Frameworks for improving comprehensive biomarker testing in NSCLC: A multi-stakeholder consensus.

M Maureen Frances Zakowski (Mount Sinai, New York, NY) J Juliana Dierks (Dierks+Company, Berlin, Germany) D David Cobden (Department of Physics, University of Washington 2 , Seattle, Washington 98195,) S Sarika Ogale (Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) Z Zachary A. Goodman (Evernorth Health Services, The Cigna Group, St. Louis, MO) A Angela Inneh (Evernorth Research Institute, The Cigna Group, St. Louis, MO) N Narjust Florez (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) J Justin F. Gainor B Brendan Heiden R Richard Sheng Poe Huang (Foundation Medicine, Inc., Boston, MA) E Edward Ernest Kadel T Timothy Larson J Jesse Sussell B Bo Wang J Jun Zhang F Fawzi Abu Rous (Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI) K Kavitha Beedupalli (Ochsner LSU Health - Monroe Medical Center, Monroe, LA) W Wade Thomas Iams (Greco-Hainsworth Centers for Research, Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN) J Jennifer W. Carlisle E Emily Cassidy (Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, Baton-Rouge, LA)

Abstract

e23121 Background: Despite the availability of numerous targeted therapies for NSCLC, significant barriers persist in ensuring timely comprehensive biomarker testing, leading to suboptimal patient outcomes and inequitable care. To better understand system-level barriers and develop actionable solutions, multidisciplinary experts from four stakeholder perspectives were convened in a structured two-day workshop in the United States: clinicians (oncology, pathology, surgery), laboratory diagnostics, payers, and manufacturers. Methods: A validated, stepwise consensus process with 30 experts was conducted to qualitatively and quantitatively identify barriers and solutions across the NSCLC patient journey. World Café-style small group discussions were used, with participants rotating across thematic care-stage tables (diagnosis through survivorship). Synthesized results were prioritized via iterative digital voting based on impact, relevance, and feasibility. Prioritized solutions were consolidated into idea profiles and translated through a standardized concept development process into pilot-ready concepts. Results: Key barriers to comprehensive biomarker testing in NSCLC included delayed or inconsistent NGS testing and result reporting, tissue inadequacy, non-standardized biomarker reporting, payer coverage and authorization barriers, and fragmented multispecialty care coordination. A total of 26 solutions were generated and consolidated into 8 idea profiles. Expert voting prioritized 3 of these profiles (Table 1), which informed development of 2 minimum viable products (MVPs) addressing upstream and downstream gaps in comprehensive biomarker testing and treatment initiation. MVP 1 focuses on accelerating availability of biomarker results through automated, concurrent reflex NGS testing using tissue and plasma (ctDNA) at diagnosis, supported by standardized pathology workflows. MVP 2 addresses downstream delays by integrating molecular results with therapy authorization and payer approval within a single digital workflow, reducing administrative friction and enabling timely guideline-based treatment decisions. Conclusions: This structured, multi-stakeholder consensus process identified key cross-system barriers to timely and comprehensive biomarker testing in NSCLC and generated feasible, high-impact solutions, including automated reflex testing and integrated access workflows. These findings highlight actionable opportunities to improve delivery of the right therapy to the right patient at the right time, with potential applicability beyond NSCLC. Selected Top 3 Idea Profiles Mean Rank Votes (clinician / payer / lab / manufacturer)* Reflex Biomarker Testing Pathway 1.7 2.2; 2.3; 1.0; 1.2 PA Fast-Track & Coverage Clarity 3.1 4.0; 1.7; 2.5; 4.2 Value-Based Testing & Therapy Bundle 3.9 5.1; 3.0; 4.5; 3.0 *Scale 1 (highest) – 8 (lowest).

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (20)

M

Maureen Frances Zakowski

Mount Sinai, New York, NY

J

Juliana Dierks

Dierks+Company, Berlin, Germany

D

David Cobden

Department of Physics, University of Washington 2 , Seattle, Washington 98195,

S

Sarika Ogale

Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA

Z

Zachary A. Goodman

Evernorth Health Services, The Cigna Group, St. Louis, MO

A

Angela Inneh

Evernorth Research Institute, The Cigna Group, St. Louis, MO

N

Narjust Florez

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

J

Justin F. Gainor

B

Brendan Heiden

R

Richard Sheng Poe Huang

Foundation Medicine, Inc., Boston, MA

E

Edward Ernest Kadel

T

Timothy Larson

J

Jesse Sussell

B

Bo Wang

J

Jun Zhang

F

Fawzi Abu Rous

Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI

K

Kavitha Beedupalli

Ochsner LSU Health - Monroe Medical Center, Monroe, LA

W

Wade Thomas Iams

Greco-Hainsworth Centers for Research, Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN

J

Jennifer W. Carlisle

E

Emily Cassidy

Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, Baton-Rouge, LA