Biomarker testing patterns and use of targeted therapy in Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries newly diagnosed with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 278-278
Author(s):  
Anik Patel ◽  
Aurelien Jamotte ◽  
Tara Matsuda ◽  
Partha Manas Das ◽  
Ehab Elkhouly ◽  
...  

278 Background: The number of targeted therapies approved for treatment of mNSCLC has increased over the past 5 years. Strategies to identify eligible patients with actionable mutations for targeted therapy include simultaneous testing of ≥ 2 genes via next generation sequencing (NGS) or multiple simultaneous gene testing (MSGT) and sequential single gene testing (SSGT). Current clinical practice guidelines strongly recommend broad molecular profiling in all patients for the simultaneous assessment of multiple genes, including EGFR, ALK and ROS1, that may have potential roles in cancer development. Limited real-world (RW) evidence is available describing the uptake of these strategies and receipt of targeted therapy. Methods: Medicare beneficiaries age 65 years or older, newly diagnosed with mNSCLC and tested for mutations of interest in mNSCLC (ALK, EGFR, ROS1, BRAF, HER2, KRAS, MET, NTRK, RET) from July 2014 - June 2018 were identified using Medicare FFS claims (100% sample) linked to biomarker results in PROGNOS NSCLC Explorer. Patients were followed from date of first metastatic diagnosis and stratified by line of therapy, testing strategy, and year of mNSCLC diagnosis. Those testing positive for an actionable biomarker were identified and then segmented by timing of receipt of a subsequent targeted therapy. Results: 12,272 beneficiaries met inclusion criteria: median age: 75 years, 51% were female, 86% white. Among mNSCLC patients with at least one biomarker test result, EGFR and ALK mutation status were the most commonly tested and reported in 85% and 63% respectively. Overall, 1540 (12.5%) tested positive for EGFR, ALK or ROS1. The relative use of NGS or MSGT vs. SSGT for biomarker testing increased over time, from 63% in 2014 to 80% in 2018. During this period, 789 patients were identified as having at least one positive biomarker test result prior to initiating 1L therapy: 635 were identified via NGS or MSGT while 154 were identified via SSGT. Despite a positive test for mutations of interest, only 292 patients received a targeted drug at 1L. Conclusions: This RW study of mNSCLC patients demonstrates an increasing trend to test patients for multiple biomarkers at once via NGS or other MSGT methods. The number of patients receiving appropriate targeted therapies was low, suggesting the need to address the barriers to administration of guideline-recommended therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18688-e18688
Author(s):  
Victoria Wang ◽  
Chenming Cui ◽  
Lei Yang ◽  
Gerald Li ◽  
Alexa Betzig Schrock ◽  
...  

e18688 Background: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is an established diagnostic approach to select patients for TT. As CGP gains wide adoption, an increasing number of patients are found to harbor driver mutations for which no approved TT is available. This is often addressed through use of matched TKI and mAb approved for other mutations or anatomic sites. In this work, we examined the clinical efficacy of off-label TT in R/M NSCLC. Methods: Using a de-identified NSCLC clinico-genomic database (CGDB), we identified 6590 NSCLC patients who underwent Foundation Medicine CGP, of whom 17.8% harbored an actionable genomic alteration (GA) for which an FDA-approved TT was available and 2% (133) whose GA (MET ex-14, uncommon EGFRm, EGFR ex20ins, HER2 amp/mut, RET fusion, BRAF class 2/3) lacked an FDA-approved TT (62 in 1L and 71 in ≥2L ) who received matched off-label TT. ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability (ESCAT) was used to grade levels of evidence. For patients who progressed on initial chemotherapy (range 2 – 9 lines, median 3), we calculated clinical efficacy using the ratio of real world PFS on targeted therapy (rw-PFS2) to rw-PFS on the last prior line of therapy (rw-PFS1) and used a cut-off of PFS2/PFS1 > 1.3 to determine off-label drug efficacy. Results: Of the 133 patients reviewed, 72 were classified as ESCAT level IB (uncommon EGFRm, MET-ex14), 45 IIB (HER2m/amp, EGFR ex-20ins), 7 IC (RET fusions). PFS varied significantly by mutation and line of therapy (table 1) with uncommon EGFRm+ and MET-ex14 exhibiting best response while EGFR ex20 ins, BRAF class 2/3 and HER2 amp fared significantly worse. 55.8% of the patients (39 of 71) reached a PFS2/PFS1 ratio > 1.3 (two-sided 95% CI, 45.3 % – 68.7 %), ranging from 93% in uncommon EGFRm+ down to 20% in HER2 amp and 44% in ex20ins. Conclusions: We provide real-world evidence to assess off-label TT in NSCLC. Clinical benefit derived from off-label TT is unevenly distributed across various mutations with most survival advantage accruing to specific mutations (MET-ex14 and uncommon EGFRm) at the expense of others (HER2 amp). Survival advantage was highly influenced by two factors: A) the timing of CGP with the earlier recipients of genomic profiling achieving better outcome, B) the identity of the driver mutation, highlighting the role of clinical actionability tier system to define level of evidence supporting such intervention.[Table: see text]


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23106-e23106
Author(s):  
Tiffany Yu ◽  
Alison Tradonsky ◽  
Andrew Layton

e23106 Background: Genetic testing to guide 1st-line treatment is recommended for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), but is complicated by small biopsy specimens available to test increasing numbers of biomarkers. This study compared commercially-available genetic tests for aNSCLC and the investigational use Oncomine™ Dx Target Test next generation sequencing (NGS) assay. Methods: This retrospective analysis used data from a large commercial lab, which offered clinical single-gene tests (EGFR therascreen, ALK Vysis, BRAF cobas, laboratory developed tests [LDT] for ROS1, BRAF, KRAS, MET, RET, and FGFR1); and NGS LDT (Illumina NextSeq 500). The lab also conducted investigational use of Oncomine Dx Target Test assay (Ion Torrent PGM Dx) on archival tissue. Clinical test orders received September 2015 – October 2016 were included. Sample rejection, test initiation, success rates, slide consumption, testing time, and turnaround time (TAT) were assessed. Results: Clinically, 3,857 single-gene and 219 NGS LDT tests were ordered on 1,479 samples for 1,436 patients. A total of 169 Oncomine Dx Target Tests were conducted. Conclusions: Investigational use of Oncomine Dx Target Test at this laboratory showed higher rates of test initiation and successful completion while using less tissue compared to either single-gene testing for ≥4 biomarkers or NGS LDT. This early experience suggests Oncomine Dx Target Test may enable therapy selection with multiple biomarker testing on small tissue samples for more aNSCLC patients compared to current methods. [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Zheng ◽  
Helene Vioix ◽  
Frank X Liu ◽  
Barinder Singh ◽  
Sakshi Sharma ◽  
...  

We aimed to assess the diagnostic and economic value of next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing, and of liquid biopsy (LBx) versus tissue biopsy (TBx) in non-small-cell lung cancer biomarker testing through literature review. Embase and MEDLINE were searched to identify relevant studies (n = 43) from 2015 to 2020 in adults with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. For NGS versus single-gene testing, concordance was 70–99% and sensitivity was 86–100%. For LBx versus TBx, specificity was 43–100% and sensitivity was ≥60%. Turnaround times were longer for NGS versus single-gene testing (but not vs sequential testing) and faster for LBx versus TBx. NGS was cost-effective, and LBx reduced US per-patient costs. NGS versus single-gene testing and LBx versus TBx were concordant. NGS and LBx may be cost-effective for initial screening.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9079-9079
Author(s):  
Eric S. Nadler ◽  
Anupama Vasudevan ◽  
Kalatu Davies ◽  
Yunfei Wang ◽  
Ravindra Gupta ◽  
...  

9079 Background: National guidelines recommend biomarker testing in mNSCLC, and targeted therapy is associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this study was to understand the real-world biomarker testing and treatment patterns in the community setting. Methods: This was a retrospective study of adult patients diagnosed with de novo mNSCLC between 01-Jan-2016 and 30-Sep-2019, with follow-up through 31-Dec-2019 using The US Oncology Network structured electronic health records data. Patients who received systemic treatment for mNSCLC were included. Results: A total of 3213 patients were identified with median age 68 years (24, 90+); 52.7% were male and 10% were current smokers. ECOG score was 0-1 in 55.2%; 60% had adenocarcinoma, 16% had squamous cell carcinoma, and the rest had other/unknown histology. Since most of the biomarker-guided therapies were approved after 2016, testing patterns are described for 2017-2019 (n=2257). Overall, 23.6% were not tested for any biomarker (PD-L1 or driver mutation [DM]) at any time during the study period, and only 49% had a biomarker test result prior to 1L treatment. We observed similar patterns when assessing DM specifically; 35.8% were never tested for DM, and only 39.3% had a DM test result prior to 1L treatment. As an example, out of 42 ALK+ patients in this study population, only 5 had test results prior to 1L treatment and only 3 received an ALK inhibitor as their 1L treatment (Table). Similar patterns were observed for the other biomarkers. Conclusions: Despite availability of promising biomarker-based therapies, the lack of adequate testing in the community oncology setting means that not all eligible patients are receiving the most effective therapies upfront. Nearly 61% of patients had no DM test reported before 1L treatment in this mNSCLC cohort (all histologies), and some were determined to be DM positive at a later time, highlighting a missed opportunity to employ the most effective biomarker-directed front-line treatment. Next steps in this study will include assessing patterns by histology. Structured data, which are recorded for clinical management, might have gaps; future research with chart reviews could provide a more comprehensive assessment.[Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mette U. Fredskild ◽  
Sharleny Stanislaus ◽  
Klara Coello ◽  
Sigurd A. Melbye ◽  
Hanne Lie Kjærstad ◽  
...  

Abstract Background DSM-IV states that criterion A for diagnosing hypomania/mania is mood change. The revised DSM-5 now states that increased energy or activity must be present alongside mood changes to diagnose hypomania/mania, thus raising energy/activity to criterion A. We set out to investigate how the change in criterion A affects the diagnosis of hypomanic/manic visits in patients with a newly diagnosed bipolar disorder. Results In this prospective cohort study, 373 patients were included (median age = 32; IQR, 27–40). Women constituted 66% (n = 245) of the cohort and 68% of the cohort (n = 253) met criteria for bipolar type II, the remaining patients were diagnosed bipolar type I. Median number of contributed visits was 2 per subject (IQR, 1–3) and median follow-up time was 3 years (IQR, 2–4). During follow-up, 127 patients had at least one visit with fulfilled DSM-IV criterion A. Applying DSM-5 criterion A reduced the number of patients experiencing a hypomanic/manic visit by 62% at baseline and by 50% during longitudinal follow-up, compared with DSM-IV criterion A. Fulfilling DSM-5 criterion A during follow-up was associated with higher modified young mania rating scale score (OR = 1.51, CL [1.34, 1.71], p < 0.0001) and increased number of visits contributed (OR = 1.86, CL [1.52, 2.29], p < 0.0001). Conclusion Applying the stricter DSM-5 criterion A in a cohort of newly diagnosed bipolar patients reduced the number of patients experiencing a hypomanic/manic visit substantially, and was associated with higher overall young mania rating scale scores, compared with DSM-IV criterion A. Consequently, fewer hypomanic/manic visits may be detected in newly diagnosed bipolar patients with applied DSM-5 criterion A, and the upcoming ICD-11, which may possibly result in longer diagnostic delay of BD as compared with the DSM-IV.


Author(s):  
Nirmal Vivek Raut ◽  
Siddharth Srivastava ◽  
Guarav Dilip Gangwani ◽  
Heena Sajid Ali

AbstractTreatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) carrying an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation depends on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, all patients treated with EGFR TKI eventually develop progressive disease. Approximately, 20% of patients do not respond to EGFR TKIs, which is defined as primary resistance. The prognosis of these patients is similar to NSCLC with nondriver mutations. We report a case of a patient with EGFR exon 21 mutation who rapidly progressed in 15 days on Gefitinib. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) showed a MET exon 14 skip mutation coexisting with EGFR exon 21 mutation, causing primary resistance to EGFR TKI. Based on NGS reports, a treatment combining Gefitinib and Capmatinib, a MET inhibitor, induced a rapid response in the patient, which was sustained at the end of 8 months. This clearly emphasizes the need for comprehensive genomic profiling using NGS over single gene testing.


BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruofei Du ◽  
Xin Wang ◽  
Lixia Ma ◽  
Leon M. Larcher ◽  
Han Tang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The adverse reactions (ADRs) of targeted therapy were closely associated with treatment response, clinical outcome, quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer. However, few studies presented the correlation between ADRs of targeted therapy and treatment effects among cancer patients. This study was to explore the characteristics of ADRs with targeted therapy and the prognosis of cancer patients based on the clinical data. Methods A retrospective secondary data analysis was conducted within an ADR data set including 2703 patients with targeted therapy from three Henan medical centers of China between January 2018 and December 2019. The significance was evaluated with chi-square test between groups with or without ADRs. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression with backward stepwise method were applied to assess the difference of pathological characteristics in patients with cancer. Using the univariate Cox regression method, the actuarial probability of overall survival was performed to compare the clinical outcomes between these two groups. Results A total of 485 patients were enrolled in this study. Of all patients, 61.0% (n = 296) occurred ADRs including skin damage, fatigue, mucosal damage, hypertension and gastrointestinal discomfort as the top 5 complications during the target therapy. And 62.1% of ADRs were mild to moderate, more than half of the ADRs occurred within one month, 68.6% ADRs lasted more than one month. Older patients (P = 0.022) and patients with lower education level (P = 0.036), more than 2 comorbidities (P = 0.021), longer medication time (P = 0.022), drug combination (P = 0.033) and intravenous administration (P = 0.019) were more likely to have ADRs. Those with ADRs were more likely to stop taking (P = 0.000), change (P = 0.000), adjust (P = 0.000), or not take the medicine on time (P = 0.000). The number of patients with recurrence (P = 0.000) and metastasis (P = 0.006) were statistically significant difference between ADRs and non-ADRs group. And the patients were significantly poor prognosis in ADRs groups compared with non-ADRs group. Conclusion The high incidence of ADRs would affect the treatment and prognosis of patients with cancer. We should pay more attention to these ADRs and develop effective management strategies.


Author(s):  
Clémence TB Pasmans ◽  
Bastiaan BJ Tops ◽  
Elisabeth MP Steeghs ◽  
Veerle MH Coupé ◽  
Katrien Grünberg ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 287-287
Author(s):  
Ari M. Vanderwalde ◽  
Esprit Ma ◽  
Elaine Yu ◽  
Tania Szado ◽  
Richard Price ◽  
...  

287 Background: Recent approvals of targeted treatments (tx) have improved personalized care in aNSCLC. Biomarker testing is crucial for patients (pts) to receive optimal tx expeditiously. This study examined aNSCLC biomarker testing and tx patterns at OneOnc. Methods: Pts diagnosed with aNSCLC (stage ≥ IIIb) from 1/1/2015 to 5/31/2020, aged ≥ 18 years, and with ≥ 1 visit ≤ 90 days of advanced (Adv) diagnosis (Dx) were retrospectively evaluated using the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record derived de-identified database from selected OneOnc sites. Descriptive analyses were conducted to evaluate testing patterns for ALK, BRAF, EGFR, KRAS, PD-L1, and ROS-1 biomarkers and actionable mutation tx pattern. Results: Overall 3,860 aNSCLC pts were included, median age was 69 years, 47% females, 66% non-squamous, 29% squamous, 4% histology NOS, and 23% with ECOG performance status 0-1. Of the 3,152 (82%) pts tested for any biomarker, 64% received next-generation sequencing (NGS) vs. 36% received other biomarker tests only. Testing rates varied by biomarker: EGFR (74%), ALK (72%), ROS-1 (66%), PD-L1 (57%), BRAF (56%), KRAS (54%). Pts who received all 6 biomarker tests increased from 12% (2015), 23% (2016), 40% (2017), 41% (2018), 48% (2019) to 56% (2020). Among the tested pts, the median time from Adv Dx to the first test result was 20 days (d) and from specimen collection after Adv Dx to the first test result was 12 d. Pts tested and treated before test result available declined from 28% (2015) to 16% (2020). Of 1,207 pts with actionable mutations, 390 (32%) received tx before the test result: 35% chemotherapy (chemo) only, 28% chemo + cancer immunotherapy (CIT), and 15% CIT only. After the test result, 26% to 81% of pts received no or other tx not specific to actionable mutations [Table]. Conclusions: Findings from this study demonstrated an increase in aNSCLC biomarker testing at OneOnc over time, while 44% pts in 2020 did not receive testing on all 6 biomarkers. Some pts had tx prior to the test result, but this trend appeared to decline. Further studies are warranted to better understand the reasons for pts receiving tx that were not specific to their actionable mutations.[Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document