HSR19-099: Harnessing the Voice of Patients With Genetic Mutations in NSCLC Treatment

Background: Targeted therapies for non-small lung cancer (NSCLC) have vastly improved survival and other outcomes for patients whose tumors have genetic mutations such as ALK, BRAF, EGFR, and ROS1. Identification of genetic mutations often indicates a mutation-specific course of therapy; however, the relationship between genetic mutation status, patient treatment preferences, and other determinants of patient value in NSCLC cancer care is not well understood. Methods: Qualitative study utilizing focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted with metastatic NSCLC patients who had received systemic therapy. Interviews explored how patients valued and prioritized factors and attributes associated with NSCLC therapy. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for key themes using MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software (VERBI, GmbH). Thematic analysis identified determinants of value that patients with genetic mutations considered most important in decision-making. Results: Of 19 total participants with metastatic NSCLC (mean [SD] age, 55.8 [12.6] years; 79% female), 15 (79%) reported a known genetic mutation. Most participants valued oncogene testing and indicated that they had developed a distinct identity based on their specific mutation. Further, participants in our study with identified mutations reported facing distinctly different decisions than those without known mutations. Participants also highlighted unmet needs for diagnosis, treatment, and support tailored to their patient subgroup, including a critical need for better provider training and awareness of genetic testing and mutation-specific treatment options. Across patient subgroups, mutation-specific social media and support networks were highly valued for the care and treatment information they provide, especially among those with rare mutations, limited treatment options, or less-experienced providers. Conclusions: Our study suggests important differences among NSCLC patients based on identified genetic mutations. As treatment for NSCLC evolves, so do the needs and preferences of patients, especially those with driver mutations. Our findings highlight the need for a better understanding of how mutation status may impact patient goals and preferences in order to provide the highest value care to each patient.

Greater Spending Associated with Improved Survival for Some Cancers in OCM-Defined Episodes

BACKGROUND

Previous research finds significant variation in spending and utilization across regions, with little evidence of differences in outcomes. While such findings have been interpreted as evidence that spending can be reduced without compromising patient outcomes, the link between spending variation and outcomes remains a critical question.

OBJECTIVE

To use evidence from geographic variations in spending and an individual-level survival analysis to test whether spending within oncology care episodes is associated with survival, where episodes are defined as in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's Oncology Care Model (OCM).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort analysis, patient data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Medicare (SEER-Medicare) database for 2007-2013 were linked to hospital referral regions (HRRs) using ZIP codes. Patients in the SEER program are a part of selected population-based cancer registries throughout the United States whose records are linked to Medicare enrollment and claims data (93% of elderly registry patients were successfully linked to Medicare data). Episodes of cancer care were defined as in the OCM: 6 months following a triggering chemotherapy claim. We analyzed episodes of care for 5 tumor types: advanced breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), multiple myeloma (MM), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). We removed the effects of differentials in Medicare payment rates, which were mostly geographic. Regression analysis was then used to calculate standardized spending levels for each HRR, that is, spending adjusted for differences in patient and episode characteristics. To examine the effect of spending during OCM-defined episodes on individual-level survival, we used Cox regression with patient characteristics and standardized HRR spending per episode as covariates. To address concerns that may arise from multiple comparisons across the 5 tumor types, we used the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed significant differences in standardized spending across HRRs. Compared with spending at the 20th percentile episode, spending at the 80th percentile ranged from 25% higher ($57,392 vs. $45,995 for MM) to 47% higher ($36,920 vs. $24,127 for RCC), indicating practice style variation across regions. The hazard of dying for patients with NSCLC and MM statistically significantly decreased by 7% (HR = 0.93, P = 0.006) and 13% (HR = 0.87, P = 0.019), respectively, for a $10,000 increase in standardized spending (in 2013 U.S. dollars). For the 3 other cancers, spending effects were not statistically significant. After using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure with a 5% false discovery rate, the effects of increased spending on improved survival for NSCLC and MM remained statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The association we found between spending and survival suggests caution may be warranted for physicians, pharmacists, other health care professionals, and policymakers involved in efforts to reduce across-the-board spending within OCM-defined episodes for at least 2 of the 5 cancers studied.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this research was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals to Precision Health Economics in support of research design, analysis, and technical writing services. The funder provided input on study design and comments on the draft report. Baumgardner, Shahabi, and Linthicum are employees of Precision Health Economics (PHE), a health care consultancy to the insurance and life science industries, including firms that market oncology therapies. Vine was an employee of PHE at the time of this research. Zacker is an employee of and shareholder in Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Lakdawalla is a consultant to PHE and holds equity in its parent company, Precision Medicine Group.

How a 'Waste-Free Formulary' Misses What's Most Important to Employers

The "waste-free formulary" under development by the Pacific Business Group on Health sounds promising, but ultimately may not deliver the impact to self-insured employers its creators are promising. The approach glosses over a critical question: What constitutes "high-value"? The definition of value plays a central role in determining the care that patients ultimately receive.