Search

The clinical profiles and outcomes of patients with neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive (NTRK+) solid tumors receiving standard of care other than tropomyosin receptor kinase inhibitor (TRKi) targeted therapy have not been well documented. Here, we describe the clinical characteristics of patients with NTRK+ tumors treated in clinical practice using information from a United States electronic health record-derived clinicogenomic database. We also compared survival outcomes in NTRK+ patients and matched NTRK fusion-negative (NTRK–) patients and investigated the clinical prognostic value of NTRK fusions. NTRK positivity was defined by the presence of a fusion or rearrangement involving NTRK1/2/3, determined using NGS (Foundation Medicine, Inc.). NTRK+ patients (n = 28) were diagnosed with locally advanced/metastatic solid tumors between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2019 and had received no TRKis (e.g., entrectinib or larotrectinib) during their patient journey. The unselected NTRK−population comprised 24,903 patients, and the matched NTRK−cohort included 280 patients. NTRK+ patients tended to be younger, were more commonly not smokers, and had a shorter time from advanced diagnosis to first NGS report, compared with unselected NTRK−patients; however, these differences were not significant. Median overall survival (OS) from advanced/metastatic diagnosis was 10.2 months (95% CI, 7.2–14.1) for the NTRK+ cohort versus 10.4 months (95% CI, 6.7–14.3) for the matched NTRK−cohort; hazard ratio for death in NTRK+ versus matched NTRK−patients was 1.6 (95% CI, 1.0–2.5; P = 0.05). Genomic co-alterations were rare in the NTRK+ cohort (only two of 28 patients had a co-alteration). Overall, while hazard ratios suggest NTRK fusions may be a negative prognostic factor of survival, there are no significant indications of any favorable impact of NTRK fusions on patient outcomes. TRKis, with their high response rate and good tolerability, are likely to improve outcomes for patients compared with existing standard-of-care treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The efficacy of bevacizumab (BEV) in elderly patients with glioblastoma remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of BEV on survival in this patient population using the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Methods This retrospective, cohort study analyzed SEER-Medicare data for patients (aged ≥66 years) diagnosed with glioblastoma from 2006 to 2011. Two cohorts were constructed: one comprised patients who had received BEV (BEV cohort); the other comprised patients who had received any anticancer treatment other than BEV (NBEV cohort). The primary analysis used a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to compare overall survival in the BEV and NBEV cohorts with initiation of BEV as a time-dependent variable, adjusting for potential confounders (age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, region, race, radiotherapy after initial surgery, and diagnosis of coronary artery disease). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using landmark survival, propensity score modeling, and the impact of poor Karnofsky Performance Status. Results We identified 2603 patients (BEV, n = 597; NBEV, n = 2006). In the BEV cohort, most patients were Caucasian males and were younger with fewer comorbidities and more initial resections. In the primary analysis, the BEV cohort showed a lower risk of death compared with the NBEV cohort (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–0.89; P <.01). The survival benefit of BEV appeared independent of the number of temozolomide cycles or frontline treatment with radiotherapy and temozolomide. Conclusion BEV exposure was associated with a lower risk of death, providing evidence that there might be a potential benefit of BEV in elderly patients with glioblastoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Liver metastases are associated with poor outcomes in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Nevertheless, the vasculature in the liver microenvironment may be conducive to the use of antiangiogenesis inhibitors to potentially improve outcomes. Limited real-world clinical and economic data are currently available for this patient subpopulation., Methods: Two retrospective cohort analyses were conducted using data from an electronic health record (n = 14,209) and a claims database (n = 9,017). Patients with aNSCLC with and without liver metastases were identified in each database. Patients with baseline liver metastases in the electronic health record database were further categorized into two subgroups-those who had or had not received bevacizumab-containing regimens. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to adjust for baseline characteristics to evaluate the effect of treatment of bevacizumab., Results: Liver metastases were associated with significantly poorer survival (median overall survival, 6.3 months v 10.1 months) and higher costs and health care resource utilization-total per-patient-per-month costs of $27,589 versus $19,607. Cost differences were primarily driven by inpatient costs, including a two-fold increase in hospitalizations and a 1.7-fold higher mean length of stay. Treatment with bevacizumab was associated with improved survival. Whereas overall survival improved in patients with and without baseline liver metastases who received bevacizumab, the relative survival benefit was greater in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.81] v hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86])., Conclusion: Patients with aNSCLC with liver metastases have poorer survival and a higher cost and health care resource utilization burden. Bevacizumab was associated with a survival benefit in patients with aNSCLC with liver metastases.