CGE19-064: Patient Access to Comprehensive Genomic Profiling for Hematologic Malignancies: Analysis of the Payer Coverage Landscape and Results of Testing in 3,600 Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3.5) ◽  
pp. CGE19-064
Author(s):  
Kristi Maxwell ◽  
Eric A. Severson ◽  
Meagan Montesion ◽  
Ingrid Marino ◽  
Rachel Anhorn ◽  
...  

Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) for patients with advanced solid tumors is on the trajectory of becoming standard of care through incorporation into clinical practice, professional society guidelines, availability of an FDA-approved assay, and a national coverage determination from Medicare. For hematologic malignancies, the clinical utility of CGP can be diagnostic, prognostic, or predictive depending on the type of malignancy. Molecular testing has been standard of care for many years for hematologic malignancies, and payer coverage of the CGP approach must now be considered to keep pace with advances in the field of hematology-oncology. Based on American Medical Association CPT coding definitions, molecular testing for hematologic malignancies is categorized as testing for individual genes and gene panels of 5–50 genes or >50 genes. Our review of payer coverage policies from the Policy Reporter database in October 2018 demonstrated that payer coverage for >50 genes in hematologic malignancies is limited. As an example of coverage limitations, a recently updated Medicare Local Coverage Determination limits coverage to 50 genes or less. Coverage decisions such as these are being made during a time of increasing demand for an expanded approach. Data from the Foundation Medicine, Inc. database shows that as of April 2018, over 3,600 patients with AML, MDS, and MPN have undergone clinical testing with FoundationOne Heme, a CGP assay for hematologic malignancies. In an analysis of over 1,300 AML cases tested with FoundationOne Heme, 62% had an alteration that is included in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines), and 91% had a clinically relevant alteration identified that could inform diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment selection. In an analysis of over 1,300 MDS cases tested, 70% had at least one clinically relevant alteration identified. In an analysis of over 200 MPN cases tested, 48% were triple negative for CALR, JAK2, and MPL, and of those triple negative cases, 55% had another clinically relevant alteration. These data demonstrate that FoundationOne Heme is a clinically important assay for patients with hematologic malignancies including AML, MDS, and MPN, and stakeholders within the system must now come together to further refine the clinical utility, improve payer coverage, and ensure patient access to this impactful testing as the field advances.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 497-497
Author(s):  
Andrew Rankin ◽  
Alexa Betzig Schrock ◽  
Julia Andrea Elvin ◽  
Juliann Chmielecki ◽  
Rachel Erlich ◽  
...  

497 Background: As activating RAS mutations have been shown to predict lack of benefit from anti-EGFR therapies in advanced CRC, NCCN guidelines recommend testing for KRAS exon 2 and non-exon 2 mutations; however, these alterations are thought to explain only a subset of de novo resistance to targeted therapy. In a large set of CRC assayed with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in the course of clinical care, we assessed the frequency of less common KRAS short insertions that may predict failure of anti-EGFR therapy. Methods: 4,422 CRC cases were assayed with CGP performed on hybridization-captured, adaptor ligation based libraries to a mean coverage depth of > 650X for at least 236 cancer-related genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. All classes of genomic alterations (GA) were identified, including base pair substitutions, insertions/deletions, copy number alterations, and rearrangements. Pertinent available prior molecular testing results and clinical history was reviewed for selected cases. Results: Out of 4,422 CRC cases analyzed, KRAS short variants were identified in 50.9% of cases. A majority of cases contained a KRAS alteration at either codon G12 (35.5%) or G13 (9.1%), while alterations at codons Q61 or A146 were identified in 2.2% and 3.1% of cases, respectively. KRAS insertions were identified in 8 ( < 0.5%) cases. All KRAS insertions identified fell within codons 9-13, and 6/8 cases harbored V9_G10 insertions. Out of 6 patients with prior KRAS testing results available, 5 (83%) were negative by previous testing. Conclusions: CGP identifies KRAS insertions within or adjacent to hotspot regions in CRC cases which have previously tested negative for KRAS mutations. Given the importance of KRAS alterations in predicting lack of response to anti-EGFR therapies in CRC, accurate detection of these alterations in the course of clinical care is essential for effective treatment. CGP offers the possibility of identifying KRAS insertions that may impact efficacy of anti-EGFR targeted therapy and should be considered when previous focused testing for KRAS mutations is negative.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siraj M. Ali ◽  
Jessica Watson ◽  
Kai Wang ◽  
Jon H. Chung ◽  
Caitlin McMahon ◽  
...  

After failure of anthracycline- and platinum-based therapy, no effective therapies exist for management of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We report a case of metastatic TNBC harboring MCL1 amplification, as identified by comprehensive genomic profiling in the course of clinical care. MCL1 is an antiapoptotic gene in the BCL2 family, and MCL1 amplification is common in TNBC (at least 20%). A personalized dose-reduced regimen centered on a combination of sorafenib and vorinostat was implemented, based on preclinical evidence demonstrating treatment synergy in the setting of MCL1 amplification. Although hospice care was being considered before treatment initiation, the personalized regimen yielded 6 additional months of life for this patient. Further rigorous studies are needed to confirm that this regimen or derivatives thereof can benefit the MCL1-amplified subset of TNBC patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianling Ji ◽  
Kristiyana Kaneva ◽  
Matthew C Hiemenz ◽  
Girish Dhall ◽  
Tom Belle Davidson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Recent large-scale genomic studies have revealed a spectrum of genetic variants associated with specific subtypes of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling of pediatric, adolescent and young adult (AYA) CNS tumors in a prospective setting, including detection of DNA sequence variants, gene fusions, copy number alterations (CNAs), and loss of heterozygosity. Methods OncoKids, a comprehensive DNA- and RNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel, in conjunction with chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) was employed to detect diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic markers. NGS was performed on 222 specimens from 212 patients. Clinical CMA data were analyzed in parallel for 66% (146/222) of cases. Results NGS demonstrated clinically significant alterations in 66% (147/222) of cases. Diagnostic markers were identified in 62% (138/222) of cases. Prognostic information and targetable genomic alterations were identified in 22% (49/222) and 18% (41/222) of cases, respectively. Diagnostic or prognostic CNAs were revealed by CMA in 69% (101/146) of cases. Importantly, clinically significant CNAs were detected in 57% (34/60) of cases with noncontributory NGS results. Germline cancer predisposition testing was indicated for 27% (57/212) of patients. Follow-up germline testing was performed for 20 patients which confirmed a germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in 9 cases: TP53 (2), NF1 (2), SMARCB1 (1), NF2 (1), MSH6 (1), PMS2 (1), and a patient with 47,XXY Klinefelter syndrome. Conclusions Our results demonstrate the significant clinical utility of integrating genomic profiling into routine clinical testing for pediatric and AYA patients with CNS tumors.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Aakash Desai ◽  
Harry E Fuentes ◽  
Sri Harsha Tella ◽  
Caleb J Scheckel ◽  
Thejaswi Poonacha ◽  
...  

Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care in malignant hematology by clinicians and payers in the US. The level of scientific evidence in NCCN guidelines for malignant hematological conditions has not been recently investigated. We describe the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common hematologic malignancies with regard to recommendations for staging, initial and salvage therapy, and surveillance. Methods: NCCN uses a system of guideline development distinct from other major professional organizations. The NCCN definitions for EC are: category I, high level of evidence such as randomized controlled trials with uniform consensus; category IIA, lower level of evidence with uniform consensus; category IIB, lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement; and category III, any level of evidence but with major disagreement. We compared our results with previously published results from 2011 guidelines. Results: Total recommendations increased by 16.6% from 1160 (2011) to 1353 (2020). Of the 1353 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 5%, 91%, 4%, 1% while in 2011 they were 3%, 93%, 4% and 0% respectively. Recommendations with category 1 EC were found in all guidelines, except for Burkitt's Lymphoma. 6.3% of therapeutic recommendations were category 1 EC with the majority (56.4%) pertaining to initial therapy. Guidelines with highest proportions of therapeutic recommendations with category 1 EC were Multiple Myeloma (12.4%), CLL/SLL (6.9%) and AML (5.6%). Between 2011 and 2020, the proportion of category I recommendations increased significantly only in Follicular lymphoma and CLL/SLL. No category 1 EC recommendations existed in staging or surveillance. Conclusion: Recommendations issued in the 2020 NCCN guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence but with uniform expert opinion. Despite the major advances in hematology in the past decade, this is largely unchanged. Our study underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand the current evidence base in malignant hematological disorders which forms the platform for clinical practice guidelines. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12092-12092
Author(s):  
Laurie M. Gay ◽  
David Fabrizio ◽  
Garrett Michael Frampton ◽  
Lee A. Albacker ◽  
Ethan Sokol ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 832-832
Author(s):  
Tomohiro Kondo ◽  
Quy Pham Nguyen ◽  
Junichi Matsubara ◽  
Keita Fukuyama ◽  
Motoo Nomura ◽  
...  

832 Background: From June, 2019, two comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) assays, "FoundationOne CDx" and “OncoGuide NCC Oncopanel”, were reimbursed by the national insurance system in Japan for patients who were refractory to standard chemotherapy. However, their clinical utility for chemotherapy-naïve cancer patients is unknown. Methods: We conducted a single institutional prospective observational study to evaluate the clinical utility of FoundationOne CDx assay (Cambridge, MA, USA) for the patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. Patients with adequate H.E. sample were registered in this study. Primary outcome was the detection rate of at least one actionable/druggable cancer genomic alterations. The evidence levels were classified according to clinical practice guidance for next-generation sequencing in cancer diagnosis and treatment (Edition 1.0) (Sunami K. Cancer Sci. 2018). Results: From October 2018 to June 2019, a total of 238 patients were screened and the following 158 patients were registered: colorectal cancer (n = 60), gastric cancer (n = 19), esophageal cancer (n = 23), pancreatic cancer (n = 30), biliary tract cancer (n = 11), rare gastrointestinal malignancies (n = 15). The CGP data were obtained for 113 patients . Median turn-around time was 14 days (range 10-247 days). Actionable/druggable cancer genomic alterations were observed in 113 patients (100%)/ 65 patients (57.5%), respectively. Clinically relevant biomarkers and genomic alterations were identified in 22 patients (19.5%); BRCA2 (n = 4), ERBB2 (n = 4) , BRAF (n = 3) , EGFR (n = 3), FGFR2 (n = 2), MET (n = 2), NTRK (n = 2) , MSI-H (n = 2 ), TMB-high (n = 2), ALK (n = 1) , KIT (n = 1) and ROS1 (n = 1). Of note, novel biomarkers such as ROS1- GOPC fusion and PALB2 rearrangement were obtained in the patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the clinical utility of CGP in patient with chemotherapy-naïve advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. Our result indicated that CGP might provide a chance of potentially effective drugs as a novel approach in precision cancer medicine. Clinical trial information: UMIN000034830.


2016 ◽  
Vol 130 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah T. Blumenthal ◽  
Addie Dvir ◽  
Alexander Lossos ◽  
Tzahala Tzuk-Shina ◽  
Tzach Lior ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. P. Huang ◽  
Eric Severson ◽  
James Haberberger ◽  
Daniel L. Duncan ◽  
Amanda Hemmerich ◽  
...  

Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) are important biomarker tools used for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) given the expanding number of standard-of-care therapies that require companion diagnostic testing. We examined 9450 NSCLC real-world patient samples that underwent both CGP and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) IHC to understand the biomarker landscape in this patient cohort. By assessing National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-recommended biomarkers including genomic alterations, tumor mutational burden (≥10 mutations/Mb cut-off), and PD-L1 expression (Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) ≥ 50% cut-off), we show that CGP + PD-L1 IHC yielded potentially actionable results for 70.5% of the 9,450 patients with NSCLC. Among the remaining 29.5% (2,789/9,450) of patients, 86.7% (2,419/2,789) were potentially eligible for another biomarker-associated therapy and/or clinical trial based on their genomic profile. In addition, in the PD-L1TPS≥50% disease subset, BRAF mutations, MET mutations, MET amplifications, and KRAS mutations were significantly enriched; and in the PD-L1TPS&lt;50%, EGFR mutations, ERBB2 mutations, STK11 mutations, and KEAP1 mutations were enriched. These findings highlight the improved clinical utility of combining CGP with IHC to expand the biomarker-guided therapeutic options available for patients with NSCLC, relative to single biomarker testing alone.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 1084-1086 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pranammya Dey ◽  
Angela K. Green ◽  
Michael Haddadin ◽  
Peter B. Bach ◽  
Aaron P. Mitchell

Background: NCCN produces highly influential disease-specific oncology clinical practice guidelines. Because the number of women in academic oncology has increased, we assessed whether the composition of NCCN Guidelines Panels reflected this trend. Methods: Using historical guidelines requested from NCCN, we investigated time trends for female representation on 21 NCCN Guidelines Panels and analyzed the trends for female-predominant cancers (breast, ovarian, uterine, and cervical) compared with all cancers. Results: From 2013 to 2019, there was an increase from 123 women of 541 total panelists (22.7%) to 175 women of 542 panelists (32.3%). Within the 4 female-predominant cancers, the increase was more rapid: from 30 of 101 total panelists (29.7%) to 66 of 118 panelists (56.4%). Excluding female-predominant cancers, increases were minimal. Conclusions: There could be multiple explanations for these differing trends, including the possibility of more rapid increases in the underlying pool of female physician-scientists in female-predominant specialties or more efforts to increase the representation of women in decisions about the standard of care in cancers predominantly affecting women.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document