Bioinformatic Methods and Bridging of Assay Results for Reliable Tumor Mutational Burden Assessment in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as a clinically relevant biomarker that may be associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. Standardization of TMB measurement is essential for implementing diagnostic tools to guide treatment. OBJECTIVE: Here we describe the in-depth evaluation of bioinformatic TMB analysis by whole exome sequencing (WES) in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples from a phase III clinical trial. METHODS: In the CheckMate 026 clinical trial, TMB was retrospectively assessed in 312 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (58% of the intent-to-treat population) who received first-line nivolumab treatment or standard-of-care chemotherapy. We examined the sensitivity of TMB assessment to bioinformatic filtering methods and assessed concordance between TMB data derived by WES and the FoundationOne® CDx assay. RESULTS: TMB scores comprising synonymous, indel, frameshift, and nonsense mutations (all mutations) were 3.1-fold higher than data including missense mutations only, but values were highly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.99). Scores from CheckMate 026 samples including missense mutations only were similar to those generated from data in The Cancer Genome Atlas, but those including all mutations were generally higher. Using databases for germline subtraction (instead of matched controls) showed a trend for race-dependent increases in TMB scores. WES and FoundationOne CDx outputs were highly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Parameter variation can impact TMB calculations, highlighting the need for standardization. Encouragingly, differences between assays could be accounted for by empirical calibration, suggesting that reliable TMB assessment across assays, platforms, and centers is achievable.

Comparative assessment of clinical response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis between PF-05280586, a proposed rituximab biosimilar, and rituximab.

AIMS: To evaluate potential differences between PF-05280586 and rituximab sourced from the European Union (rituximab-EU) and USA (rituximab-US) in clinical response (Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints [DAS28] and American College of Rheumatology [ACR] criteria), as part of the overall biosimilarity assessment of PF-05280586. METHODS: A randomised, double-blind, pharmacokinetic similarity trial was conducted in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy on a background of methotrexate. Patients were treated with 1000 mg of PF-05280586, rituximab-EU or rituximab-US on days 1 and 15 and followed over 24 weeks for pharmacokinetic, clinical response and safety assessments. Key secondary end points were the areas under effect curves for DAS28 and ACR responses. Mean differences in areas under effect curves were compared against respective reference ranges established by observed rituximab-EU and rituximab-US responses using longitudinal nonlinear mixed effects models. RESULTS: The analysis included 214 patients. Demographics were similar across groups with exceptions in some baseline disease characteristics. Baseline imbalances and group-to-group variation were accounted for by covariate effects in each model. Predictions from the DAS28 and ACR models tracked the central tendency and distribution of observations well. No point estimates of mean differences were outside the reference range for DAS28 or ACR scores. The probabilities that the predicted differences between PF-05280586 vs. rituximab-EU or rituximab-US lie outside the reference ranges were low. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically meaningful differences were detected in DAS28 or ACR response between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU or rituximab-US as the differences were within the pre-specified reference ranges. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01526057.

Pay for performance for the allergist-immunologist: potential promise and problems.

Pay for performance is one component of a growing movement in this country to better align incentives so as to increase the quality of medical care and reduce unnecessary costs. The Physician Consortium for Quality Improvement is a national multistakeholder organization that is developing performance measures. Concerns regarding performance measures include technical concerns (eg, validity, risk adjustment, sample size, and accuracy considerations), concerns regarding the cost of implementation, and concerns regarding unintended consequences. Some data support the effectiveness of pay-for-performance programs, but more and better-designed studies are needed to rigorously assess the effectiveness of pay-for-performance programs. The Institute of Medicine 2006 report supports pay for performance "as a stimulus to foster comprehensive and system-wide improvements in the quality of healthcare." This report also recommends that implementation of pay-for-performance programs should be carefully monitored to be sure that the stated goals are being achieved and that unintended consequences are recognized as early as possible. It is important for the allergist-immunologist to be an active participant in the evolving paradigm of pay for performance, advocating for the best interests of patients and providers alike.