey was conducted across 98 institutions participating in gynecologic oncology training and/or Japan’s cancer genomic medicine network. Institutional characteristics, workforce composition, treatment translation, and management of germline findings were assessed. Associations between institutional factors and CGP utilization or trial-related treatment translation were analyzed using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals.</p> Results <p>Among 68 institutions with complete CGP volume data, 6,964 CGP tests were performed, including 922 for gynecologic malignancies. The median number of gynecologic CGP tests per institution was 10. In multivariate analysis, the number of board-certified obstetrician–gynecologists was associated with CGP utilization (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI 1.01–1.08). CGP-guided therapy was delivered to 80 patients (8.7%). Trial-related treatment translation was associated with the number of board-certified obstetrician–gynecologists (IRR, 1.09; 95% CI 1.02–1.16) and the presence of a medical oncology department (IRR, 7.93; 95% CI 1.41–44.72). Presumed germline pathogenic variants were identified in 100 cases (10.8%); however, confirmatory germline testing was performed in only 38 cases.</p> Conclusion <p>CGP utilization in Japanese gynecologic oncology was associated with gynecologic workforce capacity and multidisciplinary genomic infrastructure. Collaboration between gynecologic oncology and medical oncology may facilitate treatment translation. CGP may also serve as an entry point for hereditary cancer evaluation despite incomplete downstream germline evaluation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Workforce and institutional factors associated with comprehensive genomic profiling utilization in gynecologic oncology: a nationwide questionnaire survey in Japan

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月27日

查看全文
  • Tamotsu Sudo,
  • Kenta Masuda,
  • Katsutoshi Oda,
  • Hidemichi Watari,
  • Akira Hirasawa,
  • Shinya Sato,
  • Kenichi Harano,
  • Satoru Nagase,
  • Kazuhiro Takehara,
  • Masaki Mandai,
  • Yuko Sasajima,
  • Hirouki Yanai,
  • Hitoshi Tsuda,
  • Yusuke Kobayashi,
  • Kei Kawana,
  • Mikio Mikami,
  • Kiyoko Kato,
  • Daisuke Aoki,
  • Aikou Okamoto

摘要

Background

Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) has been widely introduced into precision oncology; however, its real-world implementation in gynecologic oncology remains unclear. This study evaluated nationwide CGP utilization, treatment translation, and management of secondary germline findings in Japanese gynecologic oncology.

Methods

A nationwide survey was conducted across 98 institutions participating in gynecologic oncology training and/or Japan’s cancer genomic medicine network. Institutional characteristics, workforce composition, treatment translation, and management of germline findings were assessed. Associations between institutional factors and CGP utilization or trial-related treatment translation were analyzed using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Among 68 institutions with complete CGP volume data, 6,964 CGP tests were performed, including 922 for gynecologic malignancies. The median number of gynecologic CGP tests per institution was 10. In multivariate analysis, the number of board-certified obstetrician–gynecologists was associated with CGP utilization (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI 1.01–1.08). CGP-guided therapy was delivered to 80 patients (8.7%). Trial-related treatment translation was associated with the number of board-certified obstetrician–gynecologists (IRR, 1.09; 95% CI 1.02–1.16) and the presence of a medical oncology department (IRR, 7.93; 95% CI 1.41–44.72). Presumed germline pathogenic variants were identified in 100 cases (10.8%); however, confirmatory germline testing was performed in only 38 cases.

Conclusion

CGP utilization in Japanese gynecologic oncology was associated with gynecologic workforce capacity and multidisciplinary genomic infrastructure. Collaboration between gynecologic oncology and medical oncology may facilitate treatment translation. CGP may also serve as an entry point for hereditary cancer evaluation despite incomplete downstream germline evaluation.