Labs Implement Next-generation Sequencing to Support
Latest Oncology Practices
When it comes to oncology diagnostics
and care, immunotherapies and other personalized medicine approaches are among
the leading treatment efforts. As the number of new cancer diagnoses continues
to rise, clinicians need tools that can more quickly—and affordably—offer
answers.
Within the next 5 years, the use of precision medicine in oncology
is set to balloon, benefiting millions of patients globally. According to
industry estimates, 5.1 billion precision cancer diagnostic tests will be
performed between 2018 and 2023, with a market value rising to nearly $20
billion in 2023. Genetic and genomic testing account for a significant portion
of those analyses, but the current predominant practice of analyzing patient
samples for specific mutations takes longer and is less efficient in connecting
patients with the best available treatments for their tumor profiles.
This is
where next-generation sequencing (NGS) comes in. Rather than examining single
genes, NGS allows laboratorians to use molecular barcoding to test multiple
genes simultaneously. Test results provide diagnostic and therapeutic answers
more efficiently.
FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE
Tried and
tested in clinical trial settings, NGS now is spreading its wings into oncology
practice. According to Dhananjay Chitale, MD, vice chair of anatomical pathology
at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, implementation has moved off the bench to
academic medical institutions, large cancer centers, and beyond.
In fact,
explained Razelle Kurzrock, MD, associate director of clinical science at the
University of California San Diego School of Medicine, wider NGS utilization is
a growing trend. Previously in her practice, only patients who sought medical
care in academic environments benefited from NGS, but that is no longer the
case. “If you go back three or four years, patients would almost never come in
having already done next-generation sequencing, and now the majority come in
with it already done,” she said.
Even with this new level of NGS adoption,
the technology still has a way to go on its journey of dissemination, said
Rondell Graham, MD, associate professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at
the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Most NGS is still offered in large
metropolitan areas, but as the volume of cancer care needs continues to rise,
smaller, more suburban facilities could find themselves searching for avenues to
bring this testing online. Indeed, some community hospitals are beginning to
embrace NGS as a routine testing technology.
THE AHA
MOMENT
In many cases, a facility’s decision to take on in-house NGS
will rest on patient need and volume, said Marc Ladanyi, MD, chief of the
molecular diagnostics service and William J. Ruane chair in molecular oncology
at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before delving into
NGS, interested groups should analyze how many of these tests they run monthly
or annually to ensure they can generate enough revenue to overcome the setup
costs. Outsourcing NGS testing is a viable option if creating a lab isn’t
financially feasible, he added.
“The ‘aha’ moment happens when you find
yourself running many individual assays, and you’re really struggling to keep up
with the number of technologists it takes to run those screenings,” he
explained. “You have to look at that and ask whether you could replace all those
tests with a one-panel [NGS] assay to simplify your laboratory workflow while
generating more information.”
Artur Rangel-Filho, MD, medical director of
Memorial Regional Hospital South (MRHS) in Hollywood, Florida, agreed that
patient volume is a major driving factor because it largely determines whether a
lab will generate revenue through NGS. Outlining any cost savings can help get
administrative stakeholders on board with a lab launch, he said.
Before
offering NGS, MRHS spent roughly $1 million annually on outsourcing its NGS
testing. After implementing NGS earlier this year, he explained, that
expenditure has dropped by approximately 80%. The hospital not only has realized
substantial cost savings but also now controls the data and can use it to
improve overall patient outcomes long-term, Rangel-Filho stressed.
But being
successful means more than doing the math to show a boost to the bottom line.
Labs that perform NGS also need a clinical champion, Chitale emphasized,
preferably an oncologist who can help determine how data generated from this
powerful tool will be used, as well as PhD-level molecular genetics lab
professionals on board to oversee processing and analyzing of these
tests.
Additionally, Kurzrock said, facilities should have a molecular tumor
board consisting of clinical laboratory professionals and oncologists that meets
regularly to discuss findings and next steps for patient
treatment.
CHOOSING TESTS, FINDING TECHS
To date, NGS has
been used to identify genetic mutations in solid tumors associated with several
cancer groups, including colon, lung, and breast. Myriad large panel options,
such as whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing, are available, but they also
increase the number of variants undergoing analysis. Instead, many facilities
opt for multi-gene panels. Often these are laboratory-developed tests, but the
number of analysis options approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is
growing.
For example, Ladanyi’s lab offers a 468-gene panel, called MSK
Impact, that detects genetic mutations in solid tumors for both rare and common
cancers. As of 2017, he said, more than 20,000 patients had been screened with
this FDA-approved NGS test. Final approval is also expected soon on a new
cell-free DNA liquid biopsy test called MSK-Access. These types of panels
greatly facilitate screening efforts, he said.
“With a larger NGS panel, you
know you don’t have to maintain multiple separate assays for different cancers
or for different targets,” Ladanyi added. “You have one large pipeline, one
large workflow, that really simplifies things and makes more efficient use of
your technology and time.”
Additionally, Kurzrock and her colleagues used
multigene panel sequencing in the iPredict study and are looking to implement
this approach in clinical practice. This research used NGS to determine the
genetic profile of 149 individuals with stage IV cancers to identify
personalized combination therapies that were more effective than monotherapies.
Based on NGS data from the study, 88% of participants received individualized
combination therapies that halted disease progression, she said (Nature
2019;25:744-50).
Establishing a lab outside of top-tier academic research
institutions can be more complicated, however, said Rangel-Filho. “It’s not the
same as in Boston or the Bay Area where you have several universities with a lot
of postdoctoral fellows who are highly trained and are currently working with
this technology,” he observed. “That wasn’t the case for us in Florida. We had
to build our team from scratch.”
To overcome this challenge, MRHS hired
medical technologists with research backgrounds and trained them in molecular
biology techniques so they could accurately complete the NGS panels the system
offers. Additionally, MRHS purchased commercially available software to handle
its bioinformatics needs.
INFORMATICS: THE ACHILLES’
HEEL?
Even though there are several benefits associated with
performing NGS in-house, barriers to doing so effectively still exist. One of
the most significant involves startup costs, Graham said. The initial cost of
NGS machines can top more than $100,000, and getting sign off for that
expenditure level can be difficult.
Securing reimbursement is also
complicated. As of 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services limited
payment to only FDA-approved NGS tests that analyze solid tumors. Reimbursement
is currently unavailable for tests performed with in-house screening mechanisms
or those conducted for research and investigation purposes.
Another major
challenge, Ladanyi said, is the substantial need for bioinformatics support. The
importance of having highly trained technologists with informatics credentials
in place can’t be underestimated, he said, especially because there are still
few individuals with a high comfort level with NGS. Chitale seconded that
assertion. “Because this is new technology, you will need internal expertise to
design your capabilities with assays,” he said. “Your bioinformatics team must
be able to validate these assays, as well as interpret and report them.”
But,
even with a qualified bioinformatics team in place, Graham cautioned, laboratory
leaders and clinicians must remember that NGS is an extremely sensitive testing
option. Consequently, it presents a greater opportunity for false positives.
Laboratory technologists should also monitor the amount of noise in the assays
to ensure each test provides the best quality information.
Having enough
storage to accommodate the rich amounts of data collected from NGS also presents
a problem, particularly for smaller institutions, Chitale said. Laboratory
leaders should work closely with their information technology teams to ensure a
system exists to keep patients’ test results secure. If on-site storage isn’t
possible, cloud storage is an acceptable alternative, he said.
Ultimately,
Chitale said, NGS is the next wave of oncology testing, and clinicians and their
facilities need to be ready to take full advantage of it. “I think NGS is ready
for prime time,” he said. “We know a lot about cancer genetics and other things,
which are trickling down into the clinical arena. We must make use of that
information in a precision medicine program.”