Knowledge and Practice Patterns Among Pulmonologists for Molecular Biomarker Testing in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Developments in predictive biomarker testing and targeted therapy in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer and their application across European countries

In the past two decades, the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has undergone significant changes due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. These advancements have led to the need for predictive molecular tests to identify patients eligible for targeted therapy. This review provides an overview of the development and current application of targeted therapies and predictive biomarker testing in European patients with advanced stage NSCLC. Using data from eleven European countries, we conclude that recommendations for predictive testing are incorporated in national guidelines across Europe, although there are differences in their comprehensiveness. Moreover, the availability of recently EMA-approved targeted therapies varies between European countries. Unfortunately, routine assessment of national/regional molecular testing rates is limited. As a result, it remains uncertain which proportion of patients with metastatic NSCLC in Europe receive adequate predictive biomarker testing. Lastly, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) for discussion of molecular test results are widely implemented, but national guidelines for their composition and functioning are lacking. The establishment of MTB guidelines can provide a framework for interpreting rare or complex mutations, facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making, and ensuring quality control.

Realizing the Dream of Precision Oncology: A Solution for All Patients

MICRO-ABSTRACT

As molecularly informed oncology care has increasingly become standard practice for patients with cancer, society must prioritize equitable access to genetic testing that guides subsequent care. Despite the availability of genomic testing laboratories, published guidelines, US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies, financial assistance programs, and clinical decision tools, precision medicine remains out of reach for many patients. While there has been modest improvement in testing rates in recent years, molecular testing and targeted therapy for cancer patients continue to vary by practice setting and patient insurance status, and racial and socioeconomic disparities persist. National standards and centralized solutions are needed to promote the equitable distribution of patient benefit from precision medicine technology. Although various online resources are currently available, no single all-encompassing precision oncology tool currently exists. A one-stop shop to address all aspects of precision oncology-tissue selection and test ordering, interpretation of results, prescribing targeted therapies, and enrolling patients in clinical trials-would disrupt cancer care. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, digital pathology, and data science provide an opportunity for stakeholders to partner together to leverage these technologies to develop this unified, freely accessible, national solution. Whether locoregionally, nationally, or internationally, only collaborative efforts can fully realize the potential of technological advancements in molecular pathology and oncology therapeutics for all cancer patients.

ESMO study on the availability and accessibility of biomolecular technologies in oncology in Europe

BACKGROUND

Access to biomolecular technologies has become an essential requirement to ensure optimal and timely treatment of patients with cancer. This study sought to provide a comprehensive overview of the availability and accessibility of biomolecular technologies to patients, the status of their use and prescription, barriers to access, and potential economic issues related to cost and reimbursement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 201 field reporters from 48 European countries submitted data through an electronic survey tool between July and December 2021. The survey methodology mirrored that from previous ESMO studies addressing the availability and accessibility of antineoplastic medicines, in Europe and worldwide. The preliminary data were posted on the ESMO website for open peer-review, and amendments were incorporated into the final report.

RESULTS

Overall, basic single-gene techniques are widely available, whereas access to advanced biomolecular technologies, including large next-generation sequencing panels and complete genomic profiles, is highly heterogeneous. In most countries, advanced biomolecular technologies remain largely inaccessible in clinical practice, are limited to clinical trials or basic research, and associated with progressively increasing cost as the technique becomes more advanced. Differences also exist regarding national sequencing initiatives or molecular tumour boards. The most important barriers to multiple versus single-gene sequencing techniques are the reimbursement of the test (59% versus 24%), and the availability of a suitable medicine, either through reimbursement of treatment (48% versus 30%), off-label treatment (52% versus 35%), or clinical trial enrolment (53% versus 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost and availability of both treatment and test are the two main factors limiting patients' access to advanced biomolecular technologies and as a consequence to innovative anticancer strategies. In the era of precision medicine, tackling the accessibility to biomolecular technologies is a key step to reduce inequalities to transformative cancer care.

Current Practices in Airway Stent Management: A National Survey of US Practitioners

BACKGROUND

Despite a growing number of tracheobronchial stent types and indications, complications remain frequent, and high-quality evidence on practices to prevent stent-related complications is lacking. Understanding current management practice is a first step to designing prospective studies to assess whether specific practices aimed at mitigating stent-related complications improve patient-centered outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to understand current management strategies following tracheobronchial stenting.

METHOD

We performed a nationwide survey of members of the American Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (AABIP) and the General Thoracic Surgical Club (GTSC) who place airway stents. The electronic survey captured data on practitioners' demographics, practice setting, airway stent volume, and standard post-stent practices (if any) including the use of medications, mucus clearance devices, surveillance imaging, and surveillance bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight physicians completed the survey. Respondents were majority male (75.4%) and had diverse training (50.0% completed interventional pulmonary fellowship; 18.1% thoracic surgery; 31.9% other stent training). Post-stent management strategies varied markedly across respondents; 75.4% prescribe at least one medication to prevent post-stent complications, 52.9% perform routine surveillance bronchoscopy in asymptomatic patients, 26.1% prescribe mucus clearance regimens, 16.7% obtain routine computed tomography scans in asymptomatic patients, and 8.3% routinely replace their stents prior to stent failure.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national survey of practitioners who place airway stents, there was marked heterogeneity in post-stent management approaches. Further studies are needed to identify which, if any, of these strategies improve patient-centered outcomes.

Acquiring tissue for advanced lung cancer diagnosis and comprehensive biomarker testing: A National Lung Cancer Roundtable best-practice guide

Advances in biomarker-driven therapies for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both provide opportunities to improve the treatment (and thus outcomes) for patients and pose new challenges for equitable care delivery. Over the last decade, the continuing development of new biomarker-driven therapies and evolving indications for their use have intensified the importance of interdisciplinary communication and coordination for patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. Multidisciplinary teams are challenged with completing comprehensive and timely biomarker testing and navigating the constantly evolving evidence base for a complex and time-sensitive disease. This guide provides context for the current state of comprehensive biomarker testing for NSCLC, reviews how biomarker testing integrates within the diagnostic continuum for patients, and illustrates best practices and common pitfalls that influence the success and timeliness of biomarker testing using a series of case scenarios.

Rapid On-site Evaluation Practice Variability Appraisal (ROSE PETAL) survey

BACKGROUND

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is frequently used during diagnostic procedures in patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. There is variation in ROSE use among bronchoscopists, and discussion of ROSE results can have significant consequences for patients. This study was performed to define ROSE practice and result disclosure patterns among bronchoscopists.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was performed using an electronic survey disseminated to the members of the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology and the Society for Advanced Bronchoscopy. The questions centered around ROSE availability, utilization, barriers, and discussion of results with patients.

RESULTS

There were 137 respondents. Most identified themselves as interventional pulmonologists (109, 80%); most respondents worked in an academic setting (71, 52%). Availability of ROSE was reported by 121 (88%) respondents. Time constraints (28%), availability of cytology (22%), and scheduling conflicts (20%) were the most reported barriers to ROSE use. Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (85%) and nonrobotic peripheral bronchoscopy (65%) were the most reported procedures that used ROSE. There was heterogeneity regarding discussion of ROSE results with the patient or their caregiver in the immediate postprocedure setting: yes - always (40, 33%), yes - sometimes (32, 26%), yes - rarely (18, 15%), or no (31, 26%). Thirty-eight respondents reported they believed ROSE was ≥90% concordant with final cytology results.

CONCLUSIONS

The results confirmed the heterogeneity of practice patterns. Estimates of ROSE-final cytology concordance were lower than previously published concordance results. Notably, the discussion of ROSE results varied significantly.

Assessment of BRAF V600E (VE1) immunochemistry for the detection of BRAF V600E mutation in non-small cell lung carcinoma cytology specimens

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients with BRAF V600E-mutated tumors respond to targeted therapy. Testing for BRAF V600E is commonly performed with molecular methods; however, a mutation-specific VE1 antibody clone can provide an alternative testing option using immunohistochemistry (IHC) for practices using single-gene testing and in situations when the specimen is inadequate for molecular testing. This study evaluates the usefulness of VE1 IHC in screening for BRAF V600E mutations in NSCLC cytology specimens.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively identified cytology cases with a diagnosis of NSCLC that had BRAF V600E IHC performed on cell block sections with the monoclonal VE1 antibody clone. The BRAF V600E IHC results were compared with those of molecular testing performed with an amplicon-based next-generation sequencing assay.

RESULTS

There were 201 NSCLC cases evaluated. The VE1 IHC was positive in seven of seven BRAF V600E-mutated tumors (100%) and was negative in 158 of 158 nonmutated BRAF V600E tumors (100%). Thirty cases did not undergo molecular testing, primarily because of insufficient tissue or because molecular testing was performed on an alternative specimen. Six cases showed equivocal weak/focal staining: Two cases demonstrated BRAF V600E mutations, and four cases were negative by molecular testing.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that BRAF V600E IHC can be used reliably to screen NSCLC cytology specimens, and negative results strongly indicate the absence of a BRAF V600E mutation. Having a low threshold for equivocal staining is recommended with molecular confirmation of BRAF V600E for any cases demonstrating weak and/or focal cytoplasmic staining.

State legislative trends related to biomarker testing

Comprehensive biomarker testing has become the standard of care for informing the choice of the most appropriate targeted therapy for many patients with advanced cancer. Despite evidence demonstrating the need for comprehensive biomarker testing to enable the selection of appropriate targeted therapies and immunotherapy, the incorporation of biomarker testing into clinical practice lags behind recommendations in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Coverage policy differences across insurance health plans have limited the accessibility of comprehensive biomarker testing largely to patients whose insurance covers the recommended testing or those who can pay for the testing, and this has contributed to health disparities. Furthermore, even when insurance coverage exists for recommended biomarker testing, patients may incur burdensome out-of-pocket costs depending on their insurance plan benefits, which may also create barriers to testing. Prior authorization for biomarker testing for some patients can add an administrative burden and may delay testing and thus treatment if it is not done in a timely manner. Recently, three states (Illinois, Louisiana, and California) passed laws designed to improve access to biomarker testing at the state level. However, there is variability among these laws in terms of the population affected, the stage of cancer, and whether the coverage of testing is mandated, or the legislation addresses only prior authorization. Advocacy efforts by patient advocates, health care professionals, and professional societies are imperative at the state level to further improve coverage for and access to appropriate biomarker testing.