Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Rare and Heavily Pretreated Solid Tumors Treated according to the Results of Tumor Molecular Profiling

Cost-comparison analysis of a multiplatform tumour profiling service to guide advanced cancer treatment

Background

Tumor profiling is increasingly used in advanced cancer patients to define treatment options, especially in refractory cases where no standard treatment is available. Caris Molecular Intelligence (CMI) is a multiplatform tumor profiling service that is comprehensive of next-generation sequencing (NGS) of DNA and RNA, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridisation (FISH). The aim of this study is to compare costs of CMI-guided treatment with prior or planned treatment options in correlation with outcome results.

Methods

Retrospective data from five clinical trials were collected to define the treatment decision prior to the receipt of the CMI report (n = 137 patients). A systematic review of treatment data from 11 clinical studies of CMI (n = 385 patients) allowed a comparison of planned vs actual (n = 137) and prior vs actual (n = 229) treatment costs.

Results

Treatment plan was changed in 88% of CMI-profiled cases. The actual CMI guided treatment cost per cycle was £995 in 385 treated patients. Planned treatment costs were comparable to actual treatment costs (£979 vs £945; p = 0.7123) and prior treatment costs were not significantly different to profiling-guided treatments (£892 vs £850; p = 0.631).

Conclusions

Caris Molecular Intelligence guided treatment cost per cycle was in the range of prior or planned treatment cost/cycle. Due to beneficial overall survival the additional cost of performing CMI's multiplatform testing to the treatment costs seems to be cost-effective.

Preventive, predictive, and personalized medicine for effective and affordable cancer care

Preventive, predictive, and personalized medicine (PPPM) has created a wealth of new opportunities but added also new complexities and challenges. The European Cancer Prevention Organization already embraced unanimously molecular biology for primary and secondary prevention. The rapidly exploding genomic language and complexity of methods face oncologists with exponentially growing knowledge they need to assess and apply. Tissue specimen quality becomes one major concern. Some new innovative medicines cost beyond any reasonable threshold of financial support from patients, health care providers, and governments and risk sustainability for the health care system. In this review, we evaluate the path for genomic guidance to become the standard for diagnostics in cancer care and formulate potential solutions to simplify its implementation. Basically, introduction of molecular biology to guide therapeutic decisions can be facilitated through supporting the oncologist, the pathologist, the molecular laboratory, and the interventionist. Oncologists need to know the exact indication, utility, and limitations of each genomic service. Minimal requirements on the label must be addressed by the service provider. The interventionist is there to bring the most optimal tissue sample to pathology where the tissue is expanded to a variety of appropriate liquid-based samples. The large body of results then should be translated into meaningful clinical guidance for the individual patient. Surveillance, with the appropriate application of health economic indicators, can make this system long lasting. For governments and health care providers, optimal cancer care must result in a cost-effective, resource-sustainable, and patient-focused outcome.

Tumor Mutational Burden as an Independent Predictor of Response to Immunotherapy in Diverse Cancers

Immunotherapy induces durable responses in a subset of patients with cancer. High tumor mutational burden (TMB) may be a response biomarker for PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in tumors such as melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our aim was to examine the relationship between TMB and outcome in diverse cancers treated with various immunotherapies. We reviewed data on 1,638 patients who had undergone comprehensive genomic profiling and had TMB assessment. Immunotherapy-treated patients (N = 151) were analyzed for response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Higher TMB was independently associated with better outcome parameters (multivariable analysis). The RR for patients with high (≥20 mutations/mb) versus low to intermediate TMB was 22/38 (58%) versus 23/113 (20%; P = 0.0001); median PFS, 12.8 months vs. 3.3 months (P ≤ 0.0001); median OS, not reached versus 16.3 months (P = 0.0036). Results were similar when anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy was analyzed (N = 102 patients), with a linear correlation between higher TMB and favorable outcome parameters; the median TMB for responders versus nonresponders treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy was 18.0 versus 5.0 mutations/mb (P < 0.0001). Interestingly, anti-CTLA4/anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combinations versus anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy was selected as a factor independent of TMB for predicting better RR (77% vs. 21%; P = 0.004) and PFS (P = 0.024). Higher TMB predicts favorable outcome to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade across diverse tumors. Benefit from dual checkpoint blockade did not show a similarly strong dependence on TMB. Mol Cancer Ther; 16(11); 2598-608. ©2017 AACR.