Search

Objectives: Recent advances have created options for first-line (1L) treatment of advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). The study objectives were to describe the utilization of 3 classes of 1L treatment-chemotherapy (CT), immunotherapy (IO), and chemoimmunotherapy (IO+CT)-and the total, third-party payer, direct health care costs., Study Design: Retrospective, administrative claims database analysis of patients with aNSCLC who initiated 1L treatment between January 1, 2017, and May 31, 2019, with IO, CT, or IO+CT., Methods: Microcosting enumerated health care resource utilization, including antineoplastic drug costs, using standardized costs. Generalized linear models estimated per-patient per-month (PPPM) costs during 1L treatment, and adjusted cost differences in 1L among treatment cohorts were calculated using recycled predictions., Results: A total of 1317 IO-, 5315 CT-, and 1522 IO+CT-treated patients were identified. Utilization of CT declined from 72.3% to 47.6% between 2017 and 2019, replaced by use of IO+CT, which increased from 1.8% to 29.8%. Total PPPM costs in 1L were highest with IO+CT at $32,436, compared with $19,000 and $17,763 in the CT and IO cohorts, respectively. Adjusted analyses showed that PPPM costs were $13,933 (95% CI, $11,760-$16,105) higher in the IO+CT vs IO cohort (P < .001) and IO costs were $1024 (95% CI, $67-$1980) lower than CT (P = .04)., Conclusions: IO+CT accounts for almost one-third of 1L aNSCLC treatment modalities, coinciding with a reduction in treatment with CT. Costs for patients treated with IO were lower than those for patients treated with both IO+CT and CT alone, driven primarily by antineoplastic drug and associated medical costs.

Objectives: Real-world evidence (RWE) has gained increased attention in recent years as a complement to traditional clinical trials. The use of RWE to establish the efficacy of oncology drugs for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval has not been described. In this paper, we review 5 recent examples where RWE was submitted in support of the FDA approvals of original or supplementary indications for oncology drugs., Methods: To identify cases where RWE was used, we reviewed drug approval packages available at Drugs@FDA for oncology drugs approved between 2017 and 2019. Five cases were selected to present a broad overview of different types of RWE, different circumstances under which RWE has been used for regulatory approvals, and how FDA evaluated the data in each case. The type of RWE submitted, the indication, limitations identified by FDA reviewers, and the outcome of the submission are discussed., Results: RWE, particularly historical controls for rare or orphan indications, has been used to support both original and supplementary oncology drug approvals. Types of RWE included data from electronic health records, claims, post-marketing safety reports, retrospective medical record reviews, and expanded access studies. Small sample sizes, data quality, and methodological issues were among concerns cited by FDA reviewers., Conclusion: By bridging the gap between the constraints of the trial setting and the realities of clinical practice, RWE can add value to a regulatory submission. These early examples provide insight into how regulators evaluated RWE submitted as evidence of efficacy for oncology drugs., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lenvatinib has become the most commonly prescribed first-line (1L) agent for the treatment of radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAI-r DTC) since its approval in 2015. With no real-world studies describing clinical outcomes of 1L lenvatinib and subsequent therapy, the current study aimed to assess treatment sequencing and related clinical outcomes in patients treated with 1L lenvatinib in the USA METHODS: We conducted a multisite, retrospective chart review of US patients with a diagnosis of RAI-r DTC who had initiated 1L therapy with lenvatinib from January 1, 2016 through May 31, 2017 with follow-up through October 17, 2018. Physicians completed electronic case report forms for two patient cohorts: patients still receiving 1L lenvatinib (cohort 1) and those who had initiated second-line (2L) therapy prior to data cutoff (cohort 2). Real-world objective response rate (ORR) was assessed for both cohorts. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed for cohort 2., Results: A total of 252 patients met the study criteria with 71 in cohort 1 and 181 in cohort 2. Patients were predominantly female, had papillary DTC, and had lung metastases. The ORR was 64.8% for cohort 1 and 53.6% for cohort 2. In cohort 2, median PFS from 1L lenvatinib initiation was 14.0 months (95% CI 12.7-15.0). Second-line treatments included sorafenib (49.7%), cabozantinib (19.3%), and other targeted/chemotherapy/immuno-oncology agents. The ORR in 2L therapy was 15.5%. For cohort 2, the 12-, 18-, and 24-month OS from initiation of 1L lenvatinib was 92.8%, 81.5%, and 66.9%, respectively., Conclusions: In this first real-world examination of clinical effectiveness of 1L lenvatinib and subsequent therapy among patients in the US, the results demonstrated that treatment with 1L lenvatinib followed by another 2L therapy may deliver a clinical benefit, thus allowing a number of potential 2L options following 1L lenvatinib for patients with RAI-r DTC.

Aim: To examine the effectiveness of eribulin mesylate for metastatic breast cancer post cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor (CDKi) 4/6 therapy. Materials & methods: US community oncologists reviewed charts of patients who had received eribulin from 3 February 2015 to 31 December 2017 after prior CDKi 4/6 therapy and detailed their clinical/treatment history, clinical outcomes (lesion measurements, progression, death) and toxicity. Results: Four patient cohorts were created according to eribulin line of therapy: second line, third line, per US label and fourth line with objective response rates/clinical benefit rates of 42.2%/58.7%, 26.1%/42.3%, 26.7%/54.1% and 17.9%/46.4%, respectively. Median progression-free survival/6-month progression-free survival (79.5% of all patients censored) by cohort was: 9.7 months/77.3%, 10.3 months/71.3%, not reached/70.4% and 4.0 months/0.0%, respectively. Overall occurrence of neutropenia = 23.5%, febrile neutropenia = 1.3%, peripheral neuropathy = 10.1% and diarrhea = 11.1%. Conclusion: Clinical outcome and adverse event rates were similar to those in clinical trials and other observational studies. Longer follow-up is required to confirm these findings.

Does the rapid integration of both targeted and immuno-oncology drugs into treatment guidelines across solid tumors and hematologic malignancies herald the beginning of the end of chemotherapy as a foundational element in systemic cancer treatment? We respond to similar assertions posited after the 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting with an analysis of past, current, and future treatment of breast cancer-a tumor central to the evolution of modern cancer treatment principles. Our conclusions assert that reports of the demise of chemotherapy are greatly exaggerated and, as chemotherapy is likely to remain foundational for years to come, research is warranted to improve its patient-centricity.

This study assesses resource utilization and total direct medical cost among patients in the United States starting systemic antineoplastic therapy (ST) pre- and postapproval of immuno-oncology (IO) agents for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Adults diagnosed with lung cancer initiating first-line ST within 6 months of diagnosis during either the pre- (March 2013-March 2014) or post-IO (March 2015-December 2016) approval period were identified in a US-based multipayer administrative claims database. Excluded were patients with small cell lung cancer, secondary malignancies, less than 1 month follow-up, and those in clinical trials. Total cost (TC) was calculated from the date of initiation of treatment until the last follow-up. Propensity score matching was adjusted for differences in patient cohorts, including follow-up time. Binary multiple logistic regression assessed predictors of high TC (above mean) pre- and post IO. Mean TC per patient was higher pre-IO versus post IO in both unmatched ($165,548 vs $95,715) and matched analyses($129,977 vs $113,177). Hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visit rates were higher pre-IO versus postapproval. Predictors of high TC pre-IO included use of first-line combination therapy, radiation, targeted therapy, maintenance therapy, biomarker testing, more comorbidities, longer follow-up, first-line hospitalization, first-line cost above mean, and age 65 years and older. In the post-IO period, additional predictors of higher TC included use of IO, having mild liver disease or hemiplegia, and longer time to ST initiation. Early data show lower ED visit and hospitalization rates and associated lower TC in the post-IO era.

Introduction: Real-world data are critical to demonstrate the consistency of evidence and external generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study examined characteristics and outcomes of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) patients treated with eribulin mesylate at community oncology practices in the United States., Methods: Physicians identified mTNBC patients initiating eribulin between 1 January 2011 and 1 January 2014 and abstracted data into an electronic case report form (eCRF). Eribulin treatment in the metastatic setting was categorized as early use (EU, first-/second-line) and late use (LU, third-line or later). Patient characteristics, overall survival (OS), disease response (per treating physician), and adverse events (AEs) rates in each group, respectively, are reported., Results: Overall 252 eCRFs were completed: 125 (49.6%) EU and 127 (50.4%) LU. The median age at metastatic diagnosis was 53 years and 42.1% were stage IV at their initial diagnosis. The median duration of follow-up from the initiation of first-line treatment was 24 months. Rates of disease response (complete or partial per treating physician) were 69.9% in the EU group and 48.8% in the LU group. The five most commonly reported adverse events during eribulin were as follows: fatigue (65.1%), weakness (40.1%), decreased appetite (32.5%), neutropenia (31.0%), and leukopenia (27.4%). Discontinuation of eribulin due to AE was observed in 4.0% of patients. Median OS from initiation of eribulin was 23.0 months (95% CI: 18.7-27.3) among EU and 14.7 (95% CI: 12.6-16.9) among LU., Conclusion: In the real-world eribulin-treated mTNBC, patients have more sites of metastatic disease and exposure to greater numbers of prior therapies compared to RCTs. The median OS of 14.7 months among LU patients is consistent with, and slightly longer than the 13.1 months and 14.4 months reported in the EMBRACE and Study 301 clinical trials, respectively., (© 2018 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In the absence of randomized controlled trials, real‐world evidence may aid practitioners in optimizing the selection of therapy for patients with cancer. The study's aim was to determine real‐word use, as well as compare effectiveness, of single‐agent and combination chemotherapy as palliative treatment for female patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Materials and Methods: Using administrative claims data from the Symphony Health's Integrated Oncology Dataverse, female patients with mBC treated with at least one chemotherapy‐only treatment (COT) between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017 were selected. The frequency of use of single‐agent versus combination chemotherapy overall and by line of therapy (LOT) was calculated whereas effectiveness was measured using time to next treatment (TNT). Results: A total of 12,381 patients with mBC were identified, and 3,777 (31%) received at least one line of COT. Of the 5,586 observed LOTs among the 3,777 patients, 66.5% were single‐agent and 33.5% combination chemotherapy. Combination chemotherapy was most frequently used in first‐line (45%) and least frequently in fifth‐line (16%). Across all LOTs, median TNT was significantly longer for single‐agent versus combination chemotherapy (5.3 months vs. 4.1 months, p <.0001). Comparison of median TNT by LOT showed significance in third‐line and greater but not in first‐line or second‐line. Among single agents, the median TNT for patients receiving capecitabine was longest in comparison to all other single agents. Conclusions: The frequency of combination COT use, particularly in first‐line, warrants further research given published guideline recommendations. The observed TNT difference favoring single‐agent treatment in later lines supports guideline recommendations. Variance between single‐agent preference and observed TNT was noteworthy. Implications for Practice: Although published data from evidence‐ and consensus‐based guidelines recommend single‐agent over combination chemotherapy, the extensive list of agents available for use and a gap in the comparative effectiveness research of these agents have resulted in significant variances in patterns of care. The aim of this study was to assess real‐world treatment patterns and their effectiveness during palliative therapy of metastatic breast cancer. The objective was to understand when and how chemotherapy‐only treatment is used in metastatic breast cancer and whether comparative effectiveness analysis supports the observed patterns of care. This article analyzes the use of palliative chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer, in aggregate and by cancer subtype, to better understand the effectiveness of single‐agent versus combination chemotherapy among patients in the real‐world setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]