Economic Analysis of Exclusionary EGFR Test Versus Up-Front NGS for Lung Adenocarcinoma in High EGFR Mutation Prevalence Areas

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Amplification May Lead to Invalid Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 Results

Background/Objectives: The cobas EGFR test v2, used for detecting EGFR mutations, can yield invalid results due to internal control (IC) issues, such as "IC not detected", "IC out of range: high Ct value", or "IC out of range: low Ct value". This study aimed to examine the incidence of invalid cobas results and explored the mechanism behind low IC Ct values. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed invalid cases, linking undetectable or high IC Ct values to inadequate DNA from small biopsies, as determined by conducting a pathological review. Cases with low IC Ct values were further tested, with the hypothesis of EGFR amplification confirmed using Sanger sequencing, the Idylla assay, next-generation sequencing (NGS), and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Results: Among 4148 cases, the incidence of invalid results was 0.99% (41/4148). In four cases with low IC Ct values, EGFR amplification was confirmed using alternative methods with successful cobas testing on diluted DNA. Conclusions: These findings suggest that EGFR amplification, rather than specimen inadequacy, is the cause of low IC Ct results, making rebiopsy unnecessary. Alternative assays or diluted DNA allow for successful EGFR testing.

Cost Effectiveness of Exclusionary EGFR Testing for Taiwanese Patients Newly Diagnosed with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Approximately half of lung adenocarcinomas in East Asia harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. EGFR testing followed by tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS), upfront tissue-based NGS, and complementary NGS approaches have emerged on the front line to guide personalized therapy. We study the cost effectiveness of exclusionary EGFR testing for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

This economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective of the healthcare sector with a lifetime horizon. Simulated patients were entered into a joint model combining decision trees and partitioned survival models upon diagnosis of advanced lung adenocarcinoma. We compared exclusionary EGFR testing with upfront tissue-based NGS and complementary NGS approaches. The model inputs were derived from regional estimates (prevalence of targetable gene alterations), trials (testing accuracy, survival outcomes, and adverse events), ACT Genomics (testing costs), National Health Insurance payments, retail prices (drug costs), and hospital cohorts (utility values). All costs were made equivalent to 2023 US dollars. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. We adopted a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$70,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. One-way deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exclusionary EGFR testing versus upfront tissue-based NGS was US$15,521 per quality-adjusted life-year, whereas the incremental net monetary benefit was US$2530. The costs of osimertinib and pembrolizumab were the major determinants. The incremental net monetary benefit of exclusionary EGFR testing versus complementary NGS approach was US$2174, and its major determinants included the true-negative rate of EGFR testing and the prevalence rate of an EGFR mutation. Given the willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$35,000, US$70,000, and US$105,000 (1, 2, and 3 per capita gross domestic product) per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that exclusionary EGFR testing would be cost effective were 79.1%, 95.6%, and 91.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that exclusionary EGFR testing is a cost-effective strategy for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

Prognostic and predictive biomarkers with therapeutic targets in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: A 2023 update on current development, evidence, and recommendation

BackgroundSince the publication of the original work in 2014, significant progress has been made in the characterization of genomic alterations that drive oncogenic addiction of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and how the immune system can leverage non-oncogenic pathways to modulate therapeutic outcomes. This update evaluates and validates the recent and emerging data for prognostic and predictive biomarkers with therapeutic targets in NSCLC.Data sourcesWe performed a literature search from January 2015 to October 2023 using the keywords non-small cell lung cancer, clinical practice guidelines, gene mutations, genomic assay, immune cancer therapy, circulating tumor DNA, predictive and prognostic biomarkers, and targeted therapies.Study selection and data extractionWe identified, reviewed, and evaluated relevant clinical trials, meta-analyses, seminal articles, and published clinical practice guidelines in the English language.Data synthesisRegulatory-approved targeted therapies include those somatic gene alterations of EGFR ("classic" mutations, exon 20 insertion, and rare EGFR mutations), ALK, ROS1, BRAF V600, RET, MET, NTRK, HER2, and KRAS G12C. Data for immunotherapy and circulating tumor DNA in next-generation sequencing are considered emerging, whereas the predictive role for PIK3CA gene mutation is insufficient.ConclusionsAdvances in sequencing and other genomic technologies have led to identifying novel oncogenic drivers, novel resistance mechanisms, and co-occurring mutations that characterize NSCLC, creating further therapeutic opportunities. The benefits associated with immunotherapy in the perioperative setting hold initial promise, with their long-term results awaiting.

Cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus sequential single-gene testing (SGT), including the long-term costs and survival outcomes of relevant treatments for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a decision tree linked to a partitioned survival model to estimate the clinical outcomes and costs over the five-year analysis period. The decision tree consisted of treatment types based on molecular biomarker (ROS1, BRAF, NTRK, MET, RET, and KRAS alterations) test results. The probability of receiving each targeted therapy was estimated based on 1) the testing rate, 2) the proportion of alterations detected, and 3) the proportion of patients receiving treatment consistent with the testing results. We estimated the long-term overall survival and progression-free survival for each treatment using parametric estimation by reconstructing patient-level data from clinical trials. The costs of testing, drugs, administration, physician visits, monitoring, adverse events, post-progression, and end-of-life care were included. The utility values were obtained from a previous study. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NGS within a threshold of $38,701 (50,000,000 KRW) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

The incremental life-years (LYs) and QALYs for the NGS group versus the SGT group were 0.028 and 0.023, respectively. The total medical cost for the NGS group was $8,375 higher than that for the SGT group. The difference in drug costs accounted for most of the differences in total medical costs. NGS was not cost-effective compared to sequential SGT, with an ICER of $300,233/LY and $359,405/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NGS is not cost-effective for advanced EGFR/ALK-negative NSCLC, but has a survival benefit over sequential SGT. Our findings provide a basis for decision-making regarding the coverage and clinical utilization of NGS in regions where EGFR alterations are prevalent.

Estimating Costs Associated with Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer

Purpose

This study aimed to estimate the costs associated with adverse events (AEs) in advanced lung cancer patients treated with first-line therapies.

Subjects and Methods

All patients with advanced lung cancer diagnosed between 2011 and 2019 were identified from the Taiwan National Cancer Registry. First-line treatment was defined as a therapy that began within 30 days before and 90 days after the diagnosis. We defined a newly-developed AE as one established after first-line treatment had commenced, with the contingency that the patient had not been diagnosed with the AE within one year prior to the outset of therapy. One patient with a specific AE was matched on age, sex, and regimens with four patients without the AE. Payments incurred over the same period of time in the two groups were compared to estimate the AE-related costs.

Results

A total of 27,376 patients receiving first-line targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy were identified. Clinical characteristics of 15,454 treatment episodes with a specific AE and 61,816 treatment episodes without the AE were well balanced. The costliest AEs of any severity were sepsis/septicemia, neuropathy, and acute kidney injury, with the respective average incremental costs of 10101, 9982, and 7839 USD. The costliest severe AEs requiring hospitalization were sepsis/septicemia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and neuropathy, with mean incremental costs of 22483, 10645, and 10120 USD, respectively.

Conclusion

Costs associated with AEs in advanced lung cancer patients treated with first-line therapies were substantial. These estimates could be adopted for future cost-effectiveness analyses of new lung cancer treatments.

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing as a Biomarker Testing Approach in Oncology and Policy Implications: A Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

A key hurdle in broader next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing access in oncology is the ongoing debate on NGS's cost-effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of existing evidence of the costs of NGS as a biomarker testing strategy in oncology and developed policy suggestions.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for studies reporting cost comparisons and cost-effectiveness of NGS across oncology indications and geographies between 2017 and 2022, inclusive. Inclusion criteria were established based on indication and type of cost-effectiveness analysis provided. We validated analyses and policy recommendations with 5 payer/policy maker interviews in the United States, Europe, and United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Of the 634 identified studies, 29 met inclusion criteria, spanning 12 countries and 6 indications. Cost comparisons of NGS were evaluated using 3 methodologies: (1) comparison of direct testing costs, (2) comparison of holistic testing costs, and (3) comparison of long-term patient outcomes and costs. Targeted panel testing (2-52 genes) was considered cost-effective when 4+ genes were assessed, and larger panels (hundreds of genes) were generally not cost-effective. Holistic analysis demonstrated that NGS reduces turnaround time, healthcare staff requirements, number of hospital visits, and hospital costs. Finally, studies evaluating NGS testing including the cost of targeted therapies generally found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be above common thresholds but highlighted valuable patient benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature supports NGS's cost-effectiveness as an oncology biomarker testing strategy under specific conditions. These findings underscore the need to develop policies to support holistic assessment of NGS to ensure appropriate reimbursement and access.

Registry of Genetic Alterations of Taiwan Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer by Comprehensive Next-Generation Sequencing: A Real-World Cohort Study-Taiwan Cooperative Oncology Group T1521

PURPOSE

Tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis is highly recommended for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated a specific patient population with NSCLC that required tissue-based NGS analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 500 patients with advanced/metastatic (1) epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations or anaplastic large-cell lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement-positive NSCLC who had failed at minimum one line of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy, (2) EGFR-/ALK-negative nonsquamous, and (3) non- or light-smoker patients with squamous NSCLC who were treatment-naïve or had failed at maximum two lines of systemic treatment. These patients were divided into five cohorts. Comprehensive tissue-based NGS testing (ACTOnco+) was conducted.

RESULTS

Cohort 1: EGFR TKI-pretreated EGFR-mutated population (50.0%, n = 250), cohort 2: ALK inhibitor-pretreated ALK-positive population (1.6%, n = 8), cohort 3: treatment-naïve EGFR-/ALK-negative population (28.2%, n = 141), cohort 4: pretreated EGFR-/ALK-negative population (16.8%, n = 84), and cohort 5: squamous cell carcinoma (3.4%, n = 17). In cohort 1, 11.2% (28/250) of the patients had MET amplification, 32.4% (81/250) had been treated with osimertinib, and EGFR C797S was detected in 6.2% (5/81) of these patients. In cohort 2, resistance ALK mutation was detected in 37.5% (3/8) of the patients. In cohorts 3 and 4, targetable genetic alterations, including EGFR mutation (13.3%), ERBB2 mutation (9.3%), MET exon 14 skipping (5.3%), KRAS G12C mutation (4.4%), ROS1 fusion (2.7%), RET fusion (1.8%), and BRAF V600E mutation (1.3%), were detected. In cohort 5, MET exon 14 skipping was detected in 29.4% (5/17) of the patients.

CONCLUSION

This multicenter registration study investigated tissue-based NGS for a specific patient population with NSCLC in Taiwan.

Lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR L858R-K860I and L858R-L861F doublet mutations from which the L858R mutation is undetectable through the cobas EGFR mutation test v2

In East Asia, epidermal growth receptor factor (EGFR) mutations are the most prevalent and important biomarkers for treating patients with advanced lung cancer. However, as L858R doublet mutations are rare, commercially available EGFR tests may yield false-negative results. To determine whether the L858R mutation of the L858R-K860I and L858R-L861F doublet mutations could be identified using different types of EGFR detection tests and to describe the clinical response of patients with lung cancer with L858R doublet mutations to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Information and samples from four patients with L858R doublet mutations, including three with L858R-K860I and one with L858R-L861F, were retrospectively collected from the archives of our department. For each case, the clinical response to EGFR-TKI was retrieved from the medical records. Archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded blocks were subjected to Sanger sequencing, the cobas and Idylla EGFR tests, the IntelliPlex-LCP-DNA assay, and AmoyDx PLC panel. L858R mutations were all detected by Sanger sequencing and the Idylla EGFR test but missed by the cobas assay. The AmoyDx PLC detected L858R only in cases with L858R-K860I while the IntelliPlex-LCP-DNA assay detected L858R in the case with L858R-L861F. Additionally, three of the patients, who had measurable tumors, showed partial responses to afatinib and osimertinib. The L858R mutation associated with L858R-K860I and L858R-L861F doublet mutations could be detected using Idylla but not cobas EGFR tests. Using next-generation sequencing analysis should be considered after initial negative reports from the cobas test, because patients with L858R doublet mutations may benefit from EGFR-TKIs.

RET Fusion Testing in Patients With NSCLC: The RETING Study

Introduction

RET inhibitors with impressive overall response rates are now available for patients with NSCLC, yet the identification of RET fusions remains a difficult challenge. Most guidelines encourage the upfront use of next-generation sequencing (NGS), or alternatively, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) when NGS is not possible or available. Taken together, the suboptimal performance of single-analyte assays to detect RET fusions, although consistent with the notion of encouraging universal NGS, is currently widening some of the clinical practice gaps in the implementation of predictive biomarkers in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Methods

This situation prompted us to evaluate several RET assays in a large multicenter cohort of RET fusion-positive NSCLC (n = 38) to obtain real-world data. In addition to RNA-based NGS (the criterion standard method), all positive specimens underwent break-apart RET FISH with two different assays and were also tested by an RT-PCR assay.

Results

The most common RET partners were KIF5B (78.9%), followed by CCDC6 (15.8%). The two RET NGS-positive but FISH-negative samples contained a KIF5B(15)-RET(12) fusion. The three RET fusions not identified with RT-PCR were AKAP13(35)-RET(12), KIF5B(24)-RET(9) and KIF5B(24)-RET(11). All three false-negative RT-PCR cases were FISH-positive, exhibited a typical break-apart pattern, and contained a very high number of positive tumor cells with both FISH assays. Signet ring cells, psammoma bodies, and pleomorphic features were frequently observed (in 34.2%, 39.5%, and 39.5% of tumors, respectively).

Conclusions

In-depth knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the different RET testing methodologies could help clinical and molecular tumor boards implement and maintain sensible algorithms for the rapid and effective detection of RET fusions in patients with NSCLC. The likelihood of RET false-negative results with both FISH and RT-PCR reinforces the need for upfront NGS in patients with NSCLC.

Clinical application of liquid biopsy genomic profiling in NSCLC: Asian perspectives

Molecular profiling is essential for treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Extensive evidence supports the clinical application of liquid biopsy in molecular profiling and thus has been incorporated into multiple international guidelines. In Asia, clinical practice of liquid biopsy varies between countries owing to difference in molecular characteristics of lung cancer as well as variations in socioeconomic conditions and healthcare systems. The current review covers the landscape and clinical application of liquid biopsy in Asia. An emphasis is placed on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation given its high prevalence in the region. We focus on the emerging data on liquid biopsy in reference to risk stratification, recurrence monitoring, and lung cancer screening in Asian context. Finally, we present potential solutions to optimize the clinical application of liquid biopsy in Asian countries.

Effectiveness of next-generation sequencing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a population-based registry study

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in the management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is little evidence that its use leads to improved clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of NGS with that of single-gene testing (SGT) alone in patients with advanced NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted on patients diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma between 2017 and 2018 from a nationwide, population-based database. We identified patients who had SGT exclusively (SGT group) or underwent upfront NGS or NGS following SGT as an initial evaluation (NGS group). Patients were followed up until death or the end of the study (31 December 2019). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for death was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. The factors affecting the adoption of NGS were identified.

RESULTS

Of 8566 patients diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, 402 and 6932 patients were assigned to the NGS and SGT groups, respectively. More NGS was carried out in younger patients, those with higher incomes, and those living in urban areas. After balancing these confounders through matching, no difference was observed in the median overall survival and risk of death between the NGS and SGT groups [18.5 versus 19.7 months, log-rank P = 0.783; aHR 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.14, respectively]. Only in a subgroup for whom epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors were not indicated, NGS was associated with better survival outcomes (14.1 versus 9.0 months, log-rank P = 0.006; aHR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

In the real world, NGS for all-comers in patients with advanced NSCLC did not increase survival outcomes. When health care resources to support equal access to NGS are limited, upfront SGT followed by NGS may be a more efficient strategy.

Economic Analysis of Tissue-First, Plasma-First, and Complementary NGS Approaches for Treatment-Naïve Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma

Background

To compare the testing costs and testing turnaround times of tissue-first, plasma-first, and complementary next-generation sequencing (NGS) approaches in patients with treatment-naïve metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.

Materials and Methods

We developed a decision tree model to compare three different approaches. Patients were entered into the model upon cancer diagnosis and those with both insufficient tissue specimens and negative liquid-based NGS were subjected to tissue re-biopsy. Actionable gene alterations with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapies included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangement, ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) rearrangement, B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF) V600E mutation, rearranged during transfection (RET) gene rearrangement, mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) mutation, neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene rearrangement, K-Ras proto-oncogene (KRAS) G12C mutation, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutation. Model outcomes were testing costs, testing turnaround times, and monetary losses taking both cost and time into consideration. We presented base-case results using probabilistic analysis. Stacked one-way and three-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results

In terms of testing costs, tissue-first approach incurred US$2,354($1,963-$2,779) and was the most cost-efficient strategy. Complementary approach testing turnaround time (days) of 12.7 (10.8 to 14.9) was found as the least time-consuming strategy. Tissue-first, complementary, and plasma-first approaches resulted in monetary losses in USD of $4,745 ($4,010-$5,480), $6,778 ($5,923-$7,600), and $7,006 ($6,047-$7,964) respectively, and identified the same percentage of patients with appropriate FDA-approved therapies. Costs for liquid-based NGS, EGFR mutation rates, and quantity of tissue specimens were the major determinants in minimizing monetary loss. Plasma-first approach would be the preferable strategy if its testing price was reduced in USD to $818, $1,343, and $1,869 for populations with EGFR mutation rates of 30%, 45%, and 60% respectively.

Conclusion

The tissue-first approach is currently the best strategy in minimizing monetary loss. The complementary approach is an alternative for populations with a low EGFR mutation rate. The plasma-first approach becomes increasingly preferable as EGFR mutation rates gradually increase.