Labs Implement Next-generation Sequencing to Support 
Latest Oncology Practices
When it comes to oncology diagnostics 
and care, immunotherapies and other personalized medicine approaches are among 
the leading treatment efforts. As the number of new cancer diagnoses continues 
to rise, clinicians need tools that can more quickly—and affordably—offer 
answers.
Within the next 5 years, the use of precision medicine in oncology 
is set to balloon, benefiting millions of patients globally. According to 
industry estimates, 5.1 billion precision cancer diagnostic tests will be 
performed between 2018 and 2023, with a market value rising to nearly $20 
billion in 2023. Genetic and genomic testing account for a significant portion 
of those analyses, but the current predominant practice of analyzing patient 
samples for specific mutations takes longer and is less efficient in connecting 
patients with the best available treatments for their tumor profiles.
This is 
where next-generation sequencing (NGS) comes in. Rather than examining single 
genes, NGS allows laboratorians to use molecular barcoding to test multiple 
genes simultaneously. Test results provide diagnostic and therapeutic answers 
more efficiently. 
FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE
Tried and 
tested in clinical trial settings, NGS now is spreading its wings into oncology 
practice. According to Dhananjay Chitale, MD, vice chair of anatomical pathology 
at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, implementation has moved off the bench to 
academic medical institutions, large cancer centers, and beyond. 
In fact, 
explained Razelle Kurzrock, MD, associate director of clinical science at the 
University of California San Diego School of Medicine, wider NGS utilization is 
a growing trend. Previously in her practice, only patients who sought medical 
care in academic environments benefited from NGS, but that is no longer the 
case. “If you go back three or four years, patients would almost never come in 
having already done next-generation sequencing, and now the majority come in 
with it already done,” she said. 
Even with this new level of NGS adoption, 
the technology still has a way to go on its journey of dissemination, said 
Rondell Graham, MD, associate professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at 
the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Most NGS is still offered in large 
metropolitan areas, but as the volume of cancer care needs continues to rise, 
smaller, more suburban facilities could find themselves searching for avenues to 
bring this testing online. Indeed, some community hospitals are beginning to 
embrace NGS as a routine testing technology.
THE AHA 
MOMENT
In many cases, a facility’s decision to take on in-house NGS 
will rest on patient need and volume, said Marc Ladanyi, MD, chief of the 
molecular diagnostics service and William J. Ruane chair in molecular oncology 
at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before delving into 
NGS, interested groups should analyze how many of these tests they run monthly 
or annually to ensure they can generate enough revenue to overcome the setup 
costs. Outsourcing NGS testing is a viable option if creating a lab isn’t 
financially feasible, he added. 
“The ‘aha’ moment happens when you find 
yourself running many individual assays, and you’re really struggling to keep up 
with the number of technologists it takes to run those screenings,” he 
explained. “You have to look at that and ask whether you could replace all those 
tests with a one-panel [NGS] assay to simplify your laboratory workflow while 
generating more information.” 
Artur Rangel-Filho, MD, medical director of 
Memorial Regional Hospital South (MRHS) in Hollywood, Florida, agreed that 
patient volume is a major driving factor because it largely determines whether a 
lab will generate revenue through NGS. Outlining any cost savings can help get 
administrative stakeholders on board with a lab launch, he said. 
Before 
offering NGS, MRHS spent roughly $1 million annually on outsourcing its NGS 
testing. After implementing NGS earlier this year, he explained, that 
expenditure has dropped by approximately 80%. The hospital not only has realized 
substantial cost savings but also now controls the data and can use it to 
improve overall patient outcomes long-term, Rangel-Filho stressed. 
But being 
successful means more than doing the math to show a boost to the bottom line. 
Labs that perform NGS also need a clinical champion, Chitale emphasized, 
preferably an oncologist who can help determine how data generated from this 
powerful tool will be used, as well as PhD-level molecular genetics lab 
professionals on board to oversee processing and analyzing of these 
tests.
Additionally, Kurzrock said, facilities should have a molecular tumor 
board consisting of clinical laboratory professionals and oncologists that meets 
regularly to discuss findings and next steps for patient 
treatment.
CHOOSING TESTS, FINDING TECHS
To date, NGS has 
been used to identify genetic mutations in solid tumors associated with several 
cancer groups, including colon, lung, and breast.  Myriad large panel options, 
such as whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing, are available, but they also 
increase the number of variants undergoing analysis. Instead, many facilities 
opt for multi-gene panels. Often these are laboratory-developed tests, but the 
number of analysis options approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is 
growing.
For example, Ladanyi’s lab offers a 468-gene panel, called MSK 
Impact, that detects genetic mutations in solid tumors for both rare and common 
cancers. As of 2017, he said, more than 20,000 patients had been screened with 
this FDA-approved NGS test. Final approval is also expected soon on a new 
cell-free DNA liquid biopsy test called MSK-Access. These types of panels 
greatly facilitate screening efforts, he said. 
“With a larger NGS panel, you 
know you don’t have to maintain multiple separate assays for different cancers 
or for different targets,” Ladanyi added. “You have one large pipeline, one 
large workflow, that really simplifies things and makes more efficient use of 
your technology and time.”
Additionally, Kurzrock and her colleagues used 
multigene panel sequencing in the iPredict study and are looking to implement 
this approach in clinical practice. This research used NGS to determine the 
genetic profile of 149 individuals with stage IV cancers to identify 
personalized combination therapies that were more effective than monotherapies. 
Based on NGS data from the study, 88% of participants received individualized 
combination therapies that halted disease progression, she said (Nature 
2019;25:744-50). 
Establishing a lab outside of top-tier academic research 
institutions can be more complicated, however, said Rangel-Filho. “It’s not the 
same as in Boston or the Bay Area where you have several universities with a lot 
of postdoctoral fellows who are highly trained and are currently working with 
this technology,” he observed. “That wasn’t the case for us in Florida. We had 
to build our team from scratch.”
To overcome this challenge, MRHS hired 
medical technologists with research backgrounds and trained them in molecular 
biology techniques so they could accurately complete the NGS panels the system 
offers. Additionally, MRHS purchased commercially available software to handle 
its bioinformatics needs.
INFORMATICS: THE ACHILLES’ 
HEEL?
Even though there are several benefits associated with 
performing NGS in-house, barriers to doing so effectively still exist. One of 
the most significant involves startup costs, Graham said. The initial cost of 
NGS machines can top more than $100,000, and getting sign off for that 
expenditure level can be difficult.
Securing reimbursement is also 
complicated. As of 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services limited 
payment to only FDA-approved NGS tests that analyze solid tumors. Reimbursement 
is currently unavailable for tests performed with in-house screening mechanisms 
or those conducted for research and investigation purposes. 
Another major 
challenge, Ladanyi said, is the substantial need for bioinformatics support. The 
importance of having highly trained technologists with informatics credentials 
in place can’t be underestimated, he said, especially because there are still 
few individuals with a high comfort level with NGS. Chitale seconded that 
assertion. “Because this is new technology, you will need internal expertise to 
design your capabilities with assays,” he said. “Your bioinformatics team must 
be able to validate these assays, as well as interpret and report them.”
But, 
even with a qualified bioinformatics team in place, Graham cautioned, laboratory 
leaders and clinicians must remember that NGS is an extremely sensitive testing 
option. Consequently, it presents a greater opportunity for false positives. 
Laboratory technologists should also monitor the amount of noise in the assays 
to ensure each test provides the best quality information. 
Having enough 
storage to accommodate the rich amounts of data collected from NGS also presents 
a problem, particularly for smaller institutions, Chitale said. Laboratory 
leaders should work closely with their information technology teams to ensure a 
system exists to keep patients’ test results secure. If on-site storage isn’t 
possible, cloud storage is an acceptable alternative, he said. 
Ultimately, 
Chitale said, NGS is the next wave of oncology testing, and clinicians and their 
facilities need to be ready to take full advantage of it. “I think NGS is ready 
for prime time,” he said. “We know a lot about cancer genetics and other things, 
which are trickling down into the clinical arena. We must make use of that 
information in a precision medicine program.”