Precision cancer medicine: What has translated into clinical use in Belgium?

Contextual factors influencing the equitable implementation of precision medicine in routine cancer care in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine represents a paradigm shift in health systems, moving from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more individualized form of care, spanning multiple scientific disciplines including drug discovery, genomics, and health communication. This study aims to explore the contextual factors influencing the equitable implementation of precision medicine in Belgium for incorporating precision medicine into routine cancer care within the Belgian health system.

METHODS

As part of a foresight study, our approach evaluates critical factors affecting the implementation of precision oncology. The study scrutinizes contextual, i.e. demographic, economic, societal, technological, environmental, and political/policy-related (DESTEP) factors, identified through a comprehensive literature review and validated by a multidisciplinary group at the Belgian Cancer Center, Sciensano. An expert survey further assesses the importance and likelihood of these factors, illuminating potential barriers and facilitators to implementation.

RESULTS

Based on the expert survey, five key elements (rising cancer rates, dedicated healthcare reimbursement budgets, increasing healthcare expenditures, advanced information technology solutions for data transfer, and demand for high-quality data) are expected to influence the equitable implementation of precision medicine in routine cancer care in Belgium in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

This work contributes to the knowledge base on precision medicine in Belgium and public health foresight, exploring the implementation challenges and suggesting solutions with an emphasis on the importance of comparative analyses of health systems, evaluation of health technology assessment methods, and the exploration of ethical issues in data privacy and equity.

Unlocking the genomic landscape: Results of the Beyond 1 Million Genomes (B1MG) pilot in Belgium towards Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI)

Genomic medicine has great potential to offer insights into how humans' genetic variation can affect their health, prevention options and treatment responses. The Beyond 1 Million Genomes (B1MG) project was kicked off in 2020 with the aim of building a federated network of genomic data in Europe, in which Belgium took part as a piloting country. B1MG developed a framework to enable all interested countries to self-evaluate the level of maturity of national genomic medicine practices following a common matrix, called Maturity Level Model (MLM), that contained 49 indicators across eight domains: I. Governance and strategy; II. Investment and economic model; III. Ethics, legislation and policy; IV. Public awareness and acceptance; V. Workforce skills and organisation; VI. Clinical organisation, infrastructure and tools; VII. Clinical genomics guidelines and infrastructure; and VIII. Data management, standards and infrastructure. The ongoing Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project aims to capitalise on the experience of B1MG piloting countries and their MLM results. In this paper, we present the qualitative and quantitative outcomes of B1MG MLM assessment in Belgium and discuss their relevance to GDI. The insights gained from this study can be helpful for steering future policy directions and interventions on genomics in Belgium and beyond.

Challenges and solutions to system-wide use of precision oncology as the standard of care paradigm

The personalised oncology paradigm remains challenging to deliver despite technological advances in genomics-based identification of actionable variants combined with the increasing focus of drug development on these specific targets. To ensure we continue to build concerted momentum to improve outcomes across all cancer types, financial, technological and operational barriers need to be addressed. For example, complete integration and certification of the 'molecular tumour board' into 'standard of care' ensures a unified clinical decision pathway that both counteracts fragmentation and is the cornerstone of evidence-based delivery inside and outside of a research setting. Generally, integrated delivery has been restricted to specific (common) cancer types either within major cancer centres or small regional networks. Here, we focus on solutions in real-world integration of genomics, pathology, surgery, oncological treatments, data from clinical source systems and analysis of whole-body imaging as digital data that can facilitate cost-effectiveness analysis, clinical trial recruitment, and outcome assessment. This urgent imperative for cancer also extends across the early diagnosis and adjuvant treatment interventions, individualised cancer vaccines, immune cell therapies, personalised synthetic lethal therapeutics and cancer screening and prevention. Oncology care systems worldwide require proactive step-changes in solutions that include inter-operative digital working that can solve patient centred challenges to ensure inclusive, quality, sustainable, fair and cost-effective adoption and efficient delivery. Here we highlight workforce, technical, clinical, regulatory and economic challenges that prevent the implementation of precision oncology at scale, and offer a systematic roadmap of integrated solutions for standard of care based on minimal essential digital tools. These include unified decision support tools, quality control, data flows within an ethical and legal data framework, training and certification, monitoring and feedback. Bridging the technical, operational, regulatory and economic gaps demands the joint actions from public and industry stakeholders across national and global boundaries.

Usefulness and real-world outcomes of next generation sequencing testing in patients with cancer: an observational study on the impact of selection based on clinical judgement

Background

Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) panels are increasingly used in advanced patients with cancer to guide therapy. There is, however, controversy about when should these panels be used, and about their impact on the clinical course.

Methods

In an observational study of 139 patients with cancer having an NGS test [from January 1st, 2017 to December 30th, 2020, in two hospitals (Hospital Universitario de La Princesa and Hospital Universitario Quironsalud Madrid) from Spain], we evaluated whether the clinical course (progression-free survival, PFS) was influenced by drug-based criteria [druggable alterations, receiving a recommended drug, having a favourable ESCAT category (ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets)] or clinical judgement criteria.

Findings

In 111 of 139 cases that were successfully profiled, PFS was not significantly influenced by either having druggable alterations [median PFS for patients with druggable alterations was 170 (95% C.I.: 139-200) days compared to 299 (95% C.I.: 114-483) for those without; p = 0.37], receiving a proposed matching agent [median PFS for patients receiving a genomics-informed drug was 195 days (95% C.I.: 144-245), compared with 156 days for those that did not (95% C.I.: 85-226); p = 0.50], or having favourable ESCAT categories [median PFS for patients with ESCAT I-III was 183 days (95% C.I.: 104-261), compared with 180 (95% C.I.:144-215) for patients with ESCAT IV-X; p = 0.87]. In contrast, NGS testing performed within clinical judgement showed a significantly improved PFS [median PFS for patients that were profiled under the recommended scenarios was 319 days (95% C.I.: 0-658), compared to 123 days (95% C.I.: 89-156) in the non-recommended categories; p = 0.0020].

Interpretation

According to our data, real-world outcomes after NGS testing provide evidence of the benefit of clinical judgement in patients with either advanced cancers that routinely need multiple genetic markers, patients with advanced rare cancers, or patients that are screened for molecular clinical trials. By contrast, NGS does not seem to be valuable when performed in cases with a poor PS, rapidly progressing cancer, short expected lifetime, or cases with no standard therapeutic options.

Funding

RC, NR-L and MQF are recipients of the PMP22/00032 grant, funded by the ISCIII and co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The study also received funds from the CRIS Contra el Cancer Foundation.

Belgian observational survival data (incidence years 2004-2017) and expenditure for innovative oncology drugs in twelve cancer indications

BACKGROUND

The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency typically approve market access for cancer drugs based on surrogate end-points, which do not always translate into substantiated improvements in outcomes that matter the most to patients, i.e. survival and quality of life. These drugs often, also, have a high price tag. We assessed whether there was an increase in cancer drug expenditure for a broad selection of indications, and whether this correlates with increased overall survival.

METHODS

This cohort study used Belgian Cancer Registry data from 125,692 patients (12 cancer indications, incidence period 2004-2017), which was linked to reimbursement and survival data. This reliably represents the Belgian situation. One-to-five year observed survival probability, median survival time, oncology drug expenditure and mean oncology drug cost per patient were reviewed.

FINDINGS

In almost all indications, total expenditure and average treatment cost for oncology drugs increased over the years (2004-2017). In contrast, mixed findings are observed for the evolution in overall survival probability and median survival time. While an absolute improvement in the 3-year survival probability of about 10% is noticed in non-small-cell lung cancer and chronic myeloid leukaemia, improvements in about half of the other indications are limited or even absent.

INTERPRETATION

The Belgian observational data indicate that assuming 'innovative' oncology drugs always add value in terms of improved survival is often unjustified. The literature also highlights the problem of using surrogate end-points, and the lack of comparative evidence showing an added value of oncology drugs for both survival and quality of life at market approval or during the post-marketing phase. Comparative studies should be conducted in the pre-marketing phase that are suitable for registration purposes, aid reimbursement decisions and support physicians and patients when making treatment decisions.

An innovative framework to determine the implementation level of personalized medicine: A systematic review

Background

Personalized medicine (PM) is now the new frontier in patient care. The application of this new paradigm extends to various pathologies and different patient care phases, such as diagnosis and treatment. Translating biotechnological advances to clinical routine means adapting health services at all levels is necessary.

Purpose

This article aims to identify the elements for devising a framework that will allow the level of PM implementation in the country under study to be quantitatively and qualitatively assessed and that can be used as a guideline for future implementation plans.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The research question was: What are the domains for determining the level of implementation of PM at the national level? The domains for assessing the degree of PM implementation, which would form the framework, were established.

Results

19 full-text studies that met the inclusion criteria were peer-selected in the systematic review. From all the studies that were included, 37 elements-encompassed in 11 domains-were extracted for determining the degree of PM implementation. These domains and their constituent elements comprise the qualitative and quantitative assessment framework presented herein. Each of the elements can be assessed individually. On the other hand, the domains were standardized to all have the same weight in an overall assessment.

Conclusions

A framework has been developed that takes a multi-factorial approach to determine the degree of implementation of PM at the national level. This framework could also be used to rank countries and their implementation strategies according to the score they receive in the application of the latter. It could also be used as a guide for developing future national PM implementation strategies.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022338611, Identifier: CRD42022338611.