300 Background: This study evaluated rates of biomarker testing for patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC, which is known to have a ̃40% biomarker-positive rate (AMP, 2020), in a community-based oncology practice setting in the United States (US). Methods: A retrospective study was performed using data from a US electronic medical record database of patients aged ≥18 years with an initial diagnosis (index dx) of stage IV non-squamous NSCLC between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2019. Unstructured data on molecular biomarker testing (single-gene and next-generation sequencing [NGS]-based) were abstracted from patient charts utilizing Natural Language Processing for EGFR mutation, ALK rearrangement, BRAF mutation, ROS1 rearrangement, MET exon14 mutation, RET fusion, NTRK fusion, and PD-L1 expression. Systemic therapy was obtained from structured data. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. This study received a waiver of consent from Advarra IRB. Results: Of 646 patients identified in the database, 500 met all inclusion criteria and are included in this analysis. The majority (73.8%) were diagnosed in 2018 (n = 162; 32.4%) and 2019 (n = 207; 41.4%). Mean age (SD) was 70.0 (10.1) years, with 53.2% female. A total of 447 (89.4%) were tested for at least one biomarker after index diagnosis of which 81.2% (n = 406) had at least one single-gene test; 54.8% (n = 274) had an NGS test and 66.8% were tested for PD-L1. Single-gene or NGS-based testing was > 85% of patients across all index years. The use of NGS-based tests ranged from 35.0% among patients whose first diagnosis was in 2015 to 59.4% in 2019. Overall, 85.4% (n = 427) of the cohort received first-line treatment with chemotherapy (53.6%), immunotherapy (48.2%), or targeted therapy (14.2%). Among patients who received biomarker tests, 15.4% received targeted treatment and 49.7% received immunotherapy treatment, including checkpoint inhibitors, during first-line treatment. Conclusions: NGS testing utilization increased during the study period and by 2019, 59% of patients received NGS-based testing. Opportunities persist for practices to improve testing and achieve guideline recommendations. PD-L1 biomarker testing was performed amongst the highest proportion of patients in this study and nearly 50% of all patients received immunotherapy, including checkpoint inhibitors. Targeted therapy was used in 14.2% of this population, suggesting that patients with actionable biomarkers may not be receiving targeted treatment for their disease, potentially due to gaps in testing among patients in this dataset.
Intra-amniotic infection (IAI) is a common cause of pre-term labour. Manual WBC count on amniotic fluid (AF) has been suggested as a diagnostic test for IAI using a threshold of 50 cells/mm(3). However, no validation studies assessing the accuracy of this method have been performed. AF samples were selected for cell count analysis. WBCs were introduced to 47 AF samples. The results from two technologists' counts were compared with the calculated expected value for WBCs in these samples. Results showed that a comparison between the technologists' WBC count to the expected WBC count yielded R(2) coefficients of 0.62 and 0.78, indicating moderate accuracy. Percentage agreement between the technologists was 67%, indicating low reproducibility. It was concluded that there was moderate correlation between the manual and the expected WBC in the spiked AF samples. Clinicians should be aware of the inaccuracy and imprecision associated with this test when evaluating a patient for IAI.
6593 Background: The routine use of large next generation sequencing (NGS) cancer panels is required to identify the increasing number of, but often uncommon actionable alterations present across multiple tumor histologies to guide therapy. Inconsistent coverage and variable payment is hindering adoption of these tests into clinical practice. A review of clinical utility, coverage and reimbursement was conducted in a cohort of adult oncology patients who received expanded genomic panel testing as part of their clinical care. Methods: The Columbia Combined Cancer Panel (CCCP), a 467 gene panel designed to detect single nucleotide variants, indels, and copy number variations in solid and liquid tumors was performed in a CLIA-certified laboratory at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Clinical utility categories included: immediate change in management; informed future treatment options; provided diagnostic/prognostic information; and other impact. Claims were submitted between 1/1/17 and 4/30/18. Carriers were categorized into commercial, managed-government, and government plans. Results: 300 tumors underwent NGS. Reimbursement data were available for 258 cases. 57% of testing was performed for a treatment-resistant, recurrent, or high stage cancer, or for a cancer of rare/mixed histology (21%). Findings were clinically actionable in 183 cases (61%). Results led to an immediate change in management (n = 6, 2%), informed future treatment options (n = 140, 47%), and provided diagnostic/prognostic information (n = 29, 10%). Only 57 tests (22%) received coverage. In 59% of denials (118/201), a clinically-actionable result was found. Commercial plans reimbursed 29/119 tests (24%) and managed-government plans reimbursed 28/54 tests (52%). Government plans provided no coverage for 85 tests. On average, insurers reimbursed 10% of the total CCCP service charges: 12.5% for commercial and 22% for managed-government plans. Conclusions: Expanded genomic testing identified clinically-impactful alterations in 61% of cases. Limited coverage and low reimbursement remain a barrier and broader reimbursement policies are needed to adopt expanded genomic testing that benefits patients into clinical practice.
Abstract Background: Molecular characterization of tumor and/or host has the potential to advance the management of pediatric cancer and high risk hematologic disease, but the clinical utility of integrating genomic profiling into standard clinical practice has been limited. The PIPseq Program at Columbia University has instituted prospective CLIA-compliant genomic sequencing for newly diagnosed, high risk, relapsed or refractory pediatric cancer patients and patients referred for bone marrow transplantation. Methods: Families are consented for clinical cancer whole-exome sequencing (cWES) or constitutional whole-exome sequencing (WES) with opt out options for return of results, exclusion of results from medical records, receipt of American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recommended secondary germline variants, and data/ sample use in research. Molecular characterization utilizes next generation cWES, WES, RNAseq (transcriptome), or targeted sequencing of select cancer genes. Clinical cancer reports include: known tumor type-specific actionable somatic mutations (Tier 1); somatic mutations actionable in other tumor types, in targetable pathways, or in well-established cancer genes (Tier 2); other somatic mutations in cancer genes (Tier 3); and somatic variants of uncertain significance (VUS; Tier 4). Reports for cWES testing also note translocations, significantly over expressed genes, segmental copy number variation, and germline variants. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained to conduct a retrospective review of results to date. Five categories were developed to assess clinical utility and describe significance: 1) diagnostic, 2) prognostic, 3) potentially actionable target, 4) other critical role in decision making, and 5) implications for health maintenance and genetic counseling. Results: Since January 2014, adequate tissue samples were available for 47 patients, including 31 (66%) with solid tumors and 16 (34%) with hematologic conditions. Testing included cWES (n=8), cWES with transcriptome (n=15), transcriptome only (n=1), targeted somatic panel (n=8), constitutional WES only (n=6), and multiple sequencing platforms (n=7). Normal tissue was obtained from buccal swab (n=8), blood (n=18), and unaffected tissue (n=1). Three families opted out of receiving secondary findings. Genomic aberrations were reported in 41/47 patients. Of the 127 cancer alterations found, 70 (55%) were in 15 patients with hematologic disease (median 2, range 1-11) and 57 (45%), were in 26 patients with solid tumors (median 1, range 1-6). Among the hematologic cases, alterations of known or potential clinical relevance were categorized as Tier 1 (n=0), Tier 2 (n=27), Tier 3 (n=2) mutation, or translocation (n=4); whereas in solid tumors these were categorized as Tier 1 (n=1), Tier 2 (n=14), Tier 3 (n=3) mutation, or translocation (n=9). Twenty-four Tier 4 somatic VUS were identified in hematologic specimens and 26 in solid tumor specimens. Genomic interrogation informed diagnosis in 10 patients (3 previously unknown); provided new prognostic information in 4; identified potentially actionable targets in 15; influenced clinical decision making regarding bone marrow transplant in 2; and revealed cancer or other disease predisposition in 7. Secondary germline ACMG findings in BRCA1 and PMS2 were found. Germline APC mutation was confirmed in one patient and germline VUS in SDHC was seen in another. Novel germline findings were also observed in RUNX1, MLL2 and DICER1. Overall, the PIPseq platform provided clinically impactful results in 30/47 cases (64%). Conclusions: Utilizing a CLIA-compliant prospective WES-based platform, more than half of selected patients derived clinically impactful information. The potential clinical utility of genomic sequencing in pediatric hematology-oncology has likely been underestimated. This abstract is also presented as Poster 50. Citation Format: Julia L. Glade Bender, Jennifer A. Oberg, Maria Luisa Sulis, Filamon Dela Cruz, Anthony N. Sireci, Susan J. Hsiao, Darrell J. Yamashiro, Carrie Koval, Wendy K. Chung, Stephen G. Emerson, Rebecca Zylber, Samantha Cano, Danielle P. Denney, Stuart Andrews, Peter L. Nagy, Mahesh M. Mansukhani, Andrew L. Kung. Precision in Pediatric Sequencing (PIPseq): Clinical implementation of genomic sequencing into pediatric hematology-oncology practice. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Precision Medicine Series: Integrating Clinical Genomics and Cancer Therapy; Jun 13-16, 2015; Salt Lake City, UT. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2016;22(1_Suppl):Abstract nr PR01.
B lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL) cells are characterized by the expression of various B-cell antigens. Expression of T/Natural Killer-cell antigens, however, has rarely been reported in B-ALL (TAg+ B-ALL), and the significance of this aberrant antigen expression is unclear. We thus analysed the frequency of TAg+ B-ALL at our institution and investigated its significance in the context of immunophenotypes, cytogenetic/molecular findings, and prognosis. We reviewed 134 consecutive cases of B-ALL and found 18 cases (13·4%) of TAg+ B-ALL. The most common aberrant T-cell antigens expressed were CD2, CD5, and CD7 at equivalent rates (each in six cases), CD4 (two cases), and CD56 (three cases). Adverse cytogenetic abnormalities were seen in a significantly larger proportion of the TAg+ cases (72·2%) than the TAg- cases (32·2%; P = 0·003). Multivariate Cox-regression analysis showed that the risk of relapse over time was higher in the TAg+ cases, independent of high risk status (based on age and white blood cell count) and the presence of adverse cytogenetic abnormalities (hazard ratio = 2·256, P = 0·065). These findings suggest that T-cell antigen expression in B-ALL may be an independent predictor of poor prognosis, and a useful marker to identify patients at increased risk for relapse and for harbouring adverse cytogenetic abnormalities.
The incorporation of tumor-normal genomic testing into oncology can identify somatic mutations that inform therapeutic measures but also germline variants associated with unsuspected cancer predisposition. We describe a case in which a RET variant was identified in a 3-yr-old male with relapsed leukemia. Sanger sequencing revealed the patient's father and three siblings carried the same variant, associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia 2A (MEN2A). Evaluation of the father led to the diagnosis and treatment of metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma. Detection of RET mutations in families with hereditary MTC allows for genetic risk stratification and disease surveillance to reduce morbidity and mortality.
While multiplexed analysis of lung cancers by next-generation sequencing (NGS) in place of single-analyte testing may be advised from an analytic sensitivity and tissue preservation perspective, the economics will make adoption more challenging. This commentary summarizes the costs of implementing NGS testing and discusses the uncertain reimbursement for such tests, both of which make implementation of these guidelines difficult for laboratories.The costs of implementing NGS can be high and vary widely based on multiple factors. For example, the infrastructure required for the generation, analysis, interpretation, and storage of NGS data is quite extensive. More specifically, acquiring a sequencing platform, building a bioinformatics team and pipeline, developing or purchasing variant interpretation and reporting software, and investing in servers for data processing and storage contribute to the upfront capital required. If the laboratory does not already perform NGS for other indications, this investment can be on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars.1 More “turnkey” solutions that include bioinformatics processing, variant annotation, and storage solutions may mitigate the investments required in these areas, but they may be limited in capability and cost more. Single biomarker tests, by contrast, performed with more traditional methodologies (eg, Sanger sequencing), require less capital investment, as the infrastructure and platforms generally exist in the laboratory.In addition, reagents for NGS library preparation and sequencing can be a substantial expense. The custom capture kits needed to detect the different mutation types recommended can vary greatly in cost and amount of hands-on labor required. The depth of sequencing and breadth of the gene panel have large impact on sequencing costs. While costs for single-analyte methodologies such as fluorescence in situ hybridization may be high, others are more reasonable (eg, real-time polymerase chain reaction). For both approaches, sample volumes per run can have dramatic impact on the per sample cost.A cost favoring NGS-based testing is that of implementing and maintaining an assay through validation, competency, and instrument maintenance. A single-analyte-per-assay approach requires documentation of technologist competency on each assay, maintenance for multiple pieces of equipment, and documentation of individual validations. Adoption of 1 platform reduces these administrative costs.Recovering these costs can be difficult, as reimbursement for a multiplexed assay can often be more challenging than for individual tier-1 molecular codes owing to low payment rates and variable coverage.2 An assay testing the biomarkers recommended in the guidelines would most appropriately be billed by using current procedural terminology (CPT) code 81445. The 2017 Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) rate for this code is $602.10 and remained relatively stable under the new Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) rate.3,4 Each laboratory should perform a detailed cost accounting to assess whether or not this rate covers the per sample cost of testing. Additionally, local coverage policies for this code may vary between individual payers. Analysis of the laboratory's payer mix for patients with lung cancer and review of the major payer's coverage policies for 81445 is recommended. By contrast, many of the biomarkers listed in the recommendations have individual tier-1 CPT codes that can be used when testing each gene individually. The cumulative reimbursement for EGFR, KRAS, and BRAF billed separately was $710.70 in 2017, which is greater than the 2017 rate for 81445. As these codes are more familiar to payers, the coverage policies may be more permissive.Laboratories wishing to transition testing to NGS for the multiplexed analysis of lung tumors to take advantage of its benefits should consider the true cost and uncertain reimbursements associated with such a move. Additionally, communication with NGS vendors and individual payers highlighting these issues may help change the commercial and reimbursement landscape over time, making adoption of NGS more economically feasible.
