Search

The 2017 international PACIFIC trial established a role for immunotherapy after chemoradiation for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in the US, patients with NSCLC commonly differ from clinical trial populations in terms of age, health, access to care, and treatment course, which may all factor into the efficacy of immunotherapy.To determine the outcomes of immunotherapy use in unresectable stage III NSCLC in the general US population.This cohort study analyzed the National Cancer Database for patients diagnosed with clinical stage III NSCLC between 2015 and 2017 with follow-up through the end of 2018 who were treated with chemotherapy and radiation. Data were analyzed January 2022.Mortality hazard in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and survival among a propensity-matched sample treated with chemotherapy and radiation, with and without immunotherapy.A total of 23 811 patients with clinical stage III NSCLC with median (IQR) age 66 (59-72) years met inclusion criteria (10 454 [43.9%] women; 564 [2.4%] Asian, 2930 [12.3%] Black, 20 077 [84.3%] White patients), including 209 (16.1%) patients with multiple comorbidities and 1297 (5.4%) immunotherapy recipients. Immunotherapy after chemotherapy and radiation was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.82; P .001). Among a propensity-matched sample, immunotherapy was associated with superior 3-year survival (52% [1297 patients at 0 months, 56 patients at 36 months] vs 44% [2594 patients at 0 months, 173 patients at 36 months]; P .001). The treatment of 833 patients who received immunotherapy (64.2%) differed from the PACIFIC trial protocol, including 221 patients (17.0%) who received radiation doses outside of the protocol range and 731 patients (56.4%) who started immunotherapy more than 6 weeks after radiation was completed. The survival advantage of immunotherapy persisted when initiated up to 12 weeks after radiation was completed (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92). Among patients who received radiation outside the PACIFIC protocol range, the survival advantage of immunotherapy was not significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01).In this cohort study, immunotherapy after chemotherapy and radiation for stage III NSCLC was associated with a survival advantage in the general US population despite two-thirds of patients treated differently than the PACIFIC protocol. The findings suggest there may be flexibility in the timing of immunotherapy initiation after radiation; further study is warranted to clarify the clinical benefits of immunotherapy.

Clinical trials and compassionate use agreements provide selected patients with access to potentially life-saving treatments before approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approval from the FDA decreases a number of access barriers; however, it is unknown whether FDA approval is associated with increases in the equitable use of novel therapies and reductions in disparities in use among patients with cancer in the US.To assess the association between FDA drug approval and disparities in the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after approval of the first checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of patients with cancer in the US.This cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database to examine the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after FDA approval of the first checkpoint inhibitor therapies. A total of 402 689 patients 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or melanoma of the skin between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2018 (specific years varied by tumor type), were included.Patient health (Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score and age), sociodemographic characteristics (sex, race, and ethnicity), and socioeconomic (insurance status and household income based on zip code of residence) characteristics.The association of patient characteristics with receipt of immunotherapy was evaluated in the 4 years before and the 3 years immediately after FDA approval using multivariable logistic regression modeling.Among 402 689 patients (median [IQR] age, 68 [60-76 years]; 225 081 men [55.9%]), 347 233 had NSCLC, 43 714 had RCC, and 11 742 patients had melanoma. A total of 47 527 patients (11.8%) were Black, 15 763 (3.9%) were Hispanic, 375 874 (93.3%) were non-Hispanic, 335 833 (83.4%) were White, and 16 553 (4.1%) were of other races. Before FDA approval, 6271 patients (3.2%) with NSCLC, 1155 patients (4.8%) with RCC, and 504 patients (8.6%) with melanoma received immunotherapy compared with 23 908 patients (15.6%) with NSCLC, 3890 patients (19.7%) with RCC, and 1143 patients (19.3%) with melanoma after FDA approval. Before FDA approval, sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics were associated with variable immunotherapy administration by tumor type. For example, among those with NSCLC, Black patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI ,0.71-0.85; P .001); among those with RCC, uninsured patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than privately insured patients (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.48; P .001). After FDA approval, most disparities persisted, but several narrowed (eg, Black patients with NSCLC: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.91; P .001]; uninsured patients with RCC: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.75; P .001]). Although many disparities remained, some gaps across socioeconomic characteristics appeared to widen (eg, patients with NSCLC in the lowest vs highest income quartile: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83; P .001), and new gaps emerged (eg, Black patients with RCC: OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P = .003).In this cohort study, disparities in immunotherapy use existed across a number of sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics among patients with NSCLC, RCC, and melanoma before FDA approval, including during the important period when clinical trials were accruing patients. Although FDA approval was associated with a significant increase in the use of immunotherapy, gaps persisted, suggesting that FDA approval may not eliminate disparities in the use of novel therapies.

Importance Insurance status has been linked to important differences in cancer treatment and outcomes in the US. With more than 15 million individuals gaining health insurance through Medicaid expansion, there is an increasing need to understand the implications of this policy within the US cancer population. This review provides an overview of the fundamental principles and nuances of Medicaid expansion, as well as the implications for cancer care. Observations The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act presented states with an option to expand Medicaid coverage by broadening the eligibility criteria (eg, raising the eligible income level). During the past 10 years, Medicaid expansion has been credited with a 30% reduction in the population of uninsured individuals in the US. Such a significant change in the insurance profile could have important implications for the 1.7 million patients diagnosed with cancer each year, the oncology teams that care for them, and policy makers. However, several factors may complicate efforts to characterize the effect of Medicaid expansion on the US cancer population. Most notably, there is considerable variation among states in terms of whether Medicaid expansion took place, when expansion occurred, eligibility criteria for Medicaid, and coverage types that Medicaid provides. In addition, economic and health policy factors may be intertwined with factors associated with Medicaid expansion. Finally, variability in the manner in which cancer care has been captured and depicted in large databases could affect the interpretation of findings associated with expansion. Conclusions and relevance The expansion of Medicaid was a historic public policy initiative. To fully leverage this policy to improve oncological care and to maximize learning for subsequent policies, it is critical to understand the effect of Medicaid expansion. This review aims to better prepare investigators and their audiences to fully understand the implications of this important health policy initiative.