Analytical Validation of the Labcorp Plasma Complete Test, a Cell-Free DNA Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Tool for Precision Oncology

To help guide treatment decisions and trial matching, tumor genomic profiling is an essential precision oncology tool. Liquid biopsy, a complementary approach to tissue testing, can assess tumor-specific DNA alterations circulating in the blood. Labcorp Plasma Complete is a next-generation sequencing, cell-free DNA comprehensive genomic profiling test that identifies clinically relevant somatic variants across 521 genes in advanced and metastatic solid cancers. Over 800 unique sequencing libraries across 27 cancer types were evaluated to establish analytical sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and precision, reproducibility, and repeatability (PRR). Sensitivity was verified for each variant type, with a median variant allele frequency (VAF) of 1.25% and 1.27% for panel-wide single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and insertions/deletions (indels) (sequence mutations), respectively, with <1% VAF sensitivity observed for clinically actionable variants, 1.72-fold for copy number amplifications (CNAs), 0.48% fusion read fraction for translocations, and 0.47% sequence mutation VAF for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H). Specificity was 99.9999% for SNVs and 100% for other variant types. PRR resulted in 94.9% average positive agreement (APA) and 99.9% average negative agreement (ANA) for sequence mutations and 100% APA and ANA for CNAs, translocations, and MSI-H. Orthogonal assays were utilized to assess accuracy, demonstrating concordance of 97.4% positive percent agreement and >99.99997% negative percent agreement across all variants. Overall, the test demonstrates high sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and robustness to enable informed clinical decision-making.

Usefulness of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in Clinical Decision-Making in Oncology: A Systematic Review

Biologic factors limiting responsiveness to matched targeted therapies include genomic heterogeneity and complexity. Advanced tumors with unique molecular profiles can be studied by comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and enhance patient outcomes using principles of precision medicine. The clinical utility of CGP across all cancer types and different therapeutic interventions using overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data was studied in this systematic literature review. Randomized controlled, nonrandomized, and observational studies conducted in adult patients with advanced cancer, dated up to September 2022, were searched from PubMed and EMBASE databases following PRISMA guidelines. Of 14 CGP studies, 7 (50%) and 9 (64%) reported OS and PFS as an outcome, respectively. Improved OS and PFS were reported when CGP guided treatment decisions, but its clinical utility varied among cancer types. Treatments were assigned based on matching scores and with the involvement of molecular tumor board (MTB) enhanced OS and PFS. Patients following MTB recommendations had superior treatment outcomes compared with those on physician's choice regimens. CGP clinically benefited patients with genomically matched therapies and yielded better clinical outcomes regardless of cancer type. Further, uniform clinical value-based ranking of actionable mutations can encourage oncologists to use CGP tests for patients.

Cost Effectiveness of Exclusionary EGFR Testing for Taiwanese Patients Newly Diagnosed with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Approximately half of lung adenocarcinomas in East Asia harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. EGFR testing followed by tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS), upfront tissue-based NGS, and complementary NGS approaches have emerged on the front line to guide personalized therapy. We study the cost effectiveness of exclusionary EGFR testing for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

This economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective of the healthcare sector with a lifetime horizon. Simulated patients were entered into a joint model combining decision trees and partitioned survival models upon diagnosis of advanced lung adenocarcinoma. We compared exclusionary EGFR testing with upfront tissue-based NGS and complementary NGS approaches. The model inputs were derived from regional estimates (prevalence of targetable gene alterations), trials (testing accuracy, survival outcomes, and adverse events), ACT Genomics (testing costs), National Health Insurance payments, retail prices (drug costs), and hospital cohorts (utility values). All costs were made equivalent to 2023 US dollars. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. We adopted a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$70,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. One-way deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exclusionary EGFR testing versus upfront tissue-based NGS was US$15,521 per quality-adjusted life-year, whereas the incremental net monetary benefit was US$2530. The costs of osimertinib and pembrolizumab were the major determinants. The incremental net monetary benefit of exclusionary EGFR testing versus complementary NGS approach was US$2174, and its major determinants included the true-negative rate of EGFR testing and the prevalence rate of an EGFR mutation. Given the willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$35,000, US$70,000, and US$105,000 (1, 2, and 3 per capita gross domestic product) per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that exclusionary EGFR testing would be cost effective were 79.1%, 95.6%, and 91.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that exclusionary EGFR testing is a cost-effective strategy for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

Potential barriers to implementation of next-generation sequencing in cancer management: a U.S. Physician-based survey

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to physicians' NGS use and preferred strategies to alleviate these barriers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey link was sent to a sample of US oncologists/hematologists, surgeons, and pathologists identified through a panel. The survey collected data, from October-December 2020, on barriers to NGS testing and potential strategies.

RESULTS

Two hundred physicians participated (mean age: 46.2 years; 65% male; 80% White, mean years in clinical practice: 13.7). Despite the use of NGS testing by all physicians, 99.5% reported concerns/barriers. Reimbursement challenges were the most cited reason (87.5%), followed by lack of knowledge of NGS testing methodologies (81.0%), and lack of clinical utility evidence (80.0%). The most common reimbursement challenge was prior authorizations for NGS testing (72.0%), followed by knowledge of new fee codes for reimbursement or corresponding therapy (68.0%), and paperwork/administrative duties (67.5%). Surgeons were more likely to encounter challenges in using NGS testing than other physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight the barriers reported by oncologists/hematologists, pathologists, and surgeons, which may impact the evolving role of NGS in the context of the overall management of cancer patients.

[Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer]

Treatment perspectives for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been significantly expanded by the integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors into multimodal therapy concepts. Currently, combined, immune checkpoint-inhibitor-based therapy concepts are also advancing into early, resectable stages of NSCLC. Neoadjuvant and perioperative chemoimmunotherapy opened up a promising new preoperative treatment approach, but also raises some new questions and challenges. With the expanded perioperative treatment options and the perspective on a further improvement in the absence of recurrence after tumor resection, there is push towards comprehensively collecting therapy-relevant findings for imaging, molecular and histopathological diagnostics at an early stage. All patients with lung carcinoma, regardless of the therapy intention, should be presented to an interdisciplinary tumor board with thoracic oncological expertise. This is regularly given in certified lung cancer centers.A standardized procedure contributes to optimized pre-therapeutic diagnostics and facilitates coordination for the best possible multimodal approach in the interdisciplinary tumor board. In the case of centrally located resectable tumors, for example, neoadjuvant treatment increases the chances of a procedure that is as parenchymal sparing as possible. Some questions cannot yet be answered conclusively. Perioperative systemic therapy with molecular-targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors is the subject of numerous ongoing studies. The considerable dynamics in newly approved therapies and the development of perioperative therapy concepts require continuous adaptation of diagnostic algorithms and standards. Integration into standard pre-surgical routine makes rapid classification of the relevant findings as well as close coordination between the diagnostic and interventional disciplines essential.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Methods for improving turnaround time of comprehensive biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer

Comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with non-small cell lung cancer is critical for selecting appropriate targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Ensuring timely ordering, processing, and reporting is key to optimizing patient outcomes. However, various factors can prevent or delay patients from being offered the option of treatment selection based on comprehensive biomarker testing. These factors include problems with access to testing, tissue adequacy, turnaround time, and health insurance coverage and billing practices. Turnaround time depends on several logistical and tissue handling factors, which involve institutional policies, processes, resources, testing methodology, and testing algorithms that vary across different practices. In this article, the authors identify key factors that prolong biomarker testing turnaround time, propose strategies to reduce it, and present a process map to aid physicians and key organizational stakeholders in improving testing efficiency.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Advancing comprehensive biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer

Comprehensive biomarker testing is a crucial requirement for the optimal treatment of advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with emerging relevance in the adjuvant treatment setting. To advance its goal of ensuring optimal therapy for persons diagnosed with lung cancer, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) held The Summit on Optimizing Lung Cancer Biomarkers in Practice in September 2020 to align its partners toward the goal of ensuring comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients with NSCLC. The ACS NLCRT's Strategic Plan for Advancing Comprehensive Biomarker Testing in NSCLC, a product of the summit, comprises actions to promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients. The approach is multifaceted, including policy-level advocacy and the development and dissemination of targeted educational materials, clinical decision tools, and guides to patients, physicians, and payers aimed at ameliorating barriers to testing experienced by each of these groups. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The ACS NLCRT works to improve care for patients with lung cancer. The ACS NLCRT supports comprehensive biomarker testing as essential to determine treatment options for all eligible patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Many factors lead to some patients not receiving optimal biomarker testing. The ACS NLCRT held a collaborative summit and developed a strategic plan to achieve and promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all patients. These plans include developing educational materials and physician tools and advocating for national policies in support of biomarker testing.

The relevance of the reference range for EGFR testing in non-small cell lung cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Identifying mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene is crucial for individualized treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Accordingly, several methodologies and instruments are now commercially available to detect these alterations. The aim of this study was to examine the performance of next generation sequencing (NGS) in detecting both common and uncommon EGFR gene mutations in advanced NSCLC patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively retrieved molecular data from n = 1312 advanced stage NSCLC patients tested by our NGS DNA-based panel (namely SiRe® panel) from January 2018 to December 2022. We subsequently compared the NGS results with the reference ranges of the most popular real time PCR (RT-qPCR) assays (cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2, EasyPGX® ready EGFR, Idylla™ EGFR mutation test, and therascreen® EGFR Plus RGQ).

RESULTS

Overall, NGS detected n = 234 mutations in n = 192 (15.9 %) patients. Conversely, when these results were compared with the reference ranges of the four most common commercially available RT-qPCR assays, far fewer mutations were identified: n = 18 (9.4 %), n = 17 (8.9 %), n = 17 (8.9 %), and n = 18 (9.4 %) mutations. These results suggest that if patients were tested solely using RT-qPCR assays, a substantial proportion would have been ineligible for targeted therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights that NGS is able to identify a much higher number of actionable EGFR mutations than RT-qPCR approaches, thereby providing many more patients the opportunity to receive targeted EGFR treatments.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of multi-gene panel sequencing to inform therapeutic decisions for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a population-based study

Background

Multi-gene panel sequencing streamlines treatment selection for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Implementation continues to be uneven across jurisdictions, partly due to uncertain clinical and economic impacts. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, the public healthcare system reimbursed a multi-gene panel in September 2016. This study determined the population-level cost-effectiveness of publicly reimbursed multi-gene panel sequencing compared to single-gene testing for advanced NSCLC.

Methods

Our population-based retrospective study design used patient-level linked administrative health databases. We considered adult BC residents with a panel-eligible lung cancer diagnosis between September 2016 and December 2018. Using a machine learning approach, we conducted 1:1 genetic algorithm matching of recipients receiving multi-gene panel sequencing to controls receiving single-gene testing, maximising balance on observed demographic and clinical characteristics. Following matching, we estimated mean three-year survival time and costs (public healthcare payer perspective; 2021 CAD) and calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for life-years gained (LYG) at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds using inverse probability of censoring weighted linear regression and nonparametric bootstrapping.

Findings

We matched 858 panel-eligible advanced NSCLC patients to controls, achieving balance for the 16 included covariates. Average test turnaround times were 18.6 days for multi-gene panel sequencing and 7.0 days for single-gene testing. After matching, mean incremental costs were $3529 (95% CI: -$4268, $10,942) and mean incremental LYG were 0.08 (95% CI: -0.04, 0.18). Among the 1000 bootstrap samples, 14.5% had lower costs and increased survival and 78.6% had higher costs and increased survival. The INMB was $523 (95% CI: -$6256, $7023) at $50,000/LYG, with a 57.5% probability of being cost-effective, and $4575 (95% CI: -$5468, $14,064) at $100,000/LYG, with an 84.0% probability of being cost-effective.

Interpretation

Using population-based real-world data, we found a moderate to high probability that panel-based testing to inform targeted treatment for NSCLC would be cost-effective at higher thresholds.

Funding

This research was supported by Genome British Columbia/Genome Canada (G05CHS) and the Terry Fox Research Institute.

Biomarkers to Inform Prognosis and Treatment for Unresectable or Metastatic GEP-NENs

Importance

Evidence-based treatment decisions for advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) require individualized patient-centered decision-making that accounts for patient and cancer characteristics.

Objective

To create an accessible guidance document to educate clinicians and patients on biomarkers informing prognosis and treatment in unresectable or metastatic GEP-NENs.

Methods

A multidisciplinary panel in-person workshop was convened to define methods. English language articles published from January 2016 to January 2023 in PubMed (MEDLINE) and relevant conference abstracts were reviewed to investigate prognostic and treatment-informing features in unresectable or metastatic GEP-NENs. Data from included studies were used to form evidence-based recommendations. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. Consensus was reached via electronic survey following a modified Delphi method.

Findings

A total of 131 publications were identified, including 8 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 6 randomized clinical trials, 29 prospective studies, and 88 retrospective cohort studies. After 2 rounds of surveys, 24 recommendations and 5 good clinical practice statements were developed, with full consensus among panelists. Recommendations focused on tumor and functional imaging characteristics, blood-based biomarkers, and carcinoid heart disease. A single strong recommendation was made for symptomatic carcinoid syndrome informing treatment in midgut neuroendocrine tumors. Conditional recommendations were made to use grade, morphology, primary site, and urinary 5-hydroxyindoleacetic levels to inform treatment. The guidance document was endorsed by the Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumour Collaboration and the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society.

Conclusions and Relevance

The study results suggest that select factors have sufficient evidence to inform care in GEP-NENs, but the evidence for most biomarkers is weak. This article may help guide management and identify gaps for future research to advance personalized medicine and improve outcomes for patients with GEP-NENs.

Impact of next-generation sequencing vs polymerase chain reaction testing on payer costs and clinical outcomes throughout the treatment journeys of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

For patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing has been associated with a faster time to appropriate targeted therapy and more comprehensive testing relative to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. However, the impact on payer costs and clinical outcomes during patients' treatment journeys has not been fully characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR biomarker testing among patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC from a US payers' perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model assessed costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR testing from the start of testing up to 3 years after. Patients entered the model after receiving biomarker test results and then initiated first-line (1L) targeted or nontargeted therapy (immunotherapy and/or chemotherapy) depending on actionable mutation detection. A few patients with an actionable mutation were not detected by PCR and inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy. At each 1-month cycle, patients could remain on treatment with 1L, progress to second line or later (2L+), or die. Literature-based inputs included the rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), targeted and nontargeted therapy costs, total costs of testing, and medical costs of 1L, 2L+, and death. Per patient average PFS and OS as well as cumulative costs were reported for NGS and PCR testing.

RESULTS

In a modeled population of 100 patients (75% commercial and 25% Medicare), 45.9% of NGS and 40.0% of PCR patients tested positive for an actionable mutation. Relative to PCR, NGS was associated with $7,386 in savings per patient (NGS = $326,154; PCR = $333,540) at 1 year, driven by lower costs of testing, including estimated costs of delayed care and nontargeted therapy initiation before receiving test results (NGS = $8,866; PCR = $16,373). Treatment costs were similar (NGS = $305,644; PCR = $305,283). In the PCR cohort, the per patient costs of inappropriate 1L nontargeted therapy owing to undetected mutations were $6,455, $6,566, and $6,569 over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Relative to PCR testing, NGS was associated with $4,060 in savings at 2 years and $1,092 at 3 years. Patients who initiated 1L targeted therapy had an additional 5.4, 8.8, and 10.4 months of PFS and an additional 1.4, 3.6, and 5.3 months of OS over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, relative to those who inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this Markov model, as early as year 1, and over 3 years following biomarker testing, patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC undergoing NGS testing are projected to have cost savings and longer PFS and OS relative to those tested with PCR.

Cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus sequential single-gene testing (SGT), including the long-term costs and survival outcomes of relevant treatments for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a decision tree linked to a partitioned survival model to estimate the clinical outcomes and costs over the five-year analysis period. The decision tree consisted of treatment types based on molecular biomarker (ROS1, BRAF, NTRK, MET, RET, and KRAS alterations) test results. The probability of receiving each targeted therapy was estimated based on 1) the testing rate, 2) the proportion of alterations detected, and 3) the proportion of patients receiving treatment consistent with the testing results. We estimated the long-term overall survival and progression-free survival for each treatment using parametric estimation by reconstructing patient-level data from clinical trials. The costs of testing, drugs, administration, physician visits, monitoring, adverse events, post-progression, and end-of-life care were included. The utility values were obtained from a previous study. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NGS within a threshold of $38,701 (50,000,000 KRW) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

The incremental life-years (LYs) and QALYs for the NGS group versus the SGT group were 0.028 and 0.023, respectively. The total medical cost for the NGS group was $8,375 higher than that for the SGT group. The difference in drug costs accounted for most of the differences in total medical costs. NGS was not cost-effective compared to sequential SGT, with an ICER of $300,233/LY and $359,405/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NGS is not cost-effective for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative NSCLC, but has a survival benefit over sequential SGT. Our findings provide a basis for decision-making regarding the coverage and clinical utilization of NGS in regions where EGFR alterations are prevalent.

Case report: Single gene testing and comprehensive genomic profiling in non-small cell lung cancer-a case series of divergent results from a large reference laboratory

Clinical management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires accurate identification of tumor-specific genetic alterations to inform treatment options. Historically, providers have relied on single-gene testing (SGT) for actionable variants due to a perception of cost-effectiveness and/or efficient turnaround time compared to next-generation sequencing (NGS). However, not all actionable variants may be evaluated through SGT modalities, and an SGT approach can exhaust valuable tissue needed for more comprehensive analyses. In contrast, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests employ NGS to sequence megabases of DNA and RNA to evaluate all relevant molecular alterations, providing a broader genetic profile to identify actionable alterations that SGT may not accurately or efficiently assess. Here, we briefly describe four cases from a large reference laboratory in which actionable alterations were identified by CGP but not SGT. The discussion highlights the utility and advantages of using CGP to provide complete and timely treatment options and clinical trial opportunities for patients with NSCLC.

Unlocking the future of cancer diagnosis - promises and challenges of ctDNA-based liquid biopsies in non-small cell lung cancer

The advent of liquid biopsies has brought significant changes to the diagnosis and monitoring of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), presenting both promise and challenges. Molecularly targeted drugs, capable of enhancing survival rates, are now available to around a quarter of NSCLC patients. However, to ensure their effectiveness, precision diagnosis is essential. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis as the most advanced liquid biopsy modality to date offers a non-invasive method for tracking genomic changes in NSCLC. The potential of ctDNA is particularly rooted in its ability to furnish comprehensive (epi-)genetic insights into the tumor, thereby aiding personalized treatment strategies. One of the key advantages of ctDNA-based liquid biopsies in NSCLC is their ability to capture tumor heterogeneity. This capability ensures a more precise depiction of the tumor's (epi-)genomic landscape compared to conventional tissue biopsies. Consequently, it facilitates the identification of (epi-)genetic alterations, enabling informed treatment decisions, disease progression monitoring, and early detection of resistance-causing mutations for timely therapeutic interventions. Here we review the current state-of-the-art in ctDNA-based liquid biopsy technologies for NSCLC, exploring their potential to revolutionize clinical practice. Key advancements in ctDNA detection methods, including PCR-based assays, next-generation sequencing (NGS), and digital PCR (dPCR), are discussed, along with their respective strengths and limitations. Additionally, the clinical utility of ctDNA analysis in guiding treatment decisions, monitoring treatment response, detecting minimal residual disease, and identifying emerging resistance mechanisms is examined. Liquid biopsy analysis bears the potential of transforming NSCLC management by enabling non-invasive monitoring of Minimal Residual Disease and providing early indicators for response to targeted treatments including immunotherapy. Furthermore, considerations regarding sample collection, processing, and data interpretation are highlighted as crucial factors influencing the reliability and reproducibility of ctDNA-based assays. Addressing these challenges will be essential for the widespread adoption of ctDNA-based liquid biopsies in routine clinical practice, ultimately paving the way toward personalized medicine and improved outcomes for patients with NSCLC.

Barriers and facilitators to next-generation sequencing use in United States oncology settings: a systematic review

Aim: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumors can inform treatment decisions; however, uptake remains low. This objective of this systematic review was to identify barriers to and facilitators of NGS in US oncology settings.Materials & methods: Embase and MEDLINE were searched in March 2023 for articles published from 2012 to 2023 on barriers and facilitators of NGS adoption for solid tumors. Surveys, interviews and observational studies were eligible. Studies on genetic testing for hereditary cancers and non-US studies were excluded. The Motheral scale, Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist and McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to assess study quality. Data were synthesized narratively.Results: Twenty-one studies were included. Study participants were clinicians, payers and administrators. Key barriers included complex reimbursement processes and uncertainties around clinical utility. Including recommendations for NGS in clinical practice guidelines was a key facilitator, although insurance policies were often more restrictive than guideline recommendations.Conclusion: Uptake of NGS is increasing but barriers remain. Changes to the current reimbursement frameworks are needed to increase access to NGS. The impact of implementing the 2018 National Coverage Determination, which allows access to NGS for all Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer, is not yet evident in the published literature.

Clinical Validity and Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) Testing in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (aNSCLC): A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing has become a promising tool to guide first-line (1L) targeted treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). This study aims to estimate the clinical validity (CV) and clinical utility (CU) of ctDNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) for oncogenic driver mutations to inform 1L treatment decisions in aNSCLC through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase to identify randomized control trials or observational studies reporting CV/CU on ctDNA testing in patients with aNSCLC. Meta-analyses were performed using bivariate random-effects models to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. Progression-free/overall survival (PFS/OS) was summarized for CU studies.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were identified: 17 CV only, 2 CU only, and 1 both, and 13 studies were included for the meta-analysis on multi-gene detection. The overall sensitivity and specificity for ctDNA detection of any mutation were 0.69 (95% CI 0.63-0.74) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00), respectively. However, sensitivity varied greatly by driver gene, ranging from 0.29 (95% CI 0.13-0.53) for ROS1 to 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.86) for KRAS. Two studies that compared PFS with ctDNA versus tissue-based testing followed by 1L targeted therapy found no significant differences. One study reported OS curves on ctDNA-matched and tissue-matched therapies but no hazard ratios were provided.

CONCLUSIONS

ctDNA testing demonstrated an overall acceptable diagnostic accuracy in patients with aNSCLC, however, sensitivity varied greatly by driver mutation. Further research is needed, especially for uncommon driver mutations, to better understand the CU of ctDNA testing in guiding targeted treatments for aNSCLC.

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing as a Biomarker Testing Approach in Oncology and Policy Implications: A Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

A key hurdle in broader next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing access in oncology is the ongoing debate on NGS's cost-effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of existing evidence of the costs of NGS as a biomarker testing strategy in oncology and developed policy suggestions.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for studies reporting cost comparisons and cost-effectiveness of NGS across oncology indications and geographies between 2017 and 2022, inclusive. Inclusion criteria were established based on indication and type of cost-effectiveness analysis provided. We validated analyses and policy recommendations with 5 payer/policy maker interviews in the United States, Europe, and United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Of the 634 identified studies, 29 met inclusion criteria, spanning 12 countries and 6 indications. Cost comparisons of NGS were evaluated using 3 methodologies: (1) comparison of direct testing costs, (2) comparison of holistic testing costs, and (3) comparison of long-term patient outcomes and costs. Targeted panel testing (2-52 genes) was considered cost-effective when 4+ genes were assessed, and larger panels (hundreds of genes) were generally not cost-effective. Holistic analysis demonstrated that NGS reduces turnaround time, healthcare staff requirements, number of hospital visits, and hospital costs. Finally, studies evaluating NGS testing including the cost of targeted therapies generally found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be above common thresholds but highlighted valuable patient benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature supports NGS's cost-effectiveness as an oncology biomarker testing strategy under specific conditions. These findings underscore the need to develop policies to support holistic assessment of NGS to ensure appropriate reimbursement and access.

Clinical application of whole-genome sequencing of solid tumors for precision oncology

Genomic alterations in tumors play a pivotal role in determining their clinical trajectory and responsiveness to treatment. Targeted panel sequencing (TPS) has served as a key clinical tool over the past decade, but advancements in sequencing costs and bioinformatics have now made whole-genome sequencing (WGS) a feasible single-assay approach for almost all cancer genomes in clinical settings. This paper reports on the findings of a prospective, single-center study exploring the real-world clinical utility of WGS (tumor and matched normal tissues) and has two primary objectives: (1) assessing actionability for therapeutic options and (2) providing clarity for clinical questions. Of the 120 patients with various solid cancers who were enrolled, 95 (79%) successfully received genomic reports within a median of 11 working days from sampling to reporting. Analysis of these 95 WGS reports revealed that 72% (68/95) yielded clinically relevant insights, with 69% (55/79) pertaining to therapeutic actionability and 81% (13/16) pertaining to clinical clarity. These benefits include the selection of informed therapeutics and/or active clinical trials based on the identification of driver mutations, tumor mutational burden (TMB) and mutational signatures, pathogenic germline variants that warrant genetic counseling, and information helpful for inferring cancer origin. Our findings highlight the potential of WGS as a comprehensive tool in precision oncology and suggests that it should be integrated into routine clinical practice to provide a complete image of the genomic landscape to enable tailored cancer management.

Unlocking the potential of Molecular Tumor Boards: from cutting-edge data interpretation to innovative clinical pathways

The emerging era of precision medicine is characterized by an increasing availability of targeted anticancer therapies and by the parallel development of techniques to obtain more refined molecular data, whose interpretation may not always be straightforward. Molecular tumor boards gather various professional figures, in order to leverage the analysis of molecular data and provide prognostic and predictive insights for clinicians. In addition to healthcare development, they could also become a tool to promote knowledge and research spreading. A growing body of evidence on the application of molecular tumor boards to clinical practice is forming and positive signals are emerging, although a certain degree of heterogeneity exists. This work analyzes molecular tumor boards' potential workflows, figures involved, data sources, sample matrices and eligible patients, as well as available evidence and learning examples. The emerging concept of multi-institutional, disease-specific molecular tumor boards is also considered by presenting two ongoing nationwide experiences.

Cost-effectiveness of large-panel next-generation sequencing in guiding first-line treatment decisions for patients with nonsquamous advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines recommend broad-panel genomic profiling to identify actionable genomic alterations for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of large-panel next-generation sequencing (LP-NGS) compared with current empirical single-gene test (SGT) patterns to inform first-line treatment decisions for patients with aNSCLC from a US commercial payer perspective, accounting for the effect of testing turnaround time and time to treatment initiation.

METHODS

We developed a discrete-event simulation model to estimate the impact of LP-NGS vs SGT for patients with nonsquamous aNSCLC. Discrete events and timing included testing patterns, receipt of the initial test result, treatment initiation (targeted vs nontargeted therapies), switching, retesting, rebiopsies, clinical trial participation, progression on therapy, and death. LP-NGS and SGT cohorts each comprised 100,000 adults with aNSCLC simulated over a 5-year postdiagnosis period, assumed to have the same distribution of genomic alterations. The model predicted the proportion of patients receiving appropriate first-line therapy according to clinical practice guidelines. Economic outcomes included expected life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years, and the total costs of care over 5 years. Sensitivity and scenario analyses explored the robustness of the base-case model results.

RESULTS

In the base-case model, LP-NGS was likely to identify more alterations than SGT. Total 5-year costs per patient were $539,658 for LP-NGS and $544,550 for SGT (net difference, $4,892 lower costs per patient for LP-NGS), which is likely to be cost-effective 95.1% of the time. The most influential model parameters on the 5-year total costs of care were preprogression nondrug medical costs on nontargeted therapy, NGS turnaround time, and clinical trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that LP-NGS to guide first-line treatment decisions is clinically more appropriate (more likely to identify alterations and subsequently allocate patients to clinically appropriate therapy) and provides a dominant cost-effectiveness treatment strategy over 5 years for patients with newly diagnosed aNSCLC in the United States.

Recommendations for reporting tissue and circulating tumour (ct)DNA next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease and molecular characterisation plays an important role in its clinical management. Next-generation sequencing-based panel testing enables many molecular alterations to be interrogated simultaneously, allowing for comprehensive identification of actionable oncogenic drivers (and co-mutations) and appropriate matching of patients with targeted therapies. Despite consensus in international guidelines on the importance of broad molecular profiling, adoption of next-generation sequencing varies globally. One of the barriers to its successful implementation is a lack of accepted standards and guidelines specifically for the reporting and clinical annotation of next-generation sequencing results. Based on roundtable discussions between pathologists and oncologists, we provide best practice recommendations for the reporting of next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer to facilitate its use and enable easy interpretation for physicians. These are intended to complement existing guidelines related to the use of next-generation sequencing (solid and liquid). Here, we discuss next-generation sequencing workflows, the structure of next-generation sequencing reports, and our recommendations for best practice thereof. The aim of these recommendations and considerations is ultimately to ensure that reports are fully interpretable, and that the most appropriate treatment options are selected based on robust molecular profiles in well-defined reports.

The Impact of Prior Single-Gene Testing on Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Results for Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Tissue-based broad molecular profiling of guideline-recommended biomarkers is advised for the therapeutic management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, practice variation can affect whether all indicated biomarkers are tested. We aimed to evaluate the impact of common single-gene testing (SGT) on subsequent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) test outcomes and results in NSCLC.

METHODS

Oncologists who ordered SGT for guideline-recommended biomarkers in NSCLC patients were prospectively contacted (May-December 2022) and offered CGP (DNA and RNA sequencing), either following receipt of negative SGT findings, or instead of SGT for each patient. We describe SGT patterns and compare CGP completion rates, turnaround time, and recommended biomarker detection for NSCLC patients with and without prior negative SGT results.

RESULTS

Oncologists in > 80 community practices ordered CGP for 561 NSCLC patients; 135 patients (27%) first had negative results from 30 different SGT combinations; 84% included ALK, EGFR and PD-L1, while only 3% of orders included all available SGTs for guideline-recommended genes. Among patients with negative SGT results, CGP was attempted using the same tissue specimen 90% of the time. There were also significantly more CGP order cancellations due to tissue insufficiency (17% vs. 7%), DNA sequencing failures (13% vs. 8%), and turnaround time > 14 days (62% vs. 29%) than among patients who only had CGP. Forty-six percent of patients with negative prior SGT had positive CGP results for recommended biomarkers, including targetable genomic variants in genes beyond ALK and EGFR, such as ERBB2, KRAS (non-G12C), MET (exon 14 skipping), NTRK2/3, and RET .

CONCLUSION

For patients with NSCLC, initial use of SGT increases subsequent CGP test cancellations, turnaround time, and the likelihood of incomplete molecular profiling for guideline-recommended biomarkers due to tissue insufficiency.

The cost-effectiveness of including liquid biopsy into molecular profiling strategies for newly diagnosed advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in an Asian population

OBJECTIVES

Liquid biopsy is complementary to tissue biopsy for lung cancer profiling, yet evidence of the cost-effectiveness is limited. This could retard implementation and reimbursement in clinical practice. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of profiling strategies that include liquid biopsy and to identify the optimal profiling approach for newly diagnosed advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an Asian population using Singapore as an example.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision tree and partitioned-survival model was developed from the Singapore healthcare system's perspective to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five molecular profiling strategies: either tissue or plasma next-generation sequencing (NGS) alone, a concurrent, and two sequential approaches. Model inputs were informed by local data or published literature. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were undertaken to understand the robustness of the conclusions for decision making. The optimal strategy at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds was presented by cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier and the expected loss curve.

RESULTS

The sequential tissue-plasma NGS approach revealed an additional 0.0981 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for an extra cost of S$3,074 over a 20-year time horizon compared to tissue NGS alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of S$31,318/QALY and an incremental net monetary benefit of S$1,343 per patient. The findings were sensitive to the costs of pembrolizumab and osimertinib and the probabilities of re-biopsy after tissue NGS. Sequential plasma-tissue NGS and plasma NGS alone were more costly and less effective than alternatives.

CONCLUSION

The sequential tissue-plasma NGS approach generated the highest net monetary benefit and was the optimal testing strategy when WTP was S$45,000/QALY. It retained superiority but understandably with a higher ICER when expensive, non-first line treatments were included. Overall, its routine clinical practice should be proactively considered for newly diagnosed advanced non-squamous NSCLC in an Asian population.

Interpreting and integrating genomic tests results in clinical cancer care: Overview and practical guidance

The last decade has seen rapid progress in the use of genomic tests, including gene panels, whole-exome sequencing, and whole-genome sequencing, in research and clinical cancer care. These advances have created expansive opportunities to characterize the molecular attributes of cancer, revealing a subset of cancer-associated aberrations called driver mutations. The identification of these driver mutations can unearth vulnerabilities of cancer cells to targeted therapeutics, which has led to the development and approval of novel diagnostics and personalized interventions in various malignancies. The applications of this modern approach, often referred to as precision oncology or precision cancer medicine, are already becoming a staple in cancer care and will expand exponentially over the coming years. Although genomic tests can lead to better outcomes by informing cancer risk, prognosis, and therapeutic selection, they remain underutilized in routine cancer care. A contributing factor is a lack of understanding of their clinical utility and the difficulty of results interpretation by the broad oncology community. Practical guidelines on how to interpret and integrate genomic information in the clinical setting, addressed to clinicians without expertise in cancer genomics, are currently limited. Building upon the genomic foundations of cancer and the concept of precision oncology, the authors have developed practical guidance to aid the interpretation of genomic test results that help inform clinical decision making for patients with cancer. They also discuss the challenges that prevent the wider implementation of precision oncology.

Advancing Evidence Generation for Circulating Tumor DNA: Lessons Learned from A Multi-Assay Study of Baseline Circulating Tumor DNA Levels across Cancer Types and Stages

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) holds promise as a biomarker for predicting clinical responses to therapy in solid tumors, and multiple ctDNA assays are in development. However, the heterogeneity in ctDNA levels prior to treatment (baseline) across different cancer types and stages and across ctDNA assays has not been widely studied. Friends of Cancer Research formed a collaboration across multiple commercial ctDNA assay developers to assess baseline ctDNA levels across five cancer types in early- and late-stage disease. This retrospective study included eight commercial ctDNA assay developers providing summary-level de-identified data for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), bladder, breast, prostate, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma following a common analysis protocol. Baseline ctDNA levels across late-stage cancer types were similarly detected, highlighting the potential use of ctDNA as a biomarker in these cancer types. Variability was observed in ctDNA levels across assays in early-stage NSCLC, indicative of the contribution of assay analytical performance and methodology on variability. We identified key data elements, including assay characteristics and clinicopathological metadata, that need to be standardized for future meta-analyses across multiple assays. This work facilitates evidence generation opportunities to support the use of ctDNA as a biomarker for clinical response.

Utility of bronchoscopically obtained frozen cytology pellets for next-generation sequencing

BACKGROUND

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is essential for lung cancer treatment. It is important to collect sufficient tissue specimens, but sometimes we cannot obtain large enough samples for NGS analysis. We investigated the yield of NGS analysis by frozen cytology pellets using an Oncomine Comprehensive Assay or Oncomine Precision Assay.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled patients with lung cancer who underwent bronchoscopy at Kobe University Hospital and were enrolled in the Lung Cancer Genomic Screening Project for Individualized Medicine. We investigated the amount of extracted DNA and RNA and determined the NGS success rates. We also compared the amount of DNA and RNA by bronchoscopy methods. To create the frozen cytology pellets, we first effectively collected the cells and then quickly centrifuged and cryopreserved them.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients were enrolled in this study between May 2016 and December 2022; of them, 75 were subjected to frozen cytology pellet examinations and 57 were subjected to frozen tissue examinations. The amount of DNA and RNA obtained by frozen cytology pellets was nearly equivalent to frozen tissues. Frozen cytology pellets collected by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration yielded significantly more DNA than those collected by transbronchial biopsy methods. (P < 0.01) In RNA content, cytology pellets were not inferior to frozen tissue. The success rate of NGS analysis with frozen cytology pellet specimens was comparable to the success rate of NGS analysis with frozen tissue specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that frozen cytology pellets may have equivalent diagnostic value to frozen tissue for NGS analyses. Bronchial cytology specimens are usually used only for cytology, but NGS analysis is possible if enough cells are collected to create pellet specimens. In particular, the frozen cytology pellets obtained by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration yielded sufficient amounts of DNA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This was registered with the University Medical Hospital Information Network in Japan (UMINCTR registration no. UMIN000052050).

SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance and reliability of PCR single point mutation assay (SNPsig® SARS-CoV-2 EscapePLEX CE) for the rapid detection of variants of concern in Cameroon

Background

Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) and lineages is crucial for decision-making. Our objective was to study the SARS-CoV-2 clade dynamics across epidemiological waves and evaluate the reliability of SNPsig® SARS-CoV-2 EscapePLEX CE in detecting VOCs in Cameroon.

Material and methods

A laboratory-based study was conducted on SARS-CoV-2 positive nasopharyngeal specimens cycle threshold (Ct)≤30 at the Chantal BIYA International Reference Centre in Yaoundé-Cameroon, between April-2020 to August-2022. Samples were analyzed in parallel with Sanger sequencing and (SNPsig® SARS-CoV-2 EscapePLEX CE), and performance characteristics were evaluated by Cohen's coefficient and McNemar test.

Results

Of the 130 sequences generated, SARS-CoV-2 clades during wave-1 (April-November 2020) showed 97 % (30/31) wild-type lineages and 3 % (1/31) Gamma-variant; wave-2 (December-2020 to May-2021), 25 % (4/16) Alpha-variant, 25 % (4/16) Beta-variant, 44 % (7/16) wild-type and 6 % (1/16) mu; wave-3 (June-October 2021), 94 % (27/29) Delta-variant, 3 % (1/29) Alpha-variant, 3 % (1/29) wild-type; wave-4 (November-2021 to August-2022), 98 % (53/54) Omicron-variant and 2 % (1/54) Delta-variant. Omicron sub-variants were BA.1 (47 %), BA.5 (34 %), BA.2 (13 %) and BA.4 (6 %). Globally, the two genotyping methods accurately identified the SARS-CoV-2 VOCs (P = 0.17, McNemar test; Ka = 0.67).

Conclusion

Genomic surveillance reveals a rapid dynamic in SARS-CoV-2 strains between epidemiological waves in Cameroon. For wide-spread variant surveillance in resource-limited settings, SNPsig® SARS-CoV-2 EscapePLEX CEkit represents a suitable tool, pending upgrading for distinguishing Omicron sub-lineages.

Cost-Effectiveness and the Economics of Genomic Testing and Molecularly Matched Therapies

Cost-effectiveness analysis of precision oncology can help guide value-driven care. Next-generation sequencing is increasingly cost-efficient over single gene testing because diagnostic algorithms require multiple individual gene tests to determine biomarker status. Matched targeted therapy is often not cost-effective due to the high cost associated with drug treatment. However, genomic profiling can promote cost-effective care by identifying patients who are unlikely to benefit from therapy. Additional applications of genomic profiling such as universal testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and germline testing in patients with cancer may represent cost-effective approaches compared with traditional history-based diagnostic methods.

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends among Adult Patients with Select Advanced Tumor Types: A Real-World Evidence Evaluation

There are limited data on the prevalence of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in the United States, especially in light of the increasing importance of identifying actionable oncogenic variants due to molecular biomarker-based therapy approvals. This retrospective study of adult patients with select metastatic solid tumors and central nervous system tumors from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart US health care claims database (January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2021; N = 63,209) examined NGS use trends over time. A modest increase in NGS was observed across tumor types from 2015 (0.0% to 1.5%) to 2021 (2.1% to 17.4%). A similar increase in NGS rates was also observed across key periods; however, rates in the final key period remained <10% for patients with breast, colorectal, head and neck, soft tissue sarcoma, and thyroid cancers, as well as central nervous system tumors. The median time to NGS from diagnosis was shortest among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and longest for patients with breast cancer. Predictors of NGS varied by tumor type; test rates for minorities in select tumor types appeared comparable to the White population. Despite improving payer policies to expand coverage of NGS and molecular biomarker-based therapy approvals, NGS rates remained low across tumor types. Given the potential for improved patient outcomes with molecular biomarker-based therapy, further efforts to improve NGS rates are warranted.

Temporal trends and regional variability in BRAF and KRAS genetic testing in Denmark (2010-2022): Implications for precision medicine

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the developments in the testing of Kirsten Rat Sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) mutations across different cancer types and regions in Denmark from 2010 to 2022.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Using comprehensive data from the Danish health registries, we linked molecular test results from the Danish Pathology Registry with cancer diagnoses from the Danish National Patient Registry between 2010 and 2022. We assessed the frequency and distribution of KRAS and BRAF mutations across all cancer types, years of testing, and the five Danish regions.

RESULTS

The study included records of KRAS testing for 30 671 patients and BRAF testing for 30 860 patients. Most KRAS testing was performed in colorectal (78%) and lung cancer (18%), and BRAF testing in malignant melanoma (13%), colorectal cancer (67%), and lung cancer (12%). Testing rates and documentation mutational subtypes increased over time. Reporting of wildtype results varied between lung and colorectal cancer, with underreporting in lung cancer. Regional variations in testing and reporting were observed.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights substantial progress in KRAS and BRAF testing in Denmark from 2010 to 2022, evidenced by increased and more specific reporting of mutational test results, thereby improving the precision of cancer diagnosis and treatment. However, persistent regional variations and limited testing for cancer types beyond melanoma, colorectal, and lung cancer highlight the necessity for a nationwide assessment of the optimal testing approach.

The state of the art of EGFR exon 20 insertions in non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and future perspectives

Insertions in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 (Ex20Ins) are the third most incident mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The hypervariable nature of these driver mutations hinders their identification by traditional polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods, requiring a comprehensive sequencing approach to detect all possible insertions. The prognosis of patients with EGFR Ex20Ins is similar to those with wild-type NSCLC, since no targeted drugs are approved in the first-line setting, and platinum-based chemotherapy is currently the front-line treatment. However, the new generation of drugs currently being tested in first and post-platinum settings will likely change the management of this entity. Here, we summarize the latest data on EGFR Ex20Ins molecular characteristics, patient profile, identification challenges, and emerging therapies to help lung clinicians face a growing treatment landscape.

A systematic analysis of deep learning in genomics and histopathology for precision oncology

BACKGROUND

Digitized histopathological tissue slides and genomics profiling data are available for many patients with solid tumors. In the last 5 years, Deep Learning (DL) has been broadly used to extract clinically actionable information and biological knowledge from pathology slides and genomic data in cancer. In addition, a number of recent studies have introduced multimodal DL models designed to simultaneously process both images from pathology slides and genomic data as inputs. By comparing patterns from one data modality with those in another, multimodal DL models are capable of achieving higher performance compared to their unimodal counterparts. However, the application of these methodologies across various tumor entities and clinical scenarios lacks consistency.

METHODS

Here, we present a systematic survey of the academic literature from 2010 to November 2023, aiming to quantify the application of DL for pathology, genomics, and the combined use of both data types. After filtering 3048 publications, our search identified 534 relevant articles which then were evaluated by basic (diagnosis, grading, subtyping) and advanced (mutation, drug response and survival prediction) application types, publication year and addressed cancer tissue.

RESULTS

Our analysis reveals a predominant application of DL in pathology compared to genomics. However, there is a notable surge in DL incorporation within both domains. Furthermore, while DL applied to pathology primarily targets the identification of histology-specific patterns in individual tissues, DL in genomics is more commonly used in a pan-cancer context. Multimodal DL, on the contrary, remains a niche topic, evidenced by a limited number of publications, primarily focusing on prognosis predictions.

CONCLUSION

In summary, our quantitative analysis indicates that DL not only has a well-established role in histopathology but is also being successfully integrated into both genomic and multimodal applications. In addition, there is considerable potential in multimodal DL for harnessing further advanced tasks, such as predicting drug response. Nevertheless, this review also underlines the need for further research to bridge the existing gaps in these fields.

Non-small cell lung cancer with MET amplification: review of epidemiology, associated disease characteristics, testing procedures, burden, and treatments

Introduction

Mesenchymal-epidermal transition factor gene amplification (METamp) is being investigated as a therapeutic target in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We reviewed the epidemiology and disease characteristics associated with primary and secondary METamp, as well as the testing procedures used to identify METamp, in advanced NSCLC. Economic and humanistic burdens, and the practice patterns and treatments under investigation for METamp were also examined.

Methods

Embase and Medline (via ProQuest), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (2015-2022) were systematically searched. Conference abstracts were searched via Embase and conference proceedings websites (2020-2022). The review focused on evidence from the United States; global evidence was included for identified evidence gaps.

Results

The median rate of primary METamp in NSCLC across the references was 4.8% (n=4 studies) and of secondary METamp (epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]-mutant NSCLC) was 15% (n=10). Next-generation sequencing (NGS; n=12) and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH; n=11) were most frequently used in real-world studies and FISH testing most frequently used in clinical trials (n=9/10). METamp definitions varied among clinical trials using ISH/FISH testing (MET to chromosome 7 centromere ratio of ≥1.8 to ≥3.0; or gene copy number [GCN] ≥5 to ≥10) and among trials using NGS (tissue testing: GCN ≥6; liquid biopsy: MET copy number ≥2.1 to >5). Limited to no data were identified on the economic and humanistic burdens, and real-world treatment of METamp NSCLC. Promising preliminary results from trials enrolling patients with EGFR-mutated, METamp advanced NSCLC progressing on an EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) were observed with MET-TKIs (i.e., tepotinib, savolitinib, and capmatinib) in combination with EGFR-TKIs (i.e., gefitinib and osimertinib). For metastatic NSCLC and high-level METamp, monotherapy with capmatinib, crizotinib, and tepotinib are recommended in the 2022 published NSCLC NCCN Guidelines.

Conclusion

Primary METamp occurs in approximately 5% of NSCLC cases, and secondary METamp in approximately 15% of cases previously treated with an EGFR inhibitor. Variability in testing methods (including ISH/FISH and NGS) and definitions were observed. Several treatments are promising in treating METamp NSCLC. Additional studies evaluating the clinical, economic, and humanistic burdens are needed.

Clinical Utility and Benefits of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in Cancer

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) with next-generation sequencing detects genetic alterations of hundreds of genes simultaneously and multiple molecular biomarkers with one test. In the personalized medicine era, CGP is increasingly used for cancer diagnosis, treatment selection, and prognosis prediction.

CONTENT

In this review, we summarize the benefits of CGP, clinical utility of CGP, and challenges of setting up CGP in the clinical laboratories. Besides the genetic alterations identified in the cancer-related genes, other biomarkers such as tumor mutational burden, microsatellite instability, and homologous recombination deficiency are critical for initiating targeted therapy. Compared with conventional tests, CGP uses less specimen and shortens the turnaround time if multiple biomarkers need to be tested. RNA fusion assay and liquid biopsy are helpful additions to DNA-based CGP by detecting fusions/splicing variants and complementing tissue-based CGP findings, respectively.

SUMMARY

Many previous hurdles for implementing CGP in the clinical laboratories have been gradually alleviated such as the decrease in sequencing cost, availability of both open-source and commercial bioinformatics tools, and improved reimbursement. These changes have helped to make CGP available to a greater population of cancer patients for improving characterization of their tumors and expanding their eligibility for clinical trials. Additionally, sequencing results of the hundreds of genes on CGP panels could be further analyzed to better understand the biology of various cancers and identify new biomarkers.

Effectiveness of next-generation sequencing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a population-based registry study

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in the management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is little evidence that its use leads to improved clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of NGS with that of single-gene testing (SGT) alone in patients with advanced NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted on patients diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma between 2017 and 2018 from a nationwide, population-based database. We identified patients who had SGT exclusively (SGT group) or underwent upfront NGS or NGS following SGT as an initial evaluation (NGS group). Patients were followed up until death or the end of the study (31 December 2019). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for death was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. The factors affecting the adoption of NGS were identified.

RESULTS

Of 8566 patients diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, 402 and 6932 patients were assigned to the NGS and SGT groups, respectively. More NGS was carried out in younger patients, those with higher incomes, and those living in urban areas. After balancing these confounders through matching, no difference was observed in the median overall survival and risk of death between the NGS and SGT groups [18.5 versus 19.7 months, log-rank P = 0.783; aHR 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.14, respectively]. Only in a subgroup for whom epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors were not indicated, NGS was associated with better survival outcomes (14.1 versus 9.0 months, log-rank P = 0.006; aHR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

In the real world, NGS for all-comers in patients with advanced NSCLC did not increase survival outcomes. When health care resources to support equal access to NGS are limited, upfront SGT followed by NGS may be a more efficient strategy.

Value of next generation sequencing (NGS) testing in advanced cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice.

METHODS

A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to evaluate test choice in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Treatment pathways were based on NCCN guidelines and medical expert opinion. Inputs were derived from published literature. Annual economic results and lifetime clinical results with OncoExTra testing were projected per-tested-patient and compared with single gene testing and no testing. Separately, results were estimated for a US health plan without the OncoExTra test and with its use in 5% of patients.

RESULTS

Compared with no genomic testing, OncoExTra test use increased costs by $4,915 per patient; however, 82%-92% of individuals across tumour types were identified as eligible for targeted therapy or a clinical trial. Compared with single gene testing, OncoExTra test use decreased costs by $9,966 per-patient-tested while increasing use of approved or investigational targeted therapies by 20%. When considering a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 858 patients were eligible for genomic testing. Using the OncoExTra test in 5% of those eligible, per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.003, ranging from cost-savings of $0.026 in NSCLC patients to a $0.009 increase in prostate cancer patients. Cost-savings were driven by reduced treatment costs with increased clinical trial enrolment and reduced direct and indirect medical costs associated with targeted treatments.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include the required simplifications in modelling complex conditions that may not fully reflect evolving real-world testing and treatment patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to single-gene testing, results indicate that using next generation sequencing test such as OncoExTra identified more actionable alterations, leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs.

Tissue or liquid rebiopsy? A prospective study for simultaneous tissue and liquid NGS after first-line EGFR inhibitor resistance in lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

According to current International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer guideline, physicians may first use plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) methods to identify epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-resistant mechanisms (liquid rebiopsy) for lung cancer. Tissue rebiopsy is recommended if the plasma result is negative. However, this approach has not been evaluated prospectively using next-generation sequencing (NGS).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients with lung cancer with first-line EGFR-TKI resistance who underwent tissue rebiopsy. The rebiopsied tissues and cfDNA were sequenced using targeted NGS, ACTDrug®+, and ACTMonitor®Lung simultaneously. The clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Totally, 86 patients were enrolled. Twenty-six (30%) underwent tissue biopsy but the specimens were inadequate for NGS. Among the 60 patients with paired tissue and liquid rebiopsies, two-thirds (40/60) may still be targetable. T790M mutations were found in 29, including 14 (48%) only from tissue and 5 (17%) only from cfDNA. Twenty-four of them were treated with osimertinib, and progression-free survival was longer in patients without detectable T790M in cfDNA than in patients with detectable T790M in cfDNA (p = 0.02). For the 31 T790M-negative patients, there were six with mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) amplifications, four with ERBB2 amplifications, and one with CCDC6-RET fusion. One with MET amplification and one with ERBB2 amplification responded to subsequent MET and ERBB2 targeting agents respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NGS after EGFR-TKI resistance may detect targetable drivers besides T790M. To do either liquid or tissue NGS only could miss patients with T790M. To do tissue and liquid NGS in parallel after EGFR-TKI resistance may find more patients with targetable cancers.

Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer for the Colombian Health System

INTRODUCTION

The use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and target therapies is associated with substantial improvements in clinical outcomes among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the costs of CGP may increase the financial pressures of NSCLC on health systems worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CGP compared with current genomic tests in patients with NSCLC from the perspective of the Colombian Health System.

METHODS

To estimate the costs and benefits of CGP and its comparators, we developed a 2-stage cohort model with a lifetime horizon. In the first stage, we made up a decision tree that calculated the probability of receiving each therapy as result of identifying a specific, actionable target. In the second stage, we developed a partitioned survival model that estimated the time spent at each health state. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs gained. All costs were expressed in 2019 international dollars (INT$).

RESULTS

CGP is associated with gains of 0.06 LYs and 0.04 quality-adjusted LYs compared with current genomic tests. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for CGP ranged from INT$861 to INT$7848, depending on the outcome and the comparator. Sensitivity analyses show that the cost-effectiveness decision was sensitive to prices of CGP above INT$7170 per test. These results are robust to most deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

CGP may be cost-effective in patients with NSCLC from the perspective of the Colombian Health System (societal willingness-to-pay threshold of INT$15 630 to INT$46 890).

Cost of genetic testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment associated with polymerase chain reaction versus next-generation sequencing biomarker testing for genomic alterations in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

AIMS

To assess US payers' per-patient cost of testing associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) biomarker testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), including costs of testing, delayed care, and suboptimal treatment initiation.

METHODS

A decision tree model considered biomarker testing for genomic alterations using either NGS, sequential PCR testing, or hotspot panel PCR testing. Literature-based model inputs included time-to-test results, costs for testing/medical care, costs of delaying care, costs of immunotherapy [IO]/chemotherapy [CTX] initiation prior to receiving test results, and costs of suboptimal treatment initiation after test results (i.e. costs of first-line IO/CTX in patients with actionable mutations that were undetected by PCR that would have been identified with NGS). The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration, time to appropriate therapy initiation, and per-patient costs were estimated for NGS and PCR strategies combined.

RESULTS

In a modeled cohort of 1,000,000 members (25% Medicare, 75% commercial), an estimated 1,119 had mNSCLC and received testing. The proportion of patients testing positive for a targetable alteration was 45.9% for NGS and 40.0% for PCR testing. Mean per-patient costs were lowest for NGS ($8,866) compared to PCR ($18,246), with lower delayed care costs of $1,301 for NGS compared to $3,228 for PCR, and lower costs of IO/CTX initiation prior to receiving test results (NGS: $2,298; PCR:$5,991). Cost savings, reaching $10,496,220 at the 1,000,000-member plan level, were driven by more rapid treatment with appropriate therapy for patients tested with NGS (2.1 weeks) compared to PCR strategies (5.2 weeks).

LIMITATIONS

Model inputs/assumptions were based on published literature or expert opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

NGS testing was associated with greater cost savings versus PCR, driven by more rapid results, shorter time to appropriate therapy initiation, and minimized use of inappropriate therapies while awaiting and after test results.

Economic impact of metagenomic next-generation sequencing versus traditional bacterial culture for postoperative central nervous system infections using a decision analysis mode: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

IMPORTANCE

Diagnosing and treating postoperative central nervous system infections (PCNSIs) remains challenging due to the low detection rate and time-consuming nature of traditional methods for identifying microorganisms in cerebrospinal fluid. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) technology provides a rapid and comprehensive understanding of microbial composition in PCNSIs by swiftly sequencing and analyzing the microbial genome. The current study aimed to assess the economic impact of using mNGS versus traditional bacterial culture-directed PCNSIs diagnosis and therapy in post-neurosurgical patients from Beijing Tiantan Hospital. mNGS is a relatively expensive test item, and whether it has the corresponding health-economic significance in the clinical application of diagnosing intracranial infection has not been studied clearly. Therefore, the investigators hope to explore the clinical application value of mNGS detection in PCNSIs after neurosurgery.

Molecular profiling and feasibility using a comprehensive hybrid capture panel on a consecutive series of non-small-cell lung cancer patients from a single centre

BACKGROUND

Targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) is recommended to screen actionable genomic alterations (GAs) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We determined the feasibility to detect actionable GAs using TruSight™ Oncology 500 (TSO500) in 200 consecutive patients with NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DNA and RNA were sequenced on an Illumina® NextSeq 550 instrument and processed using the TSO500 Docker pipeline. Clinical actionability was defined within the molecular tumour board following European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines for oncogene-addicted NSCLC. Overall survival (OS) was estimated as per the presence of druggable GAs and treatment with targeted therapy.

RESULTS

Most patients were males (69.5%) and former or current smokers (86.5%). Median age was 64 years. The most common histological type and tumour stage were lung adenocarcinoma (81%) and stage IV (64%), respectively. Sequencing was feasible in most patients (93.5%) and actionable GAs were found in 26.5% of patients. A high concordance was observed between single-gene testing and TSO500 NGS panel. Patients harbouring druggable GAs and receiving targeted therapy achieved longer OS compared to patients without druggable GAs. Conversely, patients with druggable GAs not receiving targeted therapy had a trend toward shorter OS compared with driver-negative patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid capture sequencing using TSO500 panel is feasible to analyse clinical samples from patients with NSCLC and is an efficient tool for screening actionable GAs.

Utility of needle biopsy in centrally located lung cancer for genome analysis: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

It is essential to collect a sufficient amount of tumor tissue for successful next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis. In this study, we investigated the clinical risk factors for avoiding re-biopsy for NGS analysis (re-genome biopsy) in cases where a sufficient amount of tumor tissue could not be collected by bronchoscopy.

METHODS

We investigated the association between clinical factors and the risk of re-genome biopsy in patients who underwent transbronchial biopsy (TBB) or endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) and required re-genome biopsy in cases enrolled in LC-SCRUM Asia, a prospective nationwide genome screening project in Japan. We also examined whether the frequency of re-genome biopsy decreased between the first and second halves of the enrolment period.

RESULTS

Of the 572 eligible patients, 236 underwent TBB, and 134 underwent EBUS-TBNA. Twenty-four TBBs required re-genome biopsy, and multivariate analysis showed that the risk of re-genome biopsy was significantly increased in lesions where the tumor lesion was centrally located. In these cases, EBUS-TBNA should be utilized even if the lesion is a pulmonary lesion. However, it should be noted that even with EBUS-TBNA, lung field lesions are at a higher risk of re-canalization than mediastinal lymph node lesions. It was also found that even when tumor cells were detected in rapid on-site evaluation, a sufficient amount of tumor tissue was not always collected.

CONCLUSIONS

For centrally located pulmonary mass lesions, EBUS-TBNA, rather than TBB, can be used to obtain tumor tissues that can be analyzed by NGS.

Clinical validity and utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC): a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing has become a promising tool to guide first-line (1L) targeted treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). This study aims to estimate the clinical validity (CV) and clinical utility (CU) of ctDNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) for oncogenic driver mutations to inform 1L treatment decisions in aNSCLC through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase to identify randomized control trials or observational studies reporting CV/CU on ctDNA testing in patients with aNSCLC. Meta-analyses were performed using bivariate random-effects models to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. Progression-free/overall survival (PFS/OS) was summarized for CU studies.

Results

Eighteen studies were identified: 17 CV only, 2 CU only, and 1 both. Thirteen studies were included for the meta-analysis on multi-gene detection. The overall sensitivity and specificity for ctDNA detection of any mutation were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97-1.00) respectively. However, sensitivity varied greatly by driver gene, ranging from 0.29 (95% CI, 0.13-0.53) for ROS 1 to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63-0.86) for KRAS . Two studies compared PFS with ctDNA versus tissue-based testing followed by 1L targeted therapy found no significant differences. One study reported OS curves on ctDNA-matched and tissue-matched therapies but no hazard ratios were provided.

Conclusion

ctDNA testing demonstrated an overall acceptable diagnostic accuracy in aNSCLC patients, however, sensitivity varied greatly by driver mutation. Further research is needed, especially for uncommon driver mutations, to better understand the CU of ctDNA testing in guiding targeted treatments for aNSCLC.

Acquiring tissue for advanced lung cancer diagnosis and comprehensive biomarker testing: A National Lung Cancer Roundtable best-practice guide

Advances in biomarker-driven therapies for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both provide opportunities to improve the treatment (and thus outcomes) for patients and pose new challenges for equitable care delivery. Over the last decade, the continuing development of new biomarker-driven therapies and evolving indications for their use have intensified the importance of interdisciplinary communication and coordination for patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. Multidisciplinary teams are challenged with completing comprehensive and timely biomarker testing and navigating the constantly evolving evidence base for a complex and time-sensitive disease. This guide provides context for the current state of comprehensive biomarker testing for NSCLC, reviews how biomarker testing integrates within the diagnostic continuum for patients, and illustrates best practices and common pitfalls that influence the success and timeliness of biomarker testing using a series of case scenarios.

Fast In-House Next-Generation Sequencing in the Diagnosis of Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Hospital Budget Impact Analysis

Background: Targeted therapy for cancer is becoming more frequent as the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis increases. Molecular testing must be done to use targeted therapy. Unfortunately, the testing turnaround time can delay the initiation of targeted therapy. Objective: To investigate the impact of a next-generation sequencing (NGS) machine in the hospital that would allow for in-house NGS testing of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in a US setting. Methods: The differences between 2 hospital pathways were established with a cohort-level decision tree that feeds into a Markov model. A pathway that used in-house NGS (75%) and the use of external laboratories (so-called send-out NGS) (25%), was compared with the standard of exclusively send-out NGS. The model was from the perspective of a US hospital over a 5-year time horizon. All cost input data were in or inflated to 2021 USD. Scenario analysis was done on key variables. Results: In a hospital with 500 mNSCLC patients, the implementation of in-house NGS was estimated to increase the testing costs and the revenue of the hospital. The model predicted a $710 060 increase in testing costs, a $1 732 506 increase in revenue, and a $1 022 446 return on investment over 5 years. The payback period was 15 months with in-house NGS. The number of patients on targeted therapy increased by 3.38%, and the average turnaround time decreased by 10 days when in-house NGS was used. Discussion: Reducing testing turnaround time is a benefit of in-house NGS. It could contribute to fewer mNSCLC patients lost to second opinion and an increased number of patients on targeted therapy. The model outcomes predicted that, over a 5-year period, there would be a positive return on investment for a US hospital. The model reflects a proposed scenario. The heterogeneity of hospital inputs and the cost of send-out NGS means context-specific inputs are needed. Conclusion: Using in-house NGS testing could reduce the testing turnaround time and increase the number of patients on targeted therapy. Additional benefits for the hospital are that fewer patients will be lost to second opinion and that in-house NGS could generate additional revenue.

Convergence of Precision Oncology and Liquid Biopsy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

This review article illuminates the role of liquid biopsy in the continuum of care for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We discuss its current application in advanced-stage NSCLC at the time of diagnosis and at progression. We highlight research showing that concurrent testing of blood and tissue yields faster, more informative, and cheaper answers than the standard stepwise approach. We also describe future applications for liquid biopsy including treatment response monitoring and testing for minimal residual disease. Lastly, we discuss the emerging role of liquid biopsy for screening and early detection.

Real-world Biomarker Testing Patterns in Patients with Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) in a US Community-based Oncology Practice Setting

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

This study was designed to describe real-world changes in biomarker testing among patients with non-squamous, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in a community oncology setting from 2015 to 2020.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study randomly selected 500 adult patients diagnosed with nonsquamous mNSCLC to undergo chart review and data extraction. Data were extracted and validated by 2 independent abstractors. Biomarker testing rates were described before and after national guideline updates and FDA approval of targeted agents.

RESULTS

At least 1 biomarker test was received by 89.4% of patients with mNSCLC. Of all patients, 46.6%, 34.6%, and 8.2% received both single-gene and next generation sequencing (NGS)-based testing, single-gene testing only, and NGS-based testing only, respectively. However, there were changes in testing rates at the time of drug approvals for targeted agents. Biomarker testing increased for ALK (45.0% before to 78.3% after ALK-targeted drug approval), BRAF (from 20.0% to 67.8%), EGFR (from 20.0% to 78.2%), NTRK (from 34.6% to 55.7%), and ROS1 (increased from 29.6% before approval to 74.2% after). Biomarker testing increased after changes were made to national guidelines for BRAF (from 18.8% before to 68.1% after inclusion in guidelines), NTRK (from 37.2% to 56.5%), and ROS1 (increased from 40.8% to 74.5% after guideline updates). Targeted therapy was received by 62.4% of patients with a positive biomarker.

CONCLUSION

Increases in biomarker testing rates were observed relative to targeted agent approvals and national guideline updates. However, many patients with non-squamous mNSCLC did not receive full genotyping in accordance with national guidelines and represent an opportunity to identify reasons and solutions for barriers to care.

Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Single-Gene Testing for the Molecular Diagnosis of Patients With Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer From the Perspective of Spanish Reference Centers

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing (SgT) for the detection of genetic molecular subtypes and oncogenic markers in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the setting of Spanish reference centers.

METHODS

A joint model combining decision tree with partitioned survival models was developed. A two-round consensus panel was performed to describe clinical practice of Spanish reference centers, providing data on testing rate, prevalence of alterations, turnaround times, and treatment pathways. Treatment efficacy data and utility values were obtained from the literature. Only direct costs (euros, 2022), obtained from Spanish databases, were included. A lifetime horizon was considered, so a 3% discount rate for future costs and outcomes was considered. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

A target population of 9,734 patients with advanced NSCLC was estimated. If NGS was used instead of SgT, 1,873 more alterations would be detected and 82 more patients could potentially be enrolled in clinical trials. In the long term, using NGS would provide 1,188 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in the target population compared with SgT. On the other hand, the incremental cost of NGS versus SgT in the target population was €21,048,580 euros for a lifetime horizon (€1,333,288 for diagnosis phase only). The obtained incremental cost-utility ratios were €25,895 per QALY gained, below the standard cost-effectiveness thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Using NGS in Spanish reference centers for the molecular diagnosis of patients with metastatic NSCLC would be a cost-effective strategy over SgT.

Updates in pathology and molecular diagnostics to inform the evolving landscape of thoracic surgery and oncology

The pathologic assessment of lung cancers provides essential guidance to the surgeon and oncologist who are considering the best treatment strategies for patients with both early and advanced-stage disease. The management of patients with lung cancer is predicated first and foremost on access to an accurate diagnosis, even when the sample size is limited, as is often the case with use of modern, minimally invasive sampling techniques. Once the diagnosis and disease stage are established, predictive biomarker testing may be essential, particularly for those patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) being considered for immunotherapy or genomic biomarker-driven targeted therapy. This review will discuss the best practices for the diagnosis of NSCLC using morphology and immunohistochemistry, thus providing the surgeon with needed information to understand and critically evaluate pathology reports. Controversial and evolving topics including tumor spread through airspaces, evaluation of multiple tumors, and staging based on invasive tumor size will be addressed. Clinical genomic profiling in NSCLC is driven by published guidelines and reflects evidence based on clinical trials and regulatory approvals. In this fast-moving space, surgeons should be aware of the critical immunohistochemical and genomic biomarkers that drive systemic therapy decisions and anticipate when such testing will be required, both to ensure adequate sampling and to advise the pathologist when tumor material will be required for biomarker analysis. The basic approaches to and sample requirements for molecular biomarker testing will be addressed. As biomarker testing moves exclusively from advanced-stage patients into earlier stage disease, the surgeon should be aware of the relevant markers and work with the pathologist and oncologist to ensure that this information is available to facilitate timely access to therapies not just in the advanced setting, but in consideration of neoadjuvant and adjuvant care.