Factors for a broad technology assessment of comprehensive genomic profiling in advanced cancer, a systematic review

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) allows for the identification of many targets. Reimbursement decision-making is, however, challenging because besides the health benefits of on-label treatments and costs, other factors related to diagnostic and treatment pathways may also play a role. The aim of this study was to identify which other factors are relevant for the technology assessment of CGP and to summarize the available evidence for these factors. After a scoping search and two expert sessions, five factors were identified: feasibility, test journey, wider implications of diagnostic results, organisation of laboratories, and "scientific spillover". Subsequently, a systematic search identified 83 studies collecting mainly evidence for the factors "test journey" and "wider implications of diagnostic results". Its nature was, however, of limited value for decision-making. We recommend the use of comparative strategies, uniformity in outcome definitions, and the inclusion of a comprehensive set of factors in future evidence generation.

Addressing immortal time bias in precision medicine: Practical guidance and methods development

OBJECTIVE

To compare theoretical strengths and limitations of common immortal time adjustment methods, propose a new approach using multiple imputation (MI), and provide practical guidance for using MI in precision medicine evaluations centered on a real-world case study.

STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN

Methods comparison, guidance, and real-world case study based on previous literature. We compared landmark analysis, time-distribution matching, time-dependent analysis, and our proposed MI application. Guidance for MI spanned (1) selecting the imputation method; (2) specifying and applying the imputation model; and (3) conducting comparative analysis and pooling estimates. Our case study used a matched cohort design to evaluate overall survival benefits of whole-genome and transcriptome analysis, a precision medicine technology, compared to usual care for advanced cancers, and applied both time-distribution matching and MI. Bootstrap simulation characterized imputation sensitivity to varying data missingness and sample sizes.

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE

Case study used population-based administrative data and single-arm precision medicine program data from British Columbia, Canada for the study period 2012 to 2015.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

While each method described can reduce immortal time bias, MI offers theoretical advantages. Compared to alternative approaches, MI minimizes information loss and better characterizes statistical uncertainty about the true length of the immortal time period, avoiding false precision. Additionally, MI explicitly considers the impacts of patient characteristics on immortal time distributions, with inclusion criteria and follow-up period definitions that do not inadvertently risk biasing evaluations. In the real-world case study, survival analysis results did not substantively differ across MI and time distribution matching, but standard errors based on MI were higher for all point estimates. Mean imputed immortal time was stable across simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Precision medicine evaluations must employ immortal time adjustment methods for unbiased, decision-grade real-world evidence generation. MI is a promising solution to the challenge of immortal time bias.

Clinical and analytical validation of FoundationOne®CDx, a comprehensive genomic profiling assay for solid tumors

FoundationOne®CDx (F1CDx) is a United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from treatment in accordance with the approved therapeutic product labeling for 28 drug therapies. F1CDx utilizes next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) technology to examine 324 cancer genes in solid tumors. F1CDx reports known and likely pathogenic short variants (SVs), copy number alterations (CNAs), and select rearrangements, as well as complex biomarkers including tumor mutational burden (TMB) and microsatellite instability (MSI), in addition to genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH) in ovarian cancer. CGP services can reduce the complexity of biomarker testing, enabling precision medicine to improve treatment decision-making and outcomes for cancer patients, but only if test results are reliable, accurate, and validated clinically and analytically to the highest standard available. The analyses presented herein demonstrate the extensive analytical and clinical validation supporting the F1CDx initial and subsequent FDA approvals to ensure high sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of the data reported. The analytical validation included several in-depth evaluations of F1CDx assay performance including limit of detection (LoD), limit of blank (LoB), precision, and orthogonal concordance for SVs (including base substitutions [SUBs] and insertions/deletions [INDELs]), CNAs (including amplifications and homozygous deletions), genomic rearrangements, and select complex biomarkers. The assay validation of >30,000 test results comprises a considerable and increasing body of evidence that supports the clinical utility of F1CDx to match patients with solid tumors to targeted therapies or immunotherapies based on their tumor's genomic alterations and biomarkers. F1CDx meets the clinical needs of providers and patients to receive guideline-based biomarker testing, helping them keep pace with a rapidly evolving field of medicine.

Mutational Landscape and Actionable Target Rates on Advanced Stage Refractory Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Chilean Experience

Major advances in sequencing technologies and targeted therapies have accelerated the incorporation of oncology into the era of precision medicine and “biomarker-driven” treatments. However, the impact of this approach on the everyday clinic has yet to be determined. Most precision oncology reports are based on developed countries and usually involve metastatic, hard-to-treat or incurable cancer patients. Moreover, in many cases race and ethnicity in these studies is commonly unreported and real-world evidence in this topic is scarce. Herein, we report data from a total of 202 Chilean advanced stage refractory cancer patients. Retrospectively, we collected patient data from NGS tests and IHC in order to determine the proportion of patients that would benefit from targeted treatments. Overall >20 tumor types were included in our cohort and 37% of patients (n = 74) displayed potentially actionable alterations, including on-label, off-label and immune checkpoint inhibitor recommendations. Our findings were in-line with previous reports such as the cancer genome atlas (TCGA). To our knowledge, this is the first report of its kind in Latin America delivering real-world evidence to estimate the percentage of refractory tumor patients that might benefit from precision oncology. Although this approach is still in its infancy in Chile, we strongly encourage the implementation of mutational tumor boards in our country in order to provide more therapeutic options for advanced stage refractory patients.

Clinical Utility of Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Panel Testing under the Universal Health-Care System in Japan: A Retrospective Analysis at a Single University Hospital

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay is part of routine care in Japan owing to its reimbursement by Japan's universal health-care system; however, reimbursement is limited to patients who finished standard treatment. We retrospectively investigated 221 patients who underwent Foundation One CDX (F1CDx) at our hospital. Every F1CDx result was assessed at the molecular tumor board (MTB) for treatment recommendation. Based on patients' preferences, presumed germline findings were also assessed at the MTB and disclosed at the clinic. In total, 204 patients underwent F1CDx and 195 patients completed the analysis; however, 13.8% of them could not receive the report due to disease progression. Among 168 patients who received the results, 41.6% had at least one actionable alteration, and 3.6% received genomically matched treatment. Presumed germline findings were nominated in 24 patients, and 16.7% of them contacted a geneticist counselor. The NGS assay should be performed earlier in the clinical course to maximize the clinical benefit. Broader reimbursement for the NGS assay would enhance the delivery of precision oncology to patients. Access to clinical trials affects the number of patients who benefit from NGS. Additionally, the disclosure of presumed germline findings is feasible in clinical practice.