Off-Label Use of Precision Oncology Therapeutics in Advanced Solid Cancers Following Identification of Associated Variants via Multicancer Next-Generation Sequencing Panel: A Real-World Evidence Pilot Study

Julie Wiedower, Nicole Zhang, Rebecca Nagy, Kathryn Lang, Jayati Saha
{"title":"Off-Label Use of Precision Oncology Therapeutics in Advanced Solid Cancers Following Identification of Associated Variants via Multicancer Next-Generation Sequencing Panel: A Real-World Evidence Pilot Study","authors":"Julie Wiedower, Nicole Zhang, Rebecca Nagy, Kathryn Lang, Jayati Saha","doi":"10.25270/jcp.2023.09.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Off-label use of pharmaceuticals, including in precision oncology, is common but not necessarily lacking in evidence of efficacy and safety. Concerns about payer coverage hindering comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in preci­sion oncology are raised, yet studies show that CGP rarely leads to prescribing of off-label therapies (2%-7%). We investigated off-label therapy utilization post- CGP via liquid biopsy using a clinicogenomic database. Variants associated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapies were identified in patients. Methods: We reviewed clinical reports for FDA-approved therapy-asso­ciated variants, focusing on five genes (EGFR, PIK3CA, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2) with >1% frequency. We then used the GuardantINFORM database (137 000+ patients) to assess off-label use impact, including variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) influence. Results: Among variants with an associated FDA-approved therapy in another indication (n = 18 660), only 0.8% had subsequent off-label therapy claims unrelated to on-label cancer types. Clinical trial enrollment post-CGP in the group receiving off-label therapy was 19%. For VUSs in five genes, 1.2% received off-label therapies (n = 21 606). Conclusions: CGP via validated liquid biopsy seems to result in minimal inappropriate use of off-label therapies. These findings can in­form payer coverage policies regarding CGP’s impact on advanced solid cancers.","PeriodicalId":73670,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical pathways : the foundation of value-based care","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical pathways : the foundation of value-based care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/jcp.2023.09.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Off-label use of pharmaceuticals, including in precision oncology, is common but not necessarily lacking in evidence of efficacy and safety. Concerns about payer coverage hindering comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in preci­sion oncology are raised, yet studies show that CGP rarely leads to prescribing of off-label therapies (2%-7%). We investigated off-label therapy utilization post- CGP via liquid biopsy using a clinicogenomic database. Variants associated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapies were identified in patients. Methods: We reviewed clinical reports for FDA-approved therapy-asso­ciated variants, focusing on five genes (EGFR, PIK3CA, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2) with >1% frequency. We then used the GuardantINFORM database (137 000+ patients) to assess off-label use impact, including variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) influence. Results: Among variants with an associated FDA-approved therapy in another indication (n = 18 660), only 0.8% had subsequent off-label therapy claims unrelated to on-label cancer types. Clinical trial enrollment post-CGP in the group receiving off-label therapy was 19%. For VUSs in five genes, 1.2% received off-label therapies (n = 21 606). Conclusions: CGP via validated liquid biopsy seems to result in minimal inappropriate use of off-label therapies. These findings can in­form payer coverage policies regarding CGP’s impact on advanced solid cancers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过多癌新一代测序小组确定相关变异后,在晚期实体癌中使用精确肿瘤治疗药物:一项真实世界证据试点研究
背景:药物的超说明书使用,包括精确肿瘤学,是常见的,但不一定缺乏有效性和安全性的证据。人们担心,在精确肿瘤学中,付款人覆盖范围会阻碍全面基因组分析(CGP),但研究表明,CGP很少导致开出说明书外治疗的处方(2%-7%)。我们使用临床基因组数据库通过液体活检调查了CGP后适应症外治疗的使用情况。在患者中发现了与美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准的治疗相关的变异。方法:我们回顾了fda批准的治疗相关变异的临床报告,重点关注5个频率为1%的基因(EGFR、PIK3CA、ATM、BRCA1、BRCA2)。然后,我们使用GuardantINFORM数据库(137000 +患者)来评估说明书外用药的影响,包括不确定显著性(VUSs)影响的变体。结果:在与fda批准的其他适应症相关治疗的变异中(n = 18 660),只有0.8%的患者随后进行了与标签上的癌症类型无关的标签外治疗。接受标签外治疗组的cgp后临床试验入组率为19%。对于5个基因的VUSs, 1.2%接受了标签外治疗(n = 21,606)。结论:经验证的液体活检的CGP似乎导致了适应症外治疗的最小不适当使用。这些发现可以形成关于CGP对晚期实体癌影响的付款人覆盖政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: The Wins, The Challenges, and How We Can Deliver on Personalized Cancer Care Off-Label Use of Precision Oncology Therapeutics in Advanced Solid Cancers Following Identification of Associated Variants via Multicancer Next-Generation Sequencing Panel: A Real-World Evidence Pilot Study NGS Testing in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Leveraging Quality Measurement to Drive Equitable Cancer Care for Transgender Individuals https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/jcp/feature-story/oncology-pathways-drive-adoption-high-quality-treatment-regimens-and-deliver
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1