Search

BackgroundThe integration of data from disparate sources could help alleviate data insufficiency in real-world studies and compensate for the inadequacies of single data sources and short-duration, small sample size studies while improving the utility of data for research. ObjectiveThis study aims to describe and evaluate a process of integrating data from several complementary sources to conduct health outcomes research in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The integrated data set is also used to describe patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and mortality rates. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study integrated data from 4 sources: administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, clinical data from a Cancer Care Quality Program (CCQP), clinical data from abstracted medical records (MRs), and mortality data from the US Social Security Administration. Patients with lung cancer who initiated second-line (2L) therapy between November 01, 2015, and April 13, 2018, were identified in the claims and CCQP data. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and received atezolizumab, docetaxel, erlotinib, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, or ramucirumab in the 2L setting. The main analysis cohort included patients with claims data and data from at least one additional data source (CCQP or MR). Patients without integrated data (claims only) were reported separately. Descriptive and univariate statistics were reported. ResultsData integration resulted in a main analysis cohort of 2195 patients with NSCLC; 2106 patients had CCQP and 407 patients had MR data. The claims-only cohort included 931 eligible patients. For the main analysis cohort, the mean age was 62.1 (SD 9.27) years, 48.56% (1066/2195) were female, the median length of follow-up was 6.8 months, and for 37.77% (829/2195), death was observed. For the claims-only cohort, the mean age was 66.6 (SD 12.69) years, 52.1% (485/931) were female, the median length of follow-up was 8.6 months, and for 29.3% (273/931), death was observed. The most frequent 2L treatment was immunotherapy (1094/2195, 49.84%), followed by platinum-based regimens (472/2195, 21.50%) and single-agent chemotherapy (441/2195, 20.09%); mean duration of 2L therapy was 5.6 (SD 4.9, median 4) months. We describe challenges and learnings from the data integration process, and the benefits of the integrated data set, which includes a richer set of clinical and outcome data to supplement the utilization metrics available in administrative claims. ConclusionsThe management of patients with NSCLC requires care from a multidisciplinary team, leading to a lack of a single aggregated data source in real-world settings. The availability of integrated clinical data from MRs, health plan claims, and other sources of clinical care may improve the ability to assess emerging treatments.

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease. Front-line therapy may affect responses to subsequent treatment regimens, thus influencing second-line therapy decision making. In the randomised phase 3 REVEL study, second-line ramucirumab plus docetaxel (ram+doc) versus docetaxel (doc) improved survival of patients with metastatic NSCLC. We explore efficacy, safety and quality-of-life (QoL) in REVEL based on front-line therapy. Patients were grouped by specific front-line therapy received. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, safety and QoL were assessed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards modelling were used; frequencies reported in percentages. Baseline characteristics of 1253 patients were generally well balanced between treatment arms within each front-line therapy subgroup. For patients with non-squamous disease (n=912), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane (n=227; 25%) or pemetrexed (n=449; 49%), with (n=172; 19%) or without bevacizumab. For patients with squamous disease (n=328), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus gemcitabine (n=176; 54%) or a taxane (n=69; 21%). A highly selected subgroup (n=127; 14%) received pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy. Ram+doc improved median OS and PFS versus doc across front-line therapy subgroups, as reflected by HRs ranging from 0.78 to 0.91 and 0.66 to 0.92, respectively, similar to results in the overall intention-to-treat cohort (HRs: 0.86 and 0.76, respectively). High-grade treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest (including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, leucopenia and hypertension) were generally higher in ram+doc-treated patients relative to doc-treated patients regardless of front-line therapy. No clear differences in safety or QoL were seen across front-line therapy subgroups; outcomes were consistent with those reported in the overall intention-to-treat cohort. Results of this exploratory analysis suggest that second-line ram+doc may be effective regardless of prior treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane, pemetrexed, gemcitabine or bevacizumab. Overall, ram+doc is clinically beneficial across a wide range of patients with metastatic NSCLC who have progressed after various front-line therapies. NCT01168973.

Real-world evidence specific to HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer (MBC) prior to introduction of CDK4/6 inhibitors is limited. In an effort to provide context for the introduction of new treatments, we assessed treatment patterns, adverse events, productivity loss, and direct/indirect economic burden in a privately insured population of patients with HR+/HER2– MBC. Using a retrospective cohort design, patients aged 18–64 years, selected from MarketScan databases (2007–2014), were analyzed using descriptive and multivariable methods. Among 5,563 eligible patients, endocrine therapy was the most common first-line (1L) therapy; its utilization trended downward from 63% (1L) to 23% (4L), with a simultaneous increase in chemotherapy use, 25% (1L) to 50% (4L). Two hundred and seventy-eight unique treatment regimens were used in the 1L setting. The average per patient monthly all-cause costs were $14,424. The 12-month indirect costs for short-term disability were substantially higher in MBC patients ($10,397) than in matched noncancer patients ($394). The increasing use of chemotherapy as patients progressed to second and later lines and the substantial direct/indirect economic burden underscore an unmet need. The high number of 1L regimens highlights significant heterogeneity and a lack of consensus related to the management of HR+/HER2– MBC in routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To describe treatment patterns, outcomes and healthcare resource use in patients with metastatic and/or locally recurrent, unresectable gastric cancer (MGC) in Taiwan. Methods Patients who had received first-line therapy (platinum and/or fluoropyrimidine) followed by second-line therapy or best supportive care (BSC) only were eligible. Participating physicians provided de-identified information from patient charts. Data were summarized descriptively and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to describe time to events. Results Overall, 37 physicians contributed 122 patient charts. Of the 122 patients (median age, 61 years; 62% male), 43 (35%) received BSC only following first-line therapy, whereas 79 (65%) received second-line therapy. There was heterogeneity in second-line treatment, although fluoropyrimidine with or without a platinum agent was most frequently used. Median survival was 12.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 8.2-20.8) months from MGC diagnosis for patients receiving second-line therapy and 8.0 (IQR, 5.6-not reached) months for patients receiving BSC only. The most common treatment-related symptoms were nausea/vomiting (58%); the most common cancer-related symptoms were pain (61%), ascites (35%) and nausea/vomiting (33%). Inpatient and outpatient hospitalizations were numerically more common for patients receiving second-line therapy than for those receiving BSC only; the prevalence of hospice and skilled nursing facility stays were numerically more common for patients receiving BSC only. Conclusions In this Taiwanese MGC population, 65% received active second-line therapy with heterogeneity seen in the regimen used. Clinical outcomes suggest an unmet medical need in this population. This study may help inform clinical practice and future research to ultimately improve patient outcomes in Taiwan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To compare treatments, overall survival (OS), and total costs among patients receiving anticancer therapy in hospital outpatient vs physician office settings. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective observational study utilized claims data from a large national health plan to identify patients with advanced/metastatic non--small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated in hospital outpatient or physician office settings. METHODS: Patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug or commercial plans for at least 180 days prior to and at least 30 days after start of first-line (1L) therapy were included. Treatments by lines of therapy, OS, and total costs were evaluated by site of care. RESULTS: Eligible patients included 4618 with aNSCLC, 2304 with mCRC, and 1411 with mBC. There were no major differences in 1L, second-line, or third-line therapy by site of care. Patients with aNSCLC in physician office had longer 1L duration (hospital outpatient, 96 days vs physician office, 102 days; P < .01), but there were no differences in duration of therapy by site of care for mBC or mCRC. Costs were higher in the hospital outpatient setting for mCRC and mBC, but there were no differences in OS for any of the cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients received similar care in hospital outpatient and physician office settings, the differences in duration of treatment and costs warrant further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: The 21-gene assay (the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score ® test) estimates the 10-year risk of distant recurrence in hormone receptor positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions. The cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay compared against standard clinical-pathological risk tools alone for HR+/HER2- early-stage breast cancer was assessed using an economic model informed by evidence from randomized controlled trials., Materials and Methods: A cost-effectiveness model consisted of a decision-tree to stratify patients according to their Recurrence Score (RS) results and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, followed by a Markov component to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes of the chosen treatment. Distributions of patients and distant recurrence probabilities were derived from the TAILORx (N0) and RxPONDER (N1) trials. The model was evaluated from a healthcare payer and societal perspective. Endocrine therapy and chemotherapy use were informed using clinical expert opinion to reflect US clinical practice and were combined with Medicare drug costs (2021) to estimate the cost of treatment. Societal costs included lost productivity and patient out-of-pocket costs obtained from literature., Results: The Oncotype DX test generated more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (N0: 0.25; N1: 0.08) at a lower cost (N0: -$13,395; N1: -$2526) compared to clinical-pathological risk alone from a societal cost perspective. The overall conclusions from the model did not change when considering a payer perspective. The main cost drivers were avoidance of distant recurrence for N0 (-$12,578), and the cost of adjuvant chemotherapy for N1 (-$2133). Lost productivity had a major impact in the societal perspective analysis (N0: -$4607; N1: -$1586)., Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions based on the RS result led to more life year gains and lower healthcare costs (dominant) compared to using clinical-pathological risk factors alone among patients with HR+/HER2- N0 and N1 early-stage breast cancer., Competing Interests: Vladislav Berdunov and Ewan Laws: employee of Putnam, who have received funding from Exact Sciences. Gebra Cuyun Carter, Christy Russell, Sara Campbell: employee and stockholder of Exact Sciences. Roger Luo has no conflicts of interest to declare. Yara Abdou and Jeremy Force: served as paid consultant for Exact Sciences., (© 2024 Berdunov et al.)

Objective: The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice., Methods: A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to evaluate test choice in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Treatment pathways were based on NCCN guidelines and medical expert opinion. Inputs were derived from published literature. Annual economic results and lifetime clinical results with OncoExTra testing were projected per-tested-patient and compared with single gene testing and no testing. Separately, results were estimated for a US health plan without the OncoExTra test and with its use in 5% of patients., Results: Compared with no genomic testing, OncoExTra test use increased costs by $4,915 per patient; however, 82%-92% of individuals across tumour types were identified as eligible for targeted therapy or a clinical trial. Compared with single gene testing, OncoExTra test use decreased costs by $9,966 per-patient-tested while increasing use of approved or investigational targeted therapies by 20%. When considering a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 858 patients were eligible for genomic testing. Using the OncoExTra test in 5% of those eligible, per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.003, ranging from cost-savings of $0.026 in NSCLC patients to a $0.009 increase in prostate cancer patients. Cost-savings were driven by reduced treatment costs with increased clinical trial enrolment and reduced direct and indirect medical costs associated with targeted treatments., Limitations: Limitations include the required simplifications in modelling complex conditions that may not fully reflect evolving real-world testing and treatment patterns., Conclusions: Compared to single-gene testing, results indicate that using next generation sequencing test such as OncoExTra identified more actionable alterations, leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs.