Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Genetic Testing and Tailored First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

Cost-Effectiveness and the Economics of Genomic Testing and Molecularly Matched Therapies

Cost-effectiveness analysis of precision oncology can help guide value-driven care. Next-generation sequencing is increasingly cost-efficient over single gene testing because diagnostic algorithms require multiple individual gene tests to determine biomarker status. Matched targeted therapy is often not cost-effective due to the high cost associated with drug treatment. However, genomic profiling can promote cost-effective care by identifying patients who are unlikely to benefit from therapy. Additional applications of genomic profiling such as universal testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and germline testing in patients with cancer may represent cost-effective approaches compared with traditional history-based diagnostic methods.

Assessing the utility of measurement methods applied in economic evaluations of pharmacogenomics applications

An increasing number of economic evaluations are published annually investigating the economic effectiveness of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing. This work was designed to provide a comprehensive summary of the available utility methods used in cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis studies of PGx interventions. A comprehensive review was conducted to identify economic analysis studies using a utility valuation method for PGx testing. A total of 82 studies met the inclusion criteria. A majority of studies were from the USA and used the EuroQol-5D questionnaire, as the utility valuation method. Cardiovascular disorders was the most studied therapeutic area while discrete-choice studies mainly focused on patients' willingness to undergo PGx testing. Future research in applying other methodologies in PGx economic evaluation studies would improve the current research environment and provide better results.

Cost Evaluation Analysis of Genetic Testing and Tailored Adjuvant Imatinib in Patients With Resected High-Risk GI Stromal Tumors: The Brazilian Perspective

PURPOSE

Mutations of the KIT gene are the molecular hallmark of most GI stromal tumors (GISTs). Imatinib has revolutionized GIST treatment. Adjuvant imatinib for 3 years is the standard of care for high-risk resected GIST. However, the GIST molecular biologic profile has found different responses to this approach. Despite this, genetic testing at diagnosis is not a routine and empirical adjuvant imatinib remains the rule. Barriers to genetic profiling include concerns about the cost and utility of testing. This analysis aims to determine whether targeted genetic testing reduces costs as an ancillary tool for a limited-resource scenario instead of adjuvant empirical imatinib in patients with resected high-risk GIST.

METHODS

The cost evaluation analysis of molecular testing for GIST was based on the Cost of Preventing an Event (COPE), considering the Number Needed to Treat and the costs of each test compared with the cost of 3-year empirical adjuvant imatinib and real treatment costs (median number of cycles) from the public and private Brazilian Healthcare System's perspective. The analysis compared the costs of the molecular tests (broad next-generation sequencing [NGS], GS Infinity DNA/RNA assay, and targeted NGS: GS Focus GIST and the Fleury GIST Tumor DNA sequencing panel), costs of drug acquisition, considering discounts (imatinib mesylate and Glivec), and the costs of supportive care.

RESULTS

In both scenarios, public and private, regardless of the use of imatinib or Glivec, tailoring adjuvant treatment reduced costs, irrespective of the number of cycles. The only exception was the combination of the broad NGS test and imatinib in the Public Healthcare System.

CONCLUSION

The molecularly tailored adjuvant imatinib reduced costs considering the COPE of available NGS tests for both the public and private Brazilian health care systems.

Comprehensive Review on the Clinical Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests for the Management of Advanced Cancer

PURPOSE

This review summarizes the published evidence on the clinical impact of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests to guide management of patients with cancer in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature review to identify recent English language publications that presented progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced cancer receiving NGS testing.

RESULTS

Among 6,475 publications identified, 31 evaluated PFS and OS among subgroups of patients who received NGS-informed cancer management. PFS and OS were significantly longer among patients who were matched to targeted treatment in 11 and 16 publications across tumor types, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our review indicates that NGS-informed treatment can have an impact on survival across tumor types.

Consensus Statements on Precision Oncology in the China Greater Bay Area

BACKGROUND

Next-generation sequencing comprehensive genomic panels (NGS CGPs) have enabled the delivery of tailor-made therapeutic approaches to improve survival outcomes in patients with cancer. Within the China Greater Bay Area (GBA), territorial differences in clinical practices and health care systems and strengthening collaboration warrant a regional consensus to consolidate the development and integration of precision oncology (PO). Therefore, the Precision Oncology Working Group (POWG) formulated standardized principles for the clinical application of molecular profiling, interpretation of genomic alterations, and alignment of actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapy to deliver clinical services of excellence and evidence-based care to patients with cancer in the China GBA.

METHODS

Thirty experts used a modified Delphi method. The evidence extracted to support the statements was graded according to the GRADE system and reported according to the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, version 2.0.

RESULTS

The POWG reached consensus in six key statements: harmonization of reporting and quality assurance of NGS; molecular tumor board and clinical decision support systems for PO; education and training; research and real-world data collection, patient engagement, regulations, and financial reimbursement of PO treatment strategies; and clinical recommendations and implementation of PO in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

POWG consensus statements standardize the clinical application of NGS CGPs, streamline the interpretation of clinically significant genomic alterations, and align actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapies. The POWG consensus statements may harmonize the utility and delivery of PO in China's GBA.

Insights into the medical management of gastrointestinal stromal tumours: lessons learnt from a dedicated gastrointestinal stromal tumour clinic in North India

Background

The advent of molecular driver alterations has brought in a revolutionary transformation in the treatment landscape of gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST). However, there is a paucity of data regarding mutational testing prevalence and associated outcomes from India.

Methods

It was a retrospective study. We reviewed the case records of all patients diagnosed with GIST in a tertiary care centre from 2015 to 2021. The clinicopathological, mutational analysis and treatment plans were recorded. The study cohort was characterised by descriptive statistics.

Results

Our study included 120 patients with a median age of 53 years (range: 28-77), with a male preponderance of 2:1. The most common site of the primary was the stomach (50%), followed by the small intestine (37%), with 55.8% of the patients having disseminated disease at presentation with a predominance of liver metastasis (67%). The prevalence of mutational analysis among patients prior to referral was 4%. 60.8% of the patients at our clinic had mutational analysis performed, and unavailability of analysis in the rest was due to financial constraints (12.5%), exhaustion of tissue (7.5%), reluctance to repeat biopsy (4.1%) and low-risk patients. We report c-kit in the majority (52%), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) in 19.2% and wild type in 16.4% along with the rarer subtypes: succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-deficient GIST in 10.9% and Neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) fusion in 1.3%. Four of the eight SDH-deficient GIST patients had germline mutations (50%). The knowledge of driver mutations led to a change of treatment in 39.7% (29/73), i.e. stoppage of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in 3, switch of TKI in 23, increase in TKI dose in 2 and upfront surgery in 1. The most common change was the use of sunitinib and regorafenib in patients with SDH-deficient GIST.

Conclusion

Our study is one of the largest comprehensive series describing the clinical and mutational profile of GIST from India. The mutation testing rates at primary care centres continue to be low. Despite the hurdles, a large percentage of our patients underwent molecular testing, aiding in therapeutic decision-making.

Toward a More Just System of Care in Molecular Pathology

Policy Points American health care policy must be critically assessed to establish the role it plays in sustaining and alleviating the health disparities that currently exist in molecular genetic testing. It is critical to understand the economic and sociocultural influences that drive patients to undergo or forgo molecular testing, especially in marginalized patient populations. A multipronged solution with actions necessary from multiple stakeholders is required to reduce the cost of health care, rebalance regional disparities, encourage physician engagement, reduce data bias, and earn patients' trust.

CONTEXT

The health status of a population is greatly influenced by both biological processes and external factors. For years, minority and low socioeconomic patient populations have faced worse outcomes and poorer health in the United States. Experts have worked extensively to understand the issues and find solutions to alleviate this disproportionate burden of disease. As a result, there have been some improvements and successes, but wide gaps still exist. Diagnostic molecular genetic testing and so-called personalized medicine are just now being integrated into the current American health care system. The way in which these tests are integrated can either exacerbate or reduce health disparities.

METHODS

We provide case scenarios-loosely based on real-life patients-so that nonexperts can see the impacts of complex policy decisions and unintentional biases in technology without needing to understand all the intricacies. We use data to explain these findings from an extensive literature search examining both peer-reviewed and gray literature.

FINDINGS

Access to diagnostic molecular genetic testing is not equitable or sufficient, owing to at least five major factors: (1) cost to the patient, (2) location, (3) lack of provider buy-in, (4) data-set bias, and (5) lack of public trust.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular genetic pathology can be made more equitable with the concerted efforts of multiple stakeholders. Confronting the five major factors identified here may help us usher in a new era of precision medicine without its discriminatory counterpart.

Barriers to mutational testing in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) – a survey of life raft group members

Background

Due to the low mutational testing rate in patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST), The Life Raft Group (LRG), a non-profit organization that provides support, advocacy and conducts research for patients with GIST, analyzed various factors that may have an impact on patients’ ability to receive mutational testing.

Methods

A survey about mutational testing for patients with GIST or their caregivers, was conducted in June 2020. The survey, sent to 1004 GIST patients and caregivers through email, was promoted through social media with instructions to contact the LRG to participate. The survey was designed by the LRG Patient Registry Department. Members of the LRG, regardless of Patient Registry status, were eligible to participate.

Results

A total of 295 patients/caregivers participated in this study (response rate: 29.4%). The percentage of patients who indicated they had received mutational testing was much higher in this survey (80%) than in the general GIST community (26.7%).

Several reasons were cited for having a test, including: “My doctor ordered/suggested that I have it done” (54%); “The Life Raft Group advised/suggested I have it done” (25%); “I asked my doctor to have it done” (22%); “I had it done as part of a clinical trial” (5%); “I am not sure” (3%) and “Other” (14%). Mutational testing resulted in a treatment change in 25% of cases. Patients were able to select more than one option when completing this question resulting in a percentage greater than 100.

Conclusions

The LRG membership is voluntary and proactive; patients who join are more likely to participate in surveys and mutational testing, as well as more likely to have a GIST specialist. Mutational testing can influence understanding of a patient’s GIST and the treatment best suited to each case. These are extremely important findings, as it helps ensure that patients are on the proper treatment, which should lead to better outcomes.

Biomarkers in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Status Quo and Future Perspective

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cancer worldwide, and its incidence is steadily increasing. During the last two decades, a tremendous improvement in outcome has been achieved, mainly due to the introduction of novel drugs, targeted treatment, immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and biomarker-driven patient selection. Moreover, progress in molecular diagnostics but also improvement in surgical techniques and local ablative treatments significantly contributed to this success. However, novel therapeutic approaches are needed to further improve outcome in patients diagnosed with metastatic CRC. Besides the established biomarkers for mCRC, such as microsatellite instability (MSI) or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), RAS/BRAF, sidedness and HER2 amplification, new biomarkers have to be identified to better select patients who derive the most benefit from a specific treatment. In this review, we provide an overview about therapeutic relevant and established biomarkers but also shed light on potential promising markers that may help us to better tailor therapy to the individual mCRC patient in the near future.

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor

Over the past 20 years, gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) has evolved into an increasingly complex clinical entity with ever more challenges. While surgical resection is the gold standard, advancements in genetic testing, therapeutic options, immunotherapy, and management of metastatic disease necessitate a comprehensive, multimodal approach for these tumors. This chapter highlights the importance of genomic testing of GIST, the use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for localized disease, surgical principles for GIST, as well as current and new approaches for addressing metastatic disease.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Systematic Review

Background: The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy has dramatically improved the clinical effectiveness of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), and this systematic review was conducted aiming at the cost-effectiveness analysis of TKIs in GIST.

Methods: A thorough literature search of online databases was performed, using appropriate terms such as “gastrointestinal stromal tumor or GIST,” “cost-effectiveness,” and “economic evaluation.” Data extraction was conducted independently by two authors, and completeness of reporting and quality of the evaluation were assessed. The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement.

Results: Published between 2005 and 2020, 15 articles were incorporated into the systematic review. For advanced GIST, imatinib followed by sunitinib was considered cost-effective, and regorafenib was cost-effective compared with imatinib re-challenge therapy in the third-line treatment. For resectable GIST, 3-year adjuvant imatinib therapy represented a cost-effective treatment option. The precision medicine-assisted imatinib treatment was cost-effective compared with empirical treatment.

Conclusion: Although identified studies varied in predicted costs and quality-adjusted life years, there was general agreement in study conclusions. More cost-effectiveness analysis should be conducted regarding more TKIs that have been approved for the treatment of GIST.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO: CRD42021225253.

Location of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST) in the Stomach Predicts Tumor Mutation Profile and Drug Sensitivity

PURPOSE

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) commonly arise in different regions of the stomach and are driven by various mutations (most often in KIT, PDGFRA, and SDHx). We hypothesized that the anatomic location of gastric GIST is associated with unique genomic profiles and distinct driver mutations.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We compared KIT versus non-KIT status with tumor location within the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for 2,418 patients with primary gastric GIST. Additionally, we compiled an international cohort (TransAtlantic GIST Collaborative, TAGC) of 236 patients and reviewed sequencing results, cross-sectional imaging, and operative reports. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumors located proximally versus distally. Risk factors for KIT versus non-KIT tumors were identified using multivariate regression analysis. A random forest machine learning model was then developed to determine feature importance.

RESULTS

Within the NCDB cohort, non-KIT mutants dominated distal tumor locations (P < 0.03). Proximal GIST were almost exclusively KIT mutant (96%) in the TAGC cohort, whereas 100% of PDGFRA and SDH-mutant GIST occurred in the distal stomach. On multivariate regression analysis, tumor location was associated with KIT versus non-KIT mutations. Using random forest machine learning analysis, stomach location was the most important feature for predicting mutation status.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide the first evidence that the mutational landscape of gastric GIST is related to tumor location. Proximal gastric GIST are overwhelmingly KIT mutant, irrespective of morphology or age, whereas distal tumors display non-KIT genomic diversity. Anatomic location of gastric GIST may therefore provide immediate guidance for clinical treatment decisions and selective confirmatory genomic testing when resources are limited.

Nationwide evaluation of mutation-tailored treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors in daily clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Molecular analysis of KIT and PDGFRA is critical for tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment selection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and hence recommended by international guidelines. We performed a nationwide study into the application of predictive mutation testing in GIST patients and its impact on targeted treatment decisions in clinical practice.

METHODS

Real-world clinical and pathology information was obtained from GIST patients with initial diagnosis in 2017-2018 through database linkage between the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry.

RESULTS

Predictive mutation analysis was performed in 89% of the patients with high risk or metastatic disease. Molecular testing rates were higher for patients treated in expertise centers (96%) compared to non-expertise centers (75%, P < 0.01). Imatinib therapy was applied in 81% of the patients with high risk or metastatic disease without patient's refusal or adverse characteristics, e.g., comorbidities or resistance mutations. Mutation analysis that was performed in 97% of these imatinib-treated cases, did not guarantee mutation-tailored treatment: 2% of these patients had the PDGFRA p.D842V resistance mutation and 7% initiated imatinib therapy at the normal instead of high dose despite of having a KIT exon 9 mutation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, nationwide real-world data show that over 81% of the eligible high risk or metastatic disease patients receive targeted therapy, which was tailored to the mutation status as recommended in guidelines in 88% of cases. Therefore, still 27% of these GIST patients misses out on mutation-tailored treatment. The reasons for suboptimal uptake of testing and treatment require further study.