Closing the Testing Gap: Standardization of Comprehensive Biomarker Testing for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in a Large Community Oncology Practice.

PURPOSE: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, accounts for 85% of all lung cancer cases. Biomarker testing is an integral part of the care of patients with NSCLC. Despite broad consensus recommendations that all patients with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) undergo comprehensive biomarker testing (comprehensive genomic profiling and PD-L1), testing rates remain suboptimal. METHODS: The primary goal of this project was to apply National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for comprehensive biomarker testing to all new patients with mNSCLC within a large community practice. Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used, with cycle 1 focused on provider education and the creation of a mNSCLC initial consult Note (electronic health record template/McKesson iKnowMed G2) and accompanying order set. Staging, template/order set utilization, and comprehensive biomarker testing rates were recorded while workflow processes were monitored. Cycle 2 centered on improved cancer staging, data analytic reporting, auditing, and reeducation. RESULTS: The comprehensive biomarker testing rates increased from a historic rate of 68% to 92.7% during the 1-year intervention period. The template utilization rate was 71% with complete staging (TNM stage and relevant biomarkers) documented in 40%. CONCLUSION: Implementation and standardization of comprehensive biomarker testing of patients with mNSCLC in a large multisite community-based oncology practice is feasible and results in significant improvement in comprehensive biomarker testing and reporting. Establishing reliable and measurable tracking metrics to ensure that these new processes are used and maintained can assist in scaling these processes. Efforts to scale this best practice are planned across the US Oncology Network.

Biomarker testing and tissue journey among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer receiving first-line therapy in The US Oncology Network.

OBJECTIVES: The MYLUNG (Molecularly Informed Lung Cancer Treatment in a Community Cancer Network) consortium pragmatic study assessed real-world biomarker testing rates and turnaround times within a large community-based oncology network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational chart review study investigated patients with mNSCLC initiating first-line (1L) systemic therapy between 01-April-2018 and 31-March-2020. Biomarker testing rates and timing relative to 1L therapy for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, and PD-L1 were assessed, including use of next-generation sequencing (NGS). RESULTS: Among 3474 adults: 74% had adenocarcinoma and 76% had a documented ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Ninety percent had testing for at least one biomarker, and 46% received all 5 biomarker tests. Changes in testing rates from 2018 to 2020 were 71% to 71% for EGFR, 71% to 70% for ALK, 69% to 67% for ROS1, 51% to 59% for BRAF, 82% to 84% for PD-L1, and 42% to 49% for all 5 biomarkers. NGS testing increased from 33% to 45% (p < 0.0001). Median time from mNSCLC diagnosis to 1L therapy was 35 days. Median turnaround times from biomarker testing orders to results ranged from 10 to 15 days for the individual biomarkers and 18 days for NGS. CONCLUSION: In this real-world study, while most patients received at least one biomarker test prior to 1L, <50% received all 5 tests. NGS testing also occurred in < 50% of patients but appeared to increase over time. The next phase of MYLUNG will evaluate contemporary ordering practices and turnaround times prospectively.

Telemedicine in Community Cancer Care: How Technology Helps Patients With Cancer Navigate a Pandemic.

COVID-19 places unprecedented demands on the oncology ecosystem. The extensive pressure of managing health care during the pandemic establishes the need for rapid implementation of telemedicine. Across our large statewide practice of 640 practitioners at 221 sites of service, an aggressive multidisciplinary telemedicine strategy was implemented in March by coordinating and training many different parts of our healthcare delivery system. From March to September, telemedicine grew to serve 15%-20% of new patients and 20%-25% of established patients, permitting the practice to implement safety protocols and reduce volumes in clinic while continuing to manage the acute and chronic care needs of our patient population. We surveyed practice leaders, queried for qualitative feedback, and established 76% were satisfied with the platform. The common challenges for patients were the first-time use and technology function, and patients were, in general, grateful and happy to have the option to visit their clinicians on a telemedicine platform. In addition to conducting new and established visits remotely, telemedicine allows risk assessments, avoidance of hospitalization, family education, psychosocial care, and improved pharmacy support. The implementation has limitations including technical complexity; increased burden on patients and staff; and broadband access, particularly in rural communities. For telemedicine to improve as a solution to enhance the longitudinal care of patients with cancer, payment coverage policies need to continue after the pandemic, technologic adoption needs to be easy for patients, and broadband access in rural areas needs to be a policy priority. Further research to optimize the patient and clinician experience is required to continue to make progress.

Evaluation of Practice Patterns Among Oncologists Participating in the Oncology Care Model.

Importance: Health insurers reimburse clinicians in many ways, including the ubiquitous fee-for-service model and the emergent shared-savings models. Evidence on the effects of these emergent models in oncological treatment remains limited. Objectives: To analyze the early use and cost associations of a recent Medicare payment program, the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which included a shared savings-like component. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled study used a difference-in-differences approach on 2 years of data, from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017-1 year before and 1 year after launch of the OCM-to compare the differences between participating and nonparticipating practices, controlling for patient, clinician, and practice factors. Participation in the OCM began on July 1, 2016. Associations of participation with care use and cost were estimated for care directly managed by clinicians from a large network within their Medicare populations for breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancers. Data were analyzed from September 2019 to March 2020. Exposures: Participating practices were paid a monthly management fee of $160 per beneficiary and a potential risk-adjusted performance-based payment for eligible patients who received chemotherapy treatment, in addition to standard fee-for-service payments. Main Outcomes and Measures: Office visits, drug administrations, patient hydrations, drug costs, and total costs. Results: Monthly means data at the physician-level were evaluated for 11 869 physician-months for breast cancers, 11 135 physician-months for lung cancers, 8592 physician-months for colon cancers, and 9045 physician-months for prostate cancers. Patients at OCM practices had a mean (SD) age of 63.4 (3.1) years, and a mean (SD) of 59% (7 percentage points) of their patients were women. Participation in the OCM was associated with less physician-administered prostate cancer drug use (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, -0.47 to -0.11] percentage points, or 24.0%) translating to a mean of $706 (95% CI, -$1383 to -$29) less in drug costs per month. Monthly drug costs were also lower, at $558 (95% CI, -$1173 to $58) less for treatment for lung cancer. Total costs were lower by 9.7% or $233 (95% CI, -$495 to $30) for breast cancer, 9.9% or $337 (95% CI, -$618 to -$55) for lung cancer, 14.2% or $385 (95% CI, -$780 to $10) for colon cancer, and 29.2% or $610 (95% CI, -$1095 to -$125) for prostate cancer; however, these differences were largely offset by program costs. Clinician visits were also lower by 11.2% or 0.11 (95% CI, -0.20 to -0.01) percentage points among patients with breast cancer and by 14.4% or 0.19 (95% CI, -0.37 to -0.02) among patients with colon cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that payment models with shared-savings components can be associated with fewer visits and lower costs in certain cancer settings in the first year, but the savings can be modest given the costs of program administration.

Hospice or Hospital: The Costs of Dying of Cancer in the Oncology Care Model.

Background: End-of-life management is a difficult aspect of cancer care. With the oncology care model (OCM), we have data to assess both clinical outcomes and total cost of care (TCOC). Objective: To measure and characterize the TCOC for those who received less than three days of hospice care (HC) at the end of life compared with those who received three days or more. Design: Assess data on costs and site and date of death from Medicare claims on patients identified in the OCM who received chemotherapy in the six months before death. Standard statistical methods were used to characterize both populations. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were Medicare patients with cancer who died while managed by U.S. oncology practices in the OCM. Measurements were TCOC in 30-day intervals for the last months of life, cost by site of care at the end of life, and demographic characteristics of the population and association with HC. Results: There were 7329 deaths. Dying in the hospital was twice the cost of dying at home under HC ($20,113 vs. $10,803). Of demographic groups measured, only black race and a lymphoma diagnosis had <50% hospice enrollment for three days or more before death. Conclusions: This study reinforces previous studies regarding costs in the last 30 days of life. The graphic representation highlights the dollar cost and the costs of lost opportunity. Using these data to improve communication, addressing socioeconomic support, and formal palliative care integration are potential strategies to improve care.

Uncertainty from COVID-19 delays progress on the road to value-based cancer care.

COVID-19 has created a significant distraction from normal practice operations. The uncertainty that comes along with the pandemic is a huge worry, and can distract from practice transformation.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Oncology Care Model Halfway Through: Perspectives from Diverse Participants.

The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a 5-year model developed and tested by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that uses an episode-based payment model triggered by the receipt of chemotherapy to test if changing payment mechanisms, in conjunction with a requirement for enhanced patient services, can generate clinical transformation that will orient practices toward more patient-centered, high-value care to reduce expenditures and preserve or enhance quality of care for beneficiaries. The model is geographically diverse with practices in 34 states and encompasses practices ranging in size from 1 to more than 400 practitioners, with a multitude of business structures. Given these varied clinical and business environments, we believe that OCM-participating practices will have different opportunities and challenges as they work toward practice transformation, but they will likely share similarities with other practices in similar clinical and business settings. This commentary shares the experiences of four diverse groups participating in OCM-three practices and one network of practices-halfway through the model's projected 5-year life cycle in the expectation that these experiences will be of value to other practices embarking toward patient-centered, high-value practice transformation.

Redefining Quality Measurement in Cancer Care.

Quality measurement in oncology is increasing in significance as payment schemes shift from volume to value. As demand for quality measures increases, challenges in the development of quality measures, standardization across measures, and the limitations of health information technology have become apparent. Moreover, the time and financial burden associated with developing, tracking, and reporting quality measures are substantial. Despite these challenges, best practices and leaders in the field of quality measurement in oncology have emerged. To understand the current challenges and promising practices in quality measurement and to explore future considerations for measure development and measure reporting in oncology, NCCN convened the NCCN Policy Summit: Redefining Quality Measurement in Oncology. The summit included discussion of the current quality landscape and efforts to develop quality measures, use of quality measures in various programs, patient perspective of quality, and challenges and best practices for quality reporting.

Three-Year Results of a Medicare Advantage Cancer Management Program.

PURPOSE: Reform of cancer care delivery seeks to control costs while improving quality. Texas Oncology collaborated with Aetna to conduct a payer-sponsored program that used evidence-based treatment pathways, a disease management call center, and an introduction to advance care planning to improve patient care and reduce total costs. METHODS: From June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2016, 746 Medicare Advantage patients with nine common cancer diagnoses were enrolled. Patients electing for patient support services were telephoned by oncology nurses who assessed symptoms and quality of life and introduced advance care planning. Shared cost savings were determined by comparing the costs of drugs, hospitalization, and emergency room use for 509 eligible patients in the study group with a matched cohort of 900 Medicare Advantage patients treated by non-Texas Oncology providers. Physician adherence to treatment pathways and performance and quality metrics were evaluated. RESULTS: During the 3 years of the study, the cumulative cost savings were $3,033,248, and savings continued to increase each year. Drug cost savings per patient per treatment month were $1,874 (95% CI, $1,373 to $2,376; P < .001) after adjusting for age, diagnosis, and study year. Solid tumors contributed most of the savings; hematologic cancers showed little savings. For years 1, 2, and 3, adherence to treatment pathways was 81%, 84%, and 90%, patient satisfaction with patient support services was 94%, 93%, and 94%, and hospice enrollment was 55%, 57%, and 64%, respectively. CONCLUSION: A practice-based program supported by a payer sponsor can reduce costs while maintaining high adherence to treatment pathways and patient satisfaction in older patients.

Ixabepilone and Carboplatin for Hormone Receptor Positive/HER2-neu Negative and Triple Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hormonal therapies and single-agent sequential chemotherapeutic regimens are the standards of care for HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, treating patients with hormone-refractory and triple negative (TN) MBC remains challenging. We report the results of combined ixabepilone and carboplatin in a single-arm phase II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present prospective analysis of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- and TN MBC cohorts, patients could have received 0 to 2 chemotherapy regimens for MBC before enrollment. All patients received ixabepilone 20 mg/m2 and carboplatin (area under the curve, 2.5) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. RESULTS: We enrolled 54 HR+ and 49 TN patients (median, 1 previous chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease; most in addition to adjuvant chemotherapy). The ORR was 34% and 30.4% for the HR+ and TN patients, respectively, with a corresponding CBR of 56.6% and 41.3%. The ORRs were similar in taxane-pretreated patients (ORR, 31.4% and 28.6% for HR+ and TN patients, respectively). The median OS was 17.9 months for HR+ patients and 12.5 months for TN patients. The median PFS was similar for both groups at 7.6 months. Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included neuropathy (9%) and fatigue (8%). Nine patients developed grade 3/4 neuropathy, 7 of whom had received previous taxane treatment. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone plus carboplatin is active even in later-line HR+ and TN disease. Toxicities were manageable without cumulative myelosuppression. This combination is a reasonable option for those patients with MBC who require combination chemotherapy.

Expectations in the care of lung cancer.

One of the main challenges oncologists face in the care of patients with lung cancer is the decision to incorporate new clinical trial data into routine clinical practice. Beyond the question of statistical significance, which is a more objective metric, are the results meaningful and applicable to a broader population? Furthermore, in an era of value care, do the results justify a potential increase in costs? This article discusses the main points that clinicians consider in their decision-making process and illustrates the arguments with real-life examples.

Improving incidence of code status documentation through process and discipline.

Documentation of a patient's preferred code status is a critical outcome of advance care planning. Although there is agreement that code status is valuable information, little progress has been made to increase the incidence of documented code status within the medical record in an outpatient setting. Incidence of code status documentation in the community oncology setting has not been studied. In April 2013, the US Oncology Network and McKesson Specialty Health launched a new advance care planning initiative for the purpose of promoting conversations between clinicians and patients regarding end-of-life care preferences. The program-My Choices, My Wishes-provides a systematic approach for learning about and documenting a patient's values and goals for care in the electronic health record. Code status documentation is one of several program performance measures. During the 14-month period from August 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, collective sites participating in My Choices, My Wishes included discrete code status documentation within the medical record for 5,467 patients with metastatic disease. Although much work remains, early results show promise for improvement in incidence of code status documentation within health records in the outpatient setting.

Phase III study of iniparib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin versus gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of treatments providing survival benefit for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), with no standard of care. A randomized phase II trial showed significant benefit for gemcitabine, carboplatin, and iniparib (GCI) over gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) in clinical benefit rate, response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Here, we formally compare the efficacy of these regimens in a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV/locally recurrent TNBC who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for mTNBC were randomly allocated to gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the curve 2 (days 1 and 8) alone or GC plus iniparib 5.6 mg/kg (days 1, 4, 8, and 11) every 3 weeks. Random assignment was stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies. The coprimary end points were OS and PFS. Patients receiving GC could cross over to iniparib on progression. RESULTS: Five hundred nineteen patients were randomly assigned (261 GCI; 258 GC). In the primary analysis, no statistically significant difference was observed for OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.12; P = .28) nor PFS (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98; P = .027). An exploratory analysis showed that patients in the second-/third-line had improved OS (HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.91) and PFS (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.92) with GCI. The safety profile for GCI was similar to GC. CONCLUSION: The trial did not meet the prespecified criteria for the coprimary end points of PFS and OS in the ITT population. The potential benefit with iniparib observed in second-/third-line subgroup warrants further evaluation.

Opening the black box: the impact of an oncology management program consisting of level I pathways and an outbound nurse call system.

PURPOSE: The Innovent Oncology Program aims to improve the value of cancer care delivered to patients. McKesson Specialty Health and Texas Oncology (TXO) collaborated with Aetna to launch a pilot program. The study objectives were to evaluate the impact of Innovent on Level I Pathway compliance, implement the Patient Support Services program, and measure the rate and costs associated with chemotherapy-related emergency room (ER) visits and hospital admissions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, nonrandomized evaluation of patients enrolled in Innovent from June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2012. Data from the iKnowMed electronic health record, the McKesson Specialty Health financial data warehouse, and Aetna claims data warehouse were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 221 patients were included and stratified according to disease and age groups; 76% of ordered regimens were on pathway; 24% were off pathway. Pathway adherence improved from TXO baseline adherence of 63%. Of the 221 patients, 81% enrolled in PSS. Within the breast, colorectal, and lung cancer groups, 14% and 24% of patients had an ER visit and in-patient admission (IPA; baseline) versus 10% and 18% in Innovent, respectively; average in-patient days decreased from 2.1 to 1.2 days, respectively. Total savings combined for the program was $506,481. CONCLUSION: Implementation of Innovent positively affected patient care in several ways: Fewer ER visits and IPAs occurred, in-patient days decreased, cancer-related use costs were reduced, and on-pathway adherence increased.

Docetaxel or pemetrexed with or without cetuximab in recurrent or progressive non-small-cell lung cancer after platinum-based therapy: a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Available preclinical and phase 2 clinical data suggest that the addition of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), to chemotherapy might improve outcome in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess whether the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival in patients with recurrent or progressive NSCLC after platinum-based therapy. METHODS: In this unmasked, open-label randomised phase 3 trial we enrolled patients with metastatic, unresectable, or locally advanced NSCLC from 121 sites in Canada and the USA. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older who had experienced progressive disease during or after one previous platinum-based regimen. Initially, patients were randomly assigned to receive either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) and then randomly assigned within each group to receive their chemotherapy with or without cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) at first dose and 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. However, after a change in the standard of care, investigators chose whether to treat with pemetrexed or docetaxel on a patient-by-patient basis. The primary analysis was changed to compare progression-free survival with cetuximab plus pemetrexed versus pemetrexed, on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00095199. FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2005, and Feb 10, 2010, we enrolled 939 patients; data for one patient was accidentally discarded. Of the remaining 938 patients, 605 received pemetrexed (301 patients with cetuximab and 304 alone) and 333 received docetaxel (167 in combination with cetuximab and 166 alone). Median progression-free survival with cetuximab plus pemetrexed was 2·9 months (95% CI 2·7-3·2) versus 2·8 months (2·5-3·3) with pemetrexed (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·87-1·21; p=0·76). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events with cetuximab plus pemetrexed were fatigue (33 [11%] of 292 patients), acneiform rash (31 [11%]), dyspnoea (29 [10%]), and decreased neutrophil count (28 [10%]), and with pemetrexed alone were dyspnoea (35 [12%] of 289 patients), decreased neutrophil count (26 [9%]), and fatigue (23 [8%]). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the cetuximab plus pemetrexed group (119 [41%] of 292 patients) experienced at least one serious adverse event than those patients in the pemetrexed group (85 [29%] of 289 patients; p=0·0054). Nine (3%) of 292 treated patients in the cetuximab and pemetrexed group died of adverse events compared with five (2%) of 289 treated patients in the pemetrexed alone group. INTERPRETATION: The use of cetuximab is not recommended in combination with chemotherapy in patients previously treated with platinum-based therapy. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company and ImClone Systems LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company.

Randomized phase II trial of erlotinib with and without entinostat in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who progressed on prior chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) have been shown to overcome resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) linked to epigenetic changes and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) state. This randomized phase II study evaluated the outcome of erlotinib with and without the isoform selective HDACi, entinostat. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously treated patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer, no prior EGFR-TKIs, and performance status ≤ 2 were randomly administered erlotinib 150 mg on days 1 through 28 plus entinostat 10 mg orally on days 1 and 15 every 28 days (EE) or erlotinib plus placebo (EP). The primary end point was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate with additional end points including 6-month PFS rate, PFS, and overall survival (OS). Exploratory analyses included EMT- and EGFR-related biomarker analysis on archival tissue. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled (EE, 67; EP, 65). The 4-month PFS rate was comparable for both groups (EE, 18% v EP, 20%; P = .7). In the subset of patients with high E-cadherin levels, OS was longer in the EE group compared with the EP group (9.4 v 5.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.92; P = .03) with a corresponding trend toward increased PFS. The adverse event (AE) profile was acceptable, with rash, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea the most common AEs in both groups. CONCLUSION: Erlotinib combined with entinostat did not improve the outcomes of patients in the overall study population when compared with erlotinib monotherapy. High E-cadherin expression levels at time of diagnosis indicate an increased sensitivity to HDACi/EGFR-TKI inhibition providing the basis for a biomarker-driven validation study.

Target-specific, histology-independent, randomized discontinuation study of lapatinib in patients with HER2-amplified solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: To explore the activity of lapatinib with a novel trial design focused on the drug target rather than on histology. METHODS: Patients with HER2 amplified gastro-esophageal, bladder, ovarian, or uterine tumors were enrolled into a double-blinded randomized discontinuation study of lapatinib 1,500 mg PO daily. The planned sample size was 250 patients with HER2 amplified tumors, with the goal of randomizing 100 patients with stable disease (SD) at week 12 to either lapatinib or placebo. Patients responding after 12 weeks continued on lapatinib; those who progressed were discontinued from study. The primary objectives were response rate after 12 weeks and the percentage of patients who remained progression free 12 weeks after randomization to placebo versus lapatinib. Secondary objectives were duration of response and determination of the incidence of HER2 amplification in multiple tumor types. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients were screened and 32 patients with HER2 amplified tumors were enrolled. At week 12, 1 (3%) patient had a complete response, 9 (28%) had stable disease, 20 (63%) had progressive disease, and 2 (6%) were unknown. Only 7 patients with SD underwent randomization. The low response rate coupled with slow screening and enrollment led to early study closure. CONCLUSIONS: Basing trial eligibility on the presence of a genetic target, versus histologic classification, is challenging. While HER2 amplifications appear to be prevalent in select non-breast tumors, lapatinib monotherapy is associated with modest activity. The target-specific histology-independent randomized discontinuation design still merits consideration for targets clearly implicated in "oncogene addiction".