Conference Coverage

Upfront NGS testing of metastatic NSCLC saves money, time


Key clinical point: Upfront NGS in metastatic NSCLC is cost-saving compared with single-gene testing strategies.

Major finding: Relative to exclusionary, sequential, or panel testing, NGS testing could save up to $2.1 million among CMS beneficiaries and up to $250,842 among patients covered by commercial insurance.

Study details: A decision analytic modeling study in hypothetical cohorts of 1 million insurance plan enrollees.

Disclosures: Dr. Pennell disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Regeneron, and that his institution receives research funding from Genentech, NewLink Genetics, Clovis Oncology, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Merck. The study received funding from Novartis.

Source: Pennell et al. ASCO Annual Meeting, Abstract 9031.



Comprehensive testing of newly diagnosed metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with next-generation sequencing (NGS) for known lung cancer–related genomic alterations is cost-saving relative to single-gene testing strategies and often faster, a new study finds.

“We know now that genomic testing for all patients with advanced NSCLC is the standard of care to help detect oncogenic drivers, to inform treatment decisions,” lead study author Nathan A. Pennell, MD, PhD, codirector of the Cleveland Clinic lung cancer program, said in a press briefing leading up to the ASCO annual meeting. But the optimal strategy for this testing is unclear.

He and his colleagues conducted a decision analytic modeling study among hypothetical insurance plans having 1 million enrollees. Outcomes were compared between NGS testing and three single-gene testing strategies.

Data indicated that compared with exclusionary, sequential, or hot-spot panel testing approaches, NGS testing simultaneously for eight genomic alterations having Food and Drug Administration–approved or investigational targeted therapies could save up to $2.1 million among Medicare beneficiaries and up to $250,842 among patients covered by commercial insurance. The costs to payers decreased as the percentage of patients receiving NGS testing increased. Moreover, the wait time for results was similar or roughly half as long with NGS.

“Our results showed that there were substantial cost savings associated with upfront NGS testing compared to all other strategies,” Dr. Pennell said. “In addition, NGS had a faster turnaround time than either sequential or exclusionary testing, which is critically important for sick lung cancer patients, to make sure they get their treatment as quickly as possible. Waiting a month or longer is simply no longer viable for patients because they get sick very quickly and these treatments work very well.”

Of note, the model indicated that some patients undergoing initial single-gene testing strategies never had their genomic alterations detected because tissue for testing ran out and they were too sick to undergo another biopsy.

“The bottom line is, ultimately, using the best single test upfront results in the fastest turnaround time, the highest percentage of patients with targetable alterations identified, and overall the lowest cost to payers,” he summarized.


Next Article: