Cost-Effectiveness of PD-L1 Testing in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Using In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Versus Laboratory-Developed Test (LDT).

INTRODUCTION: Accurate PD-L1 testing for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) maximizes the benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs like pembrolizumab. False negative test results deny ICI treatments to eligible patients, worsening clinical and economic outcomes, while false positives increase costs by using ICI treatments without their benefits. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of PD-L1 testing with an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) compared to a laboratory-developed test (LDT) for allocating patients with NSCLC to treatment with either pembrolizumab or chemotherapy using the German healthcare system as a model. METHODS: We developed a decision analytical model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PD-L1 testing with a regulatory body approved IVD compared to an LDT from the national German healthcare payer (statutory health insurance system) perspective. Accuracy of PD-L1 testing was based on data from two independent proficiency testing programs. The 1-year model was based on outcomes data from the KEYNOTE-024 clinical trial and treatment patterns reflecting current German practices. RESULTS: IVDs produced accurate PD-L1 testing results in 93% (752/811) of tested cases compared to 73% (492/672) with LDTs. Most misclassifications concerned false negatives, occurring in 21% of LDTs vs 7% of IVDs. Total costs of the IVD group (48,878 €) were 196 € higher than the LDT group (48,682 €). These costs incorporate testing, first- and second-line therapy, managing treatment-related grade 3+ adverse events (AEs), and end-of-life costs for those who died within the year. Total effectiveness (percentage of patients successfully diagnosed and prescribed the correct therapy per German treatment guidelines) was 19 percentage points higher for the IVD group (88%) compared to the LDT group (69%). These differences in costs and effects lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 1057 €. CONCLUSION: Compared to LDT technology, on-label IVD use for PD-L1 testing is only slightly more costly and substantially more effective for aligning patients with PD-L1-positive NSCLC with ICI therapy according to German practice guidelines. Given these findings, changes to testing and reimbursement policies may be considered to maximize patient outcomes in NSCLC.

External quality assessment demonstrates that PD-L1 22C3 and SP263 assays are systematically different.

PD-L1 inhibitors are part of first line treatment options for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays act as either a companion or a complementary diagnostic. The purpose of this study is to describe the experience of external quality assurance (EQA) provider UK NEQAS ICC and ISH with the comparison of different PD-L1 assays used in daily practice. Three EQA rounds (pilot, run A and run B) were carried out using formalin fixed paraffin embedded samples with sample sets covering a range of epitope concentrations, including 'critical samples' near to clinical threshold cut-offs. An expert panel (n = 4) evaluated all returned slides simultaneously and independently on a multi-header microscope together with the participants own in-house control material. The tonsil sample was evaluated as 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable', and for the other samples the percentage of PD-L1 stained tumour cells were estimated in predetermined categories (<1%, 1 to <5%, 5 to <10%, 10 to <25%, 25 to <50%, 50 to <80%, 80 to 100%). In the pilot and the two subsequent runs the number of participating laboratories was 43, 69 and 76, respectively. The pass rate for the pilot run was 67%; this increased to 81% at run A and 82% at run B. For two 'critical samples', in runs A and B, 22C3 IHC had significantly higher PD-L1 expression than SP263 IHC (p < 0.001), whilst the PD-L1 scores for the other six samples were similar for all assays. In run A the laboratory developed tests (LDTs) using 22C3 scored lower than the commercial 22C3 tests (p = 0.01). After the initial testing, improvement in performance of PD-L1 IHC is shown for approved and LDT PD-L1 assays. Equivalency of approved PD-L1 22C3 and SP263 assays cannot be assumed as the scores cross the clinically relevant thresholds of 1% and 50% PD-L1 expression.

Breast cancer biomarkers in clinical testing: analysis of a UK national external quality assessment scheme for immunocytochemistry and in situ hybridisation database containing results from 199 300 patients.

We describe a collated data set of results from clinical testing of breast cancers carried out between 2009 and 2016 in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. More than 199 000 patient biomarker data sets, together with clinicopathological parameters were collected. Our analyses focused on human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), oestrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR), with the aim of the study being to provide robust confirmatory evidence on known associations in these biomarkers and to uncover new data on previously undescribed or unconfirmed associations, thus strengthening the evidence-base in clinical breast cancer testing. Overall, 13.1% of tumours were HER2-positive; 10.6% in ER-positive tumours, and 25.5% in ER-negative tumours. Higher rates of HER2 positivity were significantly associated with patient age <56 years versus age ≥56 years, symptomatic versus screen-detected tumours, testing of involved axillary node versus primary breast cancer, invasive ductal carcinoma (not otherwise specified) versus other histological types, higher histological grade, increasing tumour size, increasing nodal involvement, ER-negative versus ER-positive tumour status, PR-negative versus PR-positive tumour status. Where ER status was known, 82.7% of tumours were ER-positive; 80.9% in women age <56 years, and 83.6% in those age ≥56 years (ER-positive cut-off ≥1.0% positive tumour cells or equivalent). Where PR status was known, 64.9% of tumours were PR-positive; 65.8% in women age <56 years, and 64.4% in women age ≥56 years (PR-positive cut off ≥10.0% or equivalent). These analyses of clinical test results provide contemporary benchmarking data for HER2, ER and PR positive rates.

Improvement in the quality of molecular analysis of EGFR in non-small-cell lung cancer detected by three rounds of external quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: The clinical need to determine the presence of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations in non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) in order to make informed decisions for patient treatment has seen the widespread introduction of EGFR molecular testing in many laboratories. To ensure high-quality molecular testing and allow laboratories to externally measure the standard of the service, an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme was provided to assess the whole testing process. METHODS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded NSCLC tumour sections were distributed to laboratories for routine EGFR molecular testing, and the genotyping accuracy, interpretation of the result and clerical accuracy of the report were independently assessed. RESULTS: Three rounds of assessment have identified many genotyping errors and have highlighted the need for external assessment and education in many testing laboratories. The main issues raised were the importance of accurate genotyping, including the use of common mutation nomenclature, clear unambiguous interpretation of the result, the impact of tumour sample assessment regarding amount of tumour being analysed and the heterogeneity of the sample on the molecular test result. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in all these areas were observed during the progression of the three EQA rounds, however, continuous unacceptably high genotyping error rates demonstrate the clear need for continual external assessment and education in this field.