Real World Utility of Next-Generation Sequencing in Neuro-oncology Patients
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose. There has been a proliferation of commercially available tumor molecular profiling services. However, there is a paucity of evidence as to whether these data result in treatment alterations or enrollment into clinical trials for neuro-oncology patients. This study analyses if increasing use of tumor profiling services has resulted in increased personal neuro-oncologic care with personalized targeted therapies.
Methods. We performed a retrospective chart review for all neuro-oncology patients at Geisinger Medical Center from 2016 to 2021 who underwent tumor profiling using commercial send-out testing. We analyzed factors including tumor pathology, actionable genes, treatment pre-tumor profiling, post-profiling, and survival after testing. The clinical action rate was based off these findings.
Results. From 2016 to 2021, 83 patients had tumor genetic and molecular profiling. Pathologies included glioblastoma (44.5%), metastases (10.8%), meningioma (9.63%), and others. There was increased testing from 2016 (n=1) to 2021 (n=28). In total, three patients (3.61%) had therapy offered based off NGS testing; these were adjudicated during analysis and did not result from the testing’s recommendations but were extrapolations from specific mutations. None of the patients were enrolled in clinical trials based off their test results. The overall mean charges of testing in the five patients for whom our health plan had data were $44,581.88 (range $42,218.97-$47,126.89).
Conclusion. Despite increased utilization of tumor profiling technologies in our patient cohort, we observed limited value in altering therapy. Selective testing for actionable alterations based on evidence and improved patient selection will be key to improve value of testing and make it more cost effective.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Jain KK. A critical overview of targeted therapies for glioblastoma. Frontiers in oncology 2018;8:419.
3. Yohe S, Thyagarajan B. Review of clinical next-generation sequencing. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 2017;141:1544-57.
4. Jones TE, Zou J, Tseng GC, Roy S, Bhargava R. The Utility of Next-Generation Sequencing in Advanced Breast and Gynecologic Cancers: Experience of a Large Tertiary Care Women's Hospital. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 2021;156:455-60.
5. Bitzer M, Ostermann L, Horger M, et al. Next-generation sequencing of advanced GI tumors reveals individual treatment options. JCO Precision Oncology 2020;4:258-71.
6. Barsan V, Paul M, Gorsi H, et al. Clinical impact of next-generation sequencing in pediatric neuro-oncology patients: a single-institutional experience. Cureus 2019;11.
7. Ji MS, Eldred BS, Liu R, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing of 565 neuro-oncology patients at UCLA: a single-institution experience. Neuro-oncology advances 2020;2:vdaa009.
8. Lorenz J, Rothhammer-Hampl T, Zoubaa S, et al. A comprehensive DNA panel next generation sequencing approach supporting diagnostics and therapy prediction in neurooncology. Acta Neuropathologica Communications 2020;8:1-15.
9. Nie Q, Hsiao M-C, Chandok H, et al. Molecular profiling of CNS tumors for the treatment and management of disease. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2020;71:311-5.
10. Nørøxe DS, Yde CW, Østrup O, et al. Genomic profiling of newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients and its potential for clinical utility–a prospective, translational study. Molecular oncology 2020;14: 2727-43.
11. Roy S, Agnihotri S, El Hallani S, et al. Clinical Utility of GlioSeq Next-Generation Sequencing Test in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients With Brain Tumors. Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology 2019;78:694-702.
12. Tan O, Shrestha R, Cunich M, Schofield D. Application of next‐generation sequencing to improve cancer management: A review of the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness. Clinical genetics 2018;93:533-44.
13. Fontebasso AM, Schwartzentruber J, Khuong-Quang D-A, et al. Mutations in SETD2 and genes affecting histone H3K36 methylation target hemispheric high-grade gliomas. Acta neuropathologica 2013;125:659-69.
14. Schwartzentruber J, Korshunov A, Liu X-Y, et al. Driver mutations in histone H3. 3 and chromatin remodelling genes in paediatric glioblastoma. Nature 2012;482:226-31.
15. Gajjar A, Bowers DC, Karajannis MA, Leary S, Witt H, Gottardo NG. Pediatric brain tumors: innovative genomic information is transforming the diagnostic and clinical landscape. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2015;33:2986.
16. Stensjøen AL, Solheim O, Kvistad KA, Håberg AK, Salvesen Ø, Berntsen EM. Growth dynamics of untreated glioblastomas in vivo. Neuro-oncology 2015;17:1402-11.
17. Shlien A, Campbell BB, De Borja R, et al. Combined hereditary and somatic mutations of replication error repair genes result in rapid onset of ultra-hypermutated cancers. Nature genetics 2015;47:257-62.
18. Marino P, Touzani R, Perrier L, et al. Cost of cancer diagnosis using next-generation sequencing targeted gene panels in routine practice: a nationwide French study. European Journal of Human Genetics 2018;26:314-23.
19. Sahm F, Schrimpf D, Jones DT, et al. Next-generation sequencing in routine brain tumor diagnostics enables an integrated diagnosis and identifies actionable targets. Acta neuropathologica 2016;131:903-10.
20. Vrijenhoek T, Kraaijeveld K, Elferink M, et al. Next-generation sequencing-based genome diagnostics across clinical genetics centers: implementation choices and their effects. European Journal of Human Genetics 2015;23:1142-50.
21. Haslem DS, Van Norman SB, Fulde G, et al. A retrospective analysis of precision medicine outcomes in patients with advanced cancer reveals improved progression-free survival without increased health care costs. Journal of oncology practice 2017;13:e108-e19.
22. Bennette CS, Gallego CJ, Burke W, Jarvik GP, Veenstra DL. The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 2015;17:587-95.
23. Doble B, John T, Thomas D, Fellowes A, Fox S, Lorgelly P. Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine in the fourth-line treatment of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma: An early decision analytic model of multiplex targeted sequencing. Lung Cancer 2017;107:22-35.
24. Gallego CJ, Shirts BH, Bennette CS, et al. Next-generation sequencing panels for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2015;33:2084.
25. Li MM, Datto M, Duncavage EJ, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of sequence variants in cancer: a joint consensus recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. The Journal of molecular diagnostics 2017;19:4-23.
26. Trosman JR, Weldon CB, Gradishar WJ, et al. From the past to the present: insurer coverage frameworks for next-generation tumor sequencing. Value in Health 2018;21:1062-8.
27. Trosman JR, Weldon CB, Kelley RK, Phillips KA. Challenges of coverage policy development for next-generation tumor sequencing panels: experts and payers weigh in. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2015;13:311-8.