Search

Background: Many studies have compared real-world clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with reported outcomes data from pivotal trials. However, any differences observed could be only limitedly explored further for causation because of the unavailability of individual patient data (IPD) from trial participants. The present study aims to explore the additional benefit of comparison with IPD. Methods: This study compares progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of metastatic NSCLC patients treated with second line nivolumab in real-world clinical practice (n = 141) with IPD from participants in the Checkmate-057 clinical trial (n = 292). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to construct HRs for real-world practice versus clinical trial. Results: Real-world patients were older (64 vs. 61 years), had more often ECOG PS ≥ 2 (5 vs. 0%) and were less often treated with subsequent anti-cancer treatment (28.4 vs. 42.5%) compared to trial patients. The median PFS in real-world patients was longer (3.84 (95%CI: 3.19-5.49) vs 2.30 (2.20-3.50) months) and the OS shorter than in trial participants (8.25 (6.93-13.2) vs. 12.2 (9.90-15.1) months). Adjustment with available patient characteristics, led to a shift in the hazard ratio (HR) for OS, but not for PFS (HRs from 1.13 (0.88-1.44) to 1.07 (0.83-1.38), and from 0.82 (0.66-1.03) to 0.79 (0.63-1.00), respectively). Conclusions: This study is an example how IPD from both real-world and trial patients can be applied to search for factors that could explain an efficacy-effectiveness gap. Making IPD from clinical trials available to the international research community allows this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent results of patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors in clinical trials showed 5-year survival in one-third of patients with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years. This study aimed to investigate these patients' real-world survival and identify the characteristics of long-term survivors. The study population consisted of patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma with a BRAF-V600 mutated tumor who were treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors between 2013 and 2017. Long-term survival was defined as a minimum OS of 2 years from start therapy. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) of real-world patients ( n  = 435) were respectively 8.0 (95% CI, 6.8-9.4) and 11.7 (95% CI, 10.3-13.5) months. Two-year survival was reached by 28% of the patients, 22% reached 3-year survival and 19% reached 4-year survival. Real-world patients often had brain metastases (41%), stage IV M1c disease (87%), ECOG PS ≥2 (21%), ≥3 organ sites (62%) and elevated LDH of ≥250 U/I (49%). Trial-eligible real-world patients had an mOS of 17.9 months. Patients surviving more than 2 years ( n  = 116) more often had an ECOG PS ≤1 (83%), normal LDH (60%), no brain metastases (60%), no liver metastases (63%) and <3 organ sites (60%). Long-term survival of real-world patients treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors is significantly lower than that of trial patients, which is probably explained by poorer baseline characteristics of patients treated in daily practice. Long-term survivors generally had more favorable characteristics with regard to age, LDH level and metastatic sites, compared to patients not reaching long-term survival., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: Regulatory decisions on paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) aim at making effective and safe medicines timely available for children with high unmet medical need. At the same time, scientific knowledge progresses continuously leading frequently to the identification of new molecular targets in the therapeutic area of oncology. This, together with further efforts to optimise next generation medicines, results in novel innovative products in development pipelines. In the context of global regulatory development requirements for these growing pipelines of innovative products (e.g. US RACE for children Act), it is an increasing challenge to complete development efforts in paediatric oncology, a therapeutic area of rare and life-threatening diseases with high unmet needs., Objective: Regulators recognise feasibility challenges of the regulatory obligations in this context. Here, we explain the EU regulatory decision making strategy applied to paediatric oncology, which aims fostering evidence generation to support developments based on needs and robust science. Because there is a plethora of products under development within given classes of or within cancer types, priorities need to be identified and updated as evidence evolves. This also includes identifying the need for third or fourth generation products to secure focused and accelerated drug development., Conclusion: An agreed PIP, as a plan, is a living document which can be modified in light of new evidence. For this to be successful, input from the various relevant stakeholders, i.e. patients/parents, clinicians and investigators is required. To efficiently obtain this input, the EMA is co-organising with ACCELERATE oncology stakeholder engagement platform meetings., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA) Medicines Program was set up in September 2018 to evaluate expensive medicine use in daily practice in terms of real-world effectiveness using only existing data sources., Objective: The aim of this study is to describe the potential of the addition of declaration data to quality registries to provide participating centers with benchmark information about the use of medicines and outcomes among patients., Methods: A total of 3 national population-based registries were linked to clinical and financial data from the hospital pharmacy, the Dutch diagnosis treatment combinations information system including in-hospital activities, and survival data from health care insurers. The first results of the real-world data (RWD) linkage are presented using descriptive statistics to assess patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: A total of 21 Dutch hospitals participated in the DICA Medicines Program, which included 7412 patients with colorectal cancer, 1981 patients with metastasized colon cancer, 3860 patients with lung cancer, 1253 patients with metastasized breast cancer, and 7564 patients with rheumatic disease. The data were used for hospital benchmarking to gain insights into medication use in specific patient populations, treatment information, clinical outcomes, and costs. Detailed treatment information (duration and treatment steps) led to insights into differences between hospitals in daily clinical practices. Furthermore, exploratory analyses on clinical outcomes (TTNT and OS) were possible., Conclusions: The DICA Medicines Program shows that it is possible to gather and link RWD about medicines to 4 disease-specific population-based registries. Since these RWD became available with minimal registration burden and effort for hospitals, this method can be explored in other population-based registries to evaluate real-world efficacy., (©Rawa Kamaran Ismail, Jesper van Breeschoten, Silvia van der Flier, Caspar van Loosen, Anna Maria Gerdina Pasmooij, Maaike van Dartel, Alfons van den Eertwegh, Anthonius de Boer, Michel Wouters, Doranne Hilarius. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 23.06.2022.)

Background: This study aimed to provide insights into the real-world use of palbociclib, dose reductions, and drug effectiveness in (older) patients with advanced breast cancer (BC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced BC treated with palbociclib from 2017 to 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate time to next treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) for patients with or without dose reductions. These clinical outcomes were also compared in subgroup analyses for older patients (≥70 years) and younger patients (<70 years) and for patients discontinuing palbociclib early (<4 administrations)., Results: A total of 598 patients with advanced BC were included, with a median age of 64 years. Palbociclib dose reductions occurred in 33% of all patients. Early discontinuation of palbociclib without dose reductions occurred in 23% of the patients. Patients who required a palbociclib dose reduction were older (median age 67 years vs. 63 years). Patients with dose reductions had a significantly higher TTNT of 16.9 vs. 11.4 months (p < 0.001) and median OS of 29.7 vs. 21.9 months (p = 0.003) compared to patients without dose reductions. The TTNT in older patients was significantly longer (16.9 vs. 11.6 months, p = 0.013) than younger patients, but OS was similar (20.7 vs. 26.7 months, p = 0.051)., Conclusion: Palbociclib dose reductions occurred in real-world practice similarly to the PALOMA-3 trial. Patients with dose reductions had no poorer outcomes compared to patients not requiring a dose reduction. Older patients treated with palbociclib had more frequent dose reductions, but this did not appear to affect OS., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about outcomes of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting. Since 2019, adjuvant-treated melanoma patients have been registered in the DMTR, a population-based registry to monitor the quality and safety of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This study aims to describe treatment patterns, relapse, and toxicity rates of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting., Methods: Analyses were performed on adjuvant-treated melanoma patients included in the DMTR. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse patient-, and treatment characteristics. A baseline registration completeness analysis was performed, and an analysis on trial eligibility in clinical practice patients. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 12-months was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: A total of 641 patients were treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. RFS at 12-months was 70.6% (95% CI, 66.9-74.6) with a median follow-up of 12.8 months. Sex, stage of disease and Breslow thickness were associated with a higher hazard for RFS. Eighteen per cent of the anti-PD-1-treated patients developed grade ≥3 toxicity. Sixty-one per cent of patients prematurely discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy., Conclusion: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment of resected stage III/IV melanoma in daily practice showed slightly higher toxicity rates and more frequent premature discontinuation but similar RFS rates compared to trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement AvdE has advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck and has received research study grants not related to this paper from Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera and TEVA and has received travel expenses from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer and Sanofi and has received speaker honoraria from BMS and Novartis. MBS has consultancy/advisory relationships with Pierre Fabre, MSD and Novartis. JdG has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Novartis. GH consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and has received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Seerave. EK has consultancy/advisory relationships with BristolMyers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb. KS has advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Abbvie and received honoraria from Novartis, MSD and Roche. AvdV has consultancy relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai, Merck. JH has advisory relationships with Achilles Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Immunocore, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Neogene Therapeutics, PokeAcel, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, T-Knife, Third Rock Ventures, and has received research grants not related to this paper from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, BioNTech, Neogene Therapeutics and Novartis. All grants were paid to the institutions. The funders had no role in the writing of this article or decision to submit it for publication. AvA has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, 4SC. Research grants from Amgen, Merck-Pfizer. All outside of current work and all paid to institute. MA has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer. Research grants Merck-Pfizer. Not related to current work and paid to institute. HMW has received travel expenses from Ipsen and Astellas and has received honoraria from Roche and Astellas. RvR has received expert meeting fees from Roche and advisory board fees from Pfizer. EE has received speaker honoraria from BMS, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin, and travel/conference expenses from MSD. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)