Barriers and facilitators to next-generation sequencing use in United States oncology settings: a systematic review.

Aim: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumors can inform treatment decisions; however, uptake remains low. This objective of this systematic review was to identify barriers to and facilitators of NGS in US oncology settings.Materials & methods: Embase and MEDLINE were searched in March 2023 for articles published from 2012 to 2023 on barriers and facilitators of NGS adoption for solid tumors. Surveys, interviews and observational studies were eligible. Studies on genetic testing for hereditary cancers and non-US studies were excluded. The Motheral scale, Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist and McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to assess study quality. Data were synthesized narratively.Results: Twenty-one studies were included. Study participants were clinicians, payers and administrators. Key barriers included complex reimbursement processes and uncertainties around clinical utility. Including recommendations for NGS in clinical practice guidelines was a key facilitator, although insurance policies were often more restrictive than guideline recommendations.Conclusion: Uptake of NGS is increasing but barriers remain. Changes to the current reimbursement frameworks are needed to increase access to NGS. The impact of implementing the 2018 National Coverage Determination, which allows access to NGS for all Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer, is not yet evident in the published literature.

[Box: see text].

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends among Adult Patients with Select Advanced Tumor Types: A Real-World Evidence Evaluation.

There are limited data on the prevalence of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in the United States, especially in light of the increasing importance of identifying actionable oncogenic variants due to molecular biomarker-based therapy approvals. This retrospective study of adult patients with select metastatic solid tumors and central nervous system tumors from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart US health care claims database (January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2021; N = 63,209) examined NGS use trends over time. A modest increase in NGS was observed across tumor types from 2015 (0.0% to 1.5%) to 2021 (2.1% to 17.4%). A similar increase in NGS rates was also observed across key periods; however, rates in the final key period remained <10% for patients with breast, colorectal, head and neck, soft tissue sarcoma, and thyroid cancers, as well as central nervous system tumors. The median time to NGS from diagnosis was shortest among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and longest for patients with breast cancer. Predictors of NGS varied by tumor type; test rates for minorities in select tumor types appeared comparable to the White population. Despite improving payer policies to expand coverage of NGS and molecular biomarker-based therapy approvals, NGS rates remained low across tumor types. Given the potential for improved patient outcomes with molecular biomarker-based therapy, further efforts to improve NGS rates are warranted.

Real-world practice patterns and outcomes for RAI-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer.

Background: The optimal timing for initiating multi-kinase inhibitors (MKIs) in patients with radioactive iodine-refractory (RAI-R) differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) remains unclear. Thus, we evaluated the real-world practice patterns and outcomes in asymptomatic patients with progressive RAI-R DTC (≥1 lesion ≥1 cm in diameter) in the USA (US population) and outside the USA (non-US population). Methods: In this prospective, non-interventional, open-label study, eligible patients were chosen by treating physicians to receive MKI therapy (cohort 1) or undergo active surveillance (cohort 2) at study entry. Cohort 2 patients were allowed to transition to MKI therapy later. The primary endpoint was time to symptomatic progression (TTSP) from study entry. Data were compared descriptively. When endpoints were inestimable, 36-month rates were calculated. Results: Of the 647 patients, 478 underwent active surveillance (cohort 2) and 169 received MKI treatment (cohort 1). Patients underwent surveillance at a higher rate in the US (92.6%) vs the non-US (66.9%) populations. Half of US and non-US patients who qualified for MKI treatment had initial American Thyroid Association (ATA) low-to-intermediate-risk disease. In cohort 2, the 36-month TTSP rates from study entry were 65.6% and 66.5% in the US and non-US populations, respectively. Cohort 2 patients treated later demonstrated 36-month TTSP rates of 30.8% and 55.8% in the US and non-US populations, respectively. Conclusions: Active surveillance is a viable option for asymptomatic patients with progressive RAI-R DTC. However, early intervention with MKI therapy may be more suitable for others. Further research is needed to identify patients who are optimal for active surveillance. Registration: NCT02303444.

Treatment Patterns of Follicular Lymphoma in the United States: A Claims Analysis.

Background: A consensus is lacking on optimal treatment sequencing for follicular lymphoma (FL), the most common indolent lymphoma. FL is incurable, and many patients require multiple lines of therapy for successive relapses. Guidelines provide numerous recommendations for first-, second-, and third-line therapy; however, treatment patterns in the real world remain poorly understood. Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate real-world treatment patterns among commercially insured patients with FL in the United States. Methods: A retrospective cohort of patients with newly diagnosed FL was identified from June 2008 to September 2016 using the IBM MarketScan® database. Treatment pattern measures, including time to treatment from diagnosis, days from previous line of therapy, duration of therapy, and distribution of treatment regimens among lines of therapy, were assessed. Descriptive statistics were reported for baseline characteristics, primary outcome, and treatment pattern measures. Results: In total, 4232 patients were identified from the database and 2111 patients received at least 1 line of treatment. The most common first-line treatments included bendamustine + rituximab (39%), rituximab + cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + vincristine (20%), and rituximab monotherapy (19%). Rituximab monotherapy was the most common second-line (34%) and third or greater line (57%) treatment. The median time from FL diagnosis to initiation of treatment was 50 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 28-191) for first-line treatment, 577 days (IQR: 312-1146) for second-line, and 776 days (IQR: 603-1290) for third-line. Discussion: At a median follow-up of 3.6 years, most patients had 1 or fewer lines of therapy. The use of combination therapy decreased with each line of therapy and the numbers of patients receiving third- or fourth-line therapy were small in this study, potentially due to the short follow-up. Rituximab as monotherapy or in combination was utilized most frequently; however, the variety of other therapies used demonstrates that the standard management of FL remains unclear. Conclusions: Consensus on optimal treatment sequencing is currently lacking, and patients receive a variety of active regimens during routine practice. In this contemporary cohort of patients diagnosed with FL in the United States, rituximab therapy predominated both in monotherapy and in combination.

Value-Based Analysis of Therapies in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in US.

BACKGROUND: Recent phase 2 trials have provided data supporting regorafenib dose optimization (ReDO) and trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) with bevacizumab (TAS-BEV) as treatment options in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Historically, regorafenib standard dose (RSD) and TAS-102 have been utilized as third-line options in mCRC. Given the incorporation of ReDO and TAS-BEV as treatment options, we sought to evaluate relative cost-effectiveness of ReDO vs. RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV for mCRC from a payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to estimate total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for ReDO, RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV. Clinical parameters were obtained from phase 2 and 3 trials for comparators. Health state utility values were from the RSD phase 3 clinical trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were utilized to compare treatments. Model robustness was checked with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, ReDO was dominant over TAS-BEV (ie provided a higher QALY at a lower cost). ReDO produced an ICER of $104,308 per QALY relative to RSD and $37,966 relative to TAS-102. In one-way sensitivity analyses, monthly drug cost of TAS-BEV was the most influential parameter determining relative cost-effectiveness between TAS-BEV and ReDO. When TAS-102 and RSD were independently compared to ReDO, the most influential parameters were related to duration of OS and PFS and costs of managing AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The optimum dosing strategy for regorafenib has improved its benefit-to-toxicity ratio and relative cost-effectiveness compared to RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV.

Multikinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Asymptomatic Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Global Noninterventional Study (RIFTOS MKI).

Background: Sorafenib and lenvatinib are multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) approved for patients with radioactive iodine-refractory (RAI-R) differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). There is no consensus on when to initiate MKI treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate time to symptomatic progression (TTSP) in patients with RAI-R DTC for whom the decision to treat with an MKI was made at study entry. Methods: International, prospective, open-label, noninterventional cohort study (NCT02303444). Eligible patients had asymptomatic progressive RAI-R DTC, with ≥1 lesion ≥1 cm in diameter and life expectancy ≥6 months. The decision to treat with an MKI was at the treating physician's discretion. Primary endpoint was TTSP from study entry. Two cohorts were evaluated: patients for whom a decision to initiate an MKI was made at study entry (Cohort 1) and patients for whom there was a decision not to initiate an MKI at study entry (Cohort 2). Cohorts were compared descriptively. Results: The full analysis set (FAS) comprised 647 patients. The median duration of observation was 35.5 months (range <1-59.4). Of 344 MKI-treated patients, 209 received sorafenib, 191 received lenvatinib, and 19 received another MKI at some point. Median TTSP was 55.4 months (interquartile range [IQR] 18.6-not estimable [NE]) overall, 55.4 months (IQR 15.2-NE) in Cohort 1 (n = 169), and 51.4 months (IQR 20.0-NE) in Cohort 2 (n = 478). TTSP ≥36 months was achieved in 64.5% of patients overall, 59.5% of patients in Cohort 1, and 66.4% of patients in Cohort 2. Median overall survival from classification as RAI-R was 167 months and median progression-free survival from start of MKI therapy was 19.2 months and from start of sorafenib therapy 16.7 months. Among sorafenib-treated patients, 70% had dose modifications, 35% had a dose reduction, 89% experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and 82% experienced ≥1 drug-related TEAE. Conclusions: This real-world study provides valuable insight into outcomes in patients with asymptomatic, progressive RAI-R DTC under observation or receiving MKI treatment. TTSP in the FAS provides insight into the current prognosis for patients with RAI-R DTC in the era of MKIs. Registration: NCT02303444.

A Retrospective Claims Analysis of Advanced Prostate Cancer Costs and Resource Use.

BACKGROUND: Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is associated with high costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). OBJECTIVE: This study followed patients with CRPC through their continuum of care and analyzed claims data regarding treatments, total HCRU, and costs, both before and after metastasis diagnosis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) in the USA was identified from the Truven Health MarketScan database from January 2009 to March 2015. The mCRPC algorithm employed International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for prostate cancer (pre-index) and secondary metastatic disease (index date) and a subsequent claim for a US FDA-approved treatment for mCRPC. Patient inclusion required evidence of surgical or pharmacological castration and no evidence of bone-targeted treatments during the baseline period while evaluating continuous enrollment 25 months pre-index and 6 months post-index. Treatment patterns were assessed during pre- and post-index periods; HCRU and costs were annualized for comparison purposes regarding both pre- and post-index timeframes. RESULTS: Among 261 patients with mCRPC (mean age 72 years), the most common treatments during the pre-index period were bicalutamide (90.04%), leuprolide (81.99%), abiraterone (22.22%), docetaxel (20.69%), and ketoconazole (18.01%). Mean per-patient-per-year (PPPY) all-cause annualized healthcare costs significantly increased from $US35,102.55 in the pre-index nonmetastatic CRPC (nmCRPC) period to $US156,499.89 after metastasis diagnosis (mCRPC). Mean PPPY inpatient admissions and emergency department visits increased from 0.20 to 1.36 and from 0.63 to 1.56, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Average yearly costs and HCRU were four times higher following mCRPC diagnosis, indicating a need for appropriate management strategies to optimize the potential delay of disease progression among patients with nmCRPC.

A Budget Impact Analysis of the Introduction of Copanlisib for Treatment of Relapsed Follicular Lymphoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Copanlisib was recently granted accelerated approval by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) after 2 previous systemic therapies. It is important to assess the effect that this and other changes in the treatment landscape of relapsed FL have on a payer's budget to inform formulary decisions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the budget impact associated with the addition of copanlisib to a formulary as third- or higher-line treatment for adult patients with relapsed FL who have received at least 2 previous systemic therapies, from the perspective of a U.S. third-party payer. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed over a 1-year horizon. The model considered a hypothetical population of 1 million people enrolled in a commercial health plan; patients with relapsed FL were identified based on epidemiology data. Treatments included copanlisib and approved and off-label therapies used for management of relapsed FL. Treatment distributions within the target population were based on a market research survey. Drug acquisition, administration, prophylaxis, and monitoring costs were based on prescribing information, clinical trials, literature, and expert opinion. All costs were inflated to 2017 U.S. dollars. Total costs were compared between 2 scenarios, 1 without and 1 with copanlisib on a formulary. A deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Within the 1 million-member health care plan, 18 patients had relapsed FL and had received at least 2 previous systemic therapies. Over 1 year, the addition of copanlisib and an increase in the use of obinutuzumab + bendamustine (from 9.0% without copanlisib to 13.1% with copanlisib) and lenalidomide + rituximab (from 0.3% to 12.0%) were estimated to increase drug acquisition costs by $238,536, drug administration and prophylaxis costs by $3,565, and monitoring costs by $539. The increase in total budget was $242,641, corresponding to $0.02 per member per month; 21.8% of this increase was attributable to copanlisib, 12.9% to obinutuzumab + bendamustine, and 65.3% to lenalidomide + rituximab. Results were generally robust in the DSA. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 1-year period, the model found that the addition of copanlisib to a formulary resulted in a small increase in total budget of $242,641, corresponding to $0.02 per patient per month and taking into account a concurrent increase in the use of obinutuzumab + bendamustine and lenalidomide + rituximab. Therefore, adding copanlisib to a formulary appears to be an affordable option for payers. Further studies should be conducted to more comprehensively assess the clinical and economic implications of adding copanlisib to the treatment armamentarium of relapsed FL. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. The study sponsor was involved in study design, data interpretation. and data review. All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript and maintained control over the final content. Appukkuttan, Yaldo, Gharibo, and Babajanyan report employment with Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals at the time of this study. Duchesneau, Zichlin, Bhak, and Duh report employment with Analysis Group, which received research funds from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals for work on this study. A synopsis of the current research was presented in poster format at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Sorafenib use for recurrent hepatocellular cancer after resection or transplantation: Observations from a US regional analysis of the GIDEON registry.

Treatment of unresectable recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who recur after resection or orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) remains a clinical challenge. One option is sorafenib, although little is known about its safety and tolerance in this unique patient population; therefore, we analyzed patients who underwent prior surgical resection and/or OLT and were treated with sorafenib in US cohort of GIDEON registry. In US, 645 patients were enrolled; 553 for intent to treat and 563 for safety. Data were analyzed in the safety population of 479 patients no surgery and 56 for resection or OLT. Forty-one patients underwent resection prior to the initiation of sorafenib, 15 patients had previously received an OLT, and 6 patients had both resection and OLT. Initial low starting doses (400 mg/day) were observed for more patients with prior OLT (71%) than prior resection (36%), resection and OLT (50%), concomitant OLT (25%), and no surgery (36%). Most AEs occurred in the first 4 weeks of treatment. Drug-related AEs were higher in patients with prior resection (87%), prior OLT (100%), or both (100%) than in patients with concomitant OLT (63%) or no surgery (70%). However, incidence of AEs resulting in permanent discontinuation were similar in all groups (19-38%).

Use of Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) and Sorafenib in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: US Regional Analysis of the GIDEON Registry.

BACKGROUND: Global Investigation of Therapeutic Decisions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and of Treatment with Sorafenib (GIDEON) is a worldwide, prospective, non-interventional study to evaluate the safety of sorafenib in a variety of patient subsets. METHODS: Eligible patients had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for whom the decision had been made to treat with sorafenib. Treatment strategies were instituted at the physician's discretion. Patient and disease characteristics, treatment practices, incidences of adverse events (AEs), and overall survival were collected. RESULTS: In the United States, 563 patients were evaluable for safety. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) prior to the initiation of sorafenib (group A, n=158), after the initiation of sorafenib only (group B, n=29), both (group C, n=38), or did not undergo TACE (n=318). Patient demographics were similar across the groups. In group A, 29% had Child-Pugh score B or C at diagnosis, and 19% had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer tumor stage C or D. In group B, 48% had Child-Pugh score B or C at study entry, and 31% had BCLC stage C or D. The majority of patients in all groups initially received full-dose sorafenib. Incidences of grade ≥3 drug-related AEs were 30%, 17%, and 16% in groups A, B, and C, respectively, and 22% in patients who did not undergo TACE. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSIONS: The results from GIDEON reaffirm that sorafenib can be safely used in the context of TACE.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance Among Cirrhotic Patients With Commercial Health Insurance.

GOALS: To evaluate hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance rates among commercially insured patients, and evaluate factors associated with compliance with surveillance recommendations. BACKGROUND: Most HCC occurs in patients with cirrhosis. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and European Association for the Study of the Liver guidelines each recommend biannual HCC surveillance for cirrhotic patients to diagnose HCC at an early, curable stage. However, compliance with these guidelines in commercially insured patients is unknown. STUDY: We used the Truven Health Analytics databases from 2006 to 2010, using January 1, 2006 as the anchor date for evaluating outcomes. The primary outcome was continuous surveillance measure, defined as the proportion of time "up-to-date" with surveillance (PTUDS), with the 6-month interval immediately following each ultrasound categorized as "up-to-date." RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 22.9 (interquartile range, 16.3 to 33.9) months among 8916 cirrhotic patients, the mean PTUDS was 0.34 (SD, 0.29), and the median was 0.31 (interquartile range, 0.03 to 0.52). These values increased only modestly with inclusion of serum alpha-fetoprotein testing, contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomographic scans or magnetic resonance imagings, and/or extension of up-to-date time to 12 months. Being diagnosed by a nongastroenterology provider and increasing age were significantly associated with decreased HCC surveillance (P<0.05), whereas a history of a hepatic decompensation event, presence of any component of the metabolic syndrome, and diagnosis of hepatitis B or hepatitis C were significantly associated with increased surveillance (P<0.05). However, even among patients with the most favorable characteristics, surveillance rates remained low. CONCLUSIONS: HCC surveillance rates in commercially insured at-risk patients remain poor despite formalized guidelines, highlighting the need to develop interventions to improve surveillance rates.