Barriers to clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing: a policy Delphi panel's solutions

Impact of next-generation sequencing vs polymerase chain reaction testing on payer costs and clinical outcomes throughout the treatment journeys of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

For patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing has been associated with a faster time to appropriate targeted therapy and more comprehensive testing relative to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. However, the impact on payer costs and clinical outcomes during patients' treatment journeys has not been fully characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR biomarker testing among patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC from a US payers' perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model assessed costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR testing from the start of testing up to 3 years after. Patients entered the model after receiving biomarker test results and then initiated first-line (1L) targeted or nontargeted therapy (immunotherapy and/or chemotherapy) depending on actionable mutation detection. A few patients with an actionable mutation were not detected by PCR and inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy. At each 1-month cycle, patients could remain on treatment with 1L, progress to second line or later (2L+), or die. Literature-based inputs included the rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), targeted and nontargeted therapy costs, total costs of testing, and medical costs of 1L, 2L+, and death. Per patient average PFS and OS as well as cumulative costs were reported for NGS and PCR testing.

RESULTS

In a modeled population of 100 patients (75% commercial and 25% Medicare), 45.9% of NGS and 40.0% of PCR patients tested positive for an actionable mutation. Relative to PCR, NGS was associated with $7,386 in savings per patient (NGS = $326,154; PCR = $333,540) at 1 year, driven by lower costs of testing, including estimated costs of delayed care and nontargeted therapy initiation before receiving test results (NGS = $8,866; PCR = $16,373). Treatment costs were similar (NGS = $305,644; PCR = $305,283). In the PCR cohort, the per patient costs of inappropriate 1L nontargeted therapy owing to undetected mutations were $6,455, $6,566, and $6,569 over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Relative to PCR testing, NGS was associated with $4,060 in savings at 2 years and $1,092 at 3 years. Patients who initiated 1L targeted therapy had an additional 5.4, 8.8, and 10.4 months of PFS and an additional 1.4, 3.6, and 5.3 months of OS over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, relative to those who inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this Markov model, as early as year 1, and over 3 years following biomarker testing, patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC undergoing NGS testing are projected to have cost savings and longer PFS and OS relative to those tested with PCR.

Barriers and facilitators to next-generation sequencing use in United States oncology settings: a systematic review

Aim: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumors can inform treatment decisions; however, uptake remains low. This objective of this systematic review was to identify barriers to and facilitators of NGS in US oncology settings.Materials & methods: Embase and MEDLINE were searched in March 2023 for articles published from 2012 to 2023 on barriers and facilitators of NGS adoption for solid tumors. Surveys, interviews and observational studies were eligible. Studies on genetic testing for hereditary cancers and non-US studies were excluded. The Motheral scale, Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist and McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to assess study quality. Data were synthesized narratively.Results: Twenty-one studies were included. Study participants were clinicians, payers and administrators. Key barriers included complex reimbursement processes and uncertainties around clinical utility. Including recommendations for NGS in clinical practice guidelines was a key facilitator, although insurance policies were often more restrictive than guideline recommendations.Conclusion: Uptake of NGS is increasing but barriers remain. Changes to the current reimbursement frameworks are needed to increase access to NGS. The impact of implementing the 2018 National Coverage Determination, which allows access to NGS for all Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer, is not yet evident in the published literature.

Using digital technologies to diagnose in the home: recommendations from a Delphi panel

Rapid advances in digital technology have expanded the availability of diagnostic tools beyond traditional medical settings. Previously confined to clinical environments, these many diagnostic capabilities are now accessible outside the clinic. This study utilized the Delphi method, a consensus-building approach, to develop recommendations for the development and deployment of these innovative technologies. The study findings present the 29 consensus-based recommendations generated through the Delphi process, providing valuable insights and guidance for stakeholders involved in the implementation and utilization of these novel diagnostic solutions. These recommendations serve as a roadmap for navigating the complexities of integrating digital diagnostics into healthcare practice outside traditional settings like hospitals and clinics.

Mapping the value for money of precision medicine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to quantify heterogeneity in the value for money of precision medicine (PM) by application types across contexts and conditions and to quantify sources of heterogeneity to areas of particular promises or concerns as the field of PM moves forward.

Methods

A systemic search was performed in Embase, Medline, EconLit, and CRD databases for studies published between 2011 and 2021 on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of PM interventions. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time GDP per capita of each study country, the net monetary benefit (NMB) of PM was pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Sources of heterogeneity and study biases were examined using random-effects meta-regressions, jackknife sensitivity analysis, and the biases in economic studies checklist.

Results

Among the 275 unique CEAs of PM, publicly sponsored studies found neither genetic testing nor gene therapy cost-effective in general, which was contradictory to studies funded by commercial entities and early stage evaluations. Evidence of PM being cost-effective was concentrated in a genetic test for screening, diagnosis, or as companion diagnostics (pooled NMBs, $48,152, $8,869, $5,693, p < 0.001), in the form of multigene panel testing (pooled NMBs = $31,026, p < 0.001), which only applied to a few disease areas such as cancer and high-income countries. Incremental effectiveness was an essential value driver for varied genetic tests but not gene therapy.

Conclusion

Precision medicine's value for money across application types and contexts was difficult to conclude from published studies, which might be subject to systematic bias. The conducting and reporting of CEA of PM should be locally based and standardized for meaningful comparisons.

Measurable Residual Disease Testing in Multiple Myeloma Routine Clinical Practice: A Modified Delphi Study

We used a modified Delphi approach to establish areas of consensus and nonconsensus regarding the utility of determining measurable residual disease (MRD) to assess multiple myeloma (MM) treatment response, which may inform disease management and design of future clinical trials. This modified Delphi study incorporated 2 iterative rounds of surveys to evaluate the opinions of an expert panel of 61 practicing hematological oncologists from across 14 countries in Europe concerning the use of MRD testing in MM management. Survey 1 assessed experts' opinions on MRD testing in different clinical situations and associated challenges. Survey 2 focused on the lack of consensus areas identified in survey 1. Consensus to an individual question was defined a priori as 75% agreement or disagreement by the panel. From the 2 rounds of surveys, the experts reached consensus agreement that MRD testing should be performed in newly diagnosed or relapsed patients who achieved complete response (CR) or better after transplantation. In transplant-ineligible patients, experts recommended MRD testing in those who are ≤70 years old and in CR. If a patient was previously positive on positron-emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT), both MRD and PET/CT should be assessed at CR. MRD testing should be performed ≤6 months after transplantation and every 6-12 months in continuously treated patients in CR. There was no consensus on making treatment decisions based on MRD status. MRD testing is an important component of clinical management in MM. Additional data will further clarify the role of MRD in guiding treatment decisions.

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

BACKGROUND

To assess the total cost of testing associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from a Medicare and US commercial payer's perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision tree model considered testing for genomic alterations in EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, KRAS, MET, HER2, RET, NTRK1 among patients with newly diagnosed mNSCLC using (1) liquid or tissue biopsy NGS tests, (2) exclusionary mutation (KRAS) test followed by sequential PCR tests, (3) sequential PCR tests, or (4) hotspot panel PCR tests. The alteration test sequence followed clinical guideline recommendations. Inputs based on literature, expert opinion, or assumptions included prevalence of mNSCLC, proportion of patients using each testing strategy (50% NGS [90% tissue, 10% liquid], 10% exclusionary, 10% sequential, 30% hotspot), proportion testing positive for each genomic mutation, rebiopsy rates, and costs for testing and associated medical care. Time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation and total costs were calculated for NGS, each PCR testing strategy, and all PCR strategies combined.

RESULTS

Among a hypothetical plan of 1,000,000 members (75% commercial, 25% Medicare), 1,119 patients were estimated to have mNSCLC and be eligible for testing. Estimated mean time to appropriate targeted therapy was 2 weeks for NGS and 6 weeks for PCR (sequential: 9 weeks, exclusionary: 8 weeks, hotspot: 3 weeks). Mean per patient costs were $4,932 for NGS and $6,605 for PCR (exclusionary: $5,563, sequential: $6,263, hotspot: $7,066). Per patient costs were higher from a commercial perspective (NGS: $6,225; PCR: $8,430) relative to Medicare (NGS: $2,099; PCR: $2,646); nevertheless, NGS was the least costly testing strategy across plan types.

CONCLUSION

NGS was associated with the fastest time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation and lowest total cost of testing compared to PCR testing strategies for newly diagnosed patients with mNSCLC.

Precision Population Medicine in Primary Care: The Sanford Chip Experience

Genetic testing has the potential to revolutionize primary care, but few health systems have developed the infrastructure to support precision population medicine applications or attempted to evaluate its impact on patient and provider outcomes. In 2018, Sanford Health, the nation's largest rural nonprofit health care system, began offering genetic testing to its primary care patients. To date, more than 11,000 patients have participated in the Sanford Chip Program, over 90% of whom have been identified with at least one informative pharmacogenomic variant, and about 1.5% of whom have been identified with a medically actionable predisposition for disease. This manuscript describes the rationale for offering the Sanford Chip, the programs and infrastructure implemented to support it, and evolving plans for research to evaluate its real-world impact.

Creating genetic reports that are understood by nonspecialists: a case study

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend that genetic reports should be clear to nonspecialists, including patients. We investigated the feasibility of creating reports for cystic fibrosis carrier testing through a rapid user-centered design process that built on a previously developed generic template. We evaluated the new reports' communication efficacy and effects on comprehension against comparable reports used in current clinical practice.

METHODS

Thirty participants took part in three rounds of interviews. Usability problems were identified and rectified in each round. One hundred ninety-three participants took part in an evaluation of the resulting reports measuring subjective comprehension, risk probability comprehension, perceived communication efficacy, and other factors, as compared with standard reports.

RESULTS

Participants viewing the user-centered reports rated them as clearer, easier to understand, and more effective at communicating key information than standard reports. Both groups ended up with equivalent knowledge of risk probabilities, although we observed differences in how those probabilities were perceived.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that by starting with a patient-friendly generic report template and modifying it for specific scenarios with a rapid user-centered design process, reports can be produced that are more effective at communicating key information. The resulting reports are now being implemented into clinical care.

Are Global Health Systems Ready for Transformative Therapies?

BACKGROUND

We have seen significant advancement in a range of health technologies, some with transformative or curative potential. Nevertheless, it is often unclear how global health systems recognize or reward innovation.

OBJECTIVES

To consider what is transformative, challenges for transformative therapies, and downstream health ecosystem effects.

METHODS

A systematic review of publications in English between 2012 and 2018 was conducted with a focus on value assessment processes and health system effects of a range of breakthrough health technology categories. After screening 9012 records, 222 unique studies were identified. The study also included an analysis of 100 health technology assessments (HTAs) from 5 markets to consider how and in what ways global HTA bodies evaluate transformative therapies. Global sales and technology/procedure utilization data were also evaluated to gain insights into patient access and commercial impact.

RESULTS

This article evaluated uncertainties around evidence of efficacy, safety, and duration of effect, as well as underlying study quality and methodological considerations in the target categories. Although many HTA evaluations had similar approaches to assessing parameters such as safety, there were significant differences across technology categories. Technology-driven trends also surfaced where global HTA and payer systems may not yet be prepared to recognize and reward emerging technology impacts, including use of next-generation diagnostic results to guide care, considering novel impacts on therapy sequencing and clinical pathway management, and changes in payment and health delivery models.

CONCLUSIONS

Some trends stemming from rapid evolution of breakthrough therapies will prompt reconsideration of our conventional value assessment and reward models, because health system measurement and management processes have not fully anticipated their effects.

Public Involvement in Global Genomics Research: A Scoping Review

Public involvement in research occurs when the public, patients, or research participants are actively contributing to the research process. Public involvement has been acknowledged as a key priority for prominent human genomics research initiatives in many different countries. However, to date, there has been no detailed analysis or review of the features, methods, and impacts of public involvement occurring in human genomics research projects worldwide. Here, we review the reported public involvement in 96 human genomics projects (initiatives), based on a database of initiatives hosted by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, according to information reported on public domain websites. To conduct the scoping review, we applied a structured categorization of criteria to all information extracted from the search. We found that only a third of all initiatives reported public involvement in any capacity (32/96, 33%). In those reporting public involvement, we found considerable variation in both the methods and tasks of involvement. Some noteworthy initiatives reported diverse and comprehensive ways of involving the public, occurring through different stages of the research project cycle. Three notable initiatives reported a total of eight distinct impacts as a result of involving people. Our findings suggest there would be intrinsic value in having more public involvement occur in human genomics research worldwide. We also suggest that more systematic ways of reporting and evaluating involvement would be highly beneficial, to help develop best practices.

Oversight of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: Recommendations From a Delphi Panel

A key aim of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is to generate data that are important to patients by deliberately and extensively involving them in all aspects of research, from design to dissemination. However, certain elements of PCOR raise challenging and potentially novel ethical and regulatory issues for institutional review boards and oversight bodies. These challenges stem primarily from the engagement of patients in roles other than research subject, such as advisors, study personnel, and co-investigators, which gives rise to questions about appropriate levels of protection, training, and education, as well as identifying and managing conflicts of interest. This article presents and discusses recommendations from a Delphi expert panel that was convened to address these and other PCOR-related oversight challenges.

Cost Analyses of Genomic Sequencing: Lessons Learned from the MedSeq Project

OBJECTIVE

To summarize lessons learned while analyzing the costs of integrating whole genome sequencing into the care of cardiology and primary care patients in the MedSeq Project by conducting the first randomized controlled trial of whole genome sequencing in general and specialty medicine.

METHODS

Case study that describes key methodological and data challenges that were encountered or are likely to emerge in future work, describes the pros and cons of approaches considered by the study team, and summarizes the solutions that were implemented.

RESULTS

Major methodological challenges included defining whole genome sequencing, structuring an appropriate comparator, measuring downstream costs, and examining clinical outcomes. Discussions about solutions addressed conceptual and practical issues that arose because of definitions and analyses around the cost of genomic sequencing in trial-based studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The MedSeq Project provides an instructive example of how to conduct a cost analysis of whole genome sequencing that feasibly incorporates best practices while being sensitive to the varied applications and diversity of results it may produce. Findings provide guidance for researchers to consider when conducting or analyzing economic analyses of whole genome sequencing and other next-generation sequencing tests, particularly regarding costs.