Real-world Trends, Rural-urban Differences, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Utilization of Narrow versus Broad Next-generation Sequencing Panels.

Advances in genetic technology have led to the increasing use of genomic panels in precision oncology practice, with panels ranging from a couple to hundreds of genes. However, the clinical utilization and utility of oncology genomic panels, especially among vulnerable populations, is unclear. We examined the association of panel size with socioeconomic status and clinical trial matching. We retrospectively identified 9,886 eligible adult subjects in the Mayo Clinic Health System who underwent genomic testing between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2020. Patient data were retrieved from structured and unstructured data sources of institutional collections, including cancer registries, clinical data warehouses, and clinical notes. Socioeconomic surrogates were approximated using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) corresponding to primary residence addresses. Logistic regression was performed to analyze relationships between ADI or rural/urban status and (i) use of genomic test by panel size; (ii) clinical trial matching status. Compared with patients from the most affluent areas, patients had a lower odds of receiving a panel test (vs. a single-gene test) if from areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation [OR (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71 (0.61-0.83), P < 0.01] or a rural area [OR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.76-0.96), P < 0.01]. Patients in areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation were less likely to be matched to clinical trials if receiving medium panel tests [(OR) (95% CI): 0.69 (0.49-0.97), P = 0.03]; however, there was no difference among patients receiving large panel tests (P > 0.05) and rural patients were almost 2x greater odds of being matched if receiving a large panel test [(OR) (95% CI): 1.76 (1.21-2.55), P < 0.01]. SIGNIFICANCE: We identified socioeconomic and rurality disparities in the use of genomic tests and trial matching by panel size, which may have implications for equal access to targeted therapies. The lack of association between large panel tests and clinical trial matching by socioeconomic status, suggests a potential health equity impact, while removing barriers in access to large panels for rural patients may improve access to trials. However, further research is needed.

Copay assistance use and prescription abandonment across race, ethnicity, or household income levels for select rheumatoid arthritis and oral oncolytic medicines.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in prescription abandonment may exacerbate health inequities. Whether copay assistance is associated with changes in prescription abandonment across different patient groups is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess disparities in copay assistance use; prescription abandonment across race, ethnicity, or income; and association of copay use with prescription abandonment and whether it differs across race, ethnicity, or household income. METHODS: This pooled, cross-sectional study assessed claims-level prescription data linked to a consumer database containing information on race, ethnicity, and household income for commercially insured patients. The first prescription for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or oral oncolytic medicines from 2016 to 2020 was included. Logistic regression models measured odds of copay assistance use (copay/discount cards or free-trial voucher) and prescription abandonment (prescription not filled within 30 days of health plan approval). Interaction terms for copay assistance use by race, ethnicity, and income were tested. RESULTS: The sample included 67,674 patients prescribed RA medications and 9,560 prescribed oral oncolytic medications. Copay assistance use across race, ethnicity, and income ranged from 28.2% to 31.1% (RA medicines) and 27.2% to 36.7% (oral oncolytic medicines). Among those prescribed RA medicines and not using copay assistance, Black/African American, Hispanic patients, and those with household incomes less than $50,000 were more likely to abandon prescriptions than White patients and patients with household incomes more than $200,000 (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI], P value: Black/African American: 1.17 [1.06-1.29], P < 0.01; Hispanic: 1.11 [1.01-1.22], P = 0.03; income <$50,000: 1.24 [1.11-1.37], P < 0.01). Among patients using oral oncolytic medicines and not using copay assistance, there was no racial or ethnic difference in prescription abandonment. Patients using oral oncolytics with household incomes less than $50,000 were more likely to use copay assistance (1.34 [1.12-1.61], P < 0.01), but also more likely to abandon their prescriptions if not using copay assistance (1.44 [1.12-1.85], P < 0.01). Copay assistance was associated with a 79% (RA) and 71% (oral oncolytics) lower odds of prescription abandonment (0.21 [0.19-0.24], P < 0.01; 0.29 [0.24-0.36], P < 0.01), which did not differ across race, ethnicity, or income levels (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Copay assistance has potential to narrow disparities in prescription abandonment for commercially insured Black/African American or Hispanic patients taking RA medicines and patients with household incomes less than $50,000; however, efforts to improve access to copay assistance are needed. Copay assistance, as a factor facilitating equal access to medicines, is an important consideration when evaluating policies that impact access to copay assistance programs. DISCLOSURES: Genentech, Inc., provided funding and support for this study. Dr Wong is an employee of Genentech, Inc., and shareholder of Roche, Inc. Ms Donahue, Mr Thiesen, and Mr Yeaw are employees of IQVIA.

Modeling the Ex Ante Clinical Real Option Value in an Innovative Therapeutic Area: ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: A drug that improves survival and/or disease progression can create real option value (ROV)-the additional health gain from future innovations enabled by a longer survival. ROV can be a relevant consideration for both clinical and payer decision-makers. We aimed to estimate the ex ante ROV for first-line (1L) alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with 1L alectinib versus 1L crizotinib due to potential future second-line (2L) drugs. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase 3 trial of 1L alectinib and phase 2 trial of 2L brigatinib. We identified drugs being studied in phase 2 and 3 trials in ALK-positive NSCLC at the time of alectinib's 1L approval and projected the likelihood and timing of their arrival and their potential efficacy based on publicly available data. RESULTS: The discounted incremental LYs and QALYs for alectinib increased by 12.9% (95% CR - 2.96%, 34.82%; 1.25 vs. 1.11) and 11.2% (95% CR - 2.14%, 29.29%; 1.03 vs. 0.92), respectively, after accounting for ROV. The incremental ROV of alectinib was sensitive to the projected efficacy of future drugs, uptake level, and the hazard ratio of progression-free survival of alectinib (vs. crizotinib). CONCLUSIONS: Ex ante ROV can be a significant value consideration in therapeutic areas with high levels of expected innovation. The potential efficacy of future drugs and incremental survival with alectinib at the projected time of arrival are important considerations in assessing ROV.

Associations Between Medicaid Insurance, Biomarker Testing, and Outcomes in Patients With Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patients with Medicaid experience lower-quality cancer care than those with commercial insurance. Whether this trend persists in the era of personalized medicine is unclear. This study examined the associations between Medicaid (vs commercial) insurance and receipt of biomarker testing, targeted therapy, and overall survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who received an aNSCLC diagnosis from January 2011 to September 2019 using a nationwide US healthcare database. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 64 years with Medicaid or commercial insurance at diagnosis. Receipt of biomarker testing (ALK, EGFR, ROS1, BRAF, and PD-L1) was assessed. The likelihood of testing, biomarker-driven therapy (cancer immunotherapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment), and mortality were compared by insurance type using adjusted Cox regression. RESULTS: Our sample included 6,145 commercially insured and 865 Medicaid beneficiaries. Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to be Black or African American (20% vs 9.3%; P <.001) and were less likely to have undergone biomarker testing (57% vs 71%; P <.001). In the adjusted analysis, Medicaid beneficiaries were less likely to have evidence of testing (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; P <.001), any first-line treatment (HR, 0.72; P <.001), and first-line biomarker-driven therapy (HR, 0.70; P <.001). Medicaid beneficiaries with evidence of biomarker testing had a lower risk of death compared with those without evidence of biomarker testing (HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.06-1.52]; P =.010). Higher risk of death was observed in patients with Medicaid versus commercially insured patients (HR, 1.23; P <.001); this result remained unchanged after adjusting for biomarker testing (HR, 1.22; P < .001) but was partially ameliorated after adjustment for testing and treatment type (HR, 1.12; P =.010). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid beneficiaries with aNSCLC were less likely to receive biomarker testing and biomarker-driven therapies, which may in part contribute to a higher observed risk of mortality compared with commercially insured patients.

Alignment of health plan coverage policies for somatic multigene panel testing with clinical guidelines in select solid tumors.

Aim: Commercial plan coverage policies for multigene panel tests may vary and could result in geographic variation in coverage due to the fragmented nature of the commercial insurance market. This study aimed to characterize the alignment of multigene panel tests coverage policies to that of clinical guidelines, overall and by state. Materials & methods: We reviewed NCCN Guidelines® for four tumors. Public coverage policies were identified via web search. Payer policies included those with the largest or second largest number of commercial lives in each state. Policies were classified as 'more restrictive' or 'consistent' with the guidelines. Results: Of 38 plans/policies reviewed, 71% were classified as 'more restrictive' than the guidelines, with variation in the number of commercial lives by state. Among these, 52% restricted on panel size and 63% restricted in all or select tumors. Conclusion: Most coverage policies were more restrictive. Clinical guideline clarity and state policies may improve alignment to guidelines and geographic variations.

The level of coverage provided by commercial plan policies for tests that simultaneously assess multiple genes for cancer (multigene panel tests) may vary, and the availability of these tests differs depending on geographic location. This may be due to the variable nature of the commercial insurance market. This study aimed to understand how well aligned the coverage for multigene panel tests provided by insurance policies is with recommendations from clinical guidelines, both overall and by US state. NCCN Guidelines^® for four cancer types were reviewed and public insurance coverage policies were identified via internet searches. The insurance policies included those with the largest or second largest number of commercial lives in each state. Policies were judged to be either 'more restrictive' or 'consistent' with the clinical guidelines. Of the 38 plans/policies we reviewed, almost three-quarters (71%) were judged to be 'more restrictive' than the guidelines, with differences in the number of commercial lives by state. About half (52%) were restricted on the number of genes to be tested and almost two-thirds (63%) restricted in all or select types of cancer. We found that most insurance policies were more restrictive than the guidelines ­ therefore covering fewer genes in each test, a different set of genes in each test or restricted to certain types of cancer. Clearer clinical guideline and state policies may help to improve alignment to guidelines and geographic differences.

Real-world adherence and persistence with anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Several anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of metastatic ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Effective disease management requires an understanding of how these treatments are used in clinical practice, since low treatment adherence and/or early discontinuation have been associated with poor patient outcomes. Owing to the recency of approvals, real-world data on the use of ALK inhibitors in patients with ALKpositive NSCLC are currently limited; this represents a notable gap in our understanding of ALK treatment use. OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world adherence and persistence with ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used US commercial claims for patients aged at least 18 years with lung cancer receiving ALK inhibitors (alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib) between July 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients' first and any subsequent ALK inhibitor uses were categorized into ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated cohorts, respectively. Adherence was measured by medication possession ratio and persistence by time from treatment initiation to discontinuation (earliest of a treatment switch or greater than a 60-day gap). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics. Cohort comparisons were made using chi-square tests and t-tests. Persistence and time to next ALK inhibitor were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and the log-rank test. Poisson and Cox regression models of adherence and persistence, respectively, were applied to compare ALK inhibitors. RESULTS: We identified 1,482 patients treated with alectinib (n = 445) or crizotinib (n = 1,037) in the ALK inhibitor-naive cohort; 604, 142, and 134 patients received alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib in the ALK inhibitor-pretreated cohort. Adherence during the treatment period (95%-97%) and the proportion of patients with a medication possession ratio of at least 0.8 (92%-95%) were similar for all ALK inhibitors. In the ALK inhibitor-naive cohort, median time to treatment discontinuation with alectinib and crizotinib was 27.1 and 8.8 months, respectively; patients receiving alectinib were 46% less likely to discontinue than patients receiving crizotinib (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] [95% CI]: 0.54 [0.44-0.65]; P < 0.0001). In the ALK inhibitor-pretreated cohort, the discontinuation risk for alectinib was 64% lower than for ceritinib (aHR [95% CI]: 0.36 [0.27-0.49]; P < 0.0001) and 34% lower than for brigatinib (aHR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.42-1.02]; P = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to address a current research gap by assessing real-world adherence and persistence with ALK inhibitors among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC in real-world clinical practice. Alectinib was associated with longer real-world persistence than other ALK inhibitors, despite similar adherence. Further research with more patients and longer follow-up is needed to link persistence to real-world clinical outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech Inc. Ganti has received research support from Takeda and has provided consulting services to Genentech Inc., AstraZeneca, Flagship Biosciences, Cardinal Health, BioGene, Mirati Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, and G1 Therapeutics. Lin, Wong, and Ogale are employees of Genentech Inc. and may own stock in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Yang was employed by Genentech Inc. at the time of this study. Part of the study findings were presented as a poster at the NCCN 2020 Virtual Annual Conference, April 9, 2020.

Trends in Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in Patients With Solid Tumors by Race and Ethnicity After Implementation of the Medicare National Coverage Determination.

Importance: In March 2018, Medicare issued a national coverage determination (NCD) for next-generation sequencing (NGS) to facilitate access to NGS testing among Medicare beneficiaries. It is unknown whether the NCD affected health equity issues for Medicare beneficiaries and the overall population. Objective: To examine the association between the Medicare NCD and NGS use by insurance types and race and ethnicity. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using electronic health record data derived from a real-world database. Data originated from approximately 280 cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care) in the US. Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), or advanced melanoma diagnosed from January 1, 2011, through March 31, 2020, were included. Exposure: Pre- vs post-NCD period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients were classified by insurance type and race and ethnicity to examine patterns in NGS testing less than or equal to 60 days after diagnosis. Difference-in-differences models examined changes in average NGS testing in the pre- and post-NCD periods by race and ethnicity, and interrupted time-series analysis examined whether trends over time varied by insurance type and race and ethnicity. Results: Among 92 687 patients with aNSCLC, mCRC, mBC, or advanced melanoma, mean (SD) age was 66.6 (11.2) years, 51 582 (55.7%) were women, and 63 864 (68.9%) were Medicare beneficiaries. The largest racial and ethnic categories according to the database used and further classification were Black or African American (8605 [9.3%]) and non-Hispanic White (59 806 [64.5%]). Compared with Medicare beneficiaries, changes in pre- to post-NCD NGS testing trends were similar in commercially insured patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .25). Pre- to post-NCD NGS testing trends increased at a slower rate among patients in assistance programs (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; P = .03) compared with Medicare beneficiaries. The rate of increase for patients receiving Medicaid was not statistically significantly different compared with those receiving Medicare (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.01; P = .07). The NCD was not associated with statistically significant changes in NGS use trends by racial and ethnic groups within Medicare beneficiaries alone or across all insurance types. Compared with non-Hispanic White individuals, increases in average NGS use from the pre-NCD to post-NCD period were 14% lower (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99; P = .04) among African American and 23% lower (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96; P = .02) among Hispanic/Latino individuals; increases among Asian individuals and those with other races and ethnicities were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that expansion of Medicare-covered benefits may not occur equally across insurance types, thereby further widening or maintaining disparities in NGS testing. Additional efforts beyond coverage policies are needed to ensure equitable access to the benefits of precision medicine.

Modeling the Ex Post Real Option Value in Metastatic Melanoma Using Real-World Data.

OBJECTIVES: Real option value (ROV) is created when a drug enables a patient to live long enough to benefit from a future innovation. Few studies have quantified ROV in the real world. We aimed to estimate the ex post ROV for ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma using real-world data (RWD). METHODS: We developed a framework for calculating ROV using RWD, accounting for the health gain in the standard therapy arm and the uptake of future innovations. A Markov model was developed to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy for patients with or without subsequent cancer immunotherapy (CIT). A nationwide electronic health record-derived, deidentified database was used to estimate survival and uptake of CIT. RESULTS: The incremental QALYs gained for ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy without subsequent CIT were 1.74. With subsequent CIT, the incremental QALYs compared with chemotherapy increased by 0.92, 0.60, 0.33, 0.18, 0.10, and 0.02 when CIT became available 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months after the initiation of first-line treatment, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the survival benefit of ipilimumab, the survival benefit of subsequent CIT, and the uptake of CIT. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to estimate ex post ROV using RWD. The ex post ROV was between 1% and 54% of conventional value for patients who received a diagnosis within 2 years before CIT availability. Further studies are needed to understand ROV in other disease areas, particularly those with longer survival times.

Comparative effectiveness analysis between entrectinib clinical trial and crizotinib real-world data in ROS1+ NSCLC.

Aim: Generating direct comparative evidence in prospective randomized trials is difficult for rare diseases. Real-world cohorts may supplement control populations. Methods: Entrectinib-treated adults with advanced ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC (n = 94) from Phase I/II trials (ALKA-372-001 [EudraCT2012-00148-88], STARTRK-1 [NCT02097810], and STARTRK-2 [NCT02568267]) were compared with a real-world crizotinib-treated cohort (n = 65). Primary end point, time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD); secondary end points, PFS and OS. Results: Median (95% CI) weighted TTD: 12.9 (9.9-17.4) months for entrectinib; 8.8 (6.2-9.9) months for crizotinib (weighted hazard ratio: 0.72 [0.51-1.02]). Median OS with entrectinib was not reached, weighted median OS with crizotinib was 18.5 (15.1-19.9) months. Conclusion: Entrectinib administered in clinical trials may be associated with longer TTD than a real-world crizotinib population.

Real-world evidence for option value in metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The concept of real option value (ROV) suggests there is added value in treatments that extend life because they enable a patient to live long enough to benefit from future innovative treatments. Real-world evidence of this novel value element is scant, limiting its consideration in formal value assessments. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the ROV in clinical practice of ipilimumab for treatment of advanced melanoma, with evaluation of survival until availability of cancer immunotherapy (CIT). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of electronic health records from a US nationwide deidentified database including data from approximately 280 cancer clinics. Participants were patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma diagnosed after January 1, 2011, who initiated treatment before April 19, 2015, and were treated with first-line and second-line ipilimumab or chemotherapy, up to availability of CIT. The proportions of patients surviving and receiving CIT and overall survival by line of therapy were calculated. Baseline demographics were used to weight Kaplan-Meier curves using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting. ROV was estimated for patients receiving first-line or second-line ipilimumab with or without subsequent CIT and first-line or second-line chemotherapy with or without subsequent CIT. RESULTS: Overall, 721 patients were included in the study, with a total sample size of 733 (12 patients in both groups). For first-line ipilimumab, 50% of patients survived to the availability of CIT, while only 18% of first-line chemotherapy users survived to the same date. For second-line ipilimumab, 37% of patients survived to availability of CIT vs 21% of patients using second-line chemotherapy. 45% of first-line ipilimumab and 52% of second-line ipilimumab patients who survived to the availability date received CIT. ROV for first-line ipilimumab averaged 3.7 months of additional survival, while those who initiated second-line ipilimumab averaged 4.8 months. The combined estimated ROV was 3.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world evidence of ROV and adds to the growing literature that may support inclusion of this novel value concept for innovative therapies alongside more traditional measures of value. Further evaluation of ROV in clinical areas with varying survival and innovation is warranted. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech, Inc., which was involved in conducting the study. Wong and To are employees of Genentech, Inc. Veenstra, Garrison, Li, and Lee have served as consultants to Genentech, Inc. Data were presented at ISPOR 2021; May 17-20, 2021; as a virtual podium presentation.

Novel Approach Using Administrative Claims to Evaluate Trends in Oncology Multigene Panel Testing for Patients Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Health Plans.

PURPOSE: To develop an approach to identify and evaluate recent use of multigene panel testing over time. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database analysis using medical and pharmacy claims data. Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan members diagnosed with select malignant solid tumors were identified. The pattern of somatic genetic testing for each patient was evaluated from January 2016 through December 2018. Tests were classified by the number of genes tested in the panel: < 50 (small or medium) and ≥ 50 (large). RESULTS: An initial feasibility study using our novel approach for identifying panel tests resulted in 2.4 and 1.2 times more large and medium panels, respectively, identified compared with using procedure codes alone. A total of 121,675 eligible patients were identified, with 131,915 unique cancer cases. Overall, 5,457 (4.5%) patients received any panel test from 2016 to 2018. We found the number of tests performed each quarter increased from 238 in Q1 of 2016 to 755 in Q4 of 2018. The highest number of cases were genitourinary cancers; however, the highest proportion of cancer-related genetic testing was among patients with respiratory cancer. Across all tumor types, the proportion of large-panel tests performed as a function of all multigene panel tests increased from 20.7% of tests in Q1 of 2016 to 46.4% of tests in Q4 of 2018. The three cancer categories with the highest count of cancer-related panel tests, respiratory cancer, GI cancer, and female reproductive cancer, had a consistently greater proportion receiving a panel test at any point postindex. CONCLUSION: Across a variety of cancers, use of somatic, large-panel cancer-related genetic testing, as a proportion of all somatic cancer-related genetic testing, increased from 2016 to 2018, although testing overall was low.

Association Between Medicare's National Coverage Determination and Utilization of Next-Generation Sequencing.

PURPOSE: In 2018, Medicare issued a national coverage determination (NCD) providing reimbursement for next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for beneficiaries with advanced or metastatic cancer and no previous NGS testing. We examined the association between NCD implementation and NGS utilization trends in Medicare beneficiaries versus commercially insured patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), or advanced melanoma with a de novo or recurrent advanced diagnosis from January 1, 2011, through December 30, 2019, using a nationwide US electronic health record-derived deidentified database. Patients were classified by insurance and by advanced diagnosis date. NGS testing was assessed by receipt of first NGS test result ≤ 60 days of advanced diagnosis. Interrupted time series analysis assessed NGS utilization pre- and post-NCD effective date by insurance type. RESULTS: The utilization and repeat NGS testing analysis included 70,290 and 4,295 patients, respectively. Use of NGS rose from < 1% in 2011 to > 45% in Q4 2019 in aNSCLC while remaining < 20% in mBC and advanced melanoma. Among patients with aNSCLC, mCRC, or mBC, NGS testing increased post-NCD versus pre-NCD (P < .05). There was no significant difference in trends pre- and post-NCD between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured patients in any tumor. Repeat NGS testing was similar before the NCD (Medicare v commercial: 24.8% v 28.5%). Post-NCD, fewer Medicare beneficiaries had repeat NGS testing (27.7% v 36.0%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Trends in NGS utilization significantly changed post-NCD, although the magnitude of change was not significantly different by insurance type, indicating private insurers may also be incorporating NCD guidance. Implementation of the NCD may have limited use of repeat NGS testing in Medicare beneficiaries.

Value of Precision Medicine in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Outcomes Associated with the Use of Companion Diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: Companion diagnostic (CDx) testing for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) identifies patients more likely to benefit from biomarker-driven treatments. METHODS: Patients with nonsquamous cell (non-Sq) aNSCLC from the Flatiron Health database (diagnosed January 1, 2011-May 31, 2018) who had CDx testing were compared with those who had no reported evidence of testing. The association between CDx testing and overall survival was evaluated by unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. Logistic regression analysis identified characteristics associated with CDx testing. The revised modified Lung Cancer Prognostic Index and other factors identified a priori were included in the adjusted models. RESULTS: A total of 17,555 patients with non-Sq aNSCLC (CDx, n = 14,732; no CDx, n = 2,823) with mean ± SD age of 67.2 ± 10.0 years were included. Most were insured (91.7%) and white (67.1%). Asian patients and those who were never-smokers were more likely to undergo CDx testing. Those with CDx testing lived longer than those without (median [95% confidence interval (CI)] survival, 13.04 [12.62-13.40] vs. 6.01 [5.72-6.24] months) and had a decreased mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.72 [0.69-0.76]). A survival advantage was also seen for patients with CDx testing who received biomarker-driven first-line therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with non-Sq aNSCLC who had CDx testing had a greater survival benefit than those without, supporting broader use of CDx testing in routine clinical practice to identify patients more likely to benefit from precision medicine. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Companion diagnostic (CDx) testing coupled with biomarker-driven treatment offers a greater survival benefit for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). In this study, patients with nonsquamous aNSCLC from Flatiron Health, a large, real-world oncology database, with CDx testing had a reduced mortality risk and lived longer than patients without reported evidence of CDx testing; those who received biomarker-driven therapy as their first line of treatment were likely to survive three times longer than those who did not. These results demonstrate the clinical utility of CDx testing as the first step in treating nonsquamous aNSCLC in real-world clinical practice.

Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes and the Role of Bevacizumab in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Liver Metastases.

PURPOSE: Liver metastases are associated with poor outcomes in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Nevertheless, the vasculature in the liver microenvironment may be conducive to the use of antiangiogenesis inhibitors to potentially improve outcomes. Limited real-world clinical and economic data are currently available for this patient subpopulation. METHODS: Two retrospective cohort analyses were conducted using data from an electronic health record (n = 14,209) and a claims database (n = 9,017). Patients with aNSCLC with and without liver metastases were identified in each database. Patients with baseline liver metastases in the electronic health record database were further categorized into two subgroups-those who had or had not received bevacizumab-containing regimens. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to adjust for baseline characteristics to evaluate the effect of treatment of bevacizumab. RESULTS: Liver metastases were associated with significantly poorer survival (median overall survival, 6.3 months v 10.1 months) and higher costs and health care resource utilization-total per-patient-per-month costs of $27,589 versus $19,607. Cost differences were primarily driven by inpatient costs, including a two-fold increase in hospitalizations and a 1.7-fold higher mean length of stay. Treatment with bevacizumab was associated with improved survival. Whereas overall survival improved in patients with and without baseline liver metastases who received bevacizumab, the relative survival benefit was greater in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.81] v hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86]). CONCLUSION: Patients with aNSCLC with liver metastases have poorer survival and a higher cost and health care resource utilization burden. Bevacizumab was associated with a survival benefit in patients with aNSCLC with liver metastases.

Are National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Block Affordability Ratings Representative of Real-World Costs? An Evaluation of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) developed the Evidence Blocks framework to assess the value of oncology regimens. This study characterizes the relationship between real-world costs and NCCN affordability ratings (ARs) for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatments. METHODS: Using the MarketScan and PharMetrics Plus databases, we identified patients treated between 2012 and 2017 with an aNSCLC regimen evaluated by the NCCN Evidence Blocks. We estimated adjusted mean total per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs and drug costs for each regimen using a log-linked gamma generalized linear model. Weighted regression was used to examine the correlation between adjusted mean PPPM costs per regimen and NCCN AR. RESULTS: A total of 25,162 patients with aNSCLC (mean age, 63 years [standard deviation, 10 years]; 52% male) had identifiable regimens. Mean total PPPM cost by therapeutic class ranged from $16,824 for epidermal growth factor receptors to $41,815 for immunotherapy-based treatment. Epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor treatment had lower ARs compared with generic chemotherapy. No therapy was listed as AR group 5 (least expensive). In pairwise comparisons, AR group 1 had significantly higher PPPM total costs compared with AR groups 2 and 4. There were no significant differences in PPPM total cost among AR groups 2, 3, and 4. CONCLUSION: Real-world aNSCLC treatment costs are often inconsistent with the NCCN ARs. Given that NCCN Evidence Blocks are intended to inform provider-patient discussions and other decision support resources, such as the NCCN Categories of Preference, our results suggest that the NCCN ARs require further refinement and validation.

The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007).

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the value of research of the RxPONDER study, an ongoing comparative effectiveness RCT designed to evaluate a 21-gene profile in early stage, node-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We developed a disease-based decision-analytic model to compare use of the 21-gene profile versus standard care. Key clinical data were derived from SWOG-8814, an RCT of chemotherapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. Other model parameters were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic simulations and value of information calculations were used to assess the expected value of sample information (EVSI) and the expected value of sample parameter information (EVSPI). RESULTS: The cost of the RxPONDER trial is expected to be at least $27 million. The expected value of research of the RxPONDER trial ranged from $450 million to $1 billion, representing a return of 17 to 39 times the projected cost of the trial. The primary objective of RxPONDER, to assess survival, had the largest estimated value relative to other model inputs. The value of RxPONDER increased by $50 million to $100 million after stakeholder input on additional data collection. CONCLUSION: The RxPONDER study appears to represent a good investment of public research funds. Stakeholder engagement and assessment of the return on investment should be considered to optimize and quantify the value of comparative effectiveness studies.

Budget impact of erlotinib for maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the budgetary impact of adding erlotinib for maintenance therapy (MTx) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US health plan perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to analyze the costs (drug, administration, adverse events) associated with adding erlotinib MTx to a hypothetical 500,000 member US health plan. Treatment durations and dosing were derived from randomized controlled trials, FDA labeling, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Treatment patterns and assumptions were based on market research data, the SEER registry, and published literature. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payment rates and a drug pricing database. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Overall health plan expenditures increased by $0.010 per member per month (PMPM). The main driver of additional cost was the erlotinib drug cost (∼$66,000) with the administration ($464) and side-effect ($47) costs being relatively modest. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the proportion of members receiving MTx; however, the PMPM did not exceed $0.013. CONCLUSIONS: The overall budget impact to a health plan of expanding the use of erlotinib from the 2nd/3rd-line advanced NSCLC setting to include the maintenance setting was relatively small. This was primarily due to the proportion of patients who would receive erlotinib MTx, the low cost of side-effects and minimal cost of drug administration. Additional research may be warranted to estimate the relative clinical and economic impacts of erlotinib MTx versus alternative MTx treatments.

The catecholamine release-inhibitory "catestatin" fragment of chromogranin a: naturally occurring human variants with different potencies for multiple chromaffin cell nicotinic cholinergic responses.

The catestatin fragment of chromogranin A is an endogenous inhibitor of nicotinic cholinergic transmission, functioning in negative feedback control of catecholamine secretion. We explored naturally occurring polymorphisms in the amino acid sequence of catestatin. Three human variants were identified: Gly364Ser, Pro370Leu, and Arg374Gln. Variants were tested for ability to inhibit four nicotinic processes. The rank order of potency for inhibition of catecholamine secretion was Pro370Leu > wild type > Gly364Ser > Arg374Gln. Decrease in potency was paralleled by decline in Hill slope, suggesting that negative cooperativity at ascending dose might underlie loss of potency. Several lines of evidence indicated that each variant acted as a nicotinic antagonist: potency to inhibit secretion paralleled inhibition of agonist-triggered (22)Na(+) uptake (r = 0.986); variants inhibited secretion with similar potency when triggered by several nicotinic agonists, though not by agents using other secretory pathways or bypassing the nicotinic receptor; and blockade of secretion was noncompetitive with agonist. Variants also inhibited desensitization of secretion after prior agonist exposure and stimulation of secretory protein biosynthesis by agonist. Rank order of variant inhibitory potency for all four nicotinic processes was identical (Pro370Leu > wild type > Gly364Ser > Arg374Gln), suggesting mediation by similar combinations of receptor alpha/beta subunits and that crucial catestatin residues are likely to be identical across the four processes. When catestatin variants were mixed in likely heterozygotic (1:1 M ratio) combinations, the inhibitory curve was left-shifted onto that of the more potent variant in the combination, suggesting phenotypic dominance. The results have quantitative implications for interindividual variations in human nicotinic signaling.