Madison M Wempe1, Mark D Stewart2, Daniel Glass3, Laura Lasiter4, Diana Merino Vega5, Nisha Ramamurthy6, Jeff Allen7, Ellen V Sigal8. 1. Research Associate, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC. 2. Vice President, Science Policy, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC. 3. Managing Director, Global Market Research, Deerfield Management, New York, NY. 4. Director, Health Policy, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC. 5. Director, Research Partnerships, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC. 6. Summer Intern, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC. 7. President and CEO, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC. 8. Chairperson and Founder, Friends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic tests, including US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved tests and laboratory-developed tests, are frequently used to guide care for patients with cancer, and, recently, have been the subject of several policy discussions and insurance coverage determinations. As the use of diagnostic testing has evolved, stakeholders have raised questions about the lack of standardized test performance metrics and the risk this poses to patients. OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of diagnostic testing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), to analyze the utilization of FDA-approved versus laboratory-developed diagnostic tests, and to evaluate the impact of existing regulatory and coverage frameworks on diagnostic test ordering and physician treatment decision-making for patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: We conducted a 2-part study consisting of an online survey and patient chart review from March 1, 2019, to March 25, 2019, of physicians managing patients with advanced NSCLC. Respondents qualified for this study if they managed at least 5 patients with advanced NSCLC per month and had diagnosed at least 1 patient with advanced NSCLC in the 12 months before the survey. A total of 150 physicians completed the survey; before completing the survey, they were instructed to review between 4 and 8 charts of patients with stage IV NSCLC from their list of active patients. RESULTS: A total of 150 practicing oncologists who manage patients with advanced NSCLC responded to the survey and reviewed a total of 815 patient charts. Of these 815 patients, 812 (99.6%) were tested for at least 1 biomarker, including 73% of patients who were tested for EGFR, 70% tested for ALK, 58% tested for BRAF V600E, and 38% of patients tested for ROS1, by FDA-approved diagnostic tests. In all, 185 (83%) patients who tested positive for EGFR and 60 (83%) patients who tested positive for ALK received an FDA-approved targeted therapy for their biomarker. A total of 98 (65%) physicians responded that the patient's insurance coverage factored into their decision to order diagnostic tests and 69 (45%) physicians responded that cost or the patient's insurance coverage could influence them not to prescribe an indicated targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: The survey results indicate that diagnostic testing has become routine in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC, the use of FDA-approved diagnostic tests has increased, and insurance coverage and cost influence patient access to diagnostic testing as well as to targeted treatment options.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic tests, including US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved tests and laboratory-developed tests, are frequently used to guide care for patients with cancer, and, recently, have been the subject of several policy discussions and insurance coverage determinations. As the use of diagnostic testing has evolved, stakeholders have raised questions about the lack of standardized test performance metrics and the risk this poses to patients. OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of diagnostic testing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), to analyze the utilization of FDA-approved versus laboratory-developed diagnostic tests, and to evaluate the impact of existing regulatory and coverage frameworks on diagnostic test ordering and physician treatment decision-making for patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: We conducted a 2-part study consisting of an online survey and patient chart review from March 1, 2019, to March 25, 2019, of physicians managing patients with advanced NSCLC. Respondents qualified for this study if they managed at least 5 patients with advanced NSCLC per month and had diagnosed at least 1 patient with advanced NSCLC in the 12 months before the survey. A total of 150 physicians completed the survey; before completing the survey, they were instructed to review between 4 and 8 charts of patients with stage IV NSCLC from their list of active patients. RESULTS: A total of 150 practicing oncologists who manage patients with advanced NSCLC responded to the survey and reviewed a total of 815 patient charts. Of these 815 patients, 812 (99.6%) were tested for at least 1 biomarker, including 73% of patients who were tested for EGFR, 70% tested for ALK, 58% tested for BRAF V600E, and 38% of patients tested for ROS1, by FDA-approved diagnostic tests. In all, 185 (83%) patients who tested positive for EGFR and 60 (83%) patients who tested positive for ALK received an FDA-approved targeted therapy for their biomarker. A total of 98 (65%) physicians responded that the patient's insurance coverage factored into their decision to order diagnostic tests and 69 (45%) physicians responded that cost or the patient's insurance coverage could influence them not to prescribe an indicated targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: The survey results indicate that diagnostic testing has become routine in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC, the use of FDA-approved diagnostic tests has increased, and insurance coverage and cost influence patient access to diagnostic testing as well as to targeted treatment options.
Authors: Gregory P Kalemkerian; Navneet Narula; Erin B Kennedy; William A Biermann; Jessica Donington; Natasha B Leighl; Madelyn Lew; James Pantelas; Suresh S Ramalingam; Martin Reck; Anjali Saqi; Michael Simoff; Navneet Singh; Baskaran Sundaram Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jessica J Lin; Stephanie Cardarella; Christine A Lydon; Suzanne E Dahlberg; David M Jackman; Pasi A Jänne; Bruce E Johnson Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-12-25 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Casey Mason; Peter G Ellis; Kathy Lokay; Amanda Barry; Natalie Dickson; Ray Page; Blase Polite; Ravi Salgia; Michael Savin; Corey Shamah; Mark A Socinski Journal: J Clin Pathw Date: 2018 Jan-Feb
Authors: Neal I Lindeman; Philip T Cagle; Dara L Aisner; Maria E Arcila; Mary Beth Beasley; Eric H Bernicker; Carol Colasacco; Sanja Dacic; Fred R Hirsch; Keith Kerr; David J Kwiatkowski; Marc Ladanyi; Jan A Nowak; Lynette Sholl; Robyn Temple-Smolkin; Benjamin Solomon; Lesley H Souter; Erik Thunnissen; Ming S Tsao; Christina B Ventura; Murry W Wynes; Yasushi Yatabe Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Julian C Schink; Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Kalliopi P Siziopikou; Gregory J Tsongalis; Alfred W Rademaker; Jyoti D Patel; Al B Benson; Edith A Perez; William J Gradishar Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mark Stewart; Andrew D Norden; Nancy Dreyer; Henry Joe Henk; Amy P Abernethy; Elizabeth Chrischilles; Lawrence Kushi; Aaron S Mansfield; Sean Khozin; Elad Sharon; Srikesh Arunajadai; Ryan Carnahan; Jennifer B Christian; Rebecca A Miksad; Lori C Sakoda; Aracelis Z Torres; Emily Valice; Jeff Allen Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-07
Authors: Ulrich-Peter Rohr; Carmen Binder; Thomas Dieterle; Francesco Giusti; Carlo Guiseppe Mario Messina; Eduard Toerien; Holger Moch; Hans Hendrik Schäfer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240