Discoveries of a current study have demonstrated that prognostic data provided by the VeriStrat test by Biodesix, Boulder, Colo, can enhance care over lung cancer patients and help physicians in meeting a few quality measures associated with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ oncology care model (OCM) payment program. Results are from a comprehensive literature review conducted to evaluate the completeness of prognostic markers commonly utilized as a part of lung cancer, and additionally the estimation of the proteomic VeriStrat biomarker test in addressing to neglected prognostic needs.For patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, Biodesix’s VeriStrat test is a predictive and prognostic blood-based proteomic test. The test is utilized to evaluate disease aggressiveness by portraying host reaction to the tumor, characterizing patients as either VeriStrat-great or VeriStrat-poor.
David B. Nash, MD, MBA, dean of the Jefferson College of Population Health and a study author says, “We found that there is a near-universal consensus in guidelines and literature regarding the critical significance and estimation of early, candid, and progressing physician-patient discussions about prognosis. Unfortunately, traditional prognostic markers, for example, patient-performance status and populace statistics regularly provide a fragmented picture particularly related to lung cancer. Our review suggests that approved tools, for example, the VeriStrat test can help to bridge this gap and may help physicians in directing more exact treatment decisions to meet the requirements of cancer care quality measures, for example, those in the OCM.”
The authors studied literature from 1997 to 2017 to comprehend the value of prognosis in cancer care planning for NSCLC and to research how the results of the approved VeriStrat test can help doctors participating in the OCM meet the model’s particular quality measures. Three of the authors additionally incorporated relevant case analyses from their own real-world clinical experience with VeriStrat.
The results conclude that VeriStrat testing may enable physicians to build up prognosis in NSCLC, guides treatment decisions, predict expected the response to treatment, avoid expensive and ineffective treatment, and recognize the patients for whom best supportive care all these generally gives appropriateness.
David Brunel, Biodesix CEO says, “VeriStrat testing can address doctors’ requirement for a prognostic device that can encourage shared decision-making discussions and inform treatment decisions. Patients with a poor prognosis can be identified rapidly, enabling doctors to choose the treatment that is most appropriate for more aggressive cancer. It’s gratifying that this comprehensive, independent review has verified that this test gives a wide range of significant advantages for doctors, patients, and their guardians.”
While lacking exact tools, doctors may think that it’s hard to have open discussions with patients, their families, and their guardians about prognosis. Numerous patients, therefore, don’t comprehend the implications of prognosis as for healing versus palliative treatment.
VeriStrat testing is valuable for predicting and reporting expected the response to treatment, avoiding from ineffective and expensive overtreatment, and encouraging significant discussions with patients about the planning of best supportive care when appropriate, all of which may enhance cancer care planning and quality scores under the OCM.In all lines of treatment and in different treatments for patients with NSCLC, including chemotherapies and EGFR-TKI treatments, VeriStrat testing gives exact predictions of patient response. It is the main test available that delivers this kind of prognostic data.
Nash explains,”Exact prognostic tools can help encourage shared patient-doctor discussions, including discussions about the difficult tradeoffs that must be made between aggressive treatment, life extension, and quality of life. We have additionally found that they can be basic tool healthcare providers in agreeing to different parts of cancer care plans and quality measures.”