Consensus recommendations for optimizing biomarker testing to identify and treat advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.

The advent of personalized therapy for non-small-cell lung carcinoma (nsclc) has improved patient outcomes. Selection of appropriate targeted therapy for patients with nsclc now involves testing for multiple biomarkers, including EGFR. EGFR mutation status is required to optimally treat patients with nsclc, and thus timely and accurate biomarker testing is necessary. However, in Canada, there are currently no standardized processes or methods in place to ensure consistent testing implementation. That lack creates challenges in ensuring that all appropriate biomarkers are tested for each patient and that the medical oncologist receives the results for making informed treatment decisions in a timely way. An expert multidisciplinary working group was convened to create consensus recommendations about biomarker testing in advanced nsclc in Canada, with a primary focus on EGFR testing. Recognizing that there are biomarkers beyond EGFR that require timely identification, the expert multidisciplinary working group considered EGFR testing in the broader context of integration into complex lung biomarker testing. Primarily, the panel of experts recommends that all patients with nonsquamous nsclc, regardless of stage, should undergo comprehensive reflex biomarker testing at diagnosis with targeted next-generation sequencing. The panel also considered the EGFR testing algorithm and the challenges associated with the pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytic elements of testing. Strategies for funding testing by reducing silos of single biomarker testing for EGFR and for optimally implementing the recommendations presented here and educating oncology professionals about them are also discussed.

A network approach to developing immuno-oncology combinations in Canada.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized care for many cancer indications, with considerable effort now being focused on increasing the rate, depth, and duration of patient response. One strategy is to combine immune strategies (for example, ctla-4 and PD-1/L1-directed agents) to harness additive or synergistic efficacy while minimizing toxicity. Despite encouraging results with such combinations in multiple tumour types, numerous clinical challenges remain, including a lack of biomarkers that reliably predict outcome, the emergence of therapeutic resistance, and optimal management of immune-related toxicities. Furthermore, the selection of ideal combinations from the myriad of immune, systemic, and locoregional therapies has yet to be determined. A longitudinal network-based approach could offer advantages in addressing those critical questions, including long-term follow-up of patients beyond individual trials. The molecular cancer registry Personalize My Treatment, managed by the Networks of Centres of Excellence nonprofit organization Exactis Innovation, is uniquely positioned to accelerate Canadian immuno-oncology (io) research efforts throughout its national network of cancer sites. To gain deeper insight into how a pan-Canadian network could advance research in io combinations, Exactis invited preeminent clinical and scientific advisors from across Canada to a roundtable event in November 2017. The present white paper captures the expert advice provided: leverage longitudinal patient data collection; facilitate network collaboration and assay harmonization; synergize with existing initiatives, networks, and biobanks; and develop an io combination trial based on Canadian discoveries.

Perspectives on treatment advances for stage III locally advanced unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer.

For more than a decade, there has been no improvement in outcomes for patients with unresectable locally advanced (la) non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). The standard treatment in that setting is definitive concurrent chemotherapy and radiation (ccrt). Although the intent of treatment is curative, most patients rapidly progress, and their prognosis is poor, with a 5-year overall survival (os) rate in the 15%-25% range. Those patients therefore represent a critical unmet need, warranting expedited approval of, and access to, new treatments that can improve outcomes. The pacific trial, which evaluated durvalumab consolidation therapy after ccrt in unresectable la nsclc, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (pfs) and a significant improvement in os. Durvalumab thus fills a critical unmet need in the setting of unresectable la nsclc and provides a new option for patients treated with curative intent. Here, we review the treatment of unresectable la nsclc, with a focus on the effect of the clinical data for durvalumab.

Canadian consensus: oligoprogressive, pseudoprogressive, and oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: Little evidence has been generated for how best to manage patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) presenting with rarer clinical scenarios, including oligometastases, oligoprogression, and pseudoprogression. In each of those scenarios, oncologists have to consider how best to balance efficacy with quality of life, while maximizing the duration of each line of therapy and ensuring that patients are still eligible for later options, including clinical trial enrolment. Methods: An expert panel was convened to define the clinical questions. Using case-based presentations, consensus practice recommendations for each clinical scenario were generated through focused, evidence-based discussions. Results: Treatment strategies and best-practice or consensus recommendations are presented, with areas of consensus and areas of uncertainty identified. Conclusions: In each situation, treatment has to be tailored to suit the individual patient, but with the intent of extending and maximizing the use of each line of treatment, while keeping treatment options in reserve for later lines of therapy. Patient participation in clinical trials examining these issues should be encouraged.

Evidence-based best practices for EGFR T790M testing in lung cancer in Canada.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (egfr) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) are recommended as first-line systemic therapy for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) having mutations in the EGFR gene. Resistance to tkis eventually occurs in all nsclc patients treated with such drugs. In patients with resistance to tkis caused by the EGFR T790M mutation, the third-generation tki osimertinib is now the standard of care. For optimal patient management, accurate EGFR T790M testing is required. A multidisciplinary working group of pathologists, laboratory medicine specialists, medical oncologists, a respirologist, and a thoracic radiologist from across Canada was convened to discuss best practices for EGFR T790M mutation testing in Canada. The group made recommendations in the areas of the testing algorithm and the pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytic aspects of clinical testing for both tissue testing and liquid biopsy circulating tumour dna testing. The recommendations aim to improve EGFR T790M testing in Canada and to thereby improve patient care.

Rate of EGFR mutation testing for patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer with implementation of reflex testing by pathologists.

BACKGROUND: Testing for mutation of the EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) gene is a standard of care for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). To improve timely access to EGFR results, a few centres implemented reflex testing, defined as a request for EGFR testing by the pathologist at the time of a nonsquamous nsclc diagnosis. We evaluated the impact of reflex testing on EGFR testing rates. METHODS: A retrospective observational review of the Web-based AstraZeneca Canada EGFR Database from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2014 found centres within Ontario that had requested EGFR testing through the database and that had implemented reflex testing (with at least 2 years' worth of data, including the pre- and post-implementation period). RESULTS: The 7 included centres had requested EGFR tests for 2214 patients. The proportion of pathologists requesting EGFR tests increased after implementation of reflex testing (53% vs. 4%); conversely, the proportion of medical oncologists requesting tests decreased (46% vs. 95%, p < 0.001). After implementation of reflex testing, the mean number of patients having EGFR testing per centre per month increased significantly [12.6 vs. 4.9 (range: 4.5-14.9), p < 0.001]. Before reflex testing, EGFR testing rates showed a significant monthly increase over time (1.37 more tests per month; 95% confidence interval: 1.19 to 1.55 tests; p < 0.001). That trend could not account for the observed increase with reflex testing, because an immediate increase in EGFR test requests was observed with the introduction of reflex testing (p = 0.003), and the overall trend was sustained throughout the post-reflex testing period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reflex EGFR testing for patients with nonsquamous nsclc was successfully implemented at multiple centres and was associated with an increase in EGFR testing.

Overall survival should be the primary endpoint in clinical trials for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

An article in a recent edition of Current Oncology explored the validation of progression-free survival (pfs) as an endpoint in clinical trials of antineoplastic agents for metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and ovarian cancer. The support for pfs as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (os) was elucidated. As with the aforementioned tumour types, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) has seen a rise in active agents since the year 2000. Those agents range from improved cytotoxics such as pemetrexed, to targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor and agents that target the EML4-ALK gene mutation. More recently, it has also become apparent that histology plays an important role in the response to and outcomes of treatment. With the therapeutic options for patients with advanced nsclc increasing, concerns are being raised that the efficacy of drugs measured by os may be diluted in clinical trials, thereby underestimating their true clinical benefit. That possibility, together with the need to have efficacious drugs available to patients earlier, has resulted in the search for a surrogate to the os endpoint in advanced nsclc. The present article follows up the recent article on pfs as a surrogate. Although advances in identifying pfs as a valid surrogate endpoint for os have been made in other tumour types, in advanced nsclc, such surrogacy has not been formally validated. Until it has, os should remain the primary endpoint of clinical trials in advanced nsclc.

International variability in the reimbursement of cancer drugs by publically funded drug programs.

PURPOSE: Evaluate inter-country variability in the reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs, and identify factors such as cost containment measures that may contribute to variability. METHODS: As of February 28, 2010, licensed indications for 10 cancer drugs (bevacizumab, bortezomib, cetuximab, erlotinib, imatinib, pemetrexed, rituximab, sorafenib, sunitinib, and trastuzumab) were obtained from the drug registries of 6 licensing authorities corresponding to 13 countries or regions: Australia, Canada (Ontario), England, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States (Medicare Parts B and D). Number of licensed indications reimbursed by public payers and the use of cost containment measures were obtained by survey of health authorities involved in reimbursement and through public documents. RESULTS: The 48 identified licensed indications varied between agencies (range: 36-44 indications). Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, and the United States reimbursed the highest percentage of indications (range: 90%-100%). Canada (54%), Australia (46%), Scotland (40%), England (38%), and New Zealand (25%) reimbursed the least. All 5 countries with the lowest rate of reimbursement incorporated a cost-effectiveness analysis into reimbursement decisions and rejected submissions for reimbursement mainly because of lack of cost effectiveness; in New Zealand, lack of cost effectiveness was the second leading cause of rejection after excessive cost. In 9 countries, risk-sharing agreements were used to contain costs. Indications initially not recommended for reimbursement (9 in Australia, 5 in Canada, and 3 in England, New Zealand, and Scotland) were subsequently approved with risk-sharing agreements or special pricing arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs varies globally. The cause is multifactorial.