Pathologist-initiated reflex testing for biomarkers in non-small-cell lung cancer: expert consensus on the rationale and considerations for implementation.

Biomarker tests in lung cancer have been traditionally ordered by the treating oncologist upon confirmation of an appropriate pathological diagnosis. The delay this introduces prolongs yet further what is already a complex, multi-stage, pre-treatment pathway and delays the start of first-line systemic treatment, which is crucially informed by the results of such analysis. Reflex testing, in which the responsibility for testing for an agreed range of biomarkers lies with the pathologist, has been shown to standardise and expedite the process. Twelve experts discussed the rationale and considerations for implementing reflex testing as standard clinical practice.

Clinical definition of acquired resistance to immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Acquired resistance (AR) to programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-(L)1] blockade is frequent in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), occurring in a majority of initial responders. Patients with AR may have unique properties of persistent antitumor immunity that could be re-harnessed by investigational immunotherapies. The absence of a consistent clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade and lack of uniform criteria for ensuing enrollment in clinical trials remains a major barrier to progress; such clinical definitions have advanced biologic and therapeutic discovery. We examine the considerations and potential controversies in developing a patient-level definition of AR in NSCLC treated with PD-(L)1 blockade. Taking into account the specifics of NSCLC biology and corresponding treatment strategies, we propose a practical, clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade for use in clinical reports and prospective clinical trials. Patients should meet the following criteria: received treatment that includes PD-(L)1 blockade; experienced objective response on PD-(L)1 blockade (inclusion of a subset of stable disease will require future investigation); have progressive disease occurring within 6 months of last anti-PD-(L)1 antibody treatment or rechallenge with anti-PD-(L)1 antibody in patients not exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 in 6 months.

A phase I study of binimetinib (MEK 162), a MEK inhibitor, plus carboplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: MEK inhibition is a potential therapeutic strategy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase I study evaluates the MEK inhibitor binimetinib plus carboplatin and pemetrexed in stage IV non-squamous NSCLC patients (NCT02185690). METHODS: A standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was used. Binimetinib 30 mg BID (dose level 1 [DL1]) or 45 mg BID (dose level 2 [DL2]) was given with standard doses of carboplatin and pemetrexed using an intermittent dosing schedule. The primary outcome was determination of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and safety of binimetinib. Secondary outcomes included efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and an exploratory analysis of response based on mutation subtype. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (6 DL1, 7 DL2) were enrolled: 7 KRAS, 5 EGFR, and 1 NRAS mutation. The RP2D was binimetinib 30 mg BID. Eight patients (61.5%) had grade 3/4 adverse events, with dose limiting toxicities in 2 patients at DL2. Twelve patients were evaluated for response, with an investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) of 50% (95% CI 21.1%-78.9%; ORR 33.3% by independent-review, IR), and disease control rate 83.3% (95% CI 51.6%-97.9%). Median progression free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months (95% CI 2.6 months-NA), with a 6-month and 12-month PFS rate of 38.5% (95% CI 19.3%-76.5%) and 25.6% (95% CI 8.9%-73.6%), respectively. In an exploratory analysis, KRAS/NRAS-mutated patients had an ORR of 62.5% (ORR 37.5% by IR) vs. 25% in KRAS/NRAS wild-type patients. In MAP2K1-mutated patients, the ORR was 42.8%. CONCLUSION: The addition of binimetinib to carboplatin and pemetrexed appears to have manageable toxicity with evidence of activity in advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

Consensus recommendations for optimizing biomarker testing to identify and treat advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.

The advent of personalized therapy for non-small-cell lung carcinoma (nsclc) has improved patient outcomes. Selection of appropriate targeted therapy for patients with nsclc now involves testing for multiple biomarkers, including EGFR. EGFR mutation status is required to optimally treat patients with nsclc, and thus timely and accurate biomarker testing is necessary. However, in Canada, there are currently no standardized processes or methods in place to ensure consistent testing implementation. That lack creates challenges in ensuring that all appropriate biomarkers are tested for each patient and that the medical oncologist receives the results for making informed treatment decisions in a timely way. An expert multidisciplinary working group was convened to create consensus recommendations about biomarker testing in advanced nsclc in Canada, with a primary focus on EGFR testing. Recognizing that there are biomarkers beyond EGFR that require timely identification, the expert multidisciplinary working group considered EGFR testing in the broader context of integration into complex lung biomarker testing. Primarily, the panel of experts recommends that all patients with nonsquamous nsclc, regardless of stage, should undergo comprehensive reflex biomarker testing at diagnosis with targeted next-generation sequencing. The panel also considered the EGFR testing algorithm and the challenges associated with the pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytic elements of testing. Strategies for funding testing by reducing silos of single biomarker testing for EGFR and for optimally implementing the recommendations presented here and educating oncology professionals about them are also discussed.

Longitudinal health utilities, symptoms and toxicities in patients with ALK-rearranged lung cancer treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a prospective real-world assessment.

Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) have dramatically improved the survival of patients with ALK-rearranged (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). Clinical trial data can generally compare drugs in a pair-wise fashion. Real-world collection of health utility data, symptoms, and toxicities allows for the direct comparison between multiple tki therapies in the population with ALK+ nsclc. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, outpatients with ALK+ recruited between 2014 and 2018, treated with a variety of tkis, were assessed every 3 months for clinico-demographic, patient-reported symptom and toxicity data and EQ-5D-derived health utility scores (hus). Results: In 499 longitudinal encounters of 76 patients with ALK+ nsclc, each tki had stable longitudinal hus when disease was controlled, even after months to years: the mean overall hus for each tki ranged from 0.805 to 0.858, and longitudinally from 0.774 to 0.912, with higher values associated with second- or third-generation tkis of alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib. Disease progression was associated with a mean hus decrease of 0.065 (95% confidence interval: 0.02 to 0.11). Health utility scores were inversely correlated to multiple symptoms or toxicities: rho values ranged from -0.094 to -0.557. Fewer symptoms and toxicities were associated with the second- and third-generation tkis compared with crizotinib. In multivariable analysis, only stable disease state and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status were associated with improved hus. Conclusions: There was no significant decrease in hus when patients with ALK+ disease were treated longitudinally with each tki, as long as patients were clinically stable. Alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib had the best toxicity profiles and exhibited high mean hus longitudinally in the real-world setting.

Diagnostic patterns of non-small-cell lung cancer at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.

Background: Accurate classification of lung cancer subtypes has become critical in tailoring lung cancer treatment. Our study aimed to evaluate changes in diagnostic testing and pathologic subtyping of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) over time at a major cancer centre. Methods: In a review of patients diagnosed with advanced nsclc at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between 2007-2009 and 2013-2015, diagnostic method, sample type and site, pathologic subtype, and use of immunohistochemistry (ihc) staining and molecular testing were abstracted. Results: The review identified 238 patients in 2007-2009 and 283 patients in 2013-2015. Over time, the proportion of patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma increased to 73.1% from 60.9%, and diagnoses of nsclc not otherwise specified (nos) decreased to 6.4% from 18.9%, p < 0.0001. Use of diagnostic bronchoscopy decreased (26.9% vs. 18.4%), and mediastinal sampling procedures, including endobronchial ultrasonography, increased (9.2% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.0001). Use of ihc increased over time to 76.3% from 41.6% (p < 0.0001). Larger surgical or core biopsy samples and those for which ihc was performed were more likely to undergo biomarker testing (both p < 0.01). Conclusions: Customizing treatment based on pathologic subtype and molecular genotype has become key in treating patients with advanced lung cancer. Greater accuracy of pathology diagnosis is being achieved, including through the routine use of ihc.

Canadian consensus: a new systemic treatment algorithm for advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: Multiple clinical trials for the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) have recently been reported. As a result, the treatment algorithm has changed, and many important clinical questions have been raised:■ What is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutated nsclc?■ What is preferred first-line treatment for patients with brain metastasis?■ What is the preferred second-line treatment for patients who received first-line first- or second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis)?■ What is the preferred treatment after osimertinib?■ What evidence do we have for treating patients whose tumours harbour uncommon EGFR mutations? Methods: A Canadian expert panel was convened to define the key clinical questions, review recent evidence, and discuss and agree on practice recommendations for the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated nsclc. Results: The published overall survival results for osimertinib, combined with its central nervous system activity, have led to osimertinib becoming the preferred first-line treatment for patients with common EGFR mutations, including those with brain metastasis. Other agents could still have a role, especially when osimertinib is not available or not tolerated. Treatment in subsequent lines of therapy depends on the first-line therapy or on T790M mutation status. Treatment recommendations for patients whose tumours harbour uncommon EGFR mutations are guided mainly by retrospective and limited prospective evidence. Finally, the evidence for sequencing and combining tkis with chemotherapy, angiogenesis inhibitors, checkpoint inhibitors, and other new therapeutics is reviewed. Conclusions: This Canadian expert consensus statement and algorithm were driven by significant advances in the treatment of EGFR-mutated nsclc.

A randomized trial of the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale for quality-of-life assessment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Introduction: Improving health-related quality of life (hrqol) is a key goal of systemic therapy in advanced lung cancer, although routine assessment remains challenging. We analyzed the impact of a real-time electronic hrqol tool, the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (elcss-ql), on palliative care (pc) referral rates, patterns of chemotherapy treatment, and use of other supportive interventions in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) receiving first-line chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with advanced nsclc starting first-line chemotherapy were randomized to their oncologist receiving or not receiving their elcss-ql data before each clinic visit. Patients completed the elcss-ql at baseline, before each chemotherapy cycle, and at subsequent follow-up visits until disease progression. Prospective data about the pc referral rate, hrqol, and use of other supportive interventions were collected. Results: For the 95 patients with advanced nsclc who participated, oncologists received real-time elcss-ql data for 44 (elcss-ql arm) and standard clinical assessment alone for 51 (standard arm). The primary endpoint, the pc referral rate, was numerically higher, but statistically similar, for patients in the elcss-ql and standard arms. The hrqol scores over time were not significantly different between the two study arms. Conclusions: The elcss-ql is feasible as a tool for use in routine clinical practice, although no statistically significant effect of its use was demonstrated in our study. Improving access to supportive care through the collection of patient-reported outcomes and hrqol should be an important component of care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Crizotinib inhibition of ROS1-positive tumours in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Canadian perspective.

The ros1 kinase is an oncogenic driver in non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). Fusion events involving the ROS1 gene are found in 1%-2% of nsclc patients and lead to deregulation of a tyrosine kinase-mediated multi-use intracellular signalling pathway, which then promotes the growth, proliferation, and progression of tumour cells. ROS1 fusion is a distinct molecular subtype of nsclc, found independently of other recognized driver mutations, and it is predominantly identified in younger patients (<50 years of age), women, never-smokers, and patients with adenocarcinoma histology. Targeted inhibition of the aberrant ros1 kinase with crizotinib is associated with increased progression-free survival (pfs) and improved quality-of-life measures. As the sole approved treatment for ROS1-rearranged nsclc, crizotinib has been demonstrated, through a variety of clinical trials and retrospective analyses, to be a safe, effective, well-tolerated, and appropriate treatment for patients having the ROS1 rearrangement. Canadian physicians endorse current guidelines which recommend that all patients with nonsquamous advanced nsclc, regardless of clinical characteristics, be tested for ROS1 rearrangement. Future integration of multigene testing panels into the standard of care could allow for efficient and cost-effective comprehensive testing of all patients with advanced nsclc. If a ROS1 rearrangement is found, treatment with crizotinib, preferably in the first-line setting, constitutes the standard of care, with other treatment options being investigated, as appropriate, should resistance to crizotinib develop.

The economic impact of the transition from branded to generic oncology drugs.

Background: Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. Methods: We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. Results: The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively. Conclusions: Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.

Delayed immune-related adverse events in assessment for dose-limiting toxicity in early phase immunotherapy trials.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) agents can cause late-onset immune-related adverse events (irAEs). In phase I trials, observation for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) is typically limited to the first cycle. The incidence of delayed-onset DLTs and their potential impact on dose determination have not been fully elucidated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in early phase IO trials at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between August 2012 and September 2016 were retrospectively reviewed, applying trial-specific definitions for DLTs. A clinically significant AE (csAE) was defined as a treatment-related adverse event requiring corticosteroids, hormone replacement, IO delay or discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 352 consecutive trial enrolments in 21 early phase clinical trials were included. Two-hundred seventy-eight patients (79%) received monotherapy and 74 (21%) received combination IO. Two hundred sixty (74%) patients experienced irAEs. There were two protocol-defined DLTs. Twenty (5.7%) patients had 24 csAEs qualifying as DLTs except for occurrence after the protocol-specified DLT period. One-hundred and six (10%) of irAEs were csAEs, including endocrine (26%), respiratory (14%), gastrointestinal (11%), general (10%), dermatological (8%), hepatic (8%), musculoskeletal (6%), pancreatic (6%), haematological, metabolic, neurological, cardiac (each 2%), infective and ocular (each 1%) events. The highest risk of first-onset csAE was during the first 4 weeks compared with the period from 4 weeks to end of treatment (odds ratio 3.13, 95% confidence interval 1.95-5.02). The median time to first onset csAE was significantly shorter with combination than monotherapy IO (32 vs. 146 days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our series of early phase IO trials, the risk of csAE was highest during the initial 4 weeks on IO treatment, supporting the use of the conventional DLT period for dose escalation decision. However, there were 24 clinically significant late-onset DLTs in 5.7% of patients. Combination IO was associated with greater risk of and also earlier onset for csAE, which may need to be considered for early phase trial design.

Afatinib in advanced pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer- a Canadian experience.

Background: Afatinib, an irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (egfr tki), is approved for first-line therapy in advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) and has previously demonstrated activity after failure of chemotherapy and reversible egfr tkis, with improved response and progression-free survival, compared with placebo. Outcomes in pretreated patients with advanced nsclc receiving afatinib through a Canadian special access program (sap) are reported here. Methods: Patients with nsclc progressing after at least 1 line of chemotherapy and an egfr tki were eligible to enrol in the sap. Characteristics of patients from the two largest accruing Canadian centres were retrospectively reviewed, including demographics, disease and treatment data, and patient outcomes. Results: The 53 patients who received afatinib (57% women, 51% never-smokers, 26% of East Asian ethnicity, and 66% with adenocarcinoma) had a median age of 59 years. EGFR mutations were documented in 25%, and EGFR wild-type in 8%. All patients had received prior egfr tki treatment, with 42% achieving a response. Patients took afatinib for a median of 2 months (range: 0-26 months); 17% required 1 or more dose reductions. Of 47 evaluable patients receiving afatinib, 10 experienced tumour shrinkage, and 11, stable disease. Median survival from afatinib initiation was 5 months (95% confidence interval: 2 months to 8 months). Grade 3 or greater diarrhea, rash, paronychia, and stomatitis were seen in 9%, 11%, 6%, and 4% of patients respectively. Conclusions: In an unselected population of pretreated patients with advanced nsclc after tki failure, median survival with afatinib therapy was 5 months. Through a sap, afatinib demonstrated activity in clinical practice, with manageable toxicity.

Resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, T790M, and clinical trials.

Tumours with sensitizing mutations in the EGFR gene constitute a distinct molecular subgroup of non-small-cell lung cancers (nsclcs) that benefit from precision medicine. First- and second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (egfr) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) are recommended as upfront therapy for EGFR-mutated advanced nsclc and, compared with chemotherapy, have resulted in superior progression-free survival, improved tumour response rates, and improved quality of life. However, resistance inevitably develops, and the third-generation tki osimertinib has been approved to target the gatekeeper EGFR mutation T790M, which is responsible for resistance in 60% of cases. Multiple drivers of tki resistance have now been identified, and many new drugs are in development. With respect to this rapidly evolving field, our review highlights the current status of treatment options for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced nsclc, focusing especially on identified causes of resistance, challenges, and clinical trials aiming to improve outcomes in this patient population.

Trends, practice patterns and underuse of surgery in the treatment of early stage small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend pathologic mediastinal staging and surgical resection for patients with clinically node-negative T1/T2 small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but the extent to which surgery is used is unknown. We sought to assess trends and practice patterns in the use of surgery for SCLC. METHODS: T1 or T2N0M0 SCLC cases were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB), 2004-2013. Characteristics of patients undergoing resection were analyzed. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify individual and hospital-level predictors of receipt of surgery, adjusting for clinical, demographic and facility characteristics. Trends in resection rates were analyzed over the study period. FINDINGS: 9740 patients were identified with clinical T1 or T2 N0M0 SCLC. Of these, 2210 underwent surgery (22.7%), with 1421 (64.3%) undergoing lobectomy, 739 (33.4%) sublobar resections and 50 (2.3%) pneumonectomies. After adjustment, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive surgery (OR0.65 95% CI 0.48-0.89, p=0.006), as were those with T2 tumors (OR0.25 CI0.22-0.29, p<0.0001). Academic facilities were more likely to resect eligible patients (OR 1.90 CI1.45-2.49, p<0.0001). Between 2004 and 2013, resection rates more than doubled from 9.1% to 21.7%. Overall, 68.7% of patients were not offered surgery despite having no identifiable contraindication. In patients not receiving surgery, only 7% underwent pathologic mediastinal staging. INTERPRETATION: Rates of resection are increasing, but two thirds of potentially eligible patients fail to undergo surgery. Further study is required to address the lack of concordance between guidelines and practice.

Surgery Versus Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy For Early and Locally Advanced Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Survival.

BACKGROUND: The role of surgery in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is controversial. Survival outcomes for resection of stage I-IIIA SCLC compared to chemotherapy-based non-surgical treatment (NST) were examined using propensity matching. METHODS: 29,994 clinical stage I-IIIA SCLC patients, including 2,619 undergoing surgery, were identified in the National Cancer Database. Stage-specific propensity scores for receipt of surgery were created. Resected patients were matched 1:1 to those undergoing NST. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models. A separate match was performed comparing Stage I/II patients aged <85 with a Charlson score of 0 who underwent lobectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy (and radiotherapy if node positive) to those treated with multiagent chemotherapy and concurrent chest radiotherapy (CRT) of at least 40 gray. RESULTS: 2,089 patients were matched, and cohorts were well balanced. Surgery was associated with longer survival for Stage I (median OS 38.6 months vs. 22.9 months, HR 0.62 95%CI 0.57-0.69, p<0.0001), but survival differences were attenuated for Stage II (median OS 23.4 months vs. 20.7 months, HR 0.84 95%CI 0.70-1.01, p=0.06) and IIIA (median OS 21.7 vs. 16.0 months, HR 0.71 95%CI 0.60-0.83, p <0.0001). In analyses by T and N stage, longer OS was observed in resected patients with stage T3/T4 N0 (median OS 33.0 vs. 16.8 months, p=0.008) and node positivity(N1+ 24.4 vs. 18.3 months p=0.03; N2+ 20.1 vs. 14.6 months p=0.007). In the subgroup analysis, 507 stage I/II patients receiving lobectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy were matched to patients receiving concurrent CRT. In this cohort, lobectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer survival (median OS 48.6 vs. 28.7 months, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection is associated with significantly longer survival for early SCLC. New randomized trials should assess trimodality therapy in stages I/II, and in node negative disease.

Improving molecular testing and personalized medicine in non-small-cell lung cancer in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Although molecular testing has become standard in managing advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc), most patients undergo minimally invasive procedures, and the diagnostic tumour specimens available for testing are usually limited. A knowledge translation initiative to educate diagnostic specialists about sampling techniques and laboratory processes was undertaken to improve the uptake and application of molecular testing in advanced lung cancer. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of physician experts including pathologists, respirologists, interventional thoracic radiologists, thoracic surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists developed a specialty-specific education program, adapting international clinical guidelines to the local Ontario context. Expert recommendations from the program are reported here. RESULTS: Panel experts agreed that specialists procuring samples for lung cancer diagnosis should choose biopsy techniques that maximize tumour cellularity, and that conservation strategies to maximize tissue for molecular testing should be used in tissue processing. The timeliness of molecular reporting can be improved by pathologist-initiated reflex testing upon confirmation of nonsquamous nsclc and by prompt transportation of specimens to designated molecular diagnostic centres. To coordinate timely molecular testing and optimal treatment, collaboration and communication between all clinicians involved in diagnosing patients with advanced lung cancer are mandatory. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge transfer to diagnostic lung cancer specialists could potentially improve molecular testing and treatment for advanced lung cancer patients.

Uptake of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer practice: views of academic and community-based oncologists.

PURPOSE: Advances in personalized medicine have produced novel tests and treatment options for women with breast cancer. Relatively little is known about the process by which such tests are adopted into oncology practice. The objectives of the present study were to understand the experiences of medical oncologists with multigene expression profile (gep) tests, including their adoption into practice in early-stage breast cancer, and the perceptions of the oncologists about the influence of test results on treatment decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study involving interviews with medical oncologists from academic and community cancer centres or hospitals in 8 communities in Ontario. A 21-gene breast cancer assay was used as the example of gep testing. Qualitative analytic techniques were used to identify the main themes. RESULTS: Of 28 oncologists who were approached, 21 (75%) participated in the study [median age: 43 years; 12 women (57%)]. Awareness and knowledge of gep testing were derived from several sources: international scientific meetings, participation in clinical studies, discussions with respected colleagues, and manufacturer-sponsored meetings. Oncologists observed that incorporating gep testing into their clinical practice resulted in several changes, including longer consultation times, second visits, and taking steps to minimize treatment delays. Oncologists expressed divergent opinions about the strength of evidence and added value of gep testing in guiding treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of gep testing into clinical practice in early-stage breast cancer required oncologists to make changes to their usual routines. The opinions of oncologists about the quality of evidence underpinning the test affected how much weight they gave to test results in treatment decision-making.

Pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with PD-L1-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 1 trial.

Background: Pembrolizumab improved survival as first- and second-line therapy compared with chemotherapy in patients with highly programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expressing advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the long-term safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC and the correlation between PD-L1 expression and efficacy. Patients and methods: In the open-label phase 1b KEYNOTE-001 trial, treatment-naive patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumors expressed PD-L1 (≥1% staining, assessed using a prototype assay) were randomly assigned to intravenous pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 3 (Q3W) or 2 (Q2W) weeks. Response was assessed per central RECIST v1.1 every 9 weeks in all patients who received ≥1 pembrolizumab dose. Using pre-treatment tumor tissue, a clinical assay quantified the percentage of tumor cells expressing PD-L1 as tumor proportion score (TPS). Results: Between 1 March 2013 and 18 September 2015, 101 patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Q3W (n = 6), 10 mg/kg Q3W (n = 49), or 10 mg/kg Q2W (n = 46). Of these, 27 (26.7%) had TPS ≥50%, 52 (51.5%) had TPS 1%-49%, and 12 (11.9%) had TPS <1%. The objective response rate (ORR) was 27% (27/101, 95% CI 18-37) and median overall survival was 22.1 months (95% CI 17.1-27.2). In patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, ORR, 12-month PFS, and 12-month OS were higher [14/27 (51.9%; 95% CI 32%-71%), 54%, and 85%, respectively] than the overall population [27/101 (26.7%; 95% CI 18.4%-36.5%), 35%, 71%]. Pembrolizumab was well tolerated, with only 12 (11.9%) patients experiencing grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab provides promising long-term OS benefit with a manageable safety profile for PD-L1-expressing treatment-naive advanced NSCLC, with greatest efficacy observed in patients with TPS ≥50%. Clinical trial name and number: KEYNOTE-001 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01295827).

Approach to biomarker testing: perspectives from various specialties.

BACKGROUND: Despite its importance for patient outcomes, biomarker testing for lung cancer is not uniformly integrated into the Canadian health care system. To better understand current practice patterns for lung cancer biomarker testing, we assessed physician perspectives by specialty and region. METHODS: A national survey of Canadian lung cancer specialists was conducted to understand their perspectives on biomarker testing in lung cancer. The 11-item survey assessed the current practice and challenges of testing. The survey was sent to 375 specialists. RESULTS: The overall response rate for the survey was 36%. Nearly all specialists reported that knowing tumour genotyping results affects patient outcome and influences the treatment decision. Medical oncologists most commonly initiated molecular testing; however, most respondents suggested a shared model involving medical oncologists and pathologists. More than half of all responding specialists had the perception that fewer than 25% of test results are available for first-line treatment decisions. Identified barriers to routine testing for all lung cancer patients included cost, lack of funding, tissue availability, and sample quality. CONCLUSIONS: There was clear agreement that biomarker testing is important in determining appropriate treatment for patients. There is a need for general consensus on who should initiate molecular testing. Clear clinical guidance for pathologists has to be established for molecular testing, including defining the population to be tested, the timing of testing, and the tests to be performed. Testing could be facilitated by including more information on diagnostic sample requisitions, such as clinical suspicion of primary lung cancer, cancer history, and other samples already collected.

Estimation of drug cost avoidance and pathology cost avoidance through participation in NCIC Clinical Trials Group phase III clinical trials in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cost avoidance occurs when, because of provision of a drug therapy [drug cost avoidance (dca)] or a pathology test [pathology cost avoidance (pca)] during trial participation, health care payers need not pay for standard treatments or testing. The aim of our study was to estimate the total dca and pca for Canadian patients enrolled in relevant phase iii trials conducted by the ncic Clinical Trials Group. METHODS: Phase iii trials that had completed accrual and resulted in dca or pca were identified. The pca was calculated based on the number of patients screened and the test cost. The dca was estimated based on patients randomized, the protocol dosing regimen, drug cost, median dose intensity, and median duration of therapy. Costs are presented in Canadian dollars. No adjustment was made for inflation. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2011, 4 trials (1479 patients) resulted in pca and 17 trials (3195 patients) resulted in dca. The total pca was estimated at $4,194,849, which included testing for KRAS ($141,058), microsatellite instability ($18,600), and 21-gene recurrence score ($4,035,191). The total dca was estimated at $27,952,512, of which targeted therapy constituted 43% (five trials). The combined pca and dca was $32,147,361. CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, trials conducted by the ncic Clinical Trials Group resulted in total cost avoidance (pca and dca) of approximately $7,518 per patient. Although not all trials lead to cost avoidance, such savings should be taken account when the financial impact of conducting clinical research is being considered.