Search

BackgroundSince their inception in 2000, the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) breast cancer models have collaborated to use a nationally representative core of common input parameters to represent key components of breast cancer control in each model. Employment of common inputs permits greater ability to compare model output than when each model begins with different input parameters. The use of common inputs also enhances inferences about the results, and provides a range of reasonable results based on variations in model structure, assumptions, and methods of use of the input values. The common input data are updated for each analysis to ensure that they reflect the most current practice and knowledge about breast cancer. The common core of parameters includes population rates of births and deaths; age- and cohort-specific temporal rates of breast cancer incidence in the absence of screening and treatment; effects of risk factors on incidence trends; dissemination of plain film and digital mammography; screening test performance characteristics; stage or size distribution of screen-, interval-, and clinically- detected tumors by age; the joint distribution of ER/HER2 by age and stage; survival in the absence of screening and treatment by stage and molecular subtype; age-, stage-, and molecular subtype-specific therapy; dissemination and effectiveness of therapies over time; and competing non-breast cancer mortality.Method and resultsIn this paper, we summarize the methods and results for the common input values presently used in the CISNET breast cancer models, note assumptions made because of unobservable phenomena and/or unavailable data, and highlight plans for the development of future parameters.ConclusionThese data are intended to enhance the transparency of the breast CISNET models.

Objective: To evaluate treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) patients in the USA. Methods: A retrospective cohort study, using the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus claims database from 1 April 2011 to 30 November 2021, identified PTCL patients receiving systemic treatments. Three mutually exclusive subcohorts were created based on line of therapy (LOT): 1LOT, 2LOT and ≥3LOT. Common treatment regimens, median time on treatment, all-cause and PTCL-related HRU and costs were estimated. Results: Among 189 PTCL patients identified, 61.9% had 1LOT, 21.7% had 2LOT and 16.4% had ≥3LOT. The most common treatment regimens in the 1LOT were CHOP/CHOP-like, CHOEP/CHOEP-like and brentuximab vedotin; monotherapies were most common in the 2LOT and ≥3LOT. All-cause and PTCL-related hospitalizations and prescriptions PPPM increased with increasing LOT. Nearly 70% of total treatment costs were PTCL related. Conclusion: Higher utilization of combination therapies in the 1LOT and monotherapies in subsequent LOTs were observed, alongside high PTCL-related costs. Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) are a rare and fast-growing form of blood cancer. About 8000–12,000 people in the USA are diagnosed with PTCL every year. As it is a rare disease and has many types, and there is a limited understanding of the patients who have PTCL and the treatments they receive in the real world. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how these patients are treated, what are they treated with and what are the costs of these treatments in the USA. The data collected on these patients was divided into three groups based upon the number of lines of treatment/therapy (LOT) they received: 1LOT, 2LOT and ≥3LOT. This study researched different treatments and their duration in each line of therapy. Among 189 PTCL patients included in the study, the average age of patients was 55 years and 62% were male. Among these patients, 62% had 1LOT, 22% had 2LOT and 16% had ≥3LOT. The most common treatments in the 1LOT were traditional chemotherapy regimens followed by targeted therapies: CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) or CHOP-like, CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide and prednisone) or CHOEP-like, and brentuximab vedotin. Treatment regimens with only one drug were most common in the 2LOT and ≥3LOT. The total cost of PTCL treatment in the USA is very high; 70% of this cost is related to their treatment with various drugs. More research is needed to better understand the treatment and cost of this rare cancer. Treatment patterns and costs in peripheral T-cell lymphoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate all‐cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in commercially insured patients living with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and explore end‐of‐life (EOL)‐related HCRU and costs. Data from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database (October 2014 to May 2020) were analyzed to identify adults (≥18 years) with PAH (PAH cohort) and those without PH (non‐PH cohort). Patients were required to have data for ≥12 months before (baseline) and ≥6 months after (follow‐up) the first observed PH diagnosis (index date) for PAH cohort or pseudo index date for non‐PH cohort. A PAH EOL cohort was similarly constructed using a broader data window (October 2014 to March 2022) and ≥1 month of follow‐up. Annualized all‐cause HCRU and costs during follow‐up were compared between PAH and non‐PH cohorts after 1:1 matching on propensity scores derived from patient characteristics. EOL‐related HCRU and costs were explored within 30 days and 6 months before the death date and estimated by a claims‐based algorithm in PAH EOL cohort. The annual all‐cause total ($183,616 vs. $20,212) and pharmacy ($115,926 vs. $7862; both p < 0.001) costs were 8 and 14 times higher, respectively, in the PAH cohort versus matched non‐PH cohort (N = 386 for each). In PAH EOL cohort (N = 28), the mean EOL‐related costs were $48,846 and $167,524 per patient within 30 days and 6 months before the estimated death, respectively. Hospitalizations contributed 58.8%–70.8% of the EOL‐related costs. The study findings indicate substantial HCRU and costs for PAH. While pharmacy costs were one of the major sources, hospitalization was the primary driver for EOL‐related costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundControversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.ObjectiveTo evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.DesignCollaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.SettingUnited States.PatientsAverage-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.InterventionEight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years.MeasurementsBenefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.ResultsBiennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years.LimitationOther imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.ConclusionBiennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Aim: Describe treatment and dosing patterns of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab combination therapy (lenva+pembro) among endometrial cancer (EC) patients in US clinical practice. Materials & methods: Retrospective cohort study among adults with EC initiating lenva+pembro in second line (2L) or third line and later (≥3L) between 17 September 2019 and 30 June 2021. Results: 110 patients initiated lenva+pembro in 2L and 135 patients in ≥3L. Majority of patients initiated lenva+pembro at label-recommended starting doses/interval. Less than half changed lenvatinib dose over time. At median follow-up of 7.3 and 8.7 months, median (95% CI) duration of therapy was 5.1 (4.7–6.1) and 5.8 (4.2–7.3) months for patients in 2L and ≥3L, respectively. Conclusion: Lenva+pembro was mostly initiated at label-recommended dose. This study looked at details of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab combination treatment among patients with endometrial cancer (EC) in the USA. Specifically, these patients had received prior chemotherapy or hormone therapy before starting lenvatinib and pembrolizumab. Most patients started lenvatinib and pembrolizumab at the dose recommended by the product label and received the next pembrolizumab injection within the recommended timeframe. Over time, more than half of the patients did not change the dose of lenvatinib, and most patients had the same dose of pembrolizumab. On average, patients were treated with lenvatinib and pembrolizumab for 5–6 months. This study showed that in general, patients were taking lenvatinib and pembrolizumab for treatment of EC as recommended by product labels. Our retrospective study of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab using IQVIA's claims database shows that most patients initiated at label-recommended dose, and majority did not have a dose change. At median follow-up of 7.3 and 8.7 months, the median (95% CI) duration of therapy was 5.1 (4.7–6.1) and 5.8 (4.2–7.3) months for patients in 2L and ≥3L, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundEndometriosis is a risk factor for epithelial ovarian cancer; however, whether this risk extends to all invasive histological subtypes or borderline tumours is not clear. We undertook an international collaborative study to assess the association between endometriosis and histological subtypes of ovarian cancer.MethodsData from 13 ovarian cancer case-control studies, which were part of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, were pooled and logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the association between self-reported endometriosis and risk of ovarian cancer. Analyses of invasive cases were done with respect to histological subtypes, grade, and stage, and analyses of borderline tumours by histological subtype. Age, ethnic origin, study site, parity, and duration of oral contraceptive use were included in all analytical models.Findings13 226 controls and 7911 women with invasive ovarian cancer were included in this analysis. 818 and 738, respectively, reported a history of endometriosis. 1907 women with borderline ovarian cancer were also included in the analysis, and 168 of these reported a history of endometriosis. Self-reported endometriosis was associated with a significantly increased risk of clear-cell (136 [20·2%] of 674 cases vs 818 [6·2%] of 13 226 controls, odds ratio 3·05, 95% CI 2·43-3·84, p

Introduction: A twice-daily single inhaler triple therapy consisting of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July 2020 as a maintenance treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The objective of this AURA study is to describe patient characteristics, exacerbation and treatment history, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) before BGF initiation to better inform treatment decisions for prescribers. Methods: This retrospective cohort study leveraged data of all payer types from IQVIA's Longitudinal Prescription Data (LRx) linked to Medical Data (Dx). Patients with COPD who had ⩾1 LRx claim for BGF between 1 October 2020 and 30 September 2021 were included. The date of first BGF claim was the index date. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, history of COPD exacerbation or related event, treatment history, and HCRU were assessed during the 12 months before index (baseline). Results: We identified 30,339 patients with COPD initiating BGF (mean age: 68.2 years; 57.1% female; 67.6% Medicare). Unspecified COPD (J44.9; 74.0%) was the most commonly coded COPD phenotype. The most prevalent respiratory conditions/symptoms were dyspnea (50.8%), lower respiratory tract infection (25.3%), and sleep apnea (19.0%). Uncomplicated hypertension (58.8%), dyslipidemia (43.9%), cardiovascular disease (41.4%), and heart failure (19.9%) were the most prevalent nonrespiratory conditions. During the 12-month baseline, 57.9% of patients had evidence of a COPD exacerbation or related event, and 14.9% had ⩾1 COPD-related emergency department (ED) visit; 21.0% of patients had evidence of prior triple therapy use, while 54.3% had ⩾1 oral corticosteroid (OCS) fill. Among OCS users, 29.9% had cumulative exposures >1000 mg [median [Q1-Q3] exposure: 520 (260-1183) mg]. Conclusion: This real-world data analysis indicates that BGF is being initiated in patients with COPD experiencing symptoms and exacerbations despite current therapy, and among patients who have various chronic comorbidities, most often cardiopulmonary-related. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI) have been approved for first‐line (1L) treatment of EGFR‐mutated metastatic non‐small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in the United States (US). Real‐world analyses of 1L treatment patterns with EGFR TKIs, including the third‐generation EGFR TKI osimertinib which was most recently approved in 2018, are still sparse. Methods: This retrospective observational study used data from IQVIA's prescription claims (LRx) and medical claims (Dx) databases. mNSCLC patients newly treated with any EGFR TKI in the 1L setting were identified from January 1, 2015 to April 30, 2020; the first date of EGFR TKI (third‐generation osimertinib, first‐generation [erlotinib, gefitinib], or second‐generation [afatinib, dacomitinib]) was the index date. Treatment patterns were reported in the cohorts stratified by 1L EGFR TKI. Results: A total of 2505 patients were included in the study (982 osimertinib, 1060 first‐generation, and 463 second‐generation EGFR TKI). Beginning in 2018, osimertinib became the most common 1L EGFR TKI (66.7%) and in early 2020, it accounted for 90.6% of 1L EGFR TKIs. Nearly all patients (>97%) were treated with 1L EGFR TKI monotherapy. Patients with 1L osimertinib had longer treatment duration compared to patients with 1L first‐ or second‐generation EGFR TKI (median months: 17.8 vs. 8.7 vs. 10.5, respectively; log‐rank test for comparisons with osimertinib p < 0.0001) over median follow‐up times of 9.8, 20.5, and 19.3 months. 32.5% and 36.3% of the first‐ and second‐generation EGFR TKI cohorts, respectively, had evidence of 2L treatment. Osimertinib monotherapy accounted for the majority of 2L treatments (58.3%/60.7%) and 11.3%/8.9% had 2L chemotherapy or immuno‐oncology therapy following 1L first‐ or second‐generation EGFR TKI. Conclusion: In this real‐world study of a US claims database, 1L treatment duration was longer with osimertinib compared with other EGFR TKIs. Future studies with longer follow‐up are recommended to understand treatment patterns after progression on EGFR TKIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]