Search

Patients with lung cancer under treatment have been associated with a high risk of COVID‐19 infection and potentially worse outcome, but real‐world data on patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are rare. We assess patients' characteristics and PROs before and during the COVID‐19 pandemic in an advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort in Germany. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC from the prospective, multicentre, observational CRISP Registry (NCT02622581) were categorised as pre‐pandemic (March 2019 to Feb 2020, n = 1621) and pandemic (March 2020 to Feb 2021, n = 1317). From baseline to month 15, patients' health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed by FACT‐L, anxiety and depression by PHQ‐4. Association of pandemic status with time to deterioration (TTD) in QoL scales adjusted for potential covariates was estimated using Cox modelling. PROs were documented for 1166 patients (72%) in the pre‐pandemic, 979 (74%) in the pandemic group. Almost 60% of patients were male, median age was 66 years, comorbidities occurred in 85%. Regarding HRQoL, mean‐change‐from‐baseline plots hardly differed between both samples. Approximately 15%–21% of patients reported anxiety, about 19%–27% signs of depression. For the pandemic group, TTD was slightly, but statistically significantly, worse for the physical well‐being‐FACT‐G subscale (HR 1.15 [95%CI 1.02–1.30]) and the anxiety‐GAD‐2 subscale (HR 1.14 [95%CI 1.01–1.29]). These prospectively collected real‐world data provide valuable insights into PROs before and during the COVID‐19 pandemic in advanced NSCLC. For the patients, the pandemic seemed to be less of a burden than the disease itself, as there was a considerable proportion of patients with anxiety and depression in both groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was development and psychometric testing of an adaptive, International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF)-oriented questionnaire to be processed by the rehabilitation physician that aids in assessing mobility, self-care, and domestic life (Moses-Physician). The intent is to develop a physician version, analogous in content to the existing patient questionnaire "Moses-Patient". The 58 items of Moses-Patient were converted to an external assessment format without altering the content. The data were compiled for 549 patients with musculoskeletal diseases, 212 patients with cardiac diseases, and 259 neurology rehabilitation patients. Analyses were carried out on the basis of the one-parameter item response theory (Rasch model). Effect sizes and the reliable change index were calculated to test responsiveness. Differential item functioning (DIF) was tested using DIF contrasts, equivalent to Mantel-Haenszel DIF sizes. After the item response theory analysis, 47 of 58 items remained, distributed over 12 scales. The scales are more homogeneous in content than in the patient version because of the omission of 11 items and thus do not cover the ICF categories as broadly. Model fit indices (infit and outfit mean square statistics) were in an acceptable range for all items. Cronbach's [alpha] was between 0.73 and 0.95. Moreover, there is clear evidence of unidimensionality and sensitivity to change of the scales of Moses-Physician. The item parameters of Moses-Physician are invariant with respect to sex and age for all scales. However, there are clear differences regarding disease groups. The Moses-Physician questionnaire is an adaptive, Rasch-scaled assessment instrument that, to a great extent, covers the contents of the ICF chapters "mobility", "self-care", and "domestic life".

Simple Summary: There is a need to better understand the effectiveness of new treatments, such as the recently approved nivolumab, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in clinical practice. This study aims to report the characteristics and outcomes of 2784 patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer receiving nivolumab in second-line or later in France (ESME-AMLC) and Germany (CRISP) between 2015 and 2020. Two-year survival rates were 26.7% in patients with tumors with squamous histology and 32.8% in patients with non-squamous/others histologies in ESME-AMLC, and 20.9% and 18.9%, respectively, in CRISP. Poorer performance score and shorter duration from the previous line of therapy initiation were significantly associated with shorter treatment duration with nivolumab and overall survival. These real-world data provide insight into the characteristics of patients receiving nivolumab in France and Germany and confirm the efficacy of nivolumab previously observed in clinical trials. This study reports characteristics and outcomes in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) receiving nivolumab in second-line or later (2L+) in France and Germany between 2015 and 2020. Patients with aNSCLC (stage IIIB–C/IV) receiving nivolumab in 2L+ were included from the retrospective Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics of Advanced and Metastatic Lung Cancer cohort (ESME-AMLC, France; 2015–2019) and Clinical Research platform Into molecular testing, treatment and outcome of non-Small cell lung carcinoma Patients (CRISP, Germany; 2016–2020). Overall, 2262 ESME-AMLC and 522 CRISP patients were included. Median treatment duration (95% confidence intervals) was 2.8 months (2.5–3.2) in squamous and 2.5 months (2.3–2.8) in non-squamous/others patients in ESME-AMLC, and 2.3 months (1.4–3.1) and 2.3 months (2.0–2.8), respectively in CRISP. One-year and two-year overall survival (OS) were 47.2% and 26.7% in squamous and 50.8% and 32.8% in non-squamous/others patients in ESME-AMLC, and 43.1% and 20.9%, and 37.7% and 18.9%, respectively in CRISP. Poorer performance score and shorter time from start of previous line of therapy initiation were significantly associated with shorter treatment duration and OS. This study confirms, in real-world clinical databases, the efficacy of nivolumab previously observed in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• CRISP prospectively collected real-world data on advanced NSCLC and KRAS mutations. • Of 1039 patients, 39.5 % had KRAS mutations, 38.9 % of these were KRAS G12C-mutated. • KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC has poor outcome under current standard therapy. • Valuable historical control for upcoming clinical studies on KRAS -inhibitors. After decades of unsuccessful efforts in inhibiting KRAS, promising clinical data targeting the mutation subtype G12C emerge. Since little is known about outcome with standard treatment of patients with G12C mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we analyzed a large, representative, real-world cohort from Germany. A total of 1039 patients with advanced KRAS -mutant or -wildtype NSCLC without druggable alterations have been recruited in the prospective, observational registry CRISP from 12/2015 to 06/2019 by 98 centers in Germany. Details on treatment, best response, and outcome were analyzed for patients with KRAS wildtype, G12C, and non-G12C mutations. Within the study population, 160 (15.4 %) patients presented with KRAS G12C, 251 (24.2 %) with non-G12C mutations, 628 (60.4 %) with KRAS wildtype. High PD-L1 expression (Tumor Proportion Score, TPS > 50 %) was documented for 28.0 %, 43.5 %, and 28.9 % (wildtype, G12C, non-G12C) of the tested patients; 68.8 %, 89.3 %, and 87.7 % of the patients received first-line treatment combined with an immune checkpoint-inhibitor in 2019. TPS > 50 % vs. TPS < 1 % was associated with a significantly decreased risk of mortality in a multivariate Cox model (HR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.26−0.60, p =<0.001). There were no differences in clinical outcome between KRAS wildtype, G12C or non-G12C mutations and KRAS mutational status was not prognostic in the model. Here we describe the so far largest prospectively recruited cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC and KRAS mutations, with special focus on the G12C mutation. These data constitute an extremely valuable historical control for upcoming clinical studies that employ KRAS inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The CRISP registry collects representative, nationwide data on NSCLC in Germany. • CRISP mirrors the treatment and disease trajectory of patients with advanced NSCLC. • Biomarker testing rates increased over time, yet are still improvable. • 17.7 % of the patients presented with a druggable alteration. • Median PFS was longer for patients with a druggable EGFR or ALK alteration. An increasing number of treatment-determining biomarkers has been identified in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and molecular testing is recommended to enable optimal individualized treatment. However, data on implementation of these recommendations in the "real-world" setting are scarce. This study presents comprehensive details on the frequency, methodology and results of biomarker testing of advanced NSCLC in Germany. This analysis included 3,717 patients with advanced NSCLC (2,921 non-squamous; 796 squamous), recruited into the CRISP registry at start of systemic therapy by 150 German sites between December 2015 and June 2019. Evaluated were the molecular biomarkers EGFR , ALK , ROS1 , BRAF , KRAS , MET , TP53 , RET , HER2 , as well as expression of PD-L1. In total, 90.5 % of the patients were tested for biomarkers. Testing rates were 92.2 % (non-squamous), 70.7 % (squamous) and increased from 83.2 % in 2015/16 to 94.2% in 2019. Overall testing rates for EGFR , ALK , ROS1 , and BRAF were 72.5 %, 74.5 %, 66.1 %, and 53.0 %, respectively (non-squamous). Testing rates for PD-L1 expression were 64.5 % (non-squamous), and 58.5 % (squamous). The most common testing methods were immunohistochemistry (68.5 % non-squamous, 58.3 % squamous), and next-generation sequencing (38.7 % non-squamous, 14.4 % squamous). Reasons for not testing were insufficient tumor material or lack of guideline recommendations (squamous). No alteration was found in 37.8 % (non-squamous), and 57.9 % (squamous), respectively. Most common alterations in non-squamous tumors (all patients/all patients tested for the respective biomarker): KRAS (17.3 %/39.2 %), TP53 (14.1 %/51.4 %), and EGFR (11.0 %/15.1 %); in squamous tumors: TP53 (7.0 %/69.1 %), MET (1.5 %/11.1 %), and EGFR (1.1 %/4.4 %). Median PFS (non-squamous) was 8.7 months (95 % CI 7.4–10.4) with druggable EGFR mutation, and 8.0 months (95 % CI 3.9–9.2) with druggable ALK alterations. Testing rates in Germany are high nationwide and acceptable in international comparison, but still leave out a significant portion of patients, who could potentially benefit. Thus, specific measures are needed to increase implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinical practice may often not meet the strict inclusion criteria of clinical trials. Our aim was to assess the trial eligibility of patients with mNSCLC treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy in real-world and to compare the outcome of "trial-ineligible" and "potentially trial-eligible" patients., Methods: Data from the prospective, clinical research platform CRISP were used to compare patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome of patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score greater than or equal to 50% tumors treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy who are deemed either "potentially trial-eligible" or "trial-ineligible" according to inclusion and exclusion criteria of the registrational studies (KEYNOTE-024 and -042)., Results: Of 746 patients included, 343 patients (46.0%) were classified as "trial-ineligible" and had significantly worse outcomes compared with "potentially trial-eligible" patients (n = 403, 54.0%): median progression-free survival: 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2-8.4) versus 10.3 (95% CI: 8.4-13.8) months, hazard ratio (trial-ineligible versus potentially trial-eligible) of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.19-1.72), p less than 0.001; median overall survival: 15.9 (95% CI: 11.4-20.3) versus 25.3 (95% CI: 19.8-30.4) months, hazard ratio of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.10-1.67), p equals 0.004., Conclusions: Our data reveal that a considerable proportion of patients with mNSCLC are not eligible to participate in a clinical trial and were found to have worse outcomes than potentially trial-eligible patients, whose outcomes were comparable with those obtained from pivotal clinical trials. This is of substantial clinical relevance for physicians discussing outcomes to be expected with their patients and stresses the need for real-world effectiveness analyses., Competing Interests: Dr. Griesinger has received support for the present manuscript (grants to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Furthermore, he has received grants (to the institution) from Amgen and Siemens; personal fees for consulting from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; payment for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and personal fees for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Merck Sharp & Dohme. He declares an unpaid fiduciary role in the German Society of Hematology and Oncology (first author of Oncopedia recommendations) and in the German Cancer Society (S3 guidelines author). Dr. Sebastian has a consulting or advisory role and has received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro; he has also received research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Brueckl has received personal fees and fees for lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and fees for educational events from AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Furthermore, he has received congress fees and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer, and Roche Pharma and has received personal fees and support for participation on advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly Pharma, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche. He declares a patent planned (EP21183549). Dr. Hummel has received personal fees as steering board member and fees for consulting from Amgen; has received personal fees for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim; payment for expert testimony from Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kern has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche and for participation on advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Wesseler has received honoraria for lectures and travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Hipper and Mrs. Groth have received research funding (to their employer AIO-Studien-gGmbH) from Amgen Ltd., AstraZeneca GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Bristol-Myers Squibb GmbH & Co. KGaA, Celgene GmbH, GlaxoSmithKline Research & Development Limited, Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Eli Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Merck Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Roche Pharma AG, and Takeda Pharma Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG. Dr. Weichert has received research support (to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; fees for consulting, travel support, fees for participation on advisory boards and lectures, and payment or honoraria for presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from ADC, Agilent, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Illumina, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Molecular Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, Takeda, and Roche. Mr. Dörfel holds iOMEDICO shares. Dr. Schröder has received consulting fees from iOMEDICO, Celgene, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology GmbH, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AOP, Searchlight, Pharma Partner, Medixline GmbH, Eisai, HE Research GmbH, AbbVie, NIO, I+E Research, Octapharma and IPSEN. Further he declares honoraria from iOMEDICO, Celgene, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology GmbH, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AOP, Searchlight, Pharma Partner, Medixline GmbH, Eisai, HE Research GmbH, AbbVie, NIO, I+E Research, Octapharma, IPSEN, BeiGene, and Miltenyi. Dr. Eberhardt has received research funding (to the institution) from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; honoraria for advisory boards from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen-Cilag, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AbbVie; and honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Baumgart Consult, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AbbVie. Dr. Thomas has received research funding (to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche, and Takeda; personal fees for speakers bureaus and advisory boards from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Eli Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Oncology, Eli Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024 by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.)

Objective: Development of an adaptive, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-oriented patient questionnaire on mobility and self-care based on an item response theory model (MOSES questionnaire)., Methods: Using item reconstruction rules, items were developed for the ICF chapters "mobility", "self-care" and "domestic life". The resulting instrument, together with other instruments (SF-36, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire (SMFA), MacNew, Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Barthel) was presented to 549 patients with musculoskeletal disease, 212 patients with cardiac disease and 258 neurological rehabilitation patients in rehabilitation clinics in Germany., Results: The MOSES questionnaire includes 58 items on 12 scales and fulfills the requirements of the 1-parameter item response theory model (Rasch model). The results indicate good reliability and high construct validity and sensitivity to change of the instrument. In the construction and selection of items, ICF contents that include complex processes of evaluation, and which presuppose skills that are not acquired prior to the individual learning process, were omitted due to a lack of unidimensionality., Conclusion: The successful implementation of the concept of applying rules to ICF categories in formulating the items of a patient questionnaire showed that the goal of a theory-driven measurement of activities using the ICF is feasible. The results of the project also raise questions as to the homogeneity of the contents of some ICF categories.