Achieving white blood cell equity: are the safety profiles of biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastims comparable?

Biosimilars can provide choices for patients and may provide cost savings; however, their uptake has been slow in the USA, in part due to limited knowledge. To provide additional confidence in US pegfilgrastim biosimilars, this narrative review compared the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims, currently approved or filed for approval in the USA, with the EU- and US-approved reference pegfilgrastims. Headache and bone pain were common to biosimilars and reference products and occurred at a similar incidence. Clinical trial data on the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims and reference products have demonstrated similarity and comparability, with no unexpected safety outcomes. Overall, the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims and reference pegfilgrastims demonstrated a high degree of similarity and comparability.

Pegfilgrastim is a biologic drug (one made in living cells such as bacteria) that is given to some patients being treated for cancer. Pegfilgrastim is prescribed to reduce a patient's risk of infection due to a weakened immune system caused by various chemotherapy treatment plans. A biosimilar is a type of biologic medicine that is highly similar to a US FDA-approved reference biologic, and is often cheaper, making it more widely available to patients. As of March 2023, there are eight pegfilgrastim biosimilars (six approved and two awaiting approval by the FDA). This review compared the side effects for the reference pegfilgrastim with the biosimilar pegfilgrastims. The side effects in general and the side effects from treatment were similar for the reference pegfilgrastim and for the biosimilar pegfilgrastims, with the most common side effects being headache and bone pain. Serious side effects such as allergic reactions or problems with the spleen were very low and were also similar between the reference pegfilgrastim and the biosimilar pegfilgrastims. These results show that the safety of the biosimilar pegfilgrastims was similar to the reference pegfilgrastim, with no unexpected side effects. With comparable safety to their reference product, biosimilars have the potential to improve patient access to more affordable treatment options.

Soft Tissue Mass Extramedullary Plasmacytoma Following Radiation Therapy for Solitary Bone Plasmacytoma.

Soft tissue involvement in extramedullary plasmacytoma (EMP) is an exceptionally rare occurrence within the spectrum of plasma cell neoplasms. This case report presents the unique scenario of a patient who developed a soft tissue mass EMP subsequent to receiving radiation therapy for a solitary bone plasmacytoma at a distinct anatomical site. The primary objective of this report is to elucidate the clinical characteristics, diagnostic complexities, and management considerations associated with this uncommon presentation. Through a comprehensive review of existing literature, we aim to provide valuable insights and expertise to healthcare providers involved in the assessment and treatment of similar cases.

Exceedingly Rare Bilateral Synchronous Germ Cell Testicular Tumors With Different Histopathological Features.

Bilateral synchronous testicular tumors are a relatively uncommon occurrence, especially when they involve germ cell tumors of different histology. In this context, we present a compelling case report of a male patient who was diagnosed with bilateral synchronous germ cell testicular tumors, with one being a seminoma and the other a non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT). The coexistence of two distinct histological types, seminoma and NSGCT, necessitates a comprehensive diagnostic approach to accurately identify and characterize each tumor. This underscores the importance of clinical history, physical examination, imaging techniques, and histopathological analysis to establish an appropriate diagnosis. Careful consideration must be given to factors such as tumor stage, histological subtype, and individual patient characteristics to determine the most suitable treatment strategy. Treatment options may encompass a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, tailored to each tumor's specific characteristics and the patient's overall health. By highlighting this unique case, we aim to underscore the significance of meticulous evaluation and accurate diagnosis when confronted with bilateral synchronous testicular tumors of different histology.

Clinical Outcomes for Plasma-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Versus Standard-of-Care Tissue Testing in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Somatic genomic testing is recommended by numerous expert guidelines to inform targeted therapy treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). The NILE study was a prospective observational study that demonstrated noninferiority of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (cfDNA)-based tumor genotyping compared to tissue-based genotyping to find targetable genomic alterations in patients with newly diagnosed nonsquamous aNSCLC. As the cohort has matured, clinical outcomes data can now be analyzed. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter North American study enrolled patients with previously untreated nonsquamous aNSCLC who had standard of care (SOC) tissue genotyping performed and concurrent comprehensive cfDNA analysis (Guardant360). Patients with targetable genomic alterations, as defined by NCCN guidelines, who were treated with physician's choice of therapy had objective response rates, disease control rate, and time to treatment collected and compared to published outcomes. RESULTS: Among 282 patients, 89 (31.6%) had an actionable biomarker, as defined by NCCN, detected by tissue (21.3%) and/or cfDNA (27.3%) analysis. Sixty-one (68.5%) of these were treated with an FDA-approved targeted therapy guided by somatic genotyping results (EGFR, ALK, ROS1). Thirty-three patients were eligible for clinical response evaluation and demonstrated an objective response rate of 58% and disease control rate of 94%. Twenty-five (76%) and 17 (52%) achieved a durable response > 6 months and 12 months, respectively. The time to treatment (TtT) was significantly faster for cfDNA-informed biomarker detection as compared to tissue genotyping (18 vs. 31 days, respectively; P = .0008). CONCLUSIONS: cfDNA detects guideline-recommended biomarkers at a rate similar to tissue genotyping, and therapeutic outcomes based on plasma-based comprehensive genomic profiling are comparable to published targeted therapy outcomes with tissue profiling, even in community-based centers.

Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE: Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

Occupational and Personal Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic on US Oncologist Burnout and Well-Being: A Study From the ASCO Clinician Well-Being Task Force.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis profoundly affecting oncology care delivery. PURPOSE: This study will describe the occupational and personal consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncologist well-being and patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four virtual focus groups were conducted with US ASCO member oncologists (September-November 2020). Inquiry and subsequent discussions centered on self-reported accounts of professional and personal COVID-19 experiences affecting well-being, and oncologist recommendations for well-being interventions that the cancer organization and professional societies (ASCO) might implement were explored. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five oncologists were interviewed: median age 44 years (range: 35-69 years), 52% female, 52% racial or ethnic minority, 76% medical oncologists, 64% married, and an average of 51.5 patients seen per week (range: 20-120). Five thematic consequences emerged: (1) impact of pre-COVID-19 burnout, (2) occupational or professional limitations and adaptations, (3) personal implications, (4) concern for the future of cancer care and the workforce, and (5) recommendations for physician well-being interventions. Underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Oncologists noted personal and familial stressors related to COVID-19 exposure fears and loss of social support. Many participants strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement. Yet, opportunities arose to facilitate personal growth and rise above pandemic adversity, fostering greater resilience. Recommendations for organizational well-being interventions included psychologic or peer support resources, flexible time-off, and ASCO and state oncology societies involvement to develop care guidelines, well-being resources, and mental health advocacy. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected oncologist burnout, fulfillment, practice health, cancer care, and workforce. It illuminates where professional organizations could play a significant role in oncologist well-being.

Creating a Blueprint of Well-Being in Oncology: An Approach for Addressing Burnout From ASCO's Clinician Well-Being Taskforce.

Optimizing the well-being of the oncology clinician has never been more important. Well-being is a critical priority for the cancer organization because burnout adversely impacts the quality of care, patient satisfaction, the workforce, and overall practice success. To date, 45% of U.S. ASCO member medical oncologists report experiencing burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. As the COVID-19 pandemic remains widespread with periods of outbreaks, recovery, and response with substantial personal and professional consequences for the clinician, it is imperative that the oncologist, team, and organization gain direct access to resources addressing burnout. In response, the Clinician Well-Being Task Force was created to improve the quality, safety, and value of cancer care by enhancing oncology clinician well-being and practice sustainability. Well-being is an integrative concept that characterizes quality of life and encompasses an individual's work- and personal health-related environmental, organizational, and psychosocial factors. These resources can be useful for the cancer organization to develop a well-being blueprint: a detailed start plan with recognized strategies and interventions targeting all oncology stakeholders to support a culture of community in oncology.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the CheckMate 374 advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients received prior treatment regimens (1-2 antiangiogenic; 0-3 systemic) with progression on/after last treatment and ≤ 6 months of enrollment. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤ 24 months or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients had advanced predominantly ccRCC; 75.3% received only 1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. After a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 0.4-26.9 months), no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, and 9.3% of patients reported grade 3/4 IMAEs (hepatitis, 4.1%; diabetes mellitus, 2.1%; nephritis and renal dysfunction, 1.0%; rash, 1.0%; adrenal insufficiency, 1.0%). The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.8%-32.3%). Three patients had a complete response; 19 had partial responses. The median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.5 months). The median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.4 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the safety and efficacy of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W flat-dose monotherapy for previously treated advanced ccRCC and adds to previous safety and efficacy data using the 3 mg/kg Q2W dose.

Updates to the ASCO Patient-Centered Oncology Payment Model.

The past decade has seen considerable innovation in the delivery of care and payment in oncology. Key initiatives have included the development of oncology medical home care delivery standards, the Medicare Oncology Care Model, and multiple commercial payer initiatives. Looking forward, our next challenge is to reflect on lessons learned from these limited-scale demonstration projects and work toward models that are scalable and sustainable and reflect true collaboration between payers and providers sharing common objectives and methods to advance cancer care delivery. To this end, ASCO continues its work on care delivery standards, quality measurement, and alternative payment models. Over the past year, ASCO has received input from physicians, administrators, payers, and employers to update its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model. PCOP incorporates current work on provider-payer collaboration, the oncology medical home, and the value of clinical pathways and recognizes the need for common quality measurement, performance methodology, and payment structure across multiple sources of payment. The following represents a summary of the entire model. The model includes chapters on PCOP communities, clinical practice transformation, payment methodology, consolidated payments for oncology care, performance methodology, and implementation considerations. In future work, ASCO will continue its support of the PCOP model, including further development of care delivery standards, quality measures, and technology solutions (eg, CancerLinQ).

A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Phase II Trial of Carboplatin and Pemetrexed with or without Apatorsen (OGX-427) in Patients with Previously Untreated Stage IV Non-Squamous-Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The SPRUCE Trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein (Hsp) 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus apatorsen) or Arm B (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus placebo). Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging every two cycles, until progression or intolerable toxicity. Serum Hsp27 levels were analyzed at baseline and during treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 155 patients (median age 66 years; 44% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0). Toxicities were similar in the 2 treatment arms; cytopenias, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. Median PFS and OS were 6.0 and 10.8 months, respectively, for Arm A, and 4.9 and 11.8 months for Arm B (differences not statistically significant). Overall response rates were 27% for Arm A and 32% for Arm B. Sixteen patients (12%) had high serum levels of Hsp27 at baseline. In this small group, patients who received apatorsen had median PFS of 10.8 months, and those who received placebo had median PFS 4.8 months. CONCLUSION: The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting.

Clinical Utility of Comprehensive Cell-free DNA Analysis to Identify Genomic Biomarkers in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Complete and timely tissue genotyping is challenging, leading to significant numbers of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) being undergenotyped for all eight genomic biomarkers recommended by professional guidelines. We aimed to demonstrate noninferiority of comprehensive cell-free DNA (cfDNA) relative to physician discretion standard-of-care (SOC) tissue genotyping to identify guideline-recommended biomarkers in patients with mNSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively enrolled patients with previously untreated mNSCLC undergoing physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping submitted a pretreatment blood sample for comprehensive cfDNA analysis (Guardant360). RESULTS: Among 282 patients, physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping identified a guideline-recommended biomarker in 60 patients versus 77 cfDNA identified patients (21.3% vs. 27.3%; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). In tissue-positive patients, the biomarker was identified alone (12/60) or concordant with cfDNA (48/60), an 80% cfDNA clinical sensitivity for any guideline-recommended biomarker. For FDA-approved targets (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF) concordance was >98.2% with 100% positive predictive value for cfDNA versus tissue (34/34 EGFR-, ALK-, or BRAF-positive patients). Utilizing cfDNA, in addition to tissue, increased detection by 48%, from 60 to 89 patients, including those with negative, not assessed, or insufficient tissue results. cfDNA median turnaround time was significantly faster than tissue (9 vs. 15 days; P < 0.0001). Guideline-complete genotyping was significantly more likely (268 vs. 51; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest cfDNA study in previously untreated mNSCLC, a validated comprehensive cfDNA test identifies guideline-recommended biomarkers at a rate at least as high as SOC tissue genotyping, with high tissue concordance, more rapidly and completely than tissue-based genotyping.See related commentary by Meador and Oxnard, p. 4583.

Reducing Cancer Costs Through Symptom Management and Triage Pathways.

PURPOSE: Value-based care infers care that is high quality at a comparatively low total cost. A key strategy for value-based oncology care is to avoid unnecessary emergency room (ER) visits and associated hospitalizations of patients receiving treatment for cancer. Early experience with this strategy showed that symptom management in patients with cancer can result in the reduction of ER events and hospitalizations. However, quantifying the actual savings achieved has been elusive. In this article, we present the impact of symptom management and triage pathways programs deployed at two midsize community oncology practices. We then quantify the actual dollar saving in their Medicare and commercial populations. METHODS: Symptom management records generated through the ER triage programs at the two practices were screened to identify avoided ER events. This approach was validated with an independent analysis using Medicare claim data from the Oncology Care Model program in which both practices participate. Bootstrap simulations were used to test for statistical significance of the ER event rate changes before and after the launch of the program. Average event and annual total cost savings from avoided ER incidents and ER-related hospitalizations were then calculated. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two avoided ER events were identified, for an estimated net annualized savings generated by the two practices of $3.85 million. Although the ER rate reduction was not statistically significant, these findings are consistent with the observed reduction of ER event rates among a subset of Oncology Care Model beneficiaries at the two practices. CONCLUSION: ER events and associated hospitalizations can be avoided as well as quantified as a result of the deployment of a practice-level integrated platform that incorporates physician-scripted symptom management protocols and telephone triage pathways.

Impact on Oncology Practices of Including Drug Costs in Bundled Payments.

INTRODUCTION: This analysis evaluates the impact of bundling drug costs into a hypothetic bundled payment. METHODS: An economic model was created for patient vignettes from: advanced-stage III colon cancer and metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. First quarter 2016 Medicare reimbursement rates were used to calculate the average fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement for these vignettes. The probabilistic risk faced by practices was captured by the type of patients seen in practices and randomly assigned in a Monte Carlo simulation on the basis of the given distribution of patient types within each cancer. Simulations were replicated 1,000 times. The impact of bundled payments that include drug costs for various practice sizes and cancer types was quantified as the probability of incurring a loss at four magnitudes: any loss, > 10%, > 20%, or > 30%. A loss was defined as receiving revenue from the bundle that was less than what the practice would have received under FFS; the probability of loss was calculated on the basis of the number of times a practice reported a loss among the 1,000 simulations. RESULTS: Practices that treat a substantial proportion of patients with complex disease compared with the average patient in the bundle would have revenue well below that expected from FFS. Practices that treat a disproportionate share of patients with less complex disease, as compared with the average patient in the bundle, would have revenue well above the revenue under FFS. Overall, bundled payments put practices at greater risk than FFS because their patient case mix could greatly skew financial performance. CONCLUSION: Including drug costs in a bundle is subject to the uncontrollable probabilistic risk of patient case mixes.

nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin induction in squamous NSCLC: longitudinal quality of life while on chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal data on the impact of treatment on quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. In this palliative setting, treatment that does not deteriorate QoL is key. Here we report longitudinal QoL in patients with squamous NSCLC, receiving ≤4 cycles of nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin combination chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients received nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15 + carboplatin area under the curve 6 mg•min/mL day 1 (q3w) for four cycles. QoL was assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and Euro-QoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) at baseline and each cycle (day 1). RESULTS: Two-hundred and six lesion-response-evaluable patients completed baseline + ≥1 postbaseline QoL assessment and were QoL evaluable. LCSS average total score and symptom burden index improved from baseline throughout four cycles. In the LCSS pulmonary symptoms score, 46% of patients reported clinically meaningful improvement (≥10 mm visual analog scale) from baseline. Individual EQ-5D-5L dimensions remained stable/improved in ≥83% of patients; ≈33% reported complete resolution of baseline problems at least once during four cycles. Generally, responders (unconfirmed complete/partial response) had higher scores vs nonresponders. CONCLUSION: In patients with squamous NSCLC, four cycles of nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin demonstrated clinically meaningful QoL improvements, with greater benefits in responders vs nonresponders.

The Role of Proteomic Testing in Improving Prognosis And Care Planning Quality Measures for Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a payment model from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services designed to reduce costs and improve quality in cancer care. Key components of quality for the OCM originate from the 13-component cancer care plan. We surveyed the literature to understand the value of prognosis in OCM-directed planning for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) care and to investigate how the results of a prognostic, proteomic biomarker test, the VeriStrat test, can help OCM-participating providers meet the specific quality measures. DESIGN: A targeted literature review was supplemented by real-world author experience. METHODOLOGY: Available MEDLINE-indexed literature on the topic of lung cancer prognosis and cancer care planning (1997-2017) were reviewed. Authors also included relevant commentary based on their own real-world experience with VeriStrat testing and prognostic conversations. RESULTS: There was near-universal consensus in guidelines and literature about the critical importance of early, candid, and ongoing physician-patient discussions about prognosis, which informs most components of the OCM care plan. The VeriStrat test has been shown to provide accurate predictions of outcomes in all lines of therapy and in various treatments for patients with NSCLC, including chemotherapies and EGFR-TKI therapies. CONCLUSION: Accurate prognostic estimates, such as those provided by the VeriStrat test, are useful for predicting and documenting expected response to treatment, avoiding ineffective and costly overtreatment and for facilitating meaningful conversations with NSCLC patients about the timing of best supportive care and hospice care when appropriate, thereby improving cancer care planning and quality scores.

Impact of a multivariate serum-based proteomic test on physician treatment recommendations for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The VeriStrat 1 (VS) test is intended to help guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without an EGFR-sensitizing mutation, classifying patients into two categories. Patients classified as VSGood have a favorable prognosis and significant clinical response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Patients classified as VSPoor have a less favorable prognosis and exhibit no significant response to EGFR-TKIs. The objective of this paper is to assess the real-world impact of VS test results on physicians' treatment recommendations including referrals for best supportive care (BSC). METHODS: Between 1 January 2012 and 1 November 2016, physician respondents were asked to complete standardized questionnaires before and after receiving VS results in patients meeting criteria for the intended use of the VS test. This study evaluated three endpoints: whether physicians followed VS test results in making treatment recommendations, the extent to which tests results changed these treatment recommendations, and the patterns of care subsequent to VS testing. RESULTS: Of the tests ordered by 989 physicians, 2494 VS tests had completed treatment recommendation questionnaires both prior to and after testing. Prior to VS testing, physicians were considering treatment with EGFR-TKIs for 2250 patients (90%). The VS test classified 1950 patients as VSGood and 544 patients as VSPoor. For patients classified as VSPoor, physicians recommended BSC for 25% of patients and standard systemic treatments such as chemotherapies for 65% of patients. Consistent with previous publications, physicians recommended EGFR-TKI therapy for only 10% of VSPoor patients but for 89% of VSGood patients. Overall, physician's treatment recommendations were consistent with test results in 98% of cases. Availability of test results decreased ineffective treatment recommendations by 89% for VSPoor patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among physicians ordering VS, the test significantly influenced treatment recommendations for patients with NSCLC, reducing ineffective and expensive treatment at the end of life.