Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun;13(3):110–119.

Table 2.

Use of FDA-Approved versus Laboratory-Developed Diagnostic Tests Across Patient Treatment Settings and Insurance Types

    Patient treatment setting
Patient insurance type
Test used, by molecular abnormalities Total sample, N (%) Academic center, N (%) Community-based center, N (%) Private clinic, N (%) Medicare only, N (%) Private, N (%) Medicaid only, N (%) Medicare + Medicaid, N (%) Other, N (%)
EGFR
 FDA-approved 273 (73) 96 (65) 47 (69) 130 (82) 103 (75) 103 (73) 36 (72) 5 (56) 26 (72)
 Laboratory-developed 101 (27) 51 (35) 21 (31) 29 (18) 35 (25) 38 (27) 14 (28) 4 (44) 10 (28)
ALK
 FDA-approved 219 (70) 78 (56) 40 (71) 101 (86) 85 (71) 85 (71) 28 (70) 4 (50) 17 (61)
 Laboratory-developed 95 (30) 65 (44) 16 (29) 17 (14) 34 (29) 34 (29) 12 (30) 4 (50) 11 (39)
BRAF V600E
 FDA-approved 75 (58) 22 (44) 15 (48) 38 (79) 24 (57) 32 (59) 16 (73) 1 (33) 2 (25)
 Laboratory-developed 54 (42) 28 (56) 16 (52) 10 (21) 18 (43) 22 (41) 6 (27) 2 (67) 6 (75)
ROS1
 FDA-approved 62 (38) 24 (41) 6 (18) 32 (44) 20 (35) 27 (42) 11 (42) 1 (20) 3 (30)
 Laboratory-developed 101 (62) 34 (59) 27 (82) 40 (56) 37 (65) 38 (58) 15 (58) 4 (80) 7 (70)

NOTE: This table only includes information about patients for whom we were able to identify whether their diagnostic test was FDA-approved or laboratory-developed. Differences in the use of FDA-approved tests for EGFR mutations between the academic (65.3%) and private (81.8%) practice settings were significant (P <.05), based on chi-square tests. Differences in the use of FDA-approved tests for ALK rearrangements between the academic (55.7%) and private (85.6%) practice settings were significant (P <.05), based on chi-square tests.

FDA indicates US Food and Drug Administration.