Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Future Developments With Whole-Genome Sequencing for Patients With Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness, budget impact (BI), and impact of uncertainty of future developments concerning whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a clinical diagnostic test compared with standard of care (SoC) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: A total of 3 likely scenarios to take place within 5 years (according to experts) were simulated using a previously developed, peer reviewed, and published decision model. The scenarios concerned "WGS results used for treatment selection" (scenario 1), "WGS-based biomarker for immunotherapy" (scenario 2), and "off-label drug approval for WGS results" (scenario 3). Two diagnostic strategies of the original model, "SoC" and "WGS as a diagnostic test" (base model), were used to compare our scenarios with. Outcomes were reported for the base model, all scenarios separately, combined (combined unweighted), and weighted by likelihood (combined weighted). Cost-effectiveness, BI, and value of information analyses were performed for WGS compared with SoC. RESULTS: Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years for SoC in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer were €149 698 and 1.235. Incremental outcomes of WGS were €1529/0.002(base model), -€222/0.020(scenario 1), -€2576/0.023(scenario 2), €388/0.024(scenario 3), -€5041/0.060(combined unweighted), and -€1715/0.029(combined weighted). The annual BI for adopting WGS for this population in The Netherlands ranged between €682 million (combined unweighted) and €714 million (base model). The consequences of uncertainty amounted to €3.4 million for all scenarios (combined weighted) and to €699 000 for the diagnostic yield of WGS alone (combined weighted). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that it is likely for WGS to become cost-effective within the near future if it identifies more patients with actionable targets and show the impact of uncertainty regarding its diagnostic yield. Modeling future scenarios can be useful to consider early adoption of WGS while timely anticipating on unforeseen developments before final conclusions are reached.

Impact of panel design and cut-off on tumour mutational burden assessment in metastatic solid tumour samples.

Tumour mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as a promising biomarker to predict immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) response in advanced solid cancers. However, harmonisation of TMB reporting by targeted gene panels is lacking, especially in metastatic tumour samples. To address this issue, we used data of 2841 whole-genome sequenced metastatic cancer biopsies to perform an in silico analysis of TMB determined by seven gene panels (FD1CDx, MSK-IMPACT™, Caris Molecular Intelligence, Tempus xT, Oncomine Tumour Mutation Load, NeoTYPE Discovery Profile and CANCERPLEX) compared to exome-based TMB as a golden standard. Misclassification rates declined from up to 30% to <1% when the cut-point for high TMB was increased. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that, for correct classification, the cut-point for each gene panel may vary more than 20%. In conclusion, we here demonstrate that a major limitation for the use of gene panels is inter-assay variation and the need for dynamic thresholds to compare TMB outcomes.

Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of a Whole-Genome Sequencing-Based Biomarker for Treatment Selection in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Ineligible for Targeted Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform an early cost-effectiveness analysis of using a whole-genome sequencing-based tumor mutation burden (WGS-TMB), instead of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), for immunotherapy treatment selection in patients with non-squamous advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer ineligible for targeted therapy, from a Dutch healthcare perspective. METHODS: A decision-model simulating individual patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer was used to evaluate diagnostic strategies to select first-line immunotherapy only or the immunotherapy plus chemotherapy combination. Treatment was selected using PD-L1 [A, current practice], WGS-TMB [B], and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB [C]. Strategies D, E, and F take into account a patient's disease burden, in addition to PD-L1, WGS-TMB, and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB, respectively. Disease burden was defined as a fast-growing tumor, a high number of metastases, and/or weight loss. A threshold of 10 mutations per mega-base was used to classify patients into TMB-high and TMB-low groups. Outcomes were discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs measured from the start of first-line treatment to death. Healthcare costs includes drug acquisition, follow-up costs, and molecular diagnostic tests (i.e., standard diagnostic techniques and/or WGS for strategies involving TMB). Results were reported using the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY. Additional scenario and threshold analyses were performed. RESULTS: Strategy B had the lowest QALYs (1.84) and lowest healthcare costs (€120,800). The highest QALYs and healthcare costs were 2.00 and €140,400 in strategy F. In the base-case analysis, strategy A was cost effective with the highest net monetary benefit (€27,300), followed by strategy B (€26,700). Strategy B was cost effective when the cost of WGS testing was decreased by at least 24% or when immunotherapy results in an additional 0.5 year of life gained or more for TMB high compared with TMB low. Strategies C and F, which combined TMB and PD-L1 had the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €76,900) when the cost of WGS testing, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy acquisition were simultaneously reduced by at least 47%, 39%, and 43%, respectively. Furthermore, strategy C resulted in the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €39,900) in a scenario where patients with both PD-L1 low and TMB low were treated with chemotherapy instead of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of WGS-TMB is not cost effective compared to PD-L1 for immunotherapy treatment selection in non-squamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. WGS-TMB could become cost effective provided there is a reduction in the cost of WGS testing or there is an increase in the predictive value of WGS-TMB for immunotherapy effectiveness. Alternatively, a combination strategy of PD-L1 testing with WGS-TMB would be cost effective if used to support the choice to withhold immunotherapy in patients with a low expected benefit of immunotherapy.

Combining Genomic Biomarkers to Guide Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The clinical value of STK11, KEAP1, and EGFR alterations for guiding immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial, as some patients with these proposed resistance biomarkers show durable ICB responses. More specific combinatorial biomarker approaches are urgently needed for this disease. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: To develop a combinatorial biomarker strategy with increased specificity for ICB unresponsiveness in NSCLC, we performed a comprehensive analysis of 254 patients with NSCLC treated with ligand programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade monotherapy, including a discovery cohort of 75 patients subjected to whole-genome sequencing (WGS), and an independent validation cohort of 169 patients subjected to tumor-normal large panel sequencing. The specificity of STK11/KEAP1/EGFR alterations for ICB unresponsiveness was assessed in the contexts of a low (<10 muts/Mb) or high (≥10 muts/Mb) tumor mutational burden (TMB). RESULTS: In low TMB cases, STK11/KEAP1/EGFR alterations were highly specific biomarkers for ICB resistance, with 0/15 (0.0%) and 1/34 (2.9%) biomarker-positive patients showing treatment benefit in the discovery and validation cohorts, respectively. This contrasted with high TMB cases, where 11/13 (85%) and 15/34 (44%) patients with at least one STK11/KEAP1/EGFR alteration showed durable treatment benefit in the discovery and validation cohorts, respectively. These findings were supported by analyses of progression-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The unexpected ICB responses in patients carrying resistance biomarkers in STK11, KEAP1, and EGFR were almost exclusively observed in patients with a high TMB. Considering these alterations in context, the TMB offered a highly specific combinatorial biomarker strategy for limiting overtreatment in NSCLC.

Tobacco Smoking-Related Mutational Signatures in Classifying Smoking-Associated and Nonsmoking-Associated NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported smoking history is frequently used as a stratification factor in NSCLC-directed clinical research. Nevertheless, this classification does not fully reflect the mutational processes in a tumor. Next-generation sequencing can identify mutational signatures associated with tobacco smoking, such as single-base signature 4 and indel-based signature 3. This provides an opportunity to redefine the classification of smoking- and nonsmoking-associated NSCLC on the basis of individual genomic tumor characteristics and could contribute to reducing the lung cancer stigma. METHODS: Whole genome sequencing data and clinical records were obtained from three prospective cohorts of metastatic NSCLC (N = 316). Relative contributions and absolute counts of single-base signature 4 and indel-based signature 3 were combined with relative contributions of age-related signatures to divide the cohort into smoking-associated ("smoking high") and nonsmoking-associated ("smoking low") clusters. RESULTS: The smoking high (n = 169) and smoking low (n = 147) clusters differed considerably in tumor mutational burden, signature contribution, and mutational landscape. This signature-based classification overlapped considerably with smoking history. Yet, 26% of patients with an active smoking history were included in the smoking low cluster, of which 52% harbored an EGFR/ALK/RET/ROS1 alteration, and 4% of patients without smoking history were included in the smoking high cluster. These discordant samples had similar genomic contexts to the rest of their respective cluster. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial subset of metastatic NSCLC is differently classified into smoking- and nonsmoking-associated tumors on the basis of smoking-related mutational signatures than on the basis of smoking history. This signature-based classification more accurately classifies patients on the basis of genome-wide context and should therefore be considered as a stratification factor in clinical research.

Lurbinectedin shows clinical activity and immune-modulatory functions in patients with pre-treated small cell lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: Lurbinectedin is a promising new drug being investigated in pre-treated patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) or malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Its clinical activity in the real-world setting has not been investigated yet. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical data of patients with SCLC and MPM who were treated with lurbinectedin were prospectively collected. Comprehensive immune cell profiling by flow cytometry was performed on screening and treating peripheral blood samples. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients (43 SCLC and 52 MPM) were treated, mostly as ≥3-line of therapy. In the SCLC cohort, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 1.5 months (95% CI: 1.4-3.0), and median overall survival was 7.0 months (95% CI: 4.7-not reached). Objective radiological response and disease control rate after 12 weeks were 16% and 28%, respectively. In the MPM cohort, median progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95% CI: 1.4-4.2), and median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 5.9-not reached). Disease control rate after 12 weeks was 29%, whereas no partial responses were registered. No new safety signals were observed. Lurbinectedin treatment was significantly associated with the depletion of circulating classical monocytes, which correlated with a better PFS in patients with SCLC. Lurbinectedin increased the proliferation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (SCLC) and natural killer and natural killer T cells (SCLC and MPM) and altered co-stimulatory and co-inhibitory receptor expression on circulating lymphocytes. CONCLUSION: Lurbinectedin has a manageable safety profile and shows clinical activity in pre-treated patients with SCLC and MPM. Its immune-modulatory functions make lurbinectedin a potential platform for immunotherapy combinations.

Early Cost Effectiveness of Whole-Genome Sequencing as a Clinical Diagnostic Test for Patients with Inoperable Stage IIIB,C/IV Non-squamous Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbours many genetic aberrations that can be targeted with systemic treatments. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) can simultaneously detect these (and possibly new) molecular targets. However, the exact added clinical value of WGS is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the early cost effectiveness of using WGS in diagnostic strategies compared with currently used molecular diagnostics for patients with inoperable stage IIIB,C/IV non-squamous NSCLC from a Dutch healthcare perspective. METHODS: A decision tree represented the diagnostic pathway, and a cohort state transition model represented disease progression. Three diagnostic strategies were modelled: standard of care (SoC) alone, WGS as a diagnostic test, and SoC followed by WGS. Treatment effectiveness was based on a systematic review. Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analyses were performed, and threshold analyses (using €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) was used to explore the early cost effectiveness of WGS. RESULTS: WGS as a diagnostic test resulted in more QALYs (0.002) and costs (€1534 [incremental net monetary benefit -€1349]), and SoC followed by WGS resulted in fewer QALYs (-0.002) and more costs (€1059 [-€1194]) compared with SoC alone. WGS as a diagnostic test was only cost effective if it was priced at €2000 per patient and identified 2.7% more actionable patients than SoC alone. Treating these additional identified patients with new treatments costing >€4069 per month decreased the probability of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that providing WGS as a diagnostic test is cost effective compared with SoC followed by WGS and SoC alone if costs for WGS decrease and additional patients with actionable targets are identified. This cost-effectiveness model can be used to incorporate new findings iteratively and to support ongoing decision making regarding the use of WGS in this rapidly evolving field.

A brief report on combination chemotherapy and anti-programmed death (ligand) 1 treatment in small-cell lung cancer: Did we choose the optimal chemotherapy backbone?

Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) is an aggressive cancer that remains very hard to treat. The life expectancy of a patient diagnosed with this disease has not changed over the past three decades. Recently, three large clinical studies showed a survival benefit by adding an anti-programmed death (ligand) 1 (PD-(L)1 antibody to the current chemotherapy regimen. Although significant and important, the benefit seems less than what has been achieved in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemoimmunotherapy. A number of hypotheses have been explored to explain this discrepancy. Here, we hypothesise that the current chemotherapy backbone in ES-SCLC does not contain the optimal drugs to trigger immunogenic cell death and therefore does not induce a synergy between chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Thereby, we advocate that doxorubicin treatment instead of etoposide should be reconsidered as standard-of-care (SoC) first-line treatment of SCLC.

Efficacy of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma is related to a subtype of effector memory cytotoxic T cells: Translational evidence from two clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Combined immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4 was suggested to yield clinical benefit over chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), whereas aPD-1 monotherapy failed to provide benefit in phase-III trials. Success of ICI depends on the presence and activation of tumor-specific T cells. Therefore, we investigated whether T-cell characteristics are underlying clinical efficacy of ICI treatment in MPM. METHODS: Comprehensive immune cell profiling was performed on screening and on treatment peripheral blood samples of mesothelioma patients treated with nivolumab (aPD-1) monotherapy (NCT02497508), or a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (aCTLA-4) (NCT03048474). FINDINGS: aPD-1/aCTLA-4 combination treatment induced a profound increase in proliferation and activation of T cells, which was not observed upon aPD-1 monotherapy. Moreover, patients that responded to combination treatment had low frequencies of naive CD8 T cells and high frequencies of effector memory CD8 T cells that re-expressed RA (TEMRA) at screening. The frequency of Granzyme-B and Interferon-γ producing TEMRAs was also higher in responding patients. INTERPRETATION: High proportions of TEMRAs and cytokine production by TEMRAs before treatment, was associated with a better clinical outcome. TEMRAs, which likely comprise tumor-specific T cells, tend to require blockage of both aPD-1 and aCTLA-4 to be reactivated. In conclusion, peripheral blood TEMRAs can play a key role in explaining and predicting clinical benefit upon aPD-1/aCTLA-4 combination treatment. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb sponsored NivoMes and INITIATE clinical trials and provided study drugs. No external funding was applicable for the flow cytometric analyses of peripheral blood samples described in this manuscript.