Association of Timely Comprehensive Genomic Profiling With Precision Oncology Treatment Use and Patient Outcomes in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Timely biomarker testing remains out of reach for many patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Here, we studied the quality-of-care implications of closing the gap in timely receipt of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to inform first-line (1L) decisions. METHODS: Using a real-world clinicogenomic database, we studied testing and 1L treatment patterns in aNSCLC after the approval of pembrolizumab in combination with pemetrexed and carboplatin (May 10, 2017). To estimate the association of timely CGP results with therapy selection and patient outcomes, we identified patients with no previous genomic testing beyond PD-L1 immunohistochemistry and dichotomized patients by whether CGP results were available before or after 1L therapy initiation. RESULTS: In total, 2,694 patients were included in the 1L therapy decision impact assessment. Timely CGP increased matched targeted therapy use by 14 percentage points (17% with CGP v 2.8% without) and precision immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPI) use by 14 percentage points (18% with CGP v 3.9% without). Receipt of timely CGP resulted in an estimated 31 percentage point decrease in ICPI use among ALK/EGFR/RET/ROS1-positive patients at an expected per-patient reduction in ineffective ICPI therapy cost of $13,659.37 with timely CGP to inform 1L treatment selection. Patient benefit of CGP extended to real-world time to therapy discontinuation (median time to therapy discontinuation: 3.9 v 10 months [hazard ratio, HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.70]; P = 1.9E-06; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.67]; P = 2.0E-06) in 1L driver-positive patients. This effect was not significant for real-world overall survival (median overall survival: 32 v 29 months [HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.84 to 1.67]; P = .33; aHR, 1.4 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.99]; P = .12). CONCLUSION: Timely CGP is associated with the quality of patient care as measured by 1L matched targeted therapy use, time to therapy discontinuation, and avoidance of ineffective, costly ICPIs.

Safety and efficacy of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab alternating with nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: the non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 920 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV multicohort CheckMate 920 trial explored the safety and efficacy with a less frequent, but continual nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) dosing regimen (cohort 1) to determine whether this modification could potentially retain efficacy benefits while improving on the manageable safety profile previously observed with this combination in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). SETTING: Patients were enrolled from 48 largely community-based sites in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: 106 patients with previously untreated, predominantly clear cell aRCC received treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received NIVO 6 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg on day 1 of the first week of each 8-week cycle; the combination alternated with NIVO 480 mg monotherapy on day 1 of the fifth week of each 8-week cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or study end. The maximum treatment duration was 2 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence of high-grade (grade 3/4 and grade 5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) within 100 days of the last dose. Select secondary endpoints included time to onset and resolution of high-grade IMAEs, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events and the overall survival (OS) were the exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: The most common grade 3/4 IMAEs were diarrhoea/colitis (7.5%) and rash (6.6%) and no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, with a minimum follow-up of 28.5 months. The median PFS was 4.8 (95% CI 3.0 to 8.3) months, the ORR in evaluable patients (n=96) was 34.4% (95% CI 25.0 to 44.8), and the median OS was not reached (95% CI 24.8 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: While no new safety signals were reported with less frequent, but continual NIVO+IPI dosing in CheckMate 920, the modified regimen was not associated with clinical benefits relative to the approved NIVO+IPI dose. These results support the continued use of the currently approved NIVO+IPI combination dosing schedule for patients with aRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02982954.

The effect of a disease management algorithm and dedicated postacute coronary syndrome clinic on achievement of guideline compliance: results from the parkland acute coronary event treatment study.

BACKGROUND: The application of disease management algorithms by physician extenders has been shown to improve therapeutic adherence in selected populations. It is unknown whether this strategy would improve adherence to secondary prevention goals after acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) in a largely indigent county hospital setting. METHODS: Patients admitted for ACS were randomized at the time of discharge to usual follow-up care versus the same care with the addition of a physician extender visit. Physician extender visits were conducted according to a treatment algorithm based on contemporary practice guidelines. Groups were compared using the primary end point of achievement of low-density lipoprotein treatment goals at 3 months after discharge and achievement of additional evidence-based practice goals. RESULTS: One hundred forty consecutive patients were randomized. A similar proportion of patients returned for study follow-up in both groups at 3 months (54 [79%]/68 in the usual care group vs 57 [79%]/72 in the intervention group; P = 0.97). Among those completing the 3-month visit, a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level less than 100 mg/dL was achieved in 37 (69%) of the usual care patients compared with 35 (57%) of those in the intervention group (P = 0.43). There was no statistical difference in implementation of therapeutic lifestyle changes (smoking cessation, cardiac rehabilitation, or exercise) between groups. Prescription rates of evidence-based therapeutics at 3 months were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a post-ACS clinic run by a physician extender applying a disease management algorithm did not measurably improve adherence to evidence-based secondary prevention treatment goals. Despite initially high rates of evidence-based treatment at discharge, adherence with follow-up appointments and sustained implementation of evidence-based therapies remains a significant challenge in this high-risk cohort.