1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Germline Genetic Testing Before and After a Medical Policy Covering Universal Testing Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Do patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receive microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry (MSI/IHC) tumor screening and germline genetic testing (GGT) when they have insurance that covers these tests?

          Findings

          In a cohort study of 9066 patients with CRC in 2017 to 2020, 2288 (25.2%) did not receive MSI/IHC despite being eligible for coverage. In a cohort of 55 595 patients with CRC diagnosed in 2020 and covered by insurance, 1675 (3.0%) received GGT, and 1 in 6 patients had variants that were clinically actionable.

          Meaning

          These results indicate that medical policies that provide universal testing for MSI/IHC tumor screening and GGT were underused for patients with CRC, potentially impeding their access to precision therapy, clinical trials, and evidence-based clinical management.

          Abstract

          This cohort study of claims data examines whether uptake of microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry tumor screening germline genetic testing for patients with colorectal cancer has improved since implementation of universal coverage by insurance policies.

          Abstract

          Importance

          In 2020, some health insurance plans updated their medical policy to cover germline genetic testing for all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). Guidelines for universal tumor screening via microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry (MSI/IHC) for mismatch repair protein expression for patients with CRC have been in place since 2009.

          Objectives

          To examine whether uptake of MSI/IHC screening and germline genetic testing in patients with CRC has improved under these policies and to identify actionable findings and management implications for patients referred for germline genetic testing.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          The multicenter, retrospective cohort study comprised 2 analyses of patients 18 years or older who were diagnosed with CRC between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020. The first analysis used an insurance claims data set to examine use of MSI/IHC screening and germline genetic testing for patients diagnosed with CRC between 2017 and 2020 and treated with systemic therapy. The second comprised patients with CRC who had germline genetic testing performed in 2020 that was billed under a universal testing policy.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Patient demographic characteristics, clinical information, and use of MSI/IHC screening and germline genetic testing were analyzed.

          Results

          For 9066 patients with newly diagnosed CRC (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.7] years; 4964 [54.8%] male), administrative claims data indicated that MSI/IHC was performed in 6645 eligible patients (73.3%) during the study period, with 2288 (25.2%) not receiving MSI/IHC despite being eligible for coverage. Analysis of a second cohort of 55 595 patients with CRC diagnosed in 2020 and covered by insurance found that only 1675 (3.0%) received germline genetic testing. In a subset of patients for whom germline genetic testing results were available, 1 in 6 patients had pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, with most of these patients having variants with established clinical actionability.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This nationwide cohort study found suboptimal rates of MSI/IHC screening and germline genetic testing uptake, resulting in clinically actionable genetic data being unavailable to patients diagnosed with CRC, despite universal eligibility. Effective strategies are required to address barriers to implementation of evidence-based universal testing policies that support precision treatment and optimal care management for patients with CRC.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer Statistics, 2021

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence. Incidence data (through 2017) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2018) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2021, 1,898,160 new cancer cases and 608,570 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. After increasing for most of the 20th century, the cancer death rate has fallen continuously from its peak in 1991 through 2018, for a total decline of 31%, because of reductions in smoking and improvements in early detection and treatment. This translates to 3.2 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if peak rates had persisted. Long-term declines in mortality for the 4 leading cancers have halted for prostate cancer and slowed for breast and colorectal cancers, but accelerated for lung cancer, which accounted for almost one-half of the total mortality decline from 2014 to 2018. The pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled from 3.1% during 2009 through 2013 to 5.5% during 2014 through 2018 in men, from 1.8% to 4.4% in women, and from 2.4% to 5% overall. This trend coincides with steady declines in incidence (2.2%-2.3%) but rapid gains in survival specifically for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). For example, NSCLC 2-year relative survival increased from 34% for persons diagnosed during 2009 through 2010 to 42% during 2015 through 2016, including absolute increases of 5% to 6% for every stage of diagnosis; survival for small cell lung cancer remained at 14% to 15%. Improved treatment accelerated progress against lung cancer and drove a record drop in overall cancer mortality, despite slowing momentum for other common cancers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Durable Clinical Benefit With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in DNA Mismatch Repair–Deficient/Microsatellite Instability–High Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

            Purpose Nivolumab provides clinical benefit (objective response rate [ORR], 31%; 95% CI, 20.8 to 42.9; disease control rate, 69%; 12-month overall survival [OS], 73%) in previously treated patients with DNA mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); nivolumab plus ipilimumab may improve these outcomes. Efficacy and safety results for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab cohort of CheckMate-142, the largest single-study report of an immunotherapy combination in dMMR/MSI-H mCRC, are reported. Patients and Methods Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks. Primary end point was investigator-assessed ORR. Results Of 119 patients, 76% had received ≥ two prior systemic therapies. At median follow-up of 13.4 months, investigator-assessed ORR was 55% (95% CI, 45.2 to 63.8), and disease control rate for ≥ 12 weeks was 80%. Median duration of response was not reached; most responses (94%) were ongoing at data cutoff. Progression-free survival rates were 76% (9 months) and 71% (12 months); respective OS rates were 87% and 85%. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements were observed in patient-reported outcomes, including functioning, symptoms, and quality of life. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 32% of patients and were manageable. Patients (13%) who discontinued treatment because of study drug-related AEs had an ORR (63%) consistent with that of the overall population. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated high response rates, encouraging progression-free survival and OS at 12 months, manageable safety, and meaningful improvements in key patient-reported outcomes. Indirect comparisons suggest combination therapy provides improved efficacy relative to anti-programmed death-1 monotherapy and has a favorable benefit-risk profile. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides a promising new treatment option for patients with dMMR/MSI-H mCRC.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on utilisation of healthcare services: a systematic review

              Objectives To determine the extent and nature of changes in utilisation of healthcare services during COVID-19 pandemic. Design Systematic review. Eligibility Eligible studies compared utilisation of services during COVID-19 pandemic to at least one comparable period in prior years. Services included visits, admissions, diagnostics and therapeutics. Studies were excluded if from single centres or studied only patients with COVID-19. Data sources PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and preprints were searched, without language restrictions, until 10 August, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, health services and impact. Data analysis Risk of bias was assessed by adapting the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, and a Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care tool. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics, graphical figures and narrative synthesis. Outcome measures Primary outcome was change in service utilisation between prepandemic and pandemic periods. Secondary outcome was the change in proportions of users of healthcare services with milder or more severe illness (eg, triage scores). Results 3097 unique references were identified, and 81 studies across 20 countries included, reporting on >11 million services prepandemic and 6.9 million during pandemic. For the primary outcome, there were 143 estimates of changes, with a median 37% reduction in services overall (IQR −51% to −20%), comprising median reductions for visits of 42% (−53% to −32%), admissions 28% (−40% to −17%), diagnostics 31% (−53% to −24%) and for therapeutics 30% (−57% to −19%). Among 35 studies reporting secondary outcomes, there were 60 estimates, with 27 (45%) reporting larger reductions in utilisation among people with a milder spectrum of illness, and 33 (55%) reporting no difference. Conclusions Healthcare utilisation decreased by about a third during the pandemic, with considerable variation, and with greater reductions among people with less severe illness. While addressing unmet need remains a priority, studies of health impacts of reductions may help health systems reduce unnecessary care in the postpandemic recovery. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020203729.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                24 October 2022
                October 2022
                24 October 2022
                : 5
                : 10
                : e2238167
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Invitae, San Francisco, California
                [2 ]Optum Labs, Minnetonka, Minnesota
                [3 ]UnitedHealthcare, Minnetonka, Minnesota
                [4 ]Variantyx Inc, Framingham, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: September 1, 2022.
                Published: October 24, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.38167
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2022 Moretz C et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Edward D. Esplin, MD, PhD, Invitae, 1400 16th St, San Francisco, CA 94103 ( ed.esplin@ 123456invitae.com ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Moretz and Esplin had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Moretz, Byfield, Dalton, Hansen, Nielsen, Munro, Esplin.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Moretz, Byfield, Hatchell, Dalton, Hang, Radford, Nielsen, Heald, Nussbaum, Esplin.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Moretz, Byfield, Munro, Nussbaum, Esplin.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Moretz, Byfield, Hatchell, Dalton, Hang, Hansen, Radford, Nielsen, Heald, Munro, Nussbaum, Esplin.
                Statistical analysis: Hatchell, Hang.
                Obtained funding: Dalton.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Moretz, Dalton, Hang, Hansen, Radford, Heald, Munro, Nussbaum.
                Supervision: Moretz, Byfield, Dalton, Hansen, Nussbaum, Esplin.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Moretz reported holding stock from Invitae as an employee. Dr Byfield reported holding stock from UnitedHealth Group as an employee of Optum Labs. Dr Hatchell reported holding stock from Invitae as an employee. Ms Dalton reported holding stock from UnitedHealth Group as a past employee of Optum Labs. Ms Hang reported holding stock from UnitedHealth Group as an employee of Optum Labs. Ms Radford reported holding stock from Invitae and Genome Medical as a former employee and from UnitedHealth Group as an employee of Optum Labs. Ms Nielsen reported holding stock from Invitae as an employee. Ms Heald reported holding stock from Invitae as an employee. Dr Munro reported holding stock from Invitae as an employee. Dr Nussbaum reported holding stock from Invitae as an employee, holding stock in Genome Medical and Maze Therapeutics, and receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Genome Medical, and Maze Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr Esplin reported holding stock from Invitae as an employee and being a scientific advisory board member and stockholder in Taproot Health. No other disclosures were reported.
                Disclaimer: The results reported and views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of UnitedHealthcare.
                Article
                zoi221077 zoi221077
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.38167
                9593236
                36279135
                e7595936-61f7-47aa-88f6-6c357463df60
                Copyright 2022 Moretz C et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.

                History
                : 2 May 2022
                : 1 September 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article