Treatment recommendations to cancer patients in the context of FDA guidance for next generation sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of next generation sequencing (NGS) by the FDA is advancing the use of genomic-based precision medicine for the therapeutic management of cancer as standard care. Recent FDA guidance for the classification of genomic variants based on clinical evidence to aid clinicians in understanding the actionability of identified variants provided by comprehensive NGS panels has also been set forth. In this retrospective analysis, we interpreted and applied the FDA variant classification guidance to comprehensive NGS testing performed for advanced cancer patients and assessed oncologist agreement with NGS test treatment recommendations. METHODS: NGS comprehensive genomic profiling was performed in a CLIA certified lab (657 completed tests for 646 patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center) between June 2016 and June 2017. Physician treatment recommendations made within 120 days post-test were gathered from tested patients' medical records and classified as targeted therapy, precision medicine clinical trial, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy, chemotherapy/radiation, surgery, transplant, or non-therapeutic (hospice, surveillance, or palliative care). Agreement between NGS test report targeted therapy recommendations based on the FDA variant classification and physician targeted therapy treatment recommendations were evaluated. RESULTS: Excluding variants contraindicating targeted therapy (i.e., KRAS or NRAS mutations), at least one variant with FDA level 1 companion diagnostic supporting evidence as the most actionable was identified in 14% of tests, with physicians most frequently recommending targeted therapy (48%) for patients with these results. This stands in contrast to physicians recommending targeted therapy based on test results with FDA level 2 (practice guideline) or FDA level 3 (clinical trial or off label) evidence as the most actionable result (11 and 4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found an appropriate "dose-response" relationship between the strength of clinical evidence supporting biomarker-directed targeted therapy based on application of FDA guidance for NGS test variant classification, and subsequent treatment recommendations made by treating physicians. In view of recent changes at FDA, it is paramount to define regulatory grounds and medical policy coverage for NGS testing based on this guidance.

Does cardiology hold pharmacogenetics to an inconsistent standard? A comparison of evidence among recommendations.

Current guideline recommendations for pharmacogenetic testing for clopidogrel by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) contradict the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and the US FDA. The AHA/ACC recommends against routine pharmacogenetic testing for clopidogrel because no randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that testing improves patients' outcomes. However the AHA/ACC and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend other pharmacogenetic tests in the absence of randomized controlled trials evidence. Using clopidogrel as a case example, we compared the evidence for other pharmacogenetic tests recommended by the AHA/ACC and NCCN. In patients that received percutaneous coronary intervention, the evidence supporting pharmacogenetic testing for clopidogrel is stronger than other pharmacogenetic tests recommended by the AHA/ACC and NCCN.