Perspectives on Clinical Adoption Barriers to Blood-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests across Stakeholders.

Current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations include routine screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer; however, two out of every three cancer cases occur in other indications, leading to diagnoses in advanced stages of the disease and a higher likelihood of mortality. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can impact cancer screening and early detection by monitoring for multiple different cancer types at once, including indications where screening is not performed routinely today. We conducted a survey amongst healthcare providers (HCPs), payers, and patients within the U.S. health system to understand the current utilization of cancer screening tests and the anticipated barriers to widespread adoption of blood-based MCED tests. The results indicated that the community favors the adoption of blood-based MCED tests and that there is broad agreement on the value proposition. Despite this recognition, the survey highlighted that there is limited use today due to the perceived lack of clinical accuracy and utility data, high out-of-pocket patient costs, and lack of payer coverage. To overcome the hurdles for future widespread adoption of blood-based MCED tests, increased investment in data generation, education, and implementation of logistical support for HCPs will be critical.

Barriers to gBRCA Testing in High-Risk HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer.

Despite the OlympiA trial demonstrating that early-stage, high-risk, HER2- germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) positive breast cancer patients can benefit from PARPi in the adjuvant setting, the gBRCA testing rate in early-stage HR+/HER2- patients remains suboptimal compared to that in early-stage TNBC patients. To better understand the perceived barriers associated with gBRCA testing in HR+/HER2- disease, a quantitative survey was conducted across stakeholders (n = 430) including medical oncologists, surgeons, nurses, physician assistants, payers, and patients. This study revealed that while payers claim to cover gBRCA testing, poor clinician documentation and overutilization are key challenges. Therefore, payers place utilization management controls on gBRCA testing due to their impression that clinicians overtest. These controls have led to healthcare professionals experiencing payer pushback in the form of reimbursement limitations and denials. The perceived challenges to gBRCA testing stem from the lack of consensus dictating which patients are high risk and should be tested. While payers define high risk based on the CPS + EG score from the OlympiA trial, HCPs adopt a broader definition including genomic risk scores, lymph node involvement, and tumor grade and size. A dialogue to harmonize risk classification and testing eligibility across stakeholders is critical to address this disconnect and increase gBRCA testing in appropriate patients.

Stakeholders Perceptions of Barriers to Precision Medicine Adoption in the United States.

Despite evidence that precision medicine (PM) results in improved patient care, the broad adoption and implementation has been challenging across the United States (US). To better understand the perceived barriers associated with PM adoption, a quantitative survey was conducted across five stakeholders including medical oncologists, surgeons, lab directors, payers, and patients. The results of the survey reveal that stakeholders are often not aligned on the perceived challenges with PM awareness, education and reimbursement, with there being stark contrast in viewpoints particularly between clinicians, payers, and patients. The output of this study aims to help raise the awareness that misalignment on the challenges to PM adoption is contributing to broader lack of implementation that ultimately impacts patients. With better understanding of stakeholder viewpoints, we can help alleviate the challenges by focusing on multi-disciplinary education and awareness to ultimately improve patient outcomes.

A Quantitative Framework for Measuring Personalized Medicine Integration into US Healthcare Delivery Organizations.

Personalized medicine (PM) approaches have revolutionized healthcare delivery by offering new insights that enable healthcare providers to select the optimal treatment approach for their patients. However, despite the consensus that these approaches have significant value, implementation across the US is highly variable. In order to address barriers to widespread PM adoption, a comprehensive and methodical approach to assessing the current level of PM integration within a given organization and the broader healthcare system is needed. A quantitative framework encompassing a multifactorial approach to assessing PM adoption has been developed and used to generate a rating of PM integration in 153 organizations across the US. The results suggest significant heterogeneity in adoption levels but also some consistent themes in what defines a high-performing organization, including the sophistication of data collected, data sharing practices, and the level of internal funding committed to supporting PM initiatives. A longitudinal approach to data collection will be valuable to track continued progress and adapt to new challenges and barriers to PM adoption as they arise.

Health economic impact of a biopsy-based cell cycle gene expression assay in localized prostate cancer.

Background: Prior studies have established that broader incorporation of active surveillance, guided by additional prognostic tools, may mitigate the growing economic burden of localized prostate cancer in the USA. This study sought to further explore the potential of a particular gene expression-based prognostic tool to address this unmet need. Materials & methods: A deterministic, decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the economic impact of the Prolaris® test on a US commercial health plan. Results & conclusion: When adopted in patients classified by the American Urological Association as low or intermediate risk, the assay was projected to reduce costs by $1894 and $2129 per patient over 3 and 10 years, respectively, largely through the increased use of active surveillance.

Economic burden of illness associated with localized prostate cancer in the United States.

Aim: Prior studies have established the economic burden of prostate cancer on society. However, changes to screening, novel therapies and increased use of active surveillance (AS) create a need for an updated analysis. Methods: A deterministic, decision-analytic model was developed to estimate medical costs associated with localized prostate cancer over 10 years. Results: 10-year costs averaged $45,957, $99,445 and $188,928 for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. For low-risk patients, AS 10-year costs averaged $33,912/patient, whereas definitive treatment averaged $49,667/patient. Despite higher failure rates in intermediate-risk patients, AS remained less costly than definitive treatment, with 10-year costs averaging $90,614/patient and $99,394/patient, respectively. Conclusion: Broader incorporation of AS, guided by additional prognostic tools, may mitigate this growing economic burden.

Health economic analysis of Breast Cancer Index in patients with ER+, LN- breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Breast Cancer Index (BCI) is a novel gene expression-based test for patients with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), lymph node negative (LN-) breast cancer that predicts risk of recurrence over 10 years, and also specifically predicts risk of late (≥5 y) recurrences and likelihood of benefit from extended (≥5 y) endocrine therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate cost utility of BCI from a US third-party payer perspective. STUDY DESIGN: Two fact-based economic models were developed to project the cost and effectiveness of BCI in a hypothetical population of patients with ER+, LN- breast cancer compared with standard clinicopathologic diagnostic modalities. METHODS: Costs associated with adjuvant chemotherapy, toxicity, followup, endocrine therapy, and recurrence were modeled over 10 years. The models examined cost utility compared with standard practice when used at diagnosis and in patients disease-free at 5 years post diagnosis. RESULTS: Use of BCI was projected to be cost saving in both models. In the newly diagnosed population, net cost savings were $3803 per patient tested. In the 5 years post diagnosis population, BCI was projected to yield a net cost savings of $1803 per patient tested. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that BCI was cost saving across a wide range of clinically relevant input assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: BCI was projected to be cost saving when used either at diagnosis or at 5 years post diagnosis. Cost savings are achieved through projected impact on adjuvant chemotherapy use, extended endocrine therapy use, and endocrine therapy compliance. These findings require validation in additional cohorts, including studies of real-world clinical practice.

Budget impact analysis of a novel gene expression assay for the diagnosis of malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Traditional pathology techniques alone can be insufficient to reliably distinguish between malignant melanoma, dysplastic nevi, and benign nevi in biopsies of suspicious pigmented lesions. Numerous studies have shown high rates of ambiguity when assessing such samples. A novel gene expression assay has been developed to objectively differentiate malignant melanoma from benign nevi. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the economic impact of the gene expression assay on a US commercial health plan. METHODS: The clinical paradigm of care was modeled for a hypothetical cohort of patients with suspicious pigmented lesions that are difficult-to-diagnose. Costs were assigned to each unit of care provided based on 2013 Medicare fee-for-service rates. Patients were followed for 10 years and were modeled to progress according to the natural history of their disease. The total cost of care was calculated for two scenarios: a Reference Scenario, representing current clinical practice, and a Test Scenario, in which each lesion was tested with the gene expression assay and diagnosed. Total cost of care was compared between the two scenarios to determine overall budget impact. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The gene expression assay reduces costs by $1268 per patient tested over 10 years, a decrease of 8.3%, after accounting for the cost of the assay. For a health plan with 10 million members, this would translate to over $8 million in savings. The largest portion of this saving comes from reducing the number of missed melanomas, which would otherwise progress to advanced disease. In sensitivity analyses, no single model input changed within a reasonable range of values caused the model to show that the assay was not cost-saving. CONCLUSION: In addition to improving the diagnosis of melanoma, this gene expression assay would likely reduce costs for health plans that choose to cover it.

Clinical utility of a biopsy-based cell cycle gene expression assay in localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The CCP signature test (Prolaris) quantifies a patient's risk of disease progression and prostate cancer specific mortality using a gene-expression-based cell cycle progression (CCP) score. This study evaluated the potential clinical utility of the CCP test in a US-based clinical setting. METHODS: Urologists who participated in a prospective clinical study were sent a retrospective questionnaire to assess the value of the CCP test result. Fifteen board-certified urologists participated in the study, representing 15 distinct community urology group practices. Questionnaires were received for 294 evaluable patients. All patients had localized prostate cancer (T1-T3b, N0, M0). RESULTS: Physicians found the CCP score valuable and indicated that 55% of tests generated a mortality risk that was either higher or lower than expected. Physicians also indicated that 32% of test results would lead to a definite or possible change in treatment. The data suggest that the test would have the net effect of shifting patients from more aggressive treatment to more conservative treatment. This was evidenced by the significant association between change in treatment and lower CCP scores (p < 0.002) and by the fact that 62% of tests likely to lead to a definite or possible change in treatment had mortality risks lower than the physician expected versus only 10% with risks higher than expected. STUDY LIMITATIONS: This study measured the retrospectively assessed likelihood of change in treatment as estimated by the physician, not the actual change in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The CCP score adds meaningful new information to risk assessment for localized prostate cancer patients. Real-world use of the test is likely to lead to a change in treatment in a significant portion of tested patients, particularly by shifting patients towards more conservative management. This could reduce overtreatment of patients with less aggressive disease, decreasing patient morbidity and costs for payers and the healthcare system.

Breaking a vicious cycle.

Despite prodigious advances in tumor biology research, few tumor-biomarker tests have been adopted as standard clinical practice. This lack of reliable tests stems from a vicious cycle of undervaluation, resulting from inconsistent regulatory standards and reimbursement, as well as insufficient investment in research and development, scrutiny of biomarker publications by journals, and evidence of analytical validity and clinical utility. We offer recommendations designed to serve as a roadmap to break this vicious cycle and call for a national dialogue, as changes in regulation, reimbursement, investment, peer review, and guidelines development require the participation of all stakeholders.

Combating complexity: partnerships in personalized medicine.

We are entering an era of unprecedented complexity in personalized medicine. Therapeutic targets, biomarker detection technologies, regulatory and reimbursement pathways, and commercialization strategies have all reached new levels of intricacy. These complexities are occurring in the context of the current economic environment, in which outsourcing offers a way for innovators to decrease large internal investment. These factors combine to create a perfect setting for a partnership explosion. Now, and as we move into the future, it will be critical for innovators to access outside expertise with a diverse set of partners in order to bring novel personalized medicine products to the market successfully and economically. Only companies that truly embrace this trend and adopt a collaborative approach will emerge successful.