Utilization Trends and Factors Associated With ROS1 Testing Among Patients With Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer in US Community Practices

Racial and ethnic disparities in genomic testing among lung cancer patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic disparities in genomic testing could exacerbate disparities in access to precision cancer therapies and survival-particularly in the context of lung cancer where genomic testing has been recommended for the past decade. However, prior studies assessing disparities in genomic testing have yielded mixed results.

METHODS

We conducted a systemic review to examine racial and ethnic disparities in the use of genomic testing among lung cancer patients in the United States. Two comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were conducted (September 2022, May 2023). Original studies that assessed rates of genomic testing by race or ethnicity were included. Findings were narratively synthesized by outcome.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2739 unique records, resulting in 18 included studies. All but 1 study were limited to patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer. Diagnosis years ranged from 2007 to 2022. Of the 18 studies, 11 found statistically significant differences in the likelihood of genomic testing by race or ethnicity; in 7 of these studies, testing was lower among Black patients compared with White or Asian patients. However, many studies lacked adjustment for key covariates and included patients with unclear eligibility for testing.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of studies, though not all, observed racial and ethnic disparities in the use of genomic testing among patients with lung cancer. Heterogeneity of study results throughout a period of changing clinical guidelines suggests that minoritized populations-Black patients in particular-have faced additional barriers to genomic testing, even if not universally observed at all institutions.

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.

Sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with receipt of biomarker testing in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Standard clinical practice and national guidelines dictate somatic testing of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) tumors to guide appropriate therapy; however, previous studies suggest that not all patients are tested. The objective of this study was to investigate potential differences in testing for mCRC by demographic and clinical factors.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of de-identified patient data derived from electronic health records (EHRs) of 25,469 patients diagnosed with mCRC between the years 2013 and 2020. Our outcome was a receipt of the following tests: (a) biomarker testing (BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, MMR/MSI) and (b) next-generation sequencing (NGS). We interrogated our data using the machine-learning algorithm Classification and Regression Tree (CART), a unique approach to identifying combinations of, rather than individual demographic and clinical characteristics associated with receipt of testing.

RESULTS

A total of 25,469 patients were identified with mCRC. Of these, 21,133 (83%) received either biomarker testing only (n = 12,485) or any testing (biomarker + NGS) (n = 8648). The proportion of patients who received any testing increased over calendar time for all age, race, and sex categories. Receipt of any testing was highest (90%) among younger and patients with better performance status, and there was no difference in receipt of any testing by race. The highest percentage of NGS testing was among those with better performance status, <70 years old, commercial or other governmental program payers, and low comorbidity burden; however, those who were Black or Hispanic had a lower prevalence of NGS testing than those who were White.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Considerable variations exist in somatic biomarker testing across subgroups of the population. Identification of genomic alterations can aid in determining targeted treatment and improving clinical outcomes; therefore, equitable use of these testing strategies, particularly NGS, is necessary.

Evaluation of lung cancer biomarkers profile for the decision of targeted therapy in EBUS-TBNA cytological samples

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend performing biomarker tests for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), BRAF and ROS proto-oncogene-1(ROS1) genes and protein expression of programmed death ligand-1(PD-L1) in patients with non-small lung cell carcinoma (NSCLC). Studies reported that endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) can provide sufficient material for cancer biomarker analyses, but there are still concerns about the subject.

AIM

The purpose of the study was to assess the adequacy of EBUS-TBNA for testing lung cancer biomarkers.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with NSCLC whose EBUS-TBNA was analysed for EGFR, ALK, ROS-1, BRAF and PD-L1 expression between December 2011 and December 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 394 patients were enrolled in the study. EGFR mutation and ALK fusion were the most common studied biomarkers. EBUS-TBNA adequacy rate for biomarker tests was found 99.0% for EGFR, 99.1 for ALK, 97.2% for ROS1, 100% for BRAF and 99.3% for PD-L1 testing. Multivariate analysis revealed the histological type, history of treatment for NSCL, size, or 18-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake of sampled lesion did not show any association with TBNA adequacy for biomarker testing.

CONCLUSION

EBUS-TBNA can provide adequate material for biomarker testing for EGFR, ALK, ROS-1, BRAF and PD-L1 expression.

Alignment of health plan coverage policies for somatic multigene panel testing with clinical guidelines in select solid tumors

Aim: Commercial plan coverage policies for multigene panel tests may vary and could result in geographic variation in coverage due to the fragmented nature of the commercial insurance market. This study aimed to characterize the alignment of multigene panel tests coverage policies to that of clinical guidelines, overall and by state. Materials & methods: We reviewed NCCN Guidelines^® for four tumors. Public coverage policies were identified via web search. Payer policies included those with the largest or second largest number of commercial lives in each state. Policies were classified as 'more restrictive' or 'consistent' with the guidelines. Results: Of 38 plans/policies reviewed, 71% were classified as 'more restrictive' than the guidelines, with variation in the number of commercial lives by state. Among these, 52% restricted on panel size and 63% restricted in all or select tumors. Conclusion: Most coverage policies were more restrictive. Clinical guideline clarity and state policies may improve alignment to guidelines and geographic variations.

Fusion-positive non-small cell lung carcinoma: Biological principles, clinical practice, and diagnostic implications

Based on superior efficacy and tolerability, targeted therapy is currently preferred over chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy for actionable gene fusions that occur in late-stage non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Consequently, current clinical practice guidelines mandate testing for ALK, ROS1, NTRK, and RET gene fusions in all patients with newly diagnosed advanced non-squamous NSCLC (NS-NSCLC). Gene fusions can be detected using different approaches, but today RNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) or combined DNA/RNA NGS is the method of choice. The discovery of other gene fusions (involving, eg, NRG1, NUT, FGFR1, FGFR2, MET, BRAF, EGFR, SMARC fusions) and their partners has increased progressively in recent years, leading to the development of new and promising therapies and mandating the development and implementation of comprehensive detection methods. The purpose of this review is to focus on recent data concerning the main gene fusions identified in NSCLC, followed by the discussion of major challenges in this domain.

Real-World Outcomes Among Crizotinib-Treated Patients with ROS1-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Community Oncology-Based Observational Study

Background

Crizotinib was the first oral targeted therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on 11 March 2016, for c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data to support long-term clinical benefit in a real-world setting are limited.

Objective

This study aimed to assess real-world clinical outcomes among patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC treated with crizotinib in the US community oncology setting.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using iKnowMed electronic health record data to identify adult patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC who initiated crizotinib between 17 January 2013 (time of the addition of crizotinib for ROS1-positive NSCLC to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines) and 1 June 2019 with a potential follow-up period through 1 December 2019. Patient characteristics were assessed descriptively. Kaplan–Meier analyses were used to evaluate time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). A Cox proportional hazards model was conducted to determine factors associated with OS.

Results

The study cohort included 38 ROS1-positive patients treated with crizotinib. The median age was 68 years (interquartile range 60.0–73.0) and 65.8% were female. Over 50% were current/former smokers, and 18.4% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2. Overall, 21 (55.3%) patients remained on crizotinib, 10 (26.3%) had evidence of subsequent treatment, and 16 (42.1%) died. The median TTD, TTNT, and OS were 25.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.2–not reached (NR)], 25.0 months (95% CI 5.2–61.0), and 36.2 months (95% CI 15.9–NR), respectively. In a multivariate Cox regression model, ECOG performance status of 2 was associated with a 4.9-fold higher risk of death (hazard ratio = 4.9; 95% CI 1.1–21.4) compared to ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.

Conclusions

This ROS1-positive NSCLC real-world population was older and had a higher proportion of smokers and of patients with poorer ECOG performance status than those investigated in clinical trials. Nevertheless, our findings support the clinical benefit of crizotinib in this patient population with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11523-021-00860-z.

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

Importance

In March 2018, Medicare issued a national coverage determination (NCD) for next-generation sequencing (NGS) to facilitate access to NGS testing among Medicare beneficiaries. It is unknown whether the NCD affected health equity issues for Medicare beneficiaries and the overall population.

Objective

To examine the association between the Medicare NCD and NGS use by insurance types and race and ethnicity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using electronic health record data derived from a real-world database. Data originated from approximately 280 cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care) in the US. Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), or advanced melanoma diagnosed from January 1, 2011, through March 31, 2020, were included.

Exposure

Pre- vs post-NCD period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients were classified by insurance type and race and ethnicity to examine patterns in NGS testing less than or equal to 60 days after diagnosis. Difference-in-differences models examined changes in average NGS testing in the pre- and post-NCD periods by race and ethnicity, and interrupted time-series analysis examined whether trends over time varied by insurance type and race and ethnicity.

Results

Among 92 687 patients with aNSCLC, mCRC, mBC, or advanced melanoma, mean (SD) age was 66.6 (11.2) years, 51 582 (55.7%) were women, and 63 864 (68.9%) were Medicare beneficiaries. The largest racial and ethnic categories according to the database used and further classification were Black or African American (8605 [9.3%]) and non-Hispanic White (59 806 [64.5%]). Compared with Medicare beneficiaries, changes in pre- to post-NCD NGS testing trends were similar in commercially insured patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .25). Pre- to post-NCD NGS testing trends increased at a slower rate among patients in assistance programs (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; P = .03) compared with Medicare beneficiaries. The rate of increase for patients receiving Medicaid was not statistically significantly different compared with those receiving Medicare (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.01; P = .07). The NCD was not associated with statistically significant changes in NGS use trends by racial and ethnic groups within Medicare beneficiaries alone or across all insurance types. Compared with non-Hispanic White individuals, increases in average NGS use from the pre-NCD to post-NCD period were 14% lower (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99; P = .04) among African American and 23% lower (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96; P = .02) among Hispanic/Latino individuals; increases among Asian individuals and those with other races and ethnicities were similar.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that expansion of Medicare-covered benefits may not occur equally across insurance types, thereby further widening or maintaining disparities in NGS testing. Additional efforts beyond coverage policies are needed to ensure equitable access to the benefits of precision medicine.

Novel Approach Using Administrative Claims to Evaluate Trends in Oncology Multigene Panel Testing for Patients Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Health Plans

PURPOSE

To develop an approach to identify and evaluate recent use of multigene panel testing over time.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database analysis using medical and pharmacy claims data. Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan members diagnosed with select malignant solid tumors were identified. The pattern of somatic genetic testing for each patient was evaluated from January 2016 through December 2018. Tests were classified by the number of genes tested in the panel: < 50 (small or medium) and ≥ 50 (large).

RESULTS

An initial feasibility study using our novel approach for identifying panel tests resulted in 2.4 and 1.2 times more large and medium panels, respectively, identified compared with using procedure codes alone. A total of 121,675 eligible patients were identified, with 131,915 unique cancer cases. Overall, 5,457 (4.5%) patients received any panel test from 2016 to 2018. We found the number of tests performed each quarter increased from 238 in Q1 of 2016 to 755 in Q4 of 2018. The highest number of cases were genitourinary cancers; however, the highest proportion of cancer-related genetic testing was among patients with respiratory cancer. Across all tumor types, the proportion of large-panel tests performed as a function of all multigene panel tests increased from 20.7% of tests in Q1 of 2016 to 46.4% of tests in Q4 of 2018. The three cancer categories with the highest count of cancer-related panel tests, respiratory cancer, GI cancer, and female reproductive cancer, had a consistently greater proportion receiving a panel test at any point postindex.

CONCLUSION

Across a variety of cancers, use of somatic, large-panel cancer-related genetic testing, as a proportion of all somatic cancer-related genetic testing, increased from 2016 to 2018, although testing overall was low.