There’s evidence that a cancer drug can cut deaths from lung cancer by as much as 50% when pathology testing indicates the patient has the EGFR mutation
Results from a decade-long clinical trial indicate that lung cancer patients with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation have significantly better survival rates when treated with the drug osimertinib. This is a positive step forward for precision medicine and will give clinical laboratories an opportunity to deliver more value to physicians and patients.
The study known as ADAURA was led by scientists at Yale University and funded by British pharmaceutical/biotechnology company AstraZeneca. The researchers recently found that taking the cancer drug osimertinib (brand name Tagrisso) reduces by half the number of deaths among patients who had undergone surgery for EGFR–mutated, stage IB to IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to NBC News.
Lung cancer has been one of the toughest types of cancers to diagnose early. When finally diagnosed, many patients do not have a good prognosis. Thus, the results of this multi-national study—and the connection involving patients with the EGFR gene—is a welcome development that promises better outcomes for cancer patients.
At the same time, this increases the value of EGFR as a biomarker for clinical laboratories and pathology groups that offer EGFR testing. It could become a companion diagnostic test—part of a clinical guideline for diagnosing lung cancer—that helps identify appropriate anti-cancer drugs for specific patients.
“Adjuvant osimertinib is currently the only EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor to translate a statistically significant and practice-changing disease-free survival benefit into a significant [overall survival] benefit in a phase 3 trial, supporting osimertinib as the standard of care for patients in this setting,” said Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Deputy Director and Chief of Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, who led the Yale study, at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting, according to an ASCO news release. (Photo copyright: Yale School of Medicine.)
Identifying Best Candidates for Specific Cancer Drugs
The results of the Yale-led study of the cancer drug osimertinib suggest that testing for a mutation in the EGFR gene could become part of the standard-of-care for NSCLC. Researchers found that NSCLC patients with the mutation showed improved survival rates and reduced risk of recurrence when taking the drug following surgery. EGFR tests could thus become companion diagnostics to determine whether patients are good candidates for the drug.
“We have been using one-size-fits-all adjuvant chemotherapy for every patient with lung cancer despite a decade of advances in targeted treatments for select groups of patients that result in dramatically better outcomes,” Nathan Pennell, MD, PhD, Vice Chair of Clinical Research and Director, Lung Cancer Medical Oncology Program Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, told the ASCO Post.
Pennell, who was not involved in the Yale research, described the finding as “a first for the lung cancer field,” and said adjuvant osimertinib “should be the new standard of care” for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
‘Practice-changing’ Cancer Drug
The study was led by Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, Deputy Director and Chief of Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center and Assistant Dean for Translational Research at Yale School of Medicine. Herbst is the principal investigator for the ADAURA global multi-site clinical trial which enrolled 682 patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, in an effort to determine the efficacy of the cancer drug osimertinib, a pill taken once a day, which, according to NBC News, has fewer major side effects than chemotherapy.
The FDA approved the drug in 2015 for patients with advanced lung cancer. In 2020, the agency approved its use at earlier stages of the disease.
The ADAURA study included patients from 26 countries across Europe, North America, South America, and the Asia-Pacific region. About half of the patients took the pill each day for three years following surgery. The other half received a placebo.
According to a Yale news release, the researchers reported that 88% of patients treated with the drug were still alive five years later, compared with 78% of patients who received the placebo.
Earlier research demonstrated that the drug prevented recurrence of tumors and kept the disease from spreading to other organs, NBC News reported. “However, what we are seeing now is that patients will also live longer,” said oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study.
Herbst described the drug as “practice-changing” in the Yale news story.
An EGFR ‘Off Switch’
Non-small cell lung cancer is the most common form of lung cancer, The Guardian reported, adding that the EGFR mutation “is found in about a quarter of global lung cancer cases, and accounts for as many as 40% of cases in Asia. An EGFR mutation is more common in women than men and in people who have never smoked or have been light smokers.”
The mutation can cause cells to “excessively divide and multiply, which may cause cancer,” NBC News explained. Herbst described osimertinib as an “off” switch for the mutation.
“I think we’re curing some patients,” he said at the ASCO annual meeting, NBC News reported. “We’re really showing progress in lung cancer like never before,” he noted, adding that the results were “about twice as good as we expected.
“Overall survival has historically been considered the gold standard efficacy endpoint for randomized adjuvant clinical trials. The results of the ADAURA trial will broaden treatment access for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC,” Herbst told ASCO Post. “Together with the practice-changing disease-free survival data from our primary analysis, the overall survival benefit instills confidence that adjuvant osimertinib is the standard of care for patients with resected EGFR-mutated stage IB to IIIA NSCLC.”
Side effects of the pill include skin rashes and mild diarrhea, but in general the drug is “quite well tolerated,” Herbst said.
Impact on Labs
In Herbst’s view, the results of the Yale study demonstrate that patients diagnosed with lung cancer should be tested for the EGFR mutation, which is not always the case, The Guardian reported. “This further reinforces the need to identify these patients with available biomarkers at the time of diagnosis and before treatment begins,” he said.
Aggarwal agreed, telling NBC News that data from the study could be a “call to action” for more EGFR screening.
In light of the results, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should expect that EGFR screening may soon become a companion diagnostic test as part of a precision medicine clinical guideline for early diagnosing of lung cancer.
The speakers also noted that labs must learn to work collaboratively with payers—perhaps through health information technology (HIT)—to establish best practices that improve reimbursements on claims for novel genetic tests.
Harnessing the ever-increasing volume of diagnostic data that genetic testing produces should be a high priority for labs, said William Morice II, MD, PhD, CEO and President of Mayo Clinic Laboratories.
“There will be an increased focus on getting information within the laboratory … for areas such as genomics and proteomics,” Morice told the keynote audience at the Executive War College on Wednesday.
“Wearable technology data is analyzed using machine learning. Clinical laboratories must participate in analyzing that spectrum of diagnostics,” said William Morice II, MD, PhD (above), CEO and President of Mayo Clinic Laboratories. Morice spoke during this week’s Executive War College.
Precision Medicine Efforts Include Genetic Testing and Wearable Devices
For laboratories new to genetic testing that want to move it in-house, Morice outlined effective first steps to take, including the following:
Determine and then analyze the volume of genetic testing that a lab is sending out.
Research and evaluate genetic sequencing platforms that are on the market, with an eye towards affordable cloud-based options.
Build a business case to conduct genetic tests in-house that focuses on the long-term value to patients and how that could also improve revenue.
A related area for clinical laboratories and pathology practices to explore is their role in how clinicians treat patients using wearable technology.
For example, according to Morice, Mayo Clinic has monitored 20,000 cardiac patients with wearable devices. The data from the wearable devices—which includes diagnostic information—is analyzed using machine learning, a subset of artificial intelligence.
In one study published in Scientific Reports, scientists from Mayo’s Departments of Neurology and Biomedical Engineering found “clear evidence that direct seizure forecasts are possible using wearable devices in the ambulatory setting for many patients with epilepsy.”
Clinical laboratories fit into this picture, Morice explained. For example, depending on what data it provides, a wearable device on a patient with worsening neurological symptoms could trigger a lab test for Alzheimer’s disease or other neurological disorders.
“This will change how labs think about access to care,” he noted.
For Payers, Navigating Genetic Testing Claims is Difficult
While there is promise in genetic testing and precision medicine, from an administrative viewpoint, these activities can be challenging for payers when it comes to verifying reimbursement claims.
“One of the biggest challenges we face is determining what test is being ordered. From the perspective of the reimbursement process, it’s not always clear,” said Cristi Radford, MS, CGC, Product Director at healthcare services provider Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Radford also presented a keynote at this year’s Executive War College.
Approximately 400 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes are in place to represent the estimated 175,000 genetic tests on the market, Radford noted. That creates a dilemma for labs and payers in assigning codes to novel genetic tests.
During her keynote address, Radford showed the audience of laboratory executives a slide that charted how four labs submitted claims for the same high-risk breast cancer panel. CPT code choices varied greatly.
“Does the payer have any idea which test was ordered? No,” she said. “It was a genetic panel, but the information doesn’t give us the specificity payers need.”
In such situations, payers resort to prior authorization to halt these types of claims on the front end so that more diagnostic information can be provided.
“Plans don’t like prior authorization, but it’s a necessary evil,” said Jason Bush, PhD, Executive Vice President of Product at Avalon Healthcare Solutions in Tampa, Florida. Bush co-presented with Radford.
[Editor’s note: Dark Daily offers a free webinar, “Learning from Payer Behavior to Increase Appeal Success,” that teaches labs how to better understand payer behavior. The webinar features recent trends in denials and appeals by payers that will help diagnostic organizations maximize their appeal success. Click here to stream this important webinar.]
Payers Struggle with ‘Explosion’ of Genetic Tests
In “UnitedHealth’s Optum to Offer Lab Test Management,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report, covered Optum’s announcement that it had launched “a comprehensive laboratory benefit management solution designed to help health plans reduce unnecessary lab testing and ensure their members receive appropriate, high-quality tests.”
Optum sells this laboratory benefit management program to other health plans and self-insured employers. Genetic test management capabilities are part of that offering.
As part of its lab management benefit program, Optum is collaborating with Avalon on a new platform for genetic testing that will launch soon and focus on identifying test quality, streamlining prior authorization, and providing test payment accuracy in advance.
“Payers are struggling with the explosion in genetic testing,” Bush told Executive War College attendees. “They are truly not trying to hinder innovation.”
For clinical laboratory leaders reading this ebriefing, the takeaway is twofold: Genetic testing and resulting precision medicine efforts provide hope in more effectively treating patients. At the same time, the genetic test juggernaut has grown so large so quickly payers are finding it difficult to manage. Thus, it has become a source of continuous challenge for labs seeking reimbursements.
Heath information technology may help ease the situation. But, ultimately, stronger communication between labs and payers—including acknowledgement of what each side needs from a business perspective—is paramount.
As 3D printing technology gains acceptance with pharmaceutical companies, clinical laboratories could see increased demand for pharmacogenomic testing
Will physicians someday “print” prescription drugs for patients in-office? It sounds like science fiction, but research being conducted at the University College London (UCL) indicates the capability may be closer than we think, and it could bring about a new type of collaboration between clinical laboratories, ordering physicians, and pharmacies.
UCL’s new 3D technique, which it calls “volumetric 3D printing,” is intended to enable the pharmaceutical industry to tailor drug dosage, shape/size, and release to an individual patient’s needs and preference. A key element of precision medicine.
According to GlobalData Healthcare, 3D printing also can “significantly reduce cost, wastes, and economic burden as printers only deposit the exact amount of raw materials required.”
3D printing may enable pharmaceutical companies to address gender and racial disparities in prescription drug manufacturing through a developing technology that could have implications for clinical laboratory testing. Fred Parietti, PhD (above), co-founder and CEO of Multiply Labs, a technology company that develops robotics for precision medicine pharmaceuticals, told 3D Natives, “Currently, medications are developed especially for white adult men, which means that all women and children have an excessive prescription for their bodies. This fact underlines the importance of the advent of personalized medicines, as well as highlighting the individuality of each patient, since the error in the dosage of certain active ingredients can even lead to the malfunctioning of some treatments.” (Photo copyright: Multiply Labs.)
.
Increased Demand for Pharmacogenomic Testing
Though 3D printing of prescription drugs is not directly in the clinical laboratory/pathology space, it is noteworthy because it shows how technological advancements are progressing that actualize the ability to deliver precision medicine care to individual patients.
In turn, this could increase physician/patient demand for pharmacogenomic tests performed by clinical laboratories. The test results would be used by treating physicians to determine proper dosages for their individual patients prior to ordering 3D-printed drugs.
Being able to provide medication tailored to patients’ specific needs could bring about a revolution in pharmaceutical manufacturing. If 3D printed prescription drugs become mainstream, the demands could affect the clinical laboratory and pathology industries as well.
How Far Are We from Mass Production of 3D Printed Drugs?
The first and only 3D printed pharmaceutical drug on the American market is Spritam (levetiracetam) an anti-epileptic drug developed by Aprecia Pharmaceuticals, according to Medical Device Network. It received FDA clearance under the name Keppra in 1999.
Headquartered in Blue Ash, Ohio, Aprecia’s patented ZipDose manufacturing process allows 3D-printed pills to hold a larger dosage and dissolve rapidly. They currently have the only FDA process-validated 3D printing platform for commercial-scale drug production. They are leading the way on this new 3D technology and others are following suit.
FabRx, a start-up 3D printing company developed by academic researchers in 2014 at the University College London, released its first pharmaceutical 3D printer for personalized medicine called M3DIMAKER according to LabioTech.eu. The system is “controlled by specialized software, allowing the selection of the required dose by the pharmacist according to the prescription given by the clinician,” the company’s website notes.
The technology also allows for additional customization of pills, including the application of Braille for visually impaired patients, and printing of Polypills, which combine more than one drug into a single pill.
Other company’s developing 3D printing of pharmaceuticals, according to LabioTech.eu, include:
Germany’s Merck: currently in clinical trials of 3D printing medication with the goal of reaching large scale production.
China’s Triastek: which holds “41 patents that account for more than 20% of global 3D printing pharmaceuticals applications.”
We are still far away from large scale production of drugs using 3D printing, but that doesn’t mean it should not be on clinical laboratory leaders’ radar.
The rise of 3D printing technology for precision medicine could lead to big changes in the pharmaceutical world and alter how patients, providers, and clinical laboratories interact. It also could increase demand for pharmacogenomic testing to determine the best dosage for individual patients. This breakthrough shows how one line of technology research and development may, as it reaches clinical use, engage clinical laboratories.
Of interest to clinical pathologists is the finding that sequencing the genomes of Humans and Neanderthals revealed a link between severity of COVID-19 infections and Neanderthal DNA
Genetic scientists from the University of California Santa Cruz have learned that just 7%—or less—of our DNA is unique to the human species, with the remainder of our genomes coming from other archaic species, such as Neanderthal and Denisovan.
Why should this matter to pathologists and clinical laboratories? Because a broader knowledge of how DNA evolves may help researchers and healthcare providers better understand how a modern family’s DNA can change over generations. In turn, these insights may lead to precision medicine tools for personalized diagnosis and treatment.
“We find that a low fraction, 1.5 to 7%, of the human genome is uniquely human, with the remainder comprising lineages shared with archaic hominins from either ILS [incomplete lineage sorting] or [genetic] admixture,” wrote the paper’s authors.
To complete their study, the researchers used DNA extracted from fossils of Neanderthals and Denisovans, as well as genetic information from 279 people from various locations around the world.
One goal was to determine what part of a modern human’s genome is truly unique. Though only a small percentage of our entire genome, those portions are important.
“We can tell those regions of the genome are highly enriched for genes that have to do with neural development and brain function,” Richard Green, PhD, Associate Professor of Biomolecular Engineering at the University of California Santa Cruz and co-author of the paper, told the Associated Press (AP).
In addition to highlighting what makes modern humans unique as a species, the study also suggests, “That we’re actually a very young species. Not that long ago, we shared the planet with other human lineages,” said Joshua Akey, PhD, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics at Princeton University. Akey co-authored the Science Advances research paper.
Human/Neanderthal Genetic Overlap
The genetic research being conducted at the University of California Santa Cruz is just the most recent in a flurry of studies over the past decade investigating the Neanderthal genome. Most of these studies point to the vast similarities between humans and Neanderthals, but also to how similar humans are to each other.
“Humans have more than three billion letter pairs of DNA in their genome: It turns out less than 2% of that spells out around 20,000 specific genes, or sets of instructions that code for the proteins that make our tissues,” wrote zooarcheologist Anna Goldfield, PhD (above), Adjunct Instructor Cosumnes River College in Sacramento, Calif., and at the University of California, Davis, in Sapiens. “All humans share the same basic set of genes (we all have a gene for earwax consistency, for example), but there are subtle variations in the DNA spelling of those genes from individual to individual that result in slightly different proteins (sticky earwax versus dry earwax) … Overall, any given human being is about 99.9% similar, genetically, to any other human being,” she added. It is those variations that could lead to precision medicine treatments, personalized drug therapies, and clinical laboratory tests that inform physicians about relevant genetic variations. (Photo copyright: Boston University.)
Practically Everyone Has Neanderthal DNA
Understanding that humans and Neanderthals are 93-98.5% similar genetically may—or may not—come as a surprise. In delving into those similarities and differences researchers are making interesting and potentially important discoveries.
For example, researchers have studied a gene that occurs in both modern humans and Neanderthal fossils that has to do with how the body responds to carcinogenic hydrocarbons, such as smoke from burning wood. Neanderthals were far more sensitive to the carcinogens, but also had more genetic variants, such as single-nucleotide polymorphisms, that could neutralize their effects.
Most modern humans carry some Neanderthal DNA. For some time, scientists thought that Africans likely did not carry Neanderthal DNA, since ancient people tended to migrate out of Africa and met Neanderthals in Europe. More recent research, however, shows that migration patterns were more complex than previously thought, and that the ancient people migrated back to Africa bringing Neanderthal DNA with them.
“Our results show this history was much more interesting and there were many waves of dispersal out of Africa, some of which led to admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals that we see in the genomes of all living individuals today,” Akey told CNN.
Neanderthal DNA and COVID-19
Researchers have found that having Neanderthal DNA may affect the health of modern people who carry it. Perception of pain, immune system function, and even hair color and sleeping patterns have been associated with having Neanderthal DNA.
Scientists have even found a potential link between severe COVID-19 infection and Neanderthal DNA, CNN reported.
The researchers added, “It turns out that this gene variant was inherited by modern humans from the Neanderthals when they interbred some 60,000 years ago. Today, the people who inherited this gene variant are three times more likely to need artificial ventilation if they are infected by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.”
Of course, these links and associations are preliminary science. John Capra, PhD, Research Associate Professor of Biological Sciences and Associate Professor of Biomedical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco says, “We can’t blame Neanderthals for COVID. That’s a damaging response, and that’s why I want to emphasize so much [that] the social and environmental factors are the real things that people should be worrying about,” he told CNN.
“That said,” he continued, “as a geneticist, I think it is important to know the evolutionary history of the genetic variants we find that do have effects on traits. The effects of Neanderthal DNA traits are detectable, but they’re modest.”
Nevertheless, genetic scientists agree that understanding the genetic roots of disorders could lead to breakthroughs that result in new types of clinical laboratory tests designed to guide precision medicine treatments.
