Why the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should have required a randomized trial of Foundation Medicine (F1CDx) before paying for it

Improving the turnaround time of molecular profiling for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Outcome of a new algorithm integrating multiple approaches

BACKGROUND

Molecular tumor profiling to identify oncogenic drivers and actionable mutations has a profound impact on how lung cancer is treated. Especially in the subgroup of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), molecular testing for certain mutations is crucial in daily clinical practice and is recommended by international guidelines. To date, a standardized approach to identify druggable genetic alterations are lacking. We have developed and implemented a new diagnostic algorithm to harmonize the molecular testing of NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed 119 patients diagnosed with NSCLC at the University Hospital Zurich. Tumor samples were analyzed using our standardized diagnostic algorithm: After the histological diagnosis was made, tissue samples were further analyzed by immunohistochemical stainings as well as the real-time PCR test Idylla™. Extracted DNA was further utilized for comprehensive genomic profiling (FoundationOne®CDx, F1CDx).

RESULTS

Out of the 119 patients were included in this study, 100 patients were diagnosed with non-squamous NSCLC (nsqNSCLC) and 19 with squamous NSCLC (sqNSCLC). The samples from the nsqNSCLC patients underwent testing by Idylla™ and were evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC). F1CDx analysis was run on 67 samples and 46 potentially actionable genomic alterations were detected. Ten patients received the indicated targeted treatment. The median time to test results was 4 days for the Idylla test, 5 days for IHC and 13 days for the F1CDx.

CONCLUSION

In patients with NSCLC, the implementation of a standardized molecular testing algorithm provided information on predictive markers for NSCLC within a few working days. The implementation of broader genomic profiling led to the identification of actionable targets, which would otherwise not have been discovered.

Application of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Assay to Improve Cancer Care in a Developing Country

PURPOSE

Identifying actionable oncogenic mutations have changed the therapeutic landscape in different types of tumors. This study investigated the utility of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP), a hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay, in clinical practice in a developing country.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, CGP was performed on clinical samples from patients with different solid tumors recruited between December 2016 and November 2020, using hybrid capture-based genomic profiling, at the individual treating physicians' request in the clinical care for therapy decisions. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were estimated to characterize the time-to-event variables.

RESULTS

Patients median age was 61 years (range: 14-87 years), and 64.7% were female. The most common histological diagnosis was lung primary tumors, with 90 patients corresponding to 52.9% of the samples (95% CI 45.4-60.4%). Actionable mutations with FDA-approved medications for specific alterations correspondent to tumoral histology were identified in 58 cases (46.4%), whereas other alterations were detected in 47 different samples (37.6%). The median overall survival was 15.5 months (95% CI 11.7 months-NR). Patients who were subjected to genomic evaluation at diagnosis reached a median overall survival of 18.3 months (95% CI 14.9 months-NR) compared to 14.1 months (95% CI 11.1 months-NR) in patients who obtained genomic evaluation after tumor progression and during standard treatment (P = .7).

CONCLUSION

CGP of different types of tumors identifies clinically relevant genomic alterations that have benefited from targeted therapy and improve cancer care in a developing country to guide personalized treatment to beneficial outcomes of cancer patients.

Homologous Recombination Deficiency Assays in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Current Status and Future Direction

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients are generally diagnosed at an advanced stage, usually relapse after initial treatments, which include debulking surgery and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, and eventually have poor 5-year survival of less than 50%. In recent years, promising survival benefits from maintenance therapy with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor (PARPi) has changed the management of EOC in newly diagnosed and recurrent disease. Identification of BRCA mutations and/or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is critical for selecting patients for PARPi treatment. However, the currently available HRD assays are not perfect predictors of the clinical response to PARPis in EOC patients. In this review, we introduce the concept of synthetic lethality, the rationale of using PARPi when HRD is present in tumor cells, the clinical trials of PARPi incorporating the HRD assays for EOC, the current HRD assays, and other HRD assays in development.

Impact and Diagnostic Gaps of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in Real-World Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

next-generation sequencing based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is becoming common practice. Although numerous studies have shown its feasibility to identify actionable genomic alterations in most patients, its clinical impact as part of routine management across all cancers in the community remains unknown.

METHODS

we conducted a retrospective study of all patients that underwent CGP as part of routine cancer management from January 2013 to June 2017 at an academic community-based NCI-designated cancer center. CGP was done in addition to established first tier reflex molecular testing as per national guidelines (e.g., EGFR/ALK for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and extended-RAS for colorectal cancer).

RESULTS

349 tests were sent for CGP from 333 patients and 95% had at least one actionable genomic alteration reported. According to the reported results, 23.2% had a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapy available, 61.3% had an off-label therapy available and 77.9% were potentially eligible for a clinical trial. Treatment recommendations were also reviewed within the OncoKB database and 47% of them were not clinically validated therapies. The CGP results led to treatment change in only 35 patients (10%), most commonly in NSCLC. Nineteen of these patients (54% of those treated and 5% of total) had documented clinical benefit with targeted therapy.

CONCLUSION

we demonstrate that routine use of CGP in the community across all cancer types detects potentially actionable genomic alterations in a majority of patients, however has modest clinical impact enriched in the NSCLC subset.

Insights From a Temporal Assessment of Increases in US Private Payer Coverage of Tumor Sequencing From 2015 to 2019

OBJECTIVES

To examine the temporal trajectory of insurance coverage for next-generation tumor sequencing (sequencing) by private US payers, describe the characteristics of coverage adopters and nonadopters, and explore adoption trends relative to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' National Coverage Determination (CMS NCD) for sequencing.

METHODS

We identified payers with positive coverage (adopters) or negative coverage (nonadopters) of sequencing on or before April 1, 2019, and abstracted their characteristics including size, membership in the BlueCross BlueShield Association, and whether they used a third-party policy. Using descriptive statistics, payer characteristics were compared between adopters and nonadopters and between pre-NCD and post-NCD adopters. An adoption timeline was constructed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine payers had a sequencing policy. Positive coverage started November 30, 2015, with 1 payer and increased to 33 (48%) as of April 1, 2019. Adopters were less likely to be BlueCross BlueShield members (P < .05) and more likely to use a third-party policy (P < .001). Fifty-eight percent of adopters were small payers. Among adopters, 52% initiated coverage pre-NCD over a 25-month period and 48% post-NCD over 17 months.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an increase, but continued variability, in coverage over 3.5 years. Temporal analyses revealed important trends: the possible contribution of the CMS NCD to a faster pace of coverage adoption, the interdependence in coverage timing among BlueCross BlueShield members, the impact of using a third-party policy on coverage timing, and the importance of small payers in early adoption. Our study is a step toward systematic temporal research of coverage for precision medicine, which will inform policy and affordability assessments.

Estimation of the Percentage of US Patients With Cancer Who Benefit From Genome-Driven Oncology

Importance

To date, the benefit of genome-driven cancer therapy has not been quantified.

Objective

We sought to estimate the annual percentage of patients in the United States with advanced or metastatic cancer who could be eligible for and benefit from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved genome-driven therapy from 2006 to 2018.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cross-sectional study using publically available data of (1) demographic characteristics of patients with advanced or metastatic cancer; (2) FDA data on cancer drugs approved from January 2006 through January 2018; (3) measures of response and duration of response from drug labels; and (4) published reports estimating the frequency of various genomic aberrations used to estimate what percentage of patients would have been eligible for and would have benefited from genome-driven therapy during the studied period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Estimated percentage of US patients with cancer eligible for and benefiting from genome-targeted and genome-informed therapy by year, response rate of genome-informed indications, and duration of response.

Results

A total of 31 drugs with 38 FDA-approved indications met our inclusion criteria for genome-targeted or genome-informed therapy from January 1, 2006, through January 31, 2018. The estimated number of patients eligible for genome-targeted therapy in 2006 was 28 729 of a total 564 830 patients with metastatic cancer, or 5.09% (95% CI, 5.03%-5.14%). By 2018, this number had increased to 50 811 of 609 640, or 8.33% (95% CI, 8.26%-8.40%). For genome-informed therapy in 2006, the eligible number of patients was 59 301 of 564 830, or 10.50% (95% CI, 10.42%-10.58%). In 2018, genome-informed treatment could be offered to 94 157 of 609 640, or 15.44% (95% CI, 15.35%-15.53%) of patients with metastatic cancer. The percentage of patients with cancer estimated to benefit from genome-targeted therapy in 2006 was 0.70% (95% CI, 0.68%-0.72%), and in 2018, it had increased to 4.90% (95% CI, 4.85%-4.95%). For genome-informed treatment in 2006, the percentage estimated to benefit was 1.31% (95% CI, 1.28%-1.34%), and in 2018, it had increased to 6.62% (95% CI, 6.56%-6.68%). The median overall response rate for all genome-informed drugs through January 2018 was 54%, and the median duration of response was 29.5 months.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although the number of patients eligible for genome-driven treatment has increased over time, these drugs have helped a minority of patients with advanced cancer. To accelerate progress in precision oncology, novel trial designs of genomic therapies should be developed, and broad portfolios of drug development, including immunotherapeutic and cytotoxic approaches, should be pursued.

Review of applications of high-throughput sequencing in personalized medicine: barriers and facilitators of future progress in research and clinical application

There has been an exponential growth in the performance and output of sequencing technologies (omics data) with full genome sequencing now producing gigabases of reads on a daily basis. These data may hold the promise of personalized medicine, leading to routinely available sequencing tests that can guide patient treatment decisions. In the era of high-throughput sequencing (HTS), computational considerations, data governance and clinical translation are the greatest rate-limiting steps. To ensure that the analysis, management and interpretation of such extensive omics data is exploited to its full potential, key factors, including sample sourcing, technology selection and computational expertise and resources, need to be considered, leading to an integrated set of high-performance tools and systems. This article provides an up-to-date overview of the evolution of HTS and the accompanying tools, infrastructure and data management approaches that are emerging in this space, which, if used within in a multidisciplinary context, may ultimately facilitate the development of personalized medicine.

Late translational research: putting forward a new model for developing new anti-cancer treatments that addresses the needs of patients and society

Bringing therapeutic innovation and the latest science to routine patient care, while safeguarding principles of affordability and equality, is a challenging mission in the current complex multi-stakeholder environment. Precision oncology and new approaches to clinical trials (methods and clinical setting) have dramatically changed clinical research and the clinical development of new treatments. Improved understanding of molecular biology and immunology paves the way for innovative pharmacological approaches. However, we argue that the evidence generated during the clinical development of these new products for the purpose of obtaining marketing authorisations often does not address fundamental questions concerning the impact of these new interventions on the most relevant clinical outcomes: namely, quality of life and patient survival. Similarly, patient populations (for example defined by biomarkers), treatment duration, and sequence and combination of treatments within current treatment pathways are often poorly defined by clinical developments for regulatory purposes. Finally, the lack of integrated translational research within the pathway of development is a major limiting factor to delivering cost-effective and affordable, evidence-based care to clinical practice. This leaves many gaps in the knowledge on the efficacy and therapeutic use of medicines, which can impose a significant financial burden on healthcare systems, possibly to the detriment of more cost-effective interventions. We argue that policy changes are required to integrate clinical research and healthcare to inform clinical practice. New routes toward optimising the integration of drug development and care are being proposed to achieve this ultimate goal.

Precision oncology: separating the wheat from the chaff

Precision oncology based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) test is growing in daily clinical practice. However, the real impact of this strategy in patients' outcome on a large scale remains uncertain. In this review, we summarise existing literature on this topic, limitations for broad NGS implementation, bottlenecks in genomic variant interpretation and the role of molecular tumour boards.

The Role of Next-Generation Sequencing in Precision Medicine: A Review of Outcomes in Oncology

Precision medicine seeks to use genomic data to help provide the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. Next-generation sequencing technology allows for the rapid and accurate sequencing of many genes at once. This technology is becoming more common in oncology, though the clinical benefit of incorporating it into precision medicine strategies remains under significant debate. In this manuscript, we discuss the early findings of the impact of next-generation sequencing on cancer patient outcomes. We investigate why not all patients with genomic variants linked to a specific therapy receive that therapy and describe current barriers. Finally, we explore the current state of health insurance coverage for individual genome sequencing and targeted therapies for cancer. Based on our analysis, we recommend increased transparency around the determination of "actionable mutations" and a heightened focus on investigating the variations in health insurance coverage across patients receiving sequencing-matched therapies.

From the Past to the Present: Insurer Coverage Frameworks for Next-Generation Tumor Sequencing

Next-generation sequencing promises major advancements in precision medicine but faces considerable challenges with insurance coverage. These challenges are especially important to address in oncology in which next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) holds a particular promise, guiding the use of life-saving or life-prolonging therapies. Payers' coverage decision making on NGTS is challenging because this revolutionary technology pushes the very boundaries of the underlying framework used in coverage decisions. Some experts have called for the adaptation of the coverage framework to make it better equipped for assessing NGTS. Medicare's recent decision to cover NGTS makes this topic particularly urgent to examine. In this article, we discussed the previously proposed approaches for adaptation of the NGTS coverage framework, highlighted their innovations, and outlined remaining gaps in their ability to assess the features of NGTS. We then compared the three approaches with Medicare's national coverage determination for NGTS and discussed its implications for US private payers as well as for other technologies and clinical areas. We focused on US payers because analyses of coverage approaches and policies in the large and complex US health care system may inform similar efforts in other countries. We concluded that further adaptation of the coverage framework will facilitate a better suited assessment of NGTS and future genomics innovations.