Clinical and Economic Value of Genetic Sequencing for Personalized Therapy in Non-small-cell Lung Cancer

Compromised Outcomes in Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Actionable Mutations Initially Treated Without Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: A Retrospective Analysis of Real-World Data

PURPOSE

Identification and targeting of actionable oncogenic drivers (AODs) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has dramatically improved outcomes. However, genomic testing uptake is variable and hampered by factors including slow turnaround time, frequently resulting in initial non-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. We investigate how this behavior affects outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of real-world, deidentified data from the Integra Connect Database included adults with stage IV NSCLC newly diagnosed from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020, with mutations of EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, MET, RET, ERBB2, or NTRK. Outcomes were reported as time to next treatment or death (TTNT) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Five hundred ten patients harboring AODs were identified and grouped as follows: group A (n = 379) were treated after the AOD was reported and served as the comparator. One hundred thirty-one patients treated before their AOD report were divided into group B (n = 47) who were initially started on chemotherapy and/or checkpoint inhibitor but switched to appropriate TKI within 35 days and group C (n = 84) who were also started empirically on non-TKI and did not switch within 35 days. Survival (OS) was significantly superior in group A compared with group C; TTNT was significantly superior in group A compared with groups B and C.

CONCLUSION

For patients harboring AODs in advanced NSCLC, initial treatment before receipt of genomic test results yields significantly inferior outcomes and should be avoided. Molecular profiling panels with rapid turnaround times are essential to optimize patient outcomes and should be standard of care.

Challenges and opportunities associated with the MD Anderson IMPACT2 randomized study in precision oncology

We investigated the challenges of conducting IMPACT2, an ongoing randomized study that evaluates molecular testing and targeted therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02152254). Patients with metastatic cancer underwent tumor profiling and were randomized between the two arms when eligibility criteria were met (Part A). In Part B, patients who declined randomization could choose the study arm. In Part A, 69 (21.8%) of 317 patients were randomized; 78.2% were not randomized because of non-targetable alterations (39.8%), unavailability of clinical trial (21.8%), other reasons (12.6%), or availability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs for the indication (4.1%). In Part B, 32 (20.4%) of 157 patients were offered randomization; 16 accepted and 16 selected their treatment arm; 79.0% were not randomized (patient’s/physician’s choice, 29.3%; treatment selection prior to genomic reports, 16.6%; worsening performance status/death, 12.7%; unavailability of clinical trials, 6.4%; other, 6.4%; non-targetable alterations, 5.7%; or availability of FDA-approved drugs for the indication, 1.9%). In conclusion, although randomized controlled trials have been considered the gold standard for drug development, the execution of randomized trials in precision oncology in the advanced metastatic setting is complicated. We encountered various challenges conducting the IMPACT2 study, a large precision oncology trial in patients with diverse solid tumor types. The adaptive design of IMPACT2 enables patient randomization despite the continual FDA approval of targeted therapies, the evolving tumor biomarker landscape, and the plethora of investigational drugs. Outcomes for randomized patients are awaited.

Impact of Clinical Practice Gaps on the Implementation of Personalized Medicine in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Personalized medicine presents new opportunities for patients with cancer. However, many patients do not receive the most effective personalized treatments because of challenges associated with integrating predictive biomarker testing into clinical care. Patients are lost at various steps along the precision oncology pathway because of operational inefficiencies, limited understanding of biomarker strategies, inappropriate testing result usage, and access barriers. We examine the impact of various clinical practice gaps associated with diagnostic testing-informed personalized medicine strategies on the treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

The integration of personalized medicine into health systems: progress and a path forward

Tweetable abstract Fueled by technological advancements and the integration efforts of many pioneer health systems, personalized medicine is now being clinically implemented at measurable but incomplete levels system-wide.