Biomarker testing for breast, lung, and gastroesophageal cancers at NCI designated cancer centers

BACKGROUND

Molecular biomarkers, a cornerstone of precision oncology, are critical in breast, gastroesophageal, and non-small cell lung cancer management (BC, GEC, NSCLC). Testing practices are intensely debated, impacting diagnostic quality and affecting pathologists, oncologists and patients. However, little is known about testing approaches used in practice. Our study described biomarker practices in BC, GEC, and NSCLC at the leading US cancer centers.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated centers on BC, GEC, and NSCLC biomarker testing. We used simple frequencies to describe practices, two-sided Fisher's exact test and two-sided McNemar's test for cross-cancer comparison. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

For BC human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), 39% of centers combine guidelines by using in situ hybridization (ISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) concurrently, and 21% reflex-test beyond guideline-recommended IHC2+. For GEC HER2, 44% use ISH and IHC concurrently, and 28% reflex-test beyond IHC2+. In NSCLC, the use of IHC is limited to 4% for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and 7% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK). 43.5% test NSCLC biomarkers on oncologist order; 34.5% run all biomarkers upfront, and 22% use a sequential protocol. NSCLC external testing is statistically significantly higher than BC (P < .0001) and GEC (P < .0001). NSCLC internally developed tests are statistically significantly more common than BC (P < .0001) and GEC (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

At the NCI cancer centers, biomarker testing practices vary, but exceeding guidelines is a common practice for established biomarkers and emerging practice for newer biomarkers. Use of internally developed tests declines as biomarkers mature. Implementation of multibiomarker protocols is lagging. Our study represents a step toward developing a biomarker testing practice landscape.

What do providers, payers and patients need from comparative effectiveness research on diagnostics? The case of HER2/Neu testing in breast cancer

AIMS

Comparing effectiveness of diagnostic tests is one of the highest priorities for comparative effectiveness research (CER) set by the Institute of Medicine. Our study aims to identify what information providers, payers and patients need from CER on diagnostics, and what challenges they encounter implementing comparative information on diagnostic alternatives in practice and policy.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Using qualitative research methods and the example of two alternative protocols for HER2 testing in breast cancer, we conducted interviews with 45 stakeholders: providers (n = 25) from four academic and eight nonacademic institutions, executives (n = 13) from five major US private payers and representatives (n = 7) from two breast cancer patient advocacies.

RESULTS

The need for additional scientific evidence to determine the preferred HER2 protocol was more common for advocates than payers (100 vs 54%; p = 0.0515) and significantly more common for advocates than providers (100 vs 40%; p = 0.0077). The availability of information allowing assessment of the implementation impact from alternative diagnostic protocols on provider institutions may mitigate the need for additional scientific evidence for some providers and payers (24 and 46%, respectively). The cost-effectiveness of alternative protocols from the societal perspective is important to payers and advocates (69 and 71%, respectively) but not to providers (0%; p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0001). The lack of reporting laboratory practices is a more common implementation challenge for payers and advocates (77 and 86%, respectively) than for providers (32%). The absence of any mechanism for patient involvement was recognized as a challenge by payers and advocates (69 and 100%, respectively) but not by providers (0%; p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Comparative implementation research is needed to inform the stakeholders considering diagnostic alternatives. Transparency of laboratory practices is an important factor in enabling implementation of CER on diagnostics in practice and policy. The incongruent views of providers versus patient advocates and payers on involving patients in diagnostic decisions is a concerning challenge to utilizing the results of CER.

Aligning the economic value of companion diagnostics and stratified medicines

The twin forces of payors seeking fair pricing and the rising costs of developing new medicines has driven a closer relationship between pharmaceutical companies and diagnostics companies, because stratified medicines, guided by companion diagnostics, offer better commercial, as well as clinical, outcomes. Stratified medicines have created clinical success and provided rapid product approvals, particularly in oncology, and indeed have changed the dynamic between drug and diagnostic developers. The commercial payback for such partnerships offered by stratified medicines has been less well articulated, but this has shifted as the benefits in risk management, pricing and value creation for all stakeholders become clearer. In this larger healthcare setting, stratified medicine provides both physicians and patients with greater insight on the disease and provides rationale for providers to understand cost-effectiveness of treatment. This article considers how the economic value of stratified medicine relationships can be recognized and translated into better outcomes for all healthcare stakeholders.