Value of next generation sequencing (NGS) testing in advanced cancer patients

References

• Research C for DE and New Drugs at FDA: CDER’s New Molecular Entities and New Therapeutic Biological Products [Internet]. FDA. FDA; 2022 [cited 2022 Nov 14]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/new-drugs-fda-cders-new-molecular-entities-and-new-therapeutic-biological-products
   Google Scholar
• Haslam A, Olivier T, Tuia J, et al. Umbrella review of basket trials testing a drug in tumors with actionable genetic biomarkers. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):46. doi:10.1186/s12885-022-10421-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruno DS, Hess LM, Li X, et al. Disparities in biomarker testing and clinical trial enrollment among patients with lung, breast, or colorectal cancers in the United States. J Clin Oncol Precis Oncol. 2022;6(6):e2100427. doi:10.1200/PO.21.00427.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sireci AN, Krein PM, Hess LM, et al. Real-world biomarker testing patterns in patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a US community-based oncology practice setting. Clin Lung Cancer. 2023;24(5):429–436. doi:10.1016/j.cllc.2023.03.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khorana AA, Tullio K, Elson P, et al. Time to initial cancer treatment in the United States and association with survival over time: an observational study. Ahmad A, editor. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213209. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Illei PB, Wong W, Wu N, et al. ALK testing trends and patterns among community practices in the United States. J Clin Oncol Precis Oncol. 2018;2(2):1–11. doi:10.1200/PO.18.00159.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xu F, Rimm AA, Fu P, et al. The impact of delayed chemotherapy on its completion and survival outcomes in stage II colon cancer patients. Zhang C, editor. PLoS One. 2014;9:e107993. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colomer R, Mondejar R, Romero-Laorden N, et al. When should we order a next generation sequencing test in a patient with cancer? EClinicalMedicine. 2020;25:100487. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100487.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• White T, Szelinger S, LoBello J, et al. Analytic validation and clinical utilization of the comprehensive genomic profiling test, GEM ExTra®. Oncotarget. 2021;12(8):726–739. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.27945.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chakravarty D, Johnson A, Sklar J, et al. Somatic genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced cancer: ASCO provisional clinical opinion. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(11):1231–1258. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.02767.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treatment by Cancer Type [Internet]. NCCN. [cited 2022 Nov 14]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/category_1
   Google Scholar
• Yu TM, Morrison C, Gold EJ, et al. Budget impact of Next-Generation sequencing for molecular assessment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Value Health. 2018;21(11):1278–1285. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey MJ, Cunningham R, Sawchyn B, et al. Budget impact analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol Precis Oncol. 2021;5:1611–1624. doi:10.1200/PO.20.00540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steuten L, Goulart B, Meropol NJ, et al. Cost effectiveness of multigene panel sequencing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol Clin Cancer Inform. 2019;3:1–10. doi:10.1200/CCI.19.00002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong OM, Poonnen PJ, Winski D, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of tumor genomic profiling to guide first-line targeted therapy selection in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. Value Health. 2022;25(4):582–594. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.09.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennell NA, Mutebi A, Zhou Z-Y, et al. Economic impact of next-generation sequencing versus single-gene testing to detect genomic alterations in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer using a decision analytic model. J Clin Oncol Precis Oncol. 2019;3:1–9. doi:10.1200/PO.18.00356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zou D, Ye W, Hess LM, et al. Diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of next generation sequencing–based testing for treatment of patients with advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. J Mol Diagn. 2022;24(8):901–914. doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2022.04.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices—budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(5):336–347. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines: Treatment by cancer type. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/category_1
   Google Scholar
• Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-355): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10265):1817–1828. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32531-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortes J, Rugo HS, Cescon DW, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(3):217–226. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2202809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson M, Im S-A, Senkus E, et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(6):523–533. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1706450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson ME, Tung N, Conte P, et al. OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: Olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(4):558–566. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doebele RC, Drilon A, Paz-Ares L, et al. Entrectinib in patients with advanced or metastatic NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours: integrated analysis of three phase 1–2 trials. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(2):271–282. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30691-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marabelle A, Fakih M, Lopez J, et al. Association of tumour mutational burden with outcomes in patients with advanced solid tumours treated with pembrolizumab: prospective biomarker analysis of the multicohort, open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(10):1353–1365. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30445-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marabelle A, Le DT, Ascierto PA, et al. Efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with noncolorectal high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair–deficient cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(1):1–10. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.02105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yardley DA, Coleman R, Conte P, et al. nab-Paclitaxel plus carboplatin or gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the tnAcity trial. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1763–1770. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T, et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1065–1075. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70330-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meric-Bernstam F, Hurwitz H, Kanwal Pratap Singh R, et al. Pertuzumab and trastuzumab for HER2-amplified metastatic colorectal cancer: an updated report from MyPathway, a multicentre, open-label, phase 2a multiple basket study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(4):518–530. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30904-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Eastern cooperative oncology group study E3200. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(12):1539–1544. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.6305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soria J-C, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):113–125. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1713137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang JC-H, Schuler MH, Yamamoto N, et al. LUX-Lung 3: a randomized, open-label, phase III study of afatinib versus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line treatment for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung harboring EGFR-activating mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(18_suppl):LBA7500–LBA7500. doi:10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.lba7500.
   Google Scholar
• Yang JC-H, Wu Y-L, Schuler M, et al. Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(2):141–151. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71173-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadgeel S, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Speranza G, et al. Updated analysis from KEYNOTE-189: pembrolizumab or placebo plus pemetrexed and platinum for previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(14):1505–1517. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drilon A, Chiu C-H, Fan Y, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of entrectinib in ROS1 fusion–positive NSCLC. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2022;3(6):100332. doi:10.1016/j.jtocrr.2022.100332.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolf J, Seto T, Han J-Y, et al. Capmatinib in MET exon 14–mutated or MET-amplified non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(10):944–957. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2002787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drilon A, Oxnard GR, Tan DSW, et al. Efficacy of selpercatinib in RET fusion–positive non–small-Cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(9):813–824. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2005653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mok TSK, Wu Y-L, Kudaba I, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10183):1819–1830. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32409-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bono J, Mateo J, Fizazi K, et al. Olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(22):2091–2102. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannock IF, de Wit R, Berry WR, et al. Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(15):1502–1512. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa040720.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genentech, Inc. Highlights of prescribing information Alecensa® (alectinib) [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Apr 29]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/208434s003lbl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Highlights of prescribing information Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Oct 18]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/125514s096lbl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals. An open-label. Single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dabrafenib in combination with trametinib in Chinese patients with BRAF V600E mutation-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 6]. Report No.: NCT04452877. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04452877
   Google Scholar
• National Cancer Institute. SEER*explorer application [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer
   Google Scholar
• Gallicchio L, Devasia TP, Tonorezos E, et al. Estimation of the numbers of individuals living with metastatic cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114(11):1476–1483.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirby M, Hirst C, Crawford ED. Characterising the castration-resistant prostate cancer population: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65(11):1180–1192. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02799.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bureau UC. Annual social and economic supplements [Internet]. Census.gov. [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/cps/cps-asec.html
   Google Scholar
• Hempelmann JA, Lockwood CM, Konnick EQ, et al. Microsatellite instability in prostate cancer by PCR or next-generation sequencing. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):29. doi:10.1186/s40425-018-0341-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang RSP, Severson E, Haberberger J, et al. Landscape of biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer using comprehensive genomic profiling and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry. Pathol Oncol Res. 2021;27:592997. doi:10.3389/pore.2021.592997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikeda S, Elkin SK, Tomson BN, et al. Next-generation sequencing of prostate cancer: genomic and pathway alterations, potential actionability patterns, and relative rate of use of clinical-grade testing. Cancer Biol Ther. 2019;20(2):219–226. doi:10.1080/15384047.2018.1523849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haslam A, Kim MS, Prasad V. Updated estimates of eligibility for and response to genome-targeted oncology drugs among US cancer patients, 2006-2020. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(7):926–932. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.04.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batra A, Kong S, Cheung WY. Eligibility of real-world patients with metastatic breast cancer for clinical trials. Breast. 2020;54:171–178. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2020.10.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballatore Z, Pistelli M, Bracci R, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer and BRCA mutation: looking at the future. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:vi50. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw364.24.
   Google Scholar
• Mittendorf EA, Philips AV, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. PD-L1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2014;2(4):361–370. doi:10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Clinical laboratory fee schedule [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Jul 7]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-fee-for-service-payment/clinicallabfeesched
   Google Scholar
• Physicians’ Fee and Coding Guide. Atlanta (GA): inHealth Professional Services; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Medicaid-to-Medicare Fee Index [Internet]. KFF. 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-to-medicare-fee-index/
   Google Scholar
• Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to the Congress: Medicare payment policy [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.medpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/march-2016-report-to-the-congress-medicare-payment-policy.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Foundation Medicine, Inc. FoundationOne®CDx Technical Information. [Internet]. Available from: https://assets.ctfassets.net/w98cd481qyp0/41rJj28gFwtxCwHQxopaEb/70c6c95b4edfe8c18c27c2e2461e5c28/FoundationOne_CDx_Label_Technical_Info.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Caris Life Sciences’ Molecular Intelligence Platform Identifies Patients with MSI-High (or Mismatch Repair Deficient) Solid Tumors More Likely to Respond to Immunotherapy [Internet]. Caris Life Sci. 2017. Available from: https://www.carislifesciences.com/about/news-and-media/caris-life-sciences-molecular-intelligence-platform-identifies-patients-msi-high-mismatch-repair-deficient-solid-tumors-likely-respond-immunotherapy/
   Google Scholar
• Tempus. xT Validation [Internet]. 05/22. Available from: https://www.tempus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Tempus-xT_Validation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Exeter Clinical Laboratory International. Next generation sequencing – targeted gene panels [Internet]. Available from: https://www.exeterlaboratory.com/test/next-generation-sequencing-targeted-gene-panels/
   Google Scholar
• Kluwer W. Price Rx [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://pricerx.medispan.com/
   Google Scholar
• Reyes C, Engel-Nitz NM, DaCosta Byfield S, et al. Cost of disease progression in patients with metastatic breast, lung, and colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2019;24(9):1209–1218. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng Z, Yabroff KR, Guy GP, et al. Annual medical expenditure and productivity loss among colorectal, female breast, and prostate cancer survivors in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(5):djv382. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv382.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ting J, Ayer T, Dalgic OO, et al. Productivity losses under various second-line recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer treatment scenarios in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:e17520–e17520.
   Google Scholar
• Reitsma M, Fox J, Borre PV, et al. Effect of a collaboration between a health plan, oncology practice, and comprehensive genomic profiling company from the payer perspective. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(5):601–611. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2019.18309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Home - ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. [cited 2022 Nov 14]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/
   Google Scholar
• Beaubier N, Bontrager M, Huether R, et al. Integrated genomic profiling expands clinical options for patients with cancer. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(11):1351–1360. doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0259-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Personalized Medicine Coalition. Personalized medicine at FDA: the scope & significance of progress in 2021 [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org/Userfiles/PMC-Corporate/file/Personalized_Medicine_at_FDA_The_Scope_Significance_of_Progress_in_2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dalal AA, Guerin A, Mutebi A, et al. Economic analysis of BRAF gene mutation testing in real world practice using claims data: costs of single gene versus panel tests in patients with lung cancer. J Med Econ. 2018;21(7):649–655. doi:10.1080/13696998.2018.1450261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanderpoel J, Stevens AL, Emond B, et al. Total cost of testing for genomic alterations associated with next-generation sequencing versus polymerase chain reaction testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: total cost of NGS vs PCR genomic testing in mNSCLC. J Med Econ. 2022;25:457–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unger JM, Vaidya R, Hershman DL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the magnitude of structural, clinical, and physician and patient barriers to cancer clinical trial participation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(3):245–255. doi:10.1093/jnci/djy221.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neeraj Sood P, Rocio Ribero P, Ryan M, et al. The association between drug rebates and list prices. 2020 [cited 2022 Nov 15]. Available from: https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/research/the-association-between-drug-rebates-and-list-prices/
   Google Scholar
• Westphalen CB, Krebs MG, Le Tourneau C, et al. Genomic context of NTRK1/2/3 fusion-positive tumours from a large real-world population. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2021;5(1):69. doi:10.1038/s41698-021-00206-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Meara TA, Tolaney SM. Tumor mutational burden as a predictor of immunotherapy response in breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2021;12(5):394–400. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.27877.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI inflation calculator [Internet]. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics . CPI Inflat. Calc. 2022 [cited 2022 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
   Google Scholar