Search

Background: Therapies targeting human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) have become a focus for improving treatment outcomes in patients with gastric cancer. This literature review sought to assesses clinical outcomes, including safety, survival, and treatment outcomes, of patients who received trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2+ metastatic gastric cancer., Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed and Embase to identify observational research studies investigating the clinical outcomes of trastuzumab and combination therapies for the treatment of HER2+ metastatic gastric cancer, published January 1, 2014-August 22, 2019. Article screening was a two-phase process, and the results of each screening level were documented in accordance with PRISMA., Results: Twenty articles met the selection criteria for data extraction. Studies focused on treatment patterns or survival, safety, and clinical outcomes, as well as the natural history of disease. In the combined HER2+ patient populations included in this review, tumors were located in the stomach (33.7%), gastroesophageal junction (GEJ, 14.2%), unspecific GEJ or stomach (50.3%), or esophagus (1.9%). Studies observed increases in both overall survival and progression-free survival with the use of trastuzumab-based chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy treatment alone. Additionally, trastuzumab-based chemotherapy appeared to improve survival and clinical outcomes regardless of the presence of multi-organ metastases or tumor location., Conclusions: Trastuzumab-treated patients have longer survival times than those not treated with trastuzumab and tolerate treatment well, with few serious adverse events. New treatments for second- and subsequent-line therapies would increase regimen options., Mini-Abstract: The treatment patterns and clinical outcomes observed in this literature review suggest patients treated with trastuzumab have longer survival times compared with chemotherapy treatment alone and tolerate treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interests MS, MDH, NT, and ZI are Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. employees. CB, AL, and MER are employees of RTI Health Solutions, an independent nonprofit research organization that does work for government agencies and pharmaceutical companies., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite existing guidelines for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), prescribing preferences in the United States have not been fully examined. The objectives of this study were to characterize US physicians' preferences and factors influencing first-line mRCC treatment., Materials and Methods: A Web-based study presented physicians with hypothetical mRCC patient cases and recorded initial therapy preference and rationale. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize preferred treatment; logistic regression was used to determine patient characteristics associated with therapy changes. Analyses were conducted on pooled responses across cases. Model results were summarized using odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals, and P values for the covariates., Results: One hundred nine physicians participated in the study; 96 (88.1%) chose a tyrosine kinase inhibitor as their preferred first-line mRCC treatment (62 [56.9%], sunitinib; 31 [28.4%], pazopanib). Perceived superior overall survival and progression-free survival were top reasons physicians chose sunitinib; enhanced tolerability and efficacy similar to sunitinib were top reasons physicians chose pazopanib. Initial sunitinib prescribers were more likely to change therapy in the presence of comorbid conditions (OR, 2.915; P = .0068), poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (OR, 2.368; P = .0106), or poor prognostic risk (OR, 3.884; P = .0224). This was not seen for initial pazopanib prescribers., Conclusion: Sunitinib and pazopanib were the most preferred agents for first-line mRCC treatment. Sunitinib preference was driven by perceptions of efficacy, and pazopanib was preferred for its perceived tolerability and efficacy similar to sunitinib. With varying clinical scenarios, initial pazopanib prescribers were more likely to maintain pazopanib and alter dosing; sunitinib prescribers were more likely to switch therapy., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated that pazopanib prolongs progression-free survival (PFS), with an acceptable safety profile, for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The efficacy of second-line mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in pazopanib-treated patients has also been evaluated in clinical trials; however, few studies have evaluated first-line pazopanib or second-line mTOR inhibitors in real-world settings. The present study evaluated the outcomes of first-line pazopanib, and pazopanib followed by mTOR inhibitors, in a community oncology setting., Patients and Methods: The present study was a retrospective analysis of eligible patients in US Oncology's iKnowMed electronic health records database who had been treated for aRCC from November 1, 2009 to August 31, 2012. The patients received first-line therapy with pazopanib (cohort 1), followed by second-line therapy with either everolimus or temsirolimus (cohort 2). The key outcomes included overall survival (OS), PFS, adverse events (AEs), treatment patterns, and healthcare resource use., Results: The median OS in cohort 1 (n = 177) was 22 months, and the median PFS was 8.5 months. The most common AEs were fatigue (56%), diarrhea (52%), vomiting (44%), and nausea (40%). The median persistence was 151 days with pazopanib. The median OS in cohort 2 (n = 35) was 16 months; the median PFS was 5.7 months. The most common AEs were fatigue (51%) and nausea (34%). The median persistence was 93 days with everolimus and 49 days with temsirolimus., Conclusion: The outcomes for the patients treated with first-line pazopanib in the community setting were consistent with those reported by previous prospective and retrospective studies. Although the second-line cohort was small, the results of mTOR inhibitors after pazopanib were also consistent with those of previous observations., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)