Actionability of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) compared to single-gene and small panels in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC): A real-world study.

Abstract

e21114 Background: Biomarker testing for patients with aNSCLC includes testing for specific alterations in single genes, hotspot multigene panels, or CGP. Historically, CGP has been used following progression on early lines of systemic therapy to identify genomic alterations not captured by single-gene/hotspot testing, or to determine clinical trial(CT) eligibility. We compared the proportion of patients with genomic alterations for which FDA has approved targeted therapies(TT) (actionable alterations) identified through CGP vs. single-gene/small panel(“small panel”) testing in the real-world setting. Methods: In a retrospective study, patients initially diagnosed-with/progressed-to aNSCLC between 1/1/2015-12/31/2020, treated in the US community health setting, were categorized based on small panel or CGP testing. Patients were followed until the earliest of last contact/death/study-end on 9/30/2021. Testing between 30 days prior to initial NSCLC diagnosis and end of follow-up was used to determine actionability based on OncoKB levels, and eligibility for two basket-CTs(ASCO-TAPUR, NCI-MATCH). Results: Of 7,242 aNSCLC patients in this study, 5,154 (72%) received molecular testing (50% only small panel; 14% CGP; and 7% with an unknown size panel), 22% of patients remained untested and 7% were tested for only PD-L1. Among CGP-tested patients evaluated for tumor mutational burden (TMB), 18% were classified as TMB-High. > 75% of patients presented with advanced cancer at initial diagnosis, 51% were female, 50% were White, and median age was 68 years. Molecular testing rate increased from 9% to 20%(CGP) and 42% to 51%(small panel) between 2015–2020. The proportion of patients with ≥1 actionable biomarker was significantly higher with CGP than small panels (34%vs.15%; p < 0.001). Of tested patients. the proportion of CT eligible patients was also significantly greater for CGP than small panels (56%vs.4%; p < 0.001). The proportion of tested patients that received an FDA-approved TT or immunotherapy(IO) within 30 days of testing was higher in CGP cohort compared to small panel (9%vs.3%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Although rates of CGP and small panel testing are increasing over time, overall molecular testing remains underutilized, and the proportion of patients who received TT/IO post-testing is low. Use of CGP is associated with higher identification of actionable biomarkers and patients receiving TT/IO, and CT eligibility.