Impact of liquid biopsy training on real-world testing practices for advanced NSCLC across Latin America: The OMEGA (LACOG 0424/GBOT) survey.

Abstract

9029 Background: The therapeutic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has evolved with advances in genomic profiling and the integration of next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. Liquid biopsy (LB) enables minimally invasive biomarker-guided treatment across solid tumors, including NSCLC. However, disparities in physicians' familiarity with these tests and limited access to continuing education can affect their optimal implementation. Despite the potential benefits, access to and utilization of LB testing across LATAM remains unexplored. In this LATAM survey, we evaluated oncologist’s attitudes and practices related to LB. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted to evaluate oncologists’ attitudes, practices, and expectations regarding LB use in NSCLC across LATAM. A 33-item questionnaire was distributed between August and December 2024 through the Brazilian Thoracic Oncology Group (GBOT), the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC), and the Latin American Consortium for Lung Cancer Research (CLICaP). Descriptive statistics summarized the data, and associations were assessed using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and Student’s t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. Results: Among the 178 respondents, 84.8% were from Brazil. Most of the oncologists had completed their oncology training between 5 and 20 years prior (61.2%). In terms of clinical exposure, 43.3% reported treating 10 to 30 new patients with lung cancer annually. While 72.5% reported prior use of LB, only 30.0% expressed confidence in interpreting the results. In addition, 50% of respondents (n = 89) reported no formal training in LB over the past three years. Among those reporting educational updates, the most prevalent source of educational updates was ASCO-affiliated platforms (43.8%). Respondents who had received dedicated training during this period were significantly more likely to request LB testing (87.2% vs 60.7%; p<0.0001) and to report confidence in interpreting ctDNA results (86.0% vs 53.9%; p<0.0001). The most frequently used techniques were DNA-based NGS (38.8%) and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) (43.5%). Most respondents (96.1%) anticipated an increase in the use of LB over the next five years. Conclusions: The OMEGA survey indicates that while LB use is common among LATAM oncologists, formal training remains limited. Educational exposure significantly increased both the likelihood of requesting NSCLC testing and confidence in molecular report interpretation. Thus, future efforts implementing structured educational programs are very needed to support the equitable and effective adoption of liquid biopsy throughout LATAM.