Genome-matched treatments and patient outcomes in the Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI).

Genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology aimed at identifying variants in tumors that can be targeted with genomically matched drugs. Due to limited resources, rural patients receiving care in community oncology settings may be less likely to benefit from GTT. We analyzed GTT results and observational clinical outcomes data from patients enrolled in the Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI), which provided access to GTTs; clinician educational resources; and genomic tumor boards in community practices in a predominantly rural state. 1603 adult cancer patients completed enrollment; 1258 had at least one potentially actionable variant identified. 206 (16.4%) patients received a total of 240 genome matched treatments, of those treatments, 64% were FDA-approved in the tumor type, 27% FDA-approved in a different tumor type and 9% were given on a clinical trial. Using Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting to adjust for baseline characteristics, a Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated that patients who received genome matched treatment were 31% less likely to die within 1 year compared to those who did not receive genome matched treatment (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.90; p-value: 0.006). Overall, GTT through this initiative resulted in levels of genome matched treatment that were similar to other initiatives, however, clinical trials represented a smaller share of treatments than previously reported, and "off-label" treatments represented a greater share. Although this was an observational study, we found evidence for a potential 1-year survival benefit for patients who received genome matched treatments. These findings suggest that when disseminated and implemented with a supportive infrastructure, GTT may benefit cancer patients in rural community oncology settings, with further work remaining on providing genome-matched clinical trials.

ERBB family fusions are recurrent and actionable oncogenic targets across cancer types.

Purpose: Gene fusions involving receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) define an important class of genomic alterations with many successful targeted therapies now approved for ALK, ROS1, RET and NTRK gene fusions. Fusions involving the ERBB family of RTKs have been sporadically reported, but their frequency has not yet been comprehensively analyzed and functional characterization is lacking on many types of ERBB fusions. Materials and methods: We analyzed tumor samples submitted to Caris Life Sciences (n=64,354), as well as the TCGA (n=10,967), MSK IMPACT (n=10,945) and AACR GENIE (n=96,324) databases for evidence of EGFR, ERBB2 and ERBB4 gene fusions. We also expressed several novel fusions in cancer cell lines and analyzed their response to EGFR and HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Results: In total, we identified 1,251 ERBB family fusions, representing an incidence of approximately 0.7% across all cancer types. EGFR, ERBB2, and ERBB4 fusions were most frequently found in glioblastoma, breast cancer and ovarian cancer, respectively. We modeled two novel types of EGFR and ERBB2 fusions, one with a tethered kinase domain and the other with a tethered adapter protein. Specifically, we expressed EGFR-ERBB4, EGFR-SHC1, ERBB2-GRB7 and ERBB2-SHC1, in cancer cell lines and demonstrated that they are oncogenic, regulate downstream signaling and are sensitive to small molecule inhibition with EGFR and HER2 TKIs. Conclusions: We found that ERBB fusions are recurrent mutations that occur across multiple cancer types. We also establish that adapter-tethered and kinase-tethered fusions are oncogenic and can be inhibited with EGFR or HER2 inhibitors. We further propose a nomenclature system to categorize these fusions into several functional classes.

The Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative: Implementing a Community Cancer Genomics Program Across an Entire Rural State.

PURPOSE: The Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI) aimed to overcome patient- and provider-level barriers to using genomic tumor testing (GTT) in rural practices by providing genomic tumor boards (GTBs), clinician education, and access to comprehensive large-panel next-generation sequencing to all patients with cancer in Maine. This paper describes the successful implementation of the initiative and three key services made operative between 2016 and 2020. METHODS: A community-inclusive, hub-and-spoke approach was taken to implement the three program components: (1) a centralized GTB program; (2) a modular online education program, designed using an iterative approach with broad clinical stakeholders; and (3) GTT free of charge to clinicians and patients. Implementation timelines, participation metrics, and survey data were used to describe the rollout. RESULTS: The MCGI was launched over an 18-month period at all 19 oncology practices in the State. Seventy-nine physicians (66 medical oncologists, 5 gynecologic oncologists, 1 neuro-oncologist, and 7 pediatric oncologists) enrolled on the study, representing 100% of all practicing oncologists in Maine. Between July 2017 and September 2020, 1610 patients were enrolled. A total of 515 cases were discussed by 47 (73%) clinicians in 196 GTBs. Clinicians who participated in the GTBs enrolled significantly more patients on the study, stayed in Maine, and reported less time spent in clinical patient care. CONCLUSION: The MCGI was able to engage geographically and culturally disparate cancer care practices in a precision oncology program using a hub-and-spoke model. By facilitating access to GTT, structured education, and GTBs, we narrowed the gap in the implementation of precision oncology in one of the most rural states in the country.

IMpower150 Final Exploratory Analyses for Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy in Key NSCLC Patient Subgroups With EGFR Mutations or Metastases in the Liver or Brain.

INTRODUCTION: Final overall survival (OS) analyses are presented for EGFR mutations and liver or brain metastases subgroups in the phase 3 IMpower150 study (NCT02366143) evaluating atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (ABCP) or atezolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (ACP) versus bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (BCP). METHODS: Overall, 1202 patients (intention-to-treat population) with chemotherapy-naive, metastatic, nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized to ABCP, ACP, or BCP. Patients with treated, stable brain metastases were permitted. OS was evaluated in EGFR mutations and baseline liver metastases subgroups; rate and time to development of new brain metastases were evaluated in the intention-to-treat patients. RESULTS: At data cutoff (September 13, 2019; median follow-up, 39.3 mo), OS improvements were sustained with ABCP versus BCP in sensitizing EGFR mutations (all: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.14; previous tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI]: HR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46) and baseline liver metastases (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.45-1.02) subgroups. ACP did not have survival benefit versus BCP in sensitizing EGFR mutations (all: HR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.57-1.74; previous TKI: HR = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.68-2.22) or liver metastases (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.68-1.51) subgroups. Overall, 100 patients (8.3%) developed new brain metastases. Although not formally evaluated, an improvement toward delayed time to development was found with ABCP versus BCP (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.39-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: This final exploratory analysis revealed OS benefits for ABCP versus BCP in patients with sensitizing EGFR mutations, including those with previous TKI failures, and with liver metastases, although these results should be interpreted with caution. The impact of ABCP on delaying the development of new brain lesions requires further investigation.

Community oncologists' perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing.

PURPOSE: Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists' perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists' perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT. METHODS: Community oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them. RESULTS: There was substantial variability in clinicians' perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients' ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians' future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT. CONCLUSIONS: Community oncologists' perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice.

IMpower150 Final Overall Survival Analyses for Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy in First-Line Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: We report the final overall survival (OS) analyses of atezolizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel (ACP [experimental arm]) and OS data with approximately 39.8 months of median follow-up with atezolizumab-bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel (ABCP) versus bevacizumab-carboplatin-paclitaxel (BCP) in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in the phase 3 IMpower150 study (NCT02366143). METHODS: In this randomized, open-label study (N = 1202), coprimary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival and OS in intention-to-treat (ITT) wild-type (WT; no EGFR or ALK alterations) patients. Secondary and exploratory end points included OS in ITT and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) subgroups defined by the VENTANA SP142 and SP263 immunohistochemistry assays. RESULTS: At the final analysis with ACP versus BCP (data cutoff: September 13, 2019; minimum follow-up: 32.4 mo), ACP had numerical, but not statistically significant, improvements in OS (ITT-WT: median OS = 19.0 versus 14.7 mo; hazard ratio = 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.00). OS benefit was sustained with ABCP versus BCP (ITT-WT: 19.5 versus 14.7 mo; hazard ratio = 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.95). Exploratory analyses in the SP142-defined PD-L1 subgroups revealed longer median OS with ABCP and ACP versus BCP in PD-L1-high and PD-L1-positive subgroups; in the PD-L1-negative subgroups, median OS was similar with ACP and ABCP versus BCP. Safety was consistent with that in earlier analyses (data cutoff: January 22, 2018). CONCLUSIONS: At the final IMpower150 OS analysis, ACP had numerical, but not statistically significant, OS improvement versus BCP. Updated data with an additional 20 months of follow-up revealed continued OS improvement with ABCP versus BCP in all patients.

Effect of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Body Composition among Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial.

Skeletal muscle and adipose tissue express the vitamin D receptor and may be a mechanism through which vitamin D supplementation slows cancer progression and reduces cancer death. In this exploratory analysis of a double-blind, multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial, 105 patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who were receiving chemotherapy were randomized to either high-dose vitamin D3 (4000 IU) or standard-dose (400 IU) vitamin D3. Body composition was measured with abdominal computed tomography at enrollment (baseline) and after cycle 8 of chemotherapy (16 weeks). As compared with standard-dose vitamin D3, high-dose vitamin D3 did not significantly change body weight [-0.7 kg; (95% CI: -3.5, 2.0)], body mass index [-0.2 kg/m2; (95% CI: -1.2, 0.7)], muscle area [-1.7 cm2; (95% CI: -9.6, 6.3)], muscle attenuation [-0.4 HU; (95% CI: -4.2, 3.2)], visceral adipose tissue area [-7.5 cm2; (95% CI: -24.5, 9.6)], or subcutaneous adipose tissue area [-8.3 cm2; (95% CI: -35.5, 18.9)] over the first 8 cycles of chemotherapy. Among patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, the addition of high-dose vitamin D3, vs standard-dose vitamin D3, to standard chemotherapy did not result in any changes in body composition.

Effect of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Progression-Free Survival Among Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The SUNSHINE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In observational studies, higher plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels have been associated with improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Objective: To determine if high-dose vitamin D3 added to standard chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic CRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind phase 2 randomized clinical trial of 139 patients with advanced or metastatic CRC conducted at 11 US academic and community cancer centers from March 2012 through November 2016 (database lock: September 2018). Interventions: mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab chemotherapy every 2 weeks and either high-dose vitamin D3 (n = 69) or standard-dose vitamin D3 (n = 70) daily until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by the log-rank test and a supportive Cox proportional hazards model. Testing was 1-sided. Secondary end points included tumor objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and change in plasma 25(OH)D level. Results: Among 139 patients (mean age, 56 years; 60 [43%] women) who completed or discontinued chemotherapy and vitamin D3 (median follow-up, 22.9 months), the median PFS for high-dose vitamin D3 was 13.0 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 14.7; 49 PFS events) vs 11.0 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 14.0; 62 PFS events) for standard-dose vitamin D3 (log-rank P = .07); multivariable hazard ratio for PFS or death was 0.64 (1-sided 95% CI, 0 to 0.90; P = .02). There were no significant differences between high-dose and standard-dose vitamin D3 for tumor ORR (58% vs 63%, respectively; difference, -5% [95% CI, -20% to 100%], P = .27) or OS (median, 24.3 months vs 24.3 months; log-rank P = .43). The median 25(OH)D level at baseline for high-dose vitamin D3 was 16.1 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL for standard-dose vitamin D3 (difference, -2.6 ng/mL [95% CI, -6.6 to 1.4], P = .30); at first restaging, 32.0 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL (difference, 12.8 ng/mL [95% CI, 9.0 to 16.6], P < .001); at second restaging, 35.2 ng/mL vs 18.5 ng/mL (difference, 16.7 ng/mL [95% CI, 10.9 to 22.5], P < .001); and at treatment discontinuation, 34.8 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL (difference, 16.2 ng/mL [95% CI, 9.9 to 22.4], P < .001). The most common grade 3 and higher adverse events for chemotherapy plus high-dose vs standard-dose vitamin D3 were neutropenia (n = 24 [35%] vs n = 21 [31%], respectively) and hypertension (n = 9 [13%] vs n = 11 [16%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with metastatic CRC, addition of high-dose vitamin D3, vs standard-dose vitamin D3, to standard chemotherapy resulted in a difference in median PFS that was not statistically significant, but with a significantly improved supportive hazard ratio. These findings warrant further evaluation in a larger multicenter randomized clinical trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01516216.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower150): key subgroup analyses of patients with EGFR mutations or baseline liver metastases in a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The IMpower150 trial showed significant improvements in progression-free and overall survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ABCP) versus the standard-of-care bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (BCP) in chemotherapy-naive patients with non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Here, we report the efficacy of ABCP or atezolizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ACP) versus BCP in key patient subgroups. METHODS: IMpower150 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 240 academic medical centres and community oncology practices across 26 countries worldwide. Patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive ABCP, ACP, or BCP every three weeks. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and investigator-assessed progression-free survival in intention-to-treat wild-type patients (patients with epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] or anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK] genetic alterations were excluded). Efficacy was assessed in key subgroups within the intention-to-treat population, including patients with EGFR mutations (both sensitising and non-sensitising; EGFR-positive) previously treated with one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and patients with baseline liver metastases. Overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was included among secondary efficacy endpoints. Exploratory endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving an objective response in the intention-to-treat population, including EGFR-positive patients and patients with baseline liver metastases. Data are reported as per the Jan 22, 2018, data cutoff date, at which the number of coprimary prespecified overall survival events was met in the ABCP versus BCP groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02366143, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2015, and Dec 30, 2016, 1202 patients were enrolled. 400 patients were randomly assigned to ABCP, 402 to ACP, and 400 to BCP. In EGFR-positive patients (124 of 1202), median overall survival was not estimable (NE; 95% CI 17·0-NE) with ABCP (34 of 400) and 18·7 months (95% CI 13·4-NE) with BCP (45 of 400; hazard ratio [HR] 0·61 [95% CI 0·29-1·28]). Improved overall survival with ABCP versus BCP was observed in patients with sensitising EGFR mutations (median overall survival NE [95% CI NE-NE] with ABCP [26 of 400] vs 17·5 months [95% CI 11·7-NE] with BCP [32 of 400]; HR 0·31 [95% CI 0·11-0·83]) and in the intention-to-treat population (19·8 months [17·4-24·2] vs 14·9 months [13·4-17·1]; HR 0·76 [0·63-0·93]). Improved median overall survival with ABCP versus BCP was seen in patients with baseline liver metastases (13·3 months [11·6-NE] with ABCP [52 of 400] vs 9·4 months [7·9-11·7] with BCP [57 of 400]; HR 0·52 [0·33-0·82]). Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 13·8-NE) with ACP versus 18·7 months (95% CI 13·4-NE) with BCP in EGFR-positive patients (HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·51-1·68]). No overall survival benefit was seen with ACP versus BCP in patients with sensitising EGFR mutations (HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·47-1·74]), in the intention-to-treat population (HR 0·85 [0·71-1·03]), or in patients with baseline liver metastases (HR 0·87 [0·57-1·32]). In the intention-to-treat safety-evaluable population, grade 3-4 treatment-related events occurred in 223 (57%) patients in the ABCP group, in 172 (43%) in the ACP group, and in 191 (49%) in the BCP group; 11 (3%) grade 5 adverse events occurred in the ABCP group, as did four (1%) in the ACP group, and nine (2%) in the BCP group. INTERPRETATION: Improved survival was noted for patients treated with ABCP compared with those given BCP in the intention-to-treat population, and in patients with baseline liver metastases. The overall survival signal in the subgroup of patients with EGFR sensitising mutations warrants further study. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.

Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: The cancer-cell-killing property of atezolizumab may be enhanced by the blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor-mediated immunosuppression with bevacizumab. This open-label, phase 3 study evaluated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not previously received chemotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to receive atezolizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ACP), bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (BCP), or atezolizumab plus BCP (ABCP) every 3 weeks for four or six cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab, bevacizumab, or both. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival both among patients in the intention-to-treat population who had a wild-type genotype (WT population; patients with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were excluded) and among patients in the WT population who had high expression of an effector T-cell (Teff) gene signature in the tumor (Teff-high WT population) and overall survival in the WT population. The ABCP group was compared with the BCP group before the ACP group was compared with the BCP group. RESULTS: In the WT population, 356 patients were assigned to the ABCP group, and 336 to the BCP group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (8.3 months vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.74; P<0.001); the corresponding values in the Teff-high WT population were 11.3 months and 6.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.68]; P<0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group in the entire intention-to-treat population (including those with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations) and among patients with low or negative programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, those with low Teff gene-signature expression, and those with liver metastases. Median overall survival among the patients in the WT population was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (19.2 months vs. 14.7 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of ABCP was consistent with previously reported safety risks of the individual medicines. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of atezolizumab to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression and EGFR or ALK genetic alteration status. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower150 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02366143 .).

Genomic Profiling of Two Histologically Distinct Rare Urothelial Cancers in a Clinical Setting to Identify Potential Therapeutic Options for Treatment and Management of Disease.

Molecular profiling of urothelial cancers for therapeutic and prognostic potential has been very limited due to the absence of cancer-specific targeted therapies. We describe here 2 clinical cases with a histological diagnosis of an invasive sarcomatoid and a poorly differentiated carcinoma favoring urothelial with some neuroendocrine differentiation, two of the rarer types of urothelial cancers, which were evaluated for mutations in 212 genes for single-nucleotide variants and copy-number variants and 53 genes for fusions associated with solid tumors. In both cases, we identified variants in 2 genes, ARID1A and CDKN2A, indicative of the role of dysregulation of chromatin remodeling and cell cycle control as being common features of bladder cancer, consistent with the proposed model of tumorigenesis in these rare, highly aggressive pathological subtypes. The presence of a KRAS mutation in the poorly differentiated cancer and a TP53 mutation in the sarcomatoid tumor is indicative of a distinctive profile and adds a potential layer of molecular stratification to these rarer histological subtypes. We present a comparative analysis of the histological, clinical, and molecular profile of both cases and discuss the potential to delineate these tumors at the molecular level keeping in mind the possible therapeutic implications.

Timeliness of access to lung cancer diagnosis and treatment: A scoping literature review.

The Institute of Medicine recently called for increased understanding of and commitment to timely care. Lung cancer can be difficult to diagnose, resulting in delays that may adversely affect survival; rapid diagnosis and treatment therefore is critical for enabling improved patient outcomes. This scoping review provides an update on timeliness of lung cancer care over the past decade. We searched PubMed for English-language articles published from 2007 to 2016 that report wait time intervals related to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts for inclusion. Abstracted data included sample size, patient population, study type, dates of study, wait times, and information on disparities, survival, costs, healthcare utilization, and interventions. The final review included 65 studies from 21 different countries. A total of 96 unique variations of wait intervals were reported (e.g., time to diagnosis from first pulmonologist visit, imaging, or initial evaluation), making comparisons across studies difficult. The most common interval was diagnosis to treatment initiation, with reported medians ranging from 6 to 45 days. Fourteen articles reported information on survival, 14 on healthcare utilization, 18 on disparities, and 14 on interventions; results varied by study. Significant variation exists in how access to care time delays are reported. Many patients across different facilities and countries appear to be facing substantial waits to receive lung cancer diagnosis and care. Further research, using common wait-interval metrics, is needed to evaluate and improve timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.

The Oncology Care Model: A Critique.

Rapidly increasing national health care expenditures are a major area of concern as threats to the integrity of the health care system. Significant increases in the cost of care for patients with cancer are driven by numerous factors, most importantly the cost of hospital care and escalating pharmaceutical costs. The current fee-for-service system (FFS) has been identified as a potential driver of the increasing cost of care, and multiple stakeholders are interested in replacing FFS with a system that improves the quality of care while at the same time reducing cost. Several models have been piloted, including a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI)-sponsored medical home model (COME HOME) for patients with solid tumors that was able to generate savings by integrating a phone triage system, pathways, and seamless patient care 7 days a week to reduce overall cost of care, mostly by decreasing patient admissions to hospitals and referrals to emergency departments. CMMI is now launching a new pilot model, the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which differs from COME HOME in several important ways. It does not abolish FFS but provides an additional payment in 6-month increments for each patient on active cancer treatment. It also allows practices to participate in savings if they can decrease the overall cost of care, to include all chemotherapy and supportive care drugs, and fulfill certain quality metrics. A critical discussion of the proposed model, which is scheduled to start in 2016, will be provided at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting with practicing oncologists and a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) representative.

Herpes simplex encephalitis as a complication of whole-brain radiotherapy: a case report and review of the literature.

A 55-year-old male recently diagnosed with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma presented with altered mental status approximately 1 week after the completion of 14 fractions of whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases. On admission, he was somnolent but oriented and without focal neurological deficits. Brain imaging revealed marked regression of his brain metastases. Laboratory values were only significant for hyponatremia with urine hyperosmolality consistent with syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion. The patient developed seizures 3 days after admission, at which time cerebrospinal fluid was significant for positive herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1 PCR but with a negative cell count, and acyclovir was started for HSV encephalitis (HSE). After 3 weeks of acyclovir 10 mg/dl i.v. 3 times per day, he had significant neurological recovery and was discharged. Although HSE is a relatively rare condition, it is the most common cause of sporadic encephalitis in Western countries. Since the pathogenesis is believed to be due to the reactivation of latent HSV, it is possible that patients who are immunosuppressed are at higher risk for HSE. In addition, patients who are immunosuppressed or immunocompromised often present atypically, which may delay time to diagnosis and treatment, thus significantly worsening prognosis. This case report intends to raise awareness of this severe condition in the context of patients who have received WBRT and immunosuppressive therapy. In addition, important considerations of diagnosis and treatment of HSE in this patient population are discussed.

Assessment of perceived cost to the patient and other barriers to clinical trial participation.

PURPOSE: Less than 5% of patients with cancer participate in trials. Few studies have specifically addressed the role of cost to the patient as an influence on trial participation. Our main purpose was to determine the importance of added cost as a barrier to clinical trial participation in the community setting. Our secondary goal was to determine the most prevalent barriers to trial participation for patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four community practices in New England issued surveys to consecutive cohorts of patients with cancer. Patients were assessed for eligibility for clinical trials at their practice site. Trial-eligible patients who declined participation were asked to select reasons that contributed to their decision. RESULTS: Surveys were issued to 1,755 patients. Seventy-one percent of all trial-eligible patients returned surveys. Forty-four percent of nonparticipating trial-eligible patients did not recall hearing about clinical trials from their provider. The most common reasons cited by trial-eligible patients for declining trial participation were fear of adverse effects (50%) and discomfort with random assignment (44%). Twenty-eight percent cited concerns about added cost, and 12% noted cost as the most important factor in their decision. CONCLUSION: Concerns about adverse effects and random assignment were the most common reasons cited by patients declining trial participation in four community oncology practices in New England. Cost considerations were important for a significant proportion of these patients. Many patients eligible for trial participation were not informed by their provider about the availability of research trials.

Factor V Leiden, prothrombin 20210A and the risk of venous thrombosis among cancer patients.

Cancer patients have an increased risk of venous thrombosis (VT). The association of factor V Leiden (FVL) and the prothrombin 20210A variant with VT in cancer patients is not established. We genotyped 101 cancer patients with VT and 101 cancer patients without VT for these polymorphisms. Five cases and three controls were heterozygous for FVL, yielding an odds ratio of 1.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-10.7). Five cases and no controls were heterozygous for prothrombin 20210A, for an odds ratio of 6.7 (95% CI 0.9-infinity). Prothrombin 20210A may be associated with VT risk among cancer patients.