Trends in Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in Patients With Solid Tumors by Race and Ethnicity After Implementation of the Medicare National Coverage Determination

Availability and utilization of molecular testing for primary central nervous system tumors among US hospitals

Advanced molecular testing has increasingly become an integral component for accurate diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. We sought to establish the current state of molecular testing availability and approaches for the diagnosis of CNS tumors in US hospitals that conduct high volumes of CNS tumor resections. We distributed a 16-item survey inquiring about molecular testing approaches for CNS tumors to 115 neuropathologists at US hospitals with neurosurgery residency programs. Thirty-five neuropathologists (30.4%) responded to the survey, all of whom indicated their institutions perform molecular testing on CNS tumor tissue. The most commonly offered tests were MGMT methylation profiling and next-generation sequencing. Fourteen respondents (40%) indicated that their institution is able to test for and report all of the molecular alterations included in our survey. Nine (25.7%) respondents indicated that molecular testing is performed as standard of care for all patients with resected CNS tumors. Our results suggest that even in academic hospitals with a high volume of CNS tumor resections, molecular testing for these tumors is limited. Continued initiatives are necessary to expand the availability of molecular testing for CNS tumors to ensure diagnostic accuracy and guide targeted therapy.

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends among Adult Patients with Select Advanced Tumor Types: A Real-World Evidence Evaluation

There are limited data on the prevalence of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in the United States, especially in light of the increasing importance of identifying actionable oncogenic variants due to molecular biomarker-based therapy approvals. This retrospective study of adult patients with select metastatic solid tumors and central nervous system tumors from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart US health care claims database (January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2021; N = 63,209) examined NGS use trends over time. A modest increase in NGS was observed across tumor types from 2015 (0.0% to 1.5%) to 2021 (2.1% to 17.4%). A similar increase in NGS rates was also observed across key periods; however, rates in the final key period remained <10% for patients with breast, colorectal, head and neck, soft tissue sarcoma, and thyroid cancers, as well as central nervous system tumors. The median time to NGS from diagnosis was shortest among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and longest for patients with breast cancer. Predictors of NGS varied by tumor type; test rates for minorities in select tumor types appeared comparable to the White population. Despite improving payer policies to expand coverage of NGS and molecular biomarker-based therapy approvals, NGS rates remained low across tumor types. Given the potential for improved patient outcomes with molecular biomarker-based therapy, further efforts to improve NGS rates are warranted.

Challenges to genetic testing for germline mutations associated with breast cancer among African Americans

Inequities in preventive cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and inferior cancer outcomes continue to pose challenges across the cancer continuum. While the exact reasons for these inferior outcomes are unknown, multiple barriers to various domains of social determinants of health (SDOH) play a vital role, leading to inequities in cancer care. These include barriers to transportation, housing, and food insecurities, contributing to delays in preventive screening and treatment. Furthermore, aggressive biologies also exist across various racial profiles with accompanying germline mutations. For example, African Americans (AAs) have a higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer subtype and a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 gene mutations, increasing the risk of multiple cancers, warranting high-risk screening for these populations. Unfortunately, other barriers, such as financial insecurities, low health literacy rates, and lack of awareness, lead to delays in cancer screening and genetic testing, even with available high-risk screening and risk reduction procedures. In addition, physicians receive minimal interdisciplinary training to address genetic assessment, interpretation of the results, and almost no additional training in addressing the unique needs of racial minorities, leading to suboptimal delivery of genetic assessment provision resources among AAs. In this review, we discuss the confluence of factors and barriers limiting genetic testing among AAs and highlight the prevalence of germline mutations associated with increased risk of breast cancer among AAs, reflecting the need for multi-panel germline testing as well as education regarding hereditary cancer risks in underserved minorities.

Racial and Ethnic Inequities at the Practice and Physician Levels in Timely Next-Generation Sequencing for Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated in the US Community Setting

PURPOSE

Racial/ethnic inequities in next-generation sequencing (NGS) were examined for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) at the practice and physician levels to inform policies to improve equitable quality of care.

METHODS

This retrospective study used a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database for patients with aNSCLC diagnosed between April 2018 and March 2022 in the community setting. Timely NGS was an NGS result between initial diagnosis and ≤60 days after advanced diagnosis. We studied how inequities were driven by (1) non-Latinx Black (Black) and Latinx patient under-representation at high testing practices versus (2) Black and Latinx patients being tested at lower rates than non-Latinx White (White) patients, even at the same practice. We defined these two concepts as across inequity and within inequity, respectively, with total inequity as their summation. Mean percentage point inequities were estimated using a Bayesian approach.

RESULTS

A total of 12,045 patients (9,981 White; 1,528 Black; 536 Latinx) met study criteria. At the practice level, versus White patients, the mean percentage point difference in NGS testing total inequity was 7.49 for Black and 8.26 for Latinx. Within- and across-practice inequities contributed to total inequity in NGS testing for Black (48% v 52%) and Latinx patients (60% v 40%). At the physician level, versus White patients, the mean percentage point difference in total inequity was 7.73 for Black and 8.81 for Latinx patients. Within- versus across-physician inequities contributed to total inequity for Black and Latinx patients (77% v 23% and 67% v 33%).

CONCLUSION

Within-practice, across-practice, and across-physician inequities were main contributors to total inequity in NGS testing, requiring a suite of interventions to effectively address inequities.

Real-world Trends, Rural-urban Differences, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Utilization of Narrow versus Broad Next-generation Sequencing Panels

Advances in genetic technology have led to the increasing use of genomic panels in precision oncology practice, with panels ranging from a couple to hundreds of genes. However, the clinical utilization and utility of oncology genomic panels, especially among vulnerable populations, is unclear. We examined the association of panel size with socioeconomic status and clinical trial matching. We retrospectively identified 9,886 eligible adult subjects in the Mayo Clinic Health System who underwent genomic testing between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2020. Patient data were retrieved from structured and unstructured data sources of institutional collections, including cancer registries, clinical data warehouses, and clinical notes. Socioeconomic surrogates were approximated using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) corresponding to primary residence addresses. Logistic regression was performed to analyze relationships between ADI or rural/urban status and (i) use of genomic test by panel size; (ii) clinical trial matching status. Compared with patients from the most affluent areas, patients had a lower odds of receiving a panel test (vs. a single-gene test) if from areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation [OR (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71 (0.61-0.83), P < 0.01] or a rural area [OR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.76-0.96), P < 0.01]. Patients in areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation were less likely to be matched to clinical trials if receiving medium panel tests [(OR) (95% CI): 0.69 (0.49-0.97), P = 0.03]; however, there was no difference among patients receiving large panel tests (P > 0.05) and rural patients were almost 2x greater odds of being matched if receiving a large panel test [(OR) (95% CI): 1.76 (1.21-2.55), P < 0.01].

SIGNIFICANCE

We identified socioeconomic and rurality disparities in the use of genomic tests and trial matching by panel size, which may have implications for equal access to targeted therapies. The lack of association between large panel tests and clinical trial matching by socioeconomic status, suggests a potential health equity impact, while removing barriers in access to large panels for rural patients may improve access to trials. However, further research is needed.

Trends and Clinical Characteristics of Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Genetic Panel Tests: An Analysis of Korean Nationwide Claims Data

PURPOSE

In the modern era of precision medicine, next-generation sequencing (NGS) is employed for a variety of clinical purposes. The aim of this study was to investigate the trends and clinical characteristics of NGS testing in South Korea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study examined National Health Insurance Service claims data from 2017 to 2021 for NGS and from 2008 to 2021 for gene-targeted anticancer drugs.

RESULTS

Among the total 98,748 claims, there were 51,407 (52.1%) solid cancer panels, 30,173 (30.5%) hereditary disease panels, and 17,168 (17.4%) hematolymphoid cancer panels. The number of annual claims showed a persistent upward trend, exhibiting a 5.4-fold increase, from 5,436 in 2017 to 29,557 in 2021. In the solid cancer panel, colorectal cancer was the most common (19.2%), followed by lung cancer (18.8%). The annual claims for targeted cancer drugs have increased 25.7-fold, from 3,932 in 2008 to 101,211 in 2020. Drugs for the treatment of lung cancer accounted for 488,819 (71.9%) claims. The number of patients who received non-hereditary NGS testing has substantially increased, and among them, the count of patients prescribed targeted anticancer drugs consistently rose from 508 (13.9%) in 2017 to 2,245 (12.3%) in 2020.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the rising nationwide demand for comprehensive genetic testing for disease diagnosis and treatment following NGS reimbursement by the National Health Insurance in South Korea, in addition to the need for greater utilization of targeted anticancer drugs.

Disparities in Neuro-Oncology

PURPOSEOF REVIEW

Health disparities are preventable differences in the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of many diseases, including central nervous system (CNS) tumors. This review will summarize and compile the existing literature on health disparities in neuro-oncology and provide directions for future research and interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients from historically marginalized groups are more likely to receive inadequate treatment, develop complications, and experience a shorter life expectancy. Financial toxicity can be particularly severe for patients with CNS tumors due to the high costs of treatment. Additionally, CNS clinical trials and research lack diverse representation.

Diversity and Disparities in Lung Cancer Outcomes Among Minorities

ABSTRACT

Because of diversities and disparities, lung cancer incidence and mortality rates among minorities are disproportionate compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) populations. This review focuses on the disparities in lung cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes that minorities, mainly Hispanic and Black, experience compared with NHW populations. Despite efforts such as improving the eligibility criteria for screening to improve lung cancer survival rates, disparities persist, particularly among minority populations. However, the "Hispanic Paradox" describes the lower incidence and better survival rates observed in Hispanics compared with other ethnic groups best explained by possible contributions such as genetics and other factors such as dietary habits. Disparities in screening, particularly among underrepresented populations, are frequently explained by cultural, socioeconomic, and health care access barriers. There are also disparities in receiving appropriate treatment, such as surgical treatment, with fewer Hispanics and Blacks undergoing surgery than NHW individuals, resulting in lower overall survival rates. In addition, the prevalence of biomarker testing varies by racial and ethnic groups, influencing personalized treatment plans and outcomes. Finally, because of genetic and social determinants of health, the clinical outcomes of targeted therapy and immunotherapy may differ among minority populations. Identifying and addressing social determinants of health in real time are a "must" to have a significant impact in reducing lung cancer disparities. A comprehensive and multifaceted strategy is required to rectify disparities in cancer treatment. This strategy includes increasing levels of awareness and education, reducing financial and access barriers, and promoting increased diversity in clinical trial recruitment. By effectively addressing these complex challenges, the objective of providing equitable cancer care to all patients, regardless of race or ethnicity, can be achieved. To identify and address disparities, heightened awareness and education are essential. Access to health care is ensured by reducing financial and access barriers. Finally, increased diversity in clinical trial recruitment advances the generalizability of findings and promotes equitable representation of all racial and ethnic groups, resulting in improved outcomes for all patients.

Improving biomarker testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer: experience from a large community oncology network in the USA

Aim: Biomarker testing detects actionable driver mutations to inform first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study evaluated biomarker testing in a nationwide database (NAT) versus the OneOncology (OneOnc) community network. Patients & methods: Patients with aNSCLC or mCRC with ≥1 biomarker test in a de-identified electronic health record-derived database were evaluated. OneOnc oncologists were surveyed. Results: Biomarker testing rates were high and comparable between OneOnc and NAT; next-generation sequencing (NGS) rates were higher at OneOnc. Patients with NGS versus other biomarker testing were more likely to receive targeted treatment. Operational challenges and insufficient tissue were barriers to NGS testing. Conclusion: Community cancer centers delivered personalized healthcare through biomarker testing.

Understanding inequities in precision oncology diagnostics

Advances in molecular diagnostics have enabled the identification of targetable driver pathogenic variants, forming the basis of precision oncology care. However, the adoption of new technologies, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels, can exacerbate healthcare disparities. Here, we summarize data on use patterns of advanced biomarker testing, highlight the disparities in both accessing NGS testing and using this data to match patients to appropriate personalized therapies and propose multidisciplinary strategies to address inequities looking forward.

Implementation Challenges and Disparities in Molecular Testing for Patients With Stage IV NSCLC: Perspectives from an Urban Safety-Net Hospital

The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS), including both tissue assays and circulating tumor DNA (ct-DNA), has been pivotal in improving outcomes for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although molecular testing is standard of care for advanced NSCLC, challenges still exist in its implementation. This Perspective examines barriers to the widespread implementation of NGS from the vantage point of a single urban safety-net institution, with a particular focus on examining racial disparities in NGS completion. We conducted a review of patients at our institution from January 2015 through January 2022 and examined molecular testing patterns before and after the publication of updated molecular testing guidelines from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), and College of American Pathologists (CAP) in March of 2018. While NGS increased over time, we found that 43% of patients in the March 2018 through January 2022 group still did not receive NGS, and the most common reasons for the absence of testing included a lack of physician ordering and insufficient tissue on biopsy. We did not note any racial disparities in completion or time-to-adoption of NGS. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) histology were noted to receive liquid NGS markedly less often than patients with non-squamous histology in the March 2018 through January 2022 period. Based on our own data and a review of findings from colleagues in the field, we advocate for additional physician educational programming, increased use of ct-DNA biopsy, automated (reflexive) NGS tissue testing on receipt of biopsy, and consideration for the broader molecular profiling of patients with SCC histology.

Next-Generation Sequencing for Advanced Breast Cancer: What the Way to Go?

The rapid implementation of precision medicine tools in diagnosing and treating breast cancer (BC) has widened the potential therapeutic options for patients. The applications of gene sequencing, including next-generation gene sequencing (NGS), have led to numerous questions on how to validate, implement, interpret, prioritize and operationalize precision medicine tools to deliver meaningful and impactful interventions. Limited benefit has been portended with earlier experiences of NGS-driven treatment, in BC. However, the development and use of frameworks of clinical actionability of genomic alterations, for example, detected with NGS, has resulted in better patient selection, and potentially higher therapeutic value. The European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) is a framework that includes five tiers of clinical actionability, with tier 1 reserved for approved drugs with demonstrated benefits for targetable genomic alterations. The re-analysis of clinical studies by grouping the genomic alterations and matched drugs with ESCAT, in high vs lower tiers has demonstrated a significant benefit portended by high tiers alterations, with the availability of efficacious treatments. As a result, frameworks for actionability, like ESCAT, should be fundamental in developing and implementing NGS-driven, and broadly, precision medicine research and treatments.

TP53 Co-Mutation Status Association with Clinical Outcomes in Patients with EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

TP53 co-mutations have shown association with poor prognosis in various solid tumors. For EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), conflicting results exist regarding its impact on survival. Clinical outcomes and genomic data were obtained retrospectively from the real-world (rw) de-identified clinicogenomic database. Patients who initiated therapy for EGFR-mutated aNSCLC between January 2014 and December 2020 were identified. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by TP53-mutational status. In 356 eligible EGFR-mutated aNSCLC patients (median age 68 years), 210 (59.0%) had TP53 co-mutation and 146 (41.0%) had TP53 wild-type tumor. Unadjusted analysis showed significantly shorter survival in patients with TP53 co-mutation versus TP53 wild-type (rw progression-free survival [rwPFS]: HR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, p = 0.0196; overall survival [OS]: HR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.0088). Multivariable analysis confirmed independent association between TP53 co-mutation and worse rwPFS (HR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-0.9, p = 0.0280) and OS (HR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.0, p = 0.0345). Directionally consistent findings were observed for response rates, and subgroups by EGFR-activating mutation and first-line (1 L) therapy, with more pronounced negative effect in 1 L EGFR-TKI subgroup. TP53 co-mutations negatively affected survival in patients with EGFR-mutated aNSCLC receiving standard 1 L therapy in real-world practice.

The Identification and Clinical Applications of Mutated Antigens in the Era of Immunotherapy

Simple Summary

In this review article, we highlight the process and importance of identifying neoantigens for immunotherapy for cancer. Although the process of identifying neoantigens may be time-consuming and costly, various efforts are being conducted at different stages of pre-clinical and clinical development to improve the process and identify neoantigens. This initiative will be imperative in developing the next generation of cost-efficient and potent immunotherapies against cancer.

Abstract

The era of personalized cancer therapy is here. Advances in the field of immunotherapy have paved the way for the development of individualized neoantigen-based therapies that can translate into favorable treatment outcomes and fewer side effects for patients. Addressing challenges related to the identification, access, and clinical application of neoantigens is critical to accelerating the development of individualized immunotherapy for cancer patients.

Impact of a Clinical Genomics Program on Trial Accrual for Targeted Treatments: Practical Approach Overcoming Barriers to Accrual for Underserved Patients

PURPOSE

Clinical trials of novel and targeted agents increasingly require biomarkers for eligibility. Precision oncology continues to evolve, but challenges hamper broad use of molecular profiling (MP) that could increase the number of patients benefiting from targeted therapy. We implemented an integrated clinical genomics program (CGP), including a virtual Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), and examined its impact on MP use and impact on clinical trial accrual in a multisite regional-based cancer system with an emphasis on effects for isolated clinicians.

METHODS

We assessed MP and MTB use from 2010 to 2020 by practice location, physician experience, and patient characteristics. Use of MTB-recommended treatments was assessed. Clinical trial enrollment was evaluated for patients with MP versus MP and MTB review.

RESULTS

After CGP implementation, the number of physicians using MP and the number of MP tests increased ≥ 10-fold. The proportion of Hispanic patients with MP was the same as that in the system (both 2%) with marginal differences observed in the proportion of African Americans tested compared with the system population (16% v 19%). Physicians followed MTB treatment recommendations in 74% of cases. Rapid clinical decline was the most common reason why physicians did not follow MTB recommendations. Clinical trial accrual was 15% (669 of 4,459) for patients with MP alone and 28% (94 of 334) with both MP and MTB review. Clinical trial availability and patient out-of-pocket costs affected MP use.

CONCLUSION

Integrating CGP into clinical workflow with decision support tools, trial matching, and management of patient costs led to increased use of MP by physicians with all levels of experience, enhanced clinical trial accrual, and has the potential to reduce disparities in MP.

State legislative trends related to biomarker testing

Comprehensive biomarker testing has become the standard of care for informing the choice of the most appropriate targeted therapy for many patients with advanced cancer. Despite evidence demonstrating the need for comprehensive biomarker testing to enable the selection of appropriate targeted therapies and immunotherapy, the incorporation of biomarker testing into clinical practice lags behind recommendations in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Coverage policy differences across insurance health plans have limited the accessibility of comprehensive biomarker testing largely to patients whose insurance covers the recommended testing or those who can pay for the testing, and this has contributed to health disparities. Furthermore, even when insurance coverage exists for recommended biomarker testing, patients may incur burdensome out-of-pocket costs depending on their insurance plan benefits, which may also create barriers to testing. Prior authorization for biomarker testing for some patients can add an administrative burden and may delay testing and thus treatment if it is not done in a timely manner. Recently, three states (Illinois, Louisiana, and California) passed laws designed to improve access to biomarker testing at the state level. However, there is variability among these laws in terms of the population affected, the stage of cancer, and whether the coverage of testing is mandated, or the legislation addresses only prior authorization. Advocacy efforts by patient advocates, health care professionals, and professional societies are imperative at the state level to further improve coverage for and access to appropriate biomarker testing.

Geography Should Not Be an "Oncologic Destiny" for Urothelial Cancer: Improving Access to Care by Removing Local, Regional, and International Barriers

Urothelial cancer care is particularly susceptible to geographical health disparity given its complex nature, requiring access to several specialists such as a urologist, a medical oncologist, a radiation oncologist, a surgical oncologist, and multidisciplinary care teams. Furthermore, other barriers to care access in underserved areas include travel burden, longer wait times, late-stage disease at the time of diagnosis, cost, type of treatment, less enrollment in clinical trials, lack of follow-up among cancer survivors, and less research funding in this area. Here, we discuss the impact of geographical location on access to urothelial cancer care, management decisions, and outcomes and we reflect on how to address geographical disparities in care delivery.

The Role of Medical Mistrust in Concerns about Tumor Genomic Profiling among Black and African American Cancer Patients

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) is used in oncology practice to optimize cancer treatment and improve survival rates. However, TGP is underutilized among Black and African American (AA) patients, creating potential disparities in cancer treatment outcomes. Cost, accuracy, and privacy are barriers to genetic testing, but medical mistrust (MM) may also influence how Black and AA cancer patients perceive TGP. From December 2019 to February 2020, 112 Black and AA adults from two outpatient oncology sites in Philadelphia, PA without a known history of having TGP testing conducted completed a cross-sectional survey. Items queried included sociodemographic characteristics, clinical factors, patient-oncologist relationship quality, medical mistrust, and concerns about TGP. A k-means cluster analysis revealed two distinct psychographic clusters: high (MM-H) versus low (MM-L) medical mistrust. Clusters were not associated with any sociodemographic or clinical factors, except for age (MM-H patients older than MM-L patients, p = 0.006). Eleven TGP concerns were assessed; MM-H patients expressed greater concerns than MM-L patients, including distrust of the government, insurance carriers, and pharmaceutical companies. TGP concerns varied significantly based on level of medical mistrust, irrespective of sociodemographic characteristics. Targeted communications addressing TGP concerns may mitigate disparities in TGP uptake among those with medical mistrust.