Tumor mutational burden standardization initiatives: Recommendations for consistent tumor mutational burden assessment in clinical samples to guide immunotherapy treatment decisions.

Characterization of tumors utilizing next-generation sequencing methods, including assessment of the number of somatic mutations (tumor mutational burden [TMB]), is currently at the forefront of the field of personalized medicine. Recent clinical studies have associated high TMB with improved patient response rates and survival benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors; hence, TMB is emerging as a biomarker of response for these immunotherapy agents. However, variability in current methods for TMB estimation and reporting is evident, demonstrating a need for standardization and harmonization of TMB assessment methodology across assays and centers. Two uniquely placed organizations, Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) and the Quality Assurance Initiative Pathology (QuIP), have collaborated to coordinate efforts for international multistakeholder initiatives to address this need. Friends and QuIP, who have partnered with several academic centers, pharmaceutical organizations, and diagnostic companies, have adopted complementary, multidisciplinary approaches toward the goal of proposing evidence-based recommendations for achieving consistent TMB estimation and reporting in clinical samples across assays and centers. Many factors influence TMB assessment, including preanalytical factors, choice of assay, and methods of reporting. Preliminary analyses highlight the importance of targeted gene panel size and composition, and bioinformatic parameters for reliable TMB estimation. Herein, Friends and QuIP propose recommendations toward consistent TMB estimation and reporting methods in clinical samples across assays and centers. These recommendations should be followed to minimize variability in TMB estimation and reporting, which will ensure reliable and reproducible identification of patients who are likely to benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Prior Therapies Work Group.

PURPOSE: Restrictive eligibility criteria induce differences between clinical trial and "real-world" treatment populations. Restrictions based on prior therapies are common; minimizing them when appropriate may increase patient participation in clinical trials. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A multi-stakeholder working group developed a conceptual framework to guide evaluation of prevailing practices with respect to using prior treatment as selection criteria for clinical trials. The working group made recommendations to minimize restrictions based on prior therapies within the boundaries of scientific validity, patient centeredness, distributive justice, and beneficence. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) Patients are eligible for clinical trials regardless of the number or type of prior therapies and without requiring a specific therapy prior to enrollment unless a scientific or clinically based rationale is provided as justification. (ii) Prior therapy (either limits on number and type of prior therapies or requirements for specific therapies before enrollment) could be used to determine eligibility in the following cases: a) the agents being studied target a specific mechanism or pathway that could potentially interact with a prior therapy; b) the study design requires that all patients begin protocol-specified treatment at the same point in the disease trajectory; and c) in randomized clinical studies, if the therapy in the control arm is not appropriate for the patient due to previous therapies received. (iii) Trial designers should consider conducting evaluation separately from the primary endpoint analysis for participants who have received prior therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial sponsors and regulators should thoughtfully reexamine the use of prior therapy exposure as selection criteria to maximize clinical trial participation.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

A National Assessment of Diagnostic Test Use for Patients with Advanced NSCLC and Factors Influencing Physician Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic tests, including US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved tests and laboratory-developed tests, are frequently used to guide care for patients with cancer, and, recently, have been the subject of several policy discussions and insurance coverage determinations. As the use of diagnostic testing has evolved, stakeholders have raised questions about the lack of standardized test performance metrics and the risk this poses to patients. OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of diagnostic testing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), to analyze the utilization of FDA-approved versus laboratory-developed diagnostic tests, and to evaluate the impact of existing regulatory and coverage frameworks on diagnostic test ordering and physician treatment decision-making for patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: We conducted a 2-part study consisting of an online survey and patient chart review from March 1, 2019, to March 25, 2019, of physicians managing patients with advanced NSCLC. Respondents qualified for this study if they managed at least 5 patients with advanced NSCLC per month and had diagnosed at least 1 patient with advanced NSCLC in the 12 months before the survey. A total of 150 physicians completed the survey; before completing the survey, they were instructed to review between 4 and 8 charts of patients with stage IV NSCLC from their list of active patients. RESULTS: A total of 150 practicing oncologists who manage patients with advanced NSCLC responded to the survey and reviewed a total of 815 patient charts. Of these 815 patients, 812 (99.6%) were tested for at least 1 biomarker, including 73% of patients who were tested for EGFR, 70% tested for ALK, 58% tested for BRAF V600E, and 38% of patients tested for ROS1, by FDA-approved diagnostic tests. In all, 185 (83%) patients who tested positive for EGFR and 60 (83%) patients who tested positive for ALK received an FDA-approved targeted therapy for their biomarker. A total of 98 (65%) physicians responded that the patient's insurance coverage factored into their decision to order diagnostic tests and 69 (45%) physicians responded that cost or the patient's insurance coverage could influence them not to prescribe an indicated targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: The survey results indicate that diagnostic testing has become routine in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC, the use of FDA-approved diagnostic tests has increased, and insurance coverage and cost influence patient access to diagnostic testing as well as to targeted treatment options.