Search

Simple Summary: Randomized clinical trials show a survival benefit associated with immuno-molecular therapy (IMT) use in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. This study investigated IMT use and survival in stage IVB cervical cancer patients in Commission on Cancer® (CoC)®-accredited facilities. Patients diagnosed with stage IVB cervical cancer in the National Cancer Database and treated with first-line therapy with chemotherapy alone or with radiotherapy ± IMT were studied. Adjusted risks of death were estimated in patients treated with ±IMT after applying a propensity score analysis to balance the clinical covariates. There were 3164 evaluable patients, including 31% who were treated with IMT. The use of IMT increased from 11% in 2013 to 46% in 2019. In propensity-score-balanced patients, the median survival was 5 months longer with vs. without IMT. The adjusted risk of death was 28% lower following treatment with vs. without IMT. IMT was associated with a consistent survival benefit in real-world patients in (CoC)®-accredited facilities with stage IVB cervical cancer. Purpose: To investigate IMT use and survival in real-world stage IVB cervical cancer patients outside randomized clinical trials. Methods: Patients diagnosed with stage IVB cervical cancer during 2013–2019 in the National Cancer Database and treated with chemotherapy (CT) ± external beam radiation (EBRT) ± intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) ± IMT were studied. The adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for risk of death were estimated in patients treated with vs. without IMT after applying propensity score analysis to balance the clinical covariates. Results: There were 3164 evaluable patients, including 969 (31%) who were treated with IMT. The use of IMT increased from 11% in 2013 to 46% in 2019. Age, insurance, facility type, sites of distant metastasis, and type of first-line treatment were independently associated with using IMT. In propensity-score-balanced patients, the median survival was 18.6 vs. 13.1 months for with vs. without IMT (p < 0.001). The AHR was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.64–0.80) for adding IMT overall, 0.72 for IMT + CT, 0.66 for IMT + CT + EBRT, and 0.69 for IMT + CT + EBRT + ICBT. IMT-associated survival improvements were suggested in all subgroups by age, race/ethnicity, comorbidity score, facility type, tumor grade, tumor size, and site of metastasis. Conclusions: IMT was associated with a consistent survival benefit in real-world patients with stage IVB cervical cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Various therapeutic strategies are available for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line strategies in aHCC patients from the perspective of Chinese and US payers. Design: A network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness study. Data sources and methods: A NMA was conducted to collect all first-line strategies with aHCC from 1 October 1 2018 until 1 January 2022. The relevant randomized controlled trial literature in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for the last 3 years were searched. The abstracts of meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, and American Association for Cancer Research were also reviewed. A Markov model that included three states was developed. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to investigate the uncertainty of the economic evaluation. Scenario analysis was conducted to explore the economic benefits of treatment strategies in low-income populations. Results: Base-case analysis in China included 1712 patients showed that atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab, sintilimab combined with bevacizumab, lenvatinib (LEVA), and sorafenib (SORA) added 0.46, 1.25, 0.77, and −1.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively, compared with donafenib, resulting in an incremental cost-effective ratio of $85607.88, $12109.27, and $1651.47 per QALY at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $11101.70/QALY. In the United States, only the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of SORA was higher that were lower than the WTP threshold ($69375/QALY), and LEVA was the most cost-effective strategy with the ICERs were 25022.13/QALY. Conclusion: The NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that LEVA is the favorite choice in the first-line treatment of Chinese aHCC patients and US payers' perspective when the WTP was $11101.70/QALY in China and $69375.0/QALY in the United States. Registration: This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42021286575. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A cross-sectional online survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was used to investigate first-line treatment preferences in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the United States; 141 patients (median age 35.0 years) participated. In the DCE, risk of progression at 2 years (progression free survival) had the highest relative importance to patients (31.3%) when considering first-line treatments, followed by 2-year overall survival (OS; 26.9%), on-treatment pulmonary toxicity (23.3%), and on-treatment peripheral neuropathy (18.5%). Marginal rate of substitution analyses demonstrated that a 0.44% and 0.09% increase in 2-year OS was required for patients to accept a 1% increase in the risk of disease progression at 2 years and peripheral neuropathy, respectively. A 2.6% increase in 2-year OS was needed to accept a 7% rather than a 2% risk of pulmonary toxicity. In summary, patients with cHL rated survival attributes as more important than drug-related toxicity when considering first-line treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has advanced significantly with the approval of combination regimens containing an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) for patients with treatment-naïve disease. Little information is available regarding the activity of single-agent ICIs for patients with previously untreated mRCC not enrolled in clinical trials. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter cohort included consecutive treatment-naïve mRCC patients from six institutions in the United States who received ≥1 dose of an ICI outside a clinical trial, between June 2017 and October 2019. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze outcomes including objective best response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and tolerability. Results: The final analysis included 27 patients, 70% men, median age 64 years (range 42–92), 67% Caucasian, and 33% with ECOG 2 or 3 at baseline. Most patients had intermediate risk (85%, IMDC) with clear cell (56%), papillary (26%), unclassified (11%), chromophobe (4%), and translocation (4%) RCC. All patients had evidence of metastatic disease involving the lungs (59%), lymph node (41%), CNS (19%), liver (11%), adrenal gland (11%), and bone (11%). The median time on ICI was 3.1 (0.1–26.8) months, and the median PFS was 6.3 (95% CI, 0–18.6) months. Among the 21 patients with an evaluable response, the best ORR was 33%, including two complete responses and five partial responses. The ORR was 29% (n = 1 complete response, n = 5 partial response) in clear cell and 5% (n = 1 complete response) in non-clear cell RCC. Adverse events (AEs) of any cause were reported in 37% and included fatigue (11%), dermatitis (11%), diarrhea (7%), and shortness of breath (7%). Significant AEs (30%) included shortness of breath (7%), acute kidney injury (4%), dermatitis (4%), Clostridium difficile infection (4%), cerebrovascular accident (4%), and fatigue (7%). Three patients discontinued therapy due to grade 4 AEs. Conclusions: In this multi-institutional case series, single-agent ICI demonstrated objective responses and was well tolerated in a heterogeneous treatment-naïve mRCC cohort. ICI monotherapy is not the standard of care for patients with mRCC, and further investigation is necessary to explore predictive biomarkers for optimal treatment selection in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The IMPACT UC I study assessed real-world treatment patterns, outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receiving first-line (1L) systemic treatment after the FDA approval of 1L immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy., Patients and Methods: This retrospective study used 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims from 1/1/2015 to 6/30/2019 to identify patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with UC with evidence of metastatic disease, continuously enrolled for 6 months before and after initial diagnosis. Patients were grouped by 1L treatment: cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy, or nonplatinum-containing therapy. Unadjusted time on 1L treatment (TOT), overall survival (OS), HCRU, and total healthcare costs were analyzed., Results: Of 18 888 patients with mUC, 8630 (45.7%) had received identified 1L systemic treatment; platinum-containing chemotherapy was the most common (cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, 37.6%; carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, 30.2%). Cisplatin- and carboplatin-containing chemotherapy had the shortest time-to-treatment initiation (median, 1.7-3.0 months) and longest TOT (median, 4.0-4.3 months). Median OS was longest with cisplatin-containing chemotherapy (20.0 months) and shortest with ICI monotherapy (7.6 months). Cisplatin- and carboplatin-containing chemotherapy were associated with highest HCRU; total healthcare costs were approximately 2-fold higher with ICI monotherapy vs other 1L treatments ($10 359 vs $5042-$5709 per patient per month)., Conclusion: 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy resulted in the longest median OS and highest HCRU, whereas 1L ICI treatment had the shortest median OS and the highest costs. Over 50% of patients diagnosed with advanced UC (aUC) received no systemic therapy, highlighting the importance of optimal 1L treatment decisions in aUC., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

The combination of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone ( BBD) was evaluated as a first-line therapy for multiple myeloma. The original treatment regimen of bendamustine 80 mg/m2, days 1, 4; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2, days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone 40 mg, days 1, 2, 3, 4 on a 28-day cycle (up to 8 cycles) was efficacious but determined relatively toxic in an interim analysis. The regimen was amended to bendamustine 80 mg/m2, days 1, 2; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15; dexamethasone 20 mg, days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 every 28 days (up to 8 cycles), then maintenance 1·3 mg/m2 IV bortezomib every 2 weeks. Fifty-nine patients were enrolled. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate. The original schema was given for a median of 7 cycles (range 1-8); modified schema was given for a median of 8 cycles (range 1-8) plus maintenance. Overall response was 91%, CR was 9%. Median follow-up was 19·1 months; median progression-free survival was 11·1 months and 18·9 months on the original and modified regimens, respectively. The most common Grade 3/4 adverse events were fatigue and neuropathy. The combination of BBD is tolerable and efficacious in this patient population. Modifications to decrease intensity but increase duration translated to better outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On September 26, 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved pemetrexed injection (Alimta® Injection; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) for use in combination with cisplatin for the initial treatment of patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A randomized, phase III, open-label study was conducted in 1,725 patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 21-day cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin (AC) or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC). The primary objective was overall survival. The median survival time was 10.3 months in both the AC arm and the GC arm (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 -1.05). The median progression-free survival times were 4.8 and 5.1 months for the AC and GC arms, respectively (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94 -1.15). The overall response rates were 27.1% and 24.7% for the AC and GC arms, respectively. A prespecified analysis of the impact of NSCLC histology on overall survival was conducted. In the nonsquamous NSCLC subgroup, the median survival times were 11.0 and 10.1 months in the AC and GC groups, respectively (unadjusted HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96). However, in the squamous cell histology subgroup, the median survival times were 9.4 versus 10.8 months in the AC and GC groups, respectively (unadjusted HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99 -1.50). This unfavorable effect of squamous histology on overall survival was also noted in a retrospective analysis of a trial that compared pemetrexed with docetaxel in NSCLC patients who received prior chemotherapy. No new pemetrexed safety signals were observed. The Oncologist 2009;14:930-935 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (MONALEESA-7) data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib (RIB) as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) from the United States healthcare payer perspective. In addition, because RIB has not been marketed in China, we identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese healthcare system perspective., Patients and Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding RIB to endocrine therapy over a lifetime. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Costs data were obtained from United States and Chinese official websites, and we determined the potential price for RIB in China based on its price in the United States. The main outcomes of this study were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)., Results: The model projected that mean outcome was better with RIB and endocrine combined (3.83366 QALYs) than with endocrine therapy alone (2.71203 QALYs). In the United States, RIB and endocrine therapy cost an additional $604,960.06, resulting in an ICER of $539,357.95/QALY compared with endocrine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses indicated that, in China, the projected mean outcomes were better for RIB and endocrine therapy (6.37 QALYs) than for endocrine monotherapy (2.71 QALYs). The corresponding incremental costs were $224,731.88943. Thus, the ICER comparing RIB and endocrine therapy with endocrine therapy alone represented a $61,454.96/QALY gain., Conclusion: Additional use of RIB is estimated to not be cost effective as a first-line treatment for premenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC in the United States. A value-based price for the cost of RIB is less than $31.74/200 mg for China., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) remains a challenging clinical entity occurring predominantly in older patients with limited treatment options. However, real-world treatment patterns, differential cancer center access, and association with outcomes is lacking in nationally representative clinical practice and will provide context for emerging therapies., Materials and Methods: We used SEER-Medicare data to identify patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC of the bladder or upper urinary tract diagnosed between 2008 and 2012. We characterized utilization systemic therapy, including first- and second-line chemotherapy. Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded; results were stratified by academic versus non-academic setting., Results: 3569 patients met study criteria; 48% received some form of chemotherapy within 2 years of diagnosis. Of these, one-third subsequently received second-line chemotherapy. The majority received a regimen including ≥2 agents. Gemcitabine alone or in combination with platinum was the most common first- and second-line treatment. Similar patterns of first- and second-line chemotherapy were observed between patients treated in academic and non-academic centers. Sensitivity analyses of trial-similar patients demonstrated increased utilization (69%). Receipt of platinum doublet as 1st line therapy was less likely in older patients and those with renal disease, and more likely for grade IV disease., Conclusions: Roughly half of all Medicare patients with locally advanced/metastatic UC receive systemic therapy regardless of access to academic cancer centers and despite poor oncologic outcomes. Cytotoxic, gemcitabine-based doublet chemotherapy remains the most common treatment. A substantial population of older patients exists for whom alternative, non-cytotoxic, treatment options may be of benefit., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Assessing treatment patterns, outcomes and clinical characteristics in advanced renal cell carcinoma clinical practice. Materials & methods: A US cross-sectional physician survey conducted February-September 2019. Results: Surveyed physicians reported first-line treatment of 445 patients involving tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (51.0%), immuno-oncology (IO/IO combination) therapy (25.8%) or other regimens (23.1%). A total of 60.9% had physician-assessed IMDC risk. Of these 61.9, 50.9 and 27.6% of patients with favorable, intermediate and poor risk, respectively, received tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy. A total of 16.7, 26.9 and 34.5% of patients with favorable, intermediate or poor risk received IO/IO combination therapy. Complete/partial responses (∼35% patients) remained comparable across first-line treatments. Conclusion: Guideline-recommended therapies are not widely prescribed. Many patients experienced poor clinical outcomes highlighting a need for more effective treatments.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from a US-payer perspective. Materials & methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of NI versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of NSCLC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Results: NI provided an additional 0.715 QALYs compared with chemotherapy in all population. The corresponding ICER of NI was $180,307 per QALY gained. However, the ICER decreased to $143,434 per QALY in the programmed death ligand 1 expression level <1% population. Conclusion: From a US-payer perspective, NI is estimated to be cost-effective in the first-line setting for advanced NSCLC patients with programmed death ligand 1 expression level <1%.

Aims: To assess healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors afatinib or erlotinib as first-line treatment. Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis used data from three large administrative claims databases in the US: Truven MarketScan, IMS PharMetrics Plus, and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. Patients with diagnosis codes of lung cancer treated with afatinib or erlotinib were included in the sample. Treatment cohorts were matched on baseline characteristics using propensity scores to account for potential selection bias. HCRU and healthcare costs were compared between the matched afatinib and erlotinib cohorts. Results: In total, 3,152 patients met the study inclusion criteria; propensity score matching of the afatinib and erlotinib patients yielded 525 matched pairs with well-balanced baseline characteristics. The afatinib cohort had significantly fewer patients with ≥1 inpatient visits (40.4% vs 52.2%, p  = 0.0001) and outpatient emergency room (ER) visits (45.7% vs 54.1%, p  = 0.0066). Per patient per month (PPPM) visits were significantly different between afatinib compared to erlotinib for inpatient visits (0.1 vs 0.2, p  = 0.0152), other outpatient visits PPPM (2.6 vs 3.0, p  = 0.022) and outpatient office visits (2.0 vs 1.7, p  = 0.0059). Although costs of outpatient office ($1,624 vs $1,070; p  = 0.0086) and pharmacy ($6,709 vs $5,932; p  < 0.0001) visits were higher for afatinib vs erlotinib, total costs did not differ significantly between cohorts ($14,972 vs $14,412; p  = 0.4415). Limitations: Retrospective claims data can be subject to coding errors or data omissions; patients were required to have continuous health plan enrolment; EGFR mutation status was not confirmed. Conclusions: Patients treated with afatinib as first-line monotherapy experienced fewer inpatient stays and ER visits compared with erlotinib. Total costs were not significantly different between the two treatment cohorts.

Background: First-line treatments for cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) include carboplatin-based chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors such as atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1)., Objective: To compare overall survival (OS) among patients with mUC treated in the first-line setting with atezolizumab versus carboplatin-based chemotherapies (any carboplatin-based regimens or carboplatin-gemcitabine)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC from the phase 2 trial IMvigor210 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02951767) treated with atezolizumab and patients from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health care system (2006-2017, with IMvigor210 eligibility criteria applied using proxy measurements) treated according to normal clinical practice., Interventions: IMvigor210 cohort 1 patients were treated with atezolizumab, and real-world VHA cohorts were treated with carboplatin-based regimens., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Entropy-balance weighting was applied to balance prespecified baseline patient characteristics. OS was analyzed using weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods., Results and Limitations: The median OS was 15.0 mo with atezolizumab (n = 110), 12.1 mo with any carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 282), and 8.7 mo with carboplatin-gemcitabine (n = 120). An OS benefit occurred with atezolizumab versus carboplatin-based regimens after 9 mo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; p = 0.004) and with atezolizumab versus carboplatin-gemcitabine after 5 mo (HR 0.52; p = 0.005). Study limitations include a predominantly male VHA cohort and ≤24-mo follow-up. Adjustment for confounding, a potential limitation of nonrandomized studies, was limited by the availability of clinical measurements in the VHA data, which allowed for replication of IMvigor210 exclusions in the VHA cohorts., Conclusions: First-line atezolizumab for cisplatin-ineligible mUC may provide an OS benefit over carboplatin-based treatments after 5-9 mo, depending on the regimen., Patient Summary: Many patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma are ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. This study compared patients from a clinical trial receiving the immunotherapeutic agent atezolizumab with those in Veterans Health Administration clinical practice receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Atezolizumab provided a survival benefit over chemotherapy after 5-9 mo., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)