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

Digital PCR quantification of ultrahigh ERBB2 copy number identifies poor breast cancer survival after trastuzumab

HER2/ERBB2 evaluation is necessary for treatment decision-making in breast cancer (BC), however current methods have limitations and considerable variability exists. DNA copy number (CN) evaluation by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) has complementary advantages for HER2/ERBB2 diagnostics. In this study, we developed a single-reaction multiplex ddPCR assay for determination of ERBB2 CN in reference to two control regions, CEP17 and a copy-number-stable region of chr. 2p13.1, validated CN estimations to clinical in situ hybridization (ISH) HER2 status, and investigated the association of ERBB2 CN with clinical outcomes. 909 primary BC tissues were evaluated and the area under the curve for concordance to HER2 status was 0.93 and 0.96 for ERBB2 CN using either CEP17 or 2p13.1 as reference, respectively. The accuracy of ddPCR ERBB2 CN was 93.7% and 94.1% in the training and validation groups, respectively. Positive and negative predictive value for the classic HER2 amplification and non-amplification groups was 97.2% and 94.8%, respectively. An identified biological "ultrahigh" ERBB2 ddPCR CN group had significantly worse survival within patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab for both recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, HR: 3.3; 95% CI 1.1-9.6; p = 0.031, multivariable Cox regression) and overall survival (HR: 3.6; 95% CI 1.1-12.6; p = 0.041). For validation using RNA-seq data as a surrogate, in a population-based SCAN-B cohort (NCT02306096) of 682 consecutive patients receiving adjuvant trastuzumab, the ultrahigh-ERBB2 mRNA group had significantly worse survival. Multiplex ddPCR is useful for ERBB2 CN estimation and ultrahigh ERBB2 may be a predictive factor for decreased long-term survival after trastuzumab treatment.

Payer Coverage for Hereditary Cancer Panels: Barriers, Opportunities, and Implications for the Precision Medicine Initiative

Background: Hereditary cancer panels (HCPs), testing for multiple genes and syndromes, are rapidly transforming cancer risk assessment but are controversial and lack formal insurance coverage. We aimed to identify payers' perspectives on barriers to HCP coverage and opportunities to address them. Comprehensive cancer risk assessment is highly relevant to the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), and payers' considerations could inform PMI's efforts. We describe our findings and discuss them in the context of PMI priorities. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 major US payers, covering >160 million lives. We used the framework approach of qualitative research to design, conduct, and analyze interviews, and used simple frequencies to further describe findings. Results: Barriers to HCP coverage included poor fit with coverage frameworks (100%); insufficient evidence (100%); departure from pedigree/family history-based testing toward genetic screening (91%); lacking rigor in the HCP hybrid research/clinical setting (82%); and patient transparency and involvement concerns (82%). Addressing barriers requires refining HCP-indicated populations (82%); developing evidence of actionability (82%) and pathogenicity/penetrance (64%); creating infrastructure and standards for informing and recontacting patients (45%); separating research from clinical use in the hybrid clinical-research setting (44%); and adjusting coverage frameworks (18%). Conclusions: Leveraging opportunities suggested by payers to address HCP coverage barriers is essential to ensure patients' access to evolving HCPs. Our findings inform 3 areas of the PMI: addressing insurance coverage to secure access to future PMI discoveries; incorporating payers' evidentiary requirements into PMI's research agenda; and leveraging payers' recommendations and experience to keep patients informed and involved.

Decision Making on Medical Innovations in a Changing Health Care Environment: Insights from Accountable Care Organizations and Payers on Personalized Medicine and Other Technologies

BACKGROUND

New payment and care organization approaches, such as those of accountable care organizations (ACOs), are reshaping accountability and shifting risk, as well as decision making, from payers to providers, within the Triple Aim context of health reform. The Triple Aim calls for improving experience of care, improving health of populations, and reducing health care costs.

OBJECTIVES

To understand how the transition to the ACO model impacts decision making on adoption and use of innovative technologies in the era of accelerating scientific advancement of personalized medicine and other innovations.

METHODS

We interviewed representatives from 10 private payers and 6 provider institutions involved in implementing the ACO model (i.e., ACOs) to understand changes, challenges, and facilitators of decision making on medical innovations, including personalized medicine. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We found that representatives from the participating payer companies and ACOs perceive similar challenges to ACOs' decision making in terms of achieving a balance between the components of the Triple Aim-improving care experience, improving population health, and reducing costs. The challenges include the prevalence of cost over care quality considerations in ACOs' decisions and ACOs' insufficient analytical and technology assessment capacity to evaluate complex innovations such as personalized medicine. Decision-making facilitators included increased competition across ACOs and patients' interest in personalized medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

As new payment models evolve, payers, ACOs, and other stakeholders should address challenges and leverage opportunities to arm ACOs with robust, consistent, rigorous, and transparent approaches to decision making on medical innovations.

Challenges of coverage policy development for next-generation tumor sequencing panels: experts and payers weigh in

BACKGROUND

Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings.

RESULTS

All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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