Search

Background: Cancer spares no demographic or socioeconomic group; it is indeed the great equalizer. But its distribution is not equal; when structural discrimination concentrates poverty and race, zip code surpasses genetic code in predicting outcomes. Compared with White patients in the United States, Black patients are less likely to receive appropriate treatment and referral to clinical trials, genetic testing, or palliative care/hospice., Methods: In 2021, we administered a survey to 369 oncologists measuring differences in perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and adverse influence on clinical interactions, treatment, and outcomes for non-White patients. We analyzed responses by generational age group, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, US region, and selection of "decline to respond.", Results: The most significant differences occurred by age group followed by race/ethnicity. Racial disparity was perceived as moderate to very high by 84% of millennial, 69% of Generation X, and 57% of baby boomer oncologists, who were also 86% more likely than millennials and 63% more likely than Generation Xers to perceive low/nonexistent levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias., Conclusions: Most oncologists rarely or never perceived racial anxiety/unconscious bias as adversely influencing clinical treatment or survival outcomes in non-White patients, and White oncologists were 85% more likely than non-White oncologists to perceive rare/nonexistent influence on referral of non-White patients to palliative care/hospice. The discrepancy between 62% of oncologists perceiving moderate to very high levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias and 37% associating them with adverse influence on non-White patients shows a disconnect, especially among older oncologists (baby boomers), who were also least likely to select the decline option. Together, these factors hinder effective patient-provider communication and result in differential care and outcomes. Oncologists should uncover their own perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and modify their behaviors accordingly. It is this simple-and this complicated. Cancer does not discriminate, and neither should cancer care.

Background: There is a lack of established clinical outcomes for patients with myelofibrosis (MF) receiving fedratinib following ruxolitinib failure. This study examined real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with MF treated with fedratinib following ruxolitinib failure in US clinical practice., Patients and Methods: This retrospective patient chart review included adults with a physician-reported diagnosis of MF, who initiated fedratinib after discontinuing ruxolitinib. Descriptive analyses characterized patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and treatment patterns from MF diagnosis through ruxolitinib and fedratinib treatment., Results: Twenty-four physicians abstracted data for 150 eligible patients. Approximately 55.3% of the patients were male, 68.0% were White, and median age at MF diagnosis was 68 (range, 35-84) years. Median duration of ruxolitinib therapy was 7.6 (range, 0.7-65.5) months. At initiation of fedratinib, 88.0% of patients had palpable spleen and a mean spleen size of 16.0 (standard deviation [SD], 5.9) cm. Spleen size decreased by 19.4% to 13.2 (SD, 7.9) cm at month 3 (P = .0001) and by 53.4% to 7.2 (SD, 7.4) cm at month 6 (P = .01) of fedratinib treatment, respectively. Almost one-third (26.8%) of patients had achieved ≥ 50% spleen reduction by month 6. Mean number of symptoms also decreased significantly at month 3 (P < .0001) and month 6 (P = .01)., Conclusion: Fedratinib appears to deliver spleen and symptom benefits in real-world patients with MF previously treated with ruxolitinib., Competing Interests: Disclosure J.M. reports research funding paid to institution from AbbVie, BMS, CTI BioPharm, Geron, Incyte, Kartos, Novartis, PharmaEssentia, and Roche; consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, CTI BioPharm, Galecto, Geron, GSK, Incyte, Kartos, Karyopharm, MorphoSys, Novartis, PharmaEssentia, Roche, and Sierra Oncology. C.H. reports research funding from BMS/Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, a MorphoSys Company, and Novartis; and advisory role and speaker funding from Abbvie, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, BMS/Celgene, CTI BioPharma, Galacteo, Geron, Gilead, Janssen, Keros, Novartis, Promedior, Roche, and Shire. T.A.S., D.L., M.G., and T.A.M. report employment with Cardinal Health. S.M. and A.M. report employment with BMS. D.T. and I.S.D. report employment with and stock ownership in BMS. P.A. reports no conflicts of interest. J.K. reports employment with and stock ownership in Cardinal Health at the time this study was conducted. B.A.F. reports research funding from BMS; and stock ownership in and employment with Cardinal Health. A.T.G. reports consulting for AbbVie, BMS/Celgene, CTI BioPharma, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, a MorphoSys Company, GSK/Sierra Oncology, Incyte, Kartos, Novartis, and PharmaEssentia., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Antiviral treatments for early intervention in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are needed as a complement to vaccination. We sought to estimate the impact on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and direct healthcare costs over 12 months following introduction of a novel, antiviral treatment, RD-X19, a light-based, at-home intervention designed for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection., Methods: A time-dependent, state transition (semi-Markov) cohort model was developed to simulate infection progression in individuals with COVID-19 in 3 US states with varying levels of vaccine uptake (Alabama, North Carolina, and Massachusetts) and at the national level between 1 June 2020 and 31 May 2021. The hypothetical cohort of patients entering the model progressed through subsequent health states after infection. Costs were assigned to each health state. Number of infections/vaccinations per day were incorporated into the model. Simulations were run to estimate outcomes (cases by severity, deaths, and direct healthcare costs) at various levels of adoption of RD-X19 (5%, 10%, 25%) in eligible infected individuals at the state and national levels and across three levels of clinical benefit based on the results from an early feasibility study of RD-X19. The clinical benefit reflects a decline in the duration of symptomatic disease by 1.2, 2.4 (base case), and 3.6 days., Results: In the base case analysis with 10% adoption, simulated infections/deaths/direct healthcare costs were reduced by 10,059/275/$69 million in Alabama, 21,092/545/$135 million in North Carolina, and 16,670/415/$102 million in Massachusetts over 12 months. At the national level, 10% adoption reduced total infections/deaths/direct healthcare costs by 686,722/17,748/$4.41 billion., Conclusion: At-home, antiviral treatment with RD-X19 or other interventions with similar efficacy that decrease both symptomatic days and transmission probabilities can be used in concert with vaccines to reduce COVID-19 cases, deaths, and direct healthcare costs.

Purpose: For patients with cancer who have exhausted approved treatment options and for whom appropriate clinical trials are not available, access to investigational drugs through the US Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access (EA) program has been an alternative since the program's inception more than 30 years ago. In 2018, federal Right To Try legislation was passed in the United States, creating a second pathway-one that bypasses the US Food and Drug Administration-to obtain unapproved drugs outside of clinical trials. The use of the two programs by community medical oncologists and hematologist-oncologists has not been studied., Methods: Between October 2019 and February 2020, community oncologists-hematologists from across the United States completed web-based surveys about EA and Right To Try pathways for accessing unapproved drugs for their patients. Physicians were asked about their utilization of, and perceptions of, the two programs., Results: Of the 238 physicians who completed the survey, 46% indicated that they had attempted to gain access to an investigational drug for a patient using the EA program, whereas 14% reported attempting to use Right To Try pathway to obtain an unapproved drug for a patient. Eighty-nine percent of those who tried to use the EA program reported success in obtaining the investigational drug versus 73% of those who attempted to use the Right To Try pathway., Conclusion: Our survey found that most community oncologists-hematologists were aware of both the EA and Right To Try pathways, but there is room for improvement in understanding and utilization of the programs., Competing Interests: Marjorie E. ZettlerEmployment: Cardinal HealthStock and Other Ownership Interests: Cardinal Health, Lilly Yolaine Jeune-SmithEmployment: Cardinal Health Bruce A. FeinbergEmployment: Cardinal HealthLeadership: Cardinal HealthStock and Other Ownership Interests: Cardinal Health Eli G. Phillips JrEmployment: Cardinal Health, Express ScriptsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Cardinal Health Ajeet GajraEmployment: Cardinal HealthLeadership: Cardinal HealthStock and Other Ownership Interests: Cardinal HealthNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Objective: Cancer survival rates have improved over the past few decades, yet socioeconomic disparities persist. Social determinants of health (SDOH) have consistently been shown to correlate with health outcomes. The objective of this study was to characterise oncologists' perceptions of the impact of SDOH on their patients, and their opinions on how these effects could be remediated., Design: Cross-sectional survey of physicians., Setting: Web-based survey completed prior to live meetings held between February and April 2020., Participants: Oncologists/haematologists from across the USA., Exposure: Clinical practice in a community-based or hospital-based setting., Main Outcome and Measure: Physician responses regarding how SDOH affected their patients, which factors represented the most significant barriers to optimal health outcomes and how the impact of SDOH could be mitigated through assistance programmes., Results: Of the 165 physicians who completed the survey, 93% agreed that SDOH had a significant impact on their patients' health outcomes. Financial security/lack of insurance and access to transportation were identified most often as the greatest barriers for their patients (83% and 58%, respectively). Eighty-one per cent of physicians indicated that they and their staff had limited time to spend assisting patients with social needs, and 76% reported that assistance programmes were not readily accessible. Government organisations, hospitals, non-profit organisations and commercial payers were selected by 50% or more of oncologists surveyed as who should be responsible for delivering assistance programmes to patients with social needs; 42% indicated that pharmaceutical manufacturers should also be responsible., Conclusion: Our survey found that most oncologists were aware of the impact of SDOH on their patients but were constrained in their time to assist patients with social needs. The physicians in our study identified a need for more accessible assistance programmes and greater involvement from all stakeholders in addressing SDOH to improve health outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All support for the present manuscript including provision of study materials and article processing charges was provided by Cardinal Health. All authors are employees of Cardinal Health and may own stock in Cardinal Health., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Eribulin was approved in the United States (US) in 2010 for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who previously received at least two chemotherapeutic regimens, including anthracycline and taxane in the adjuvant or metastatic setting. With significant changes to the treatment landscape over the past decade, assessment of the real-world effectiveness of eribulin in clinical practice when used according to the approved US indication is valuable., Methods: Patients with MBC were identified by community oncologists through a retrospective, multi-site patient chart review; de-identified data were abstracted into electronic case report forms. Eligible patients initiated eribulin consistent with approved US indication between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2017. Clinical outcomes assessed included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in all patients and those with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC)., Results: The analysis included 513 patients (median 59.0 years; 38.8% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status ≥ 2). Eribulin was third-line therapy for 78.0% of patients, and fourth-line or later for the remainder. ORR was 54.4%, median PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI: 5.8, 6.6), and median OS was 10.6 months (95% CI 9.9, 11.7) in all patients. Among the 49.9% of patients with TNBC, ORR was 55.1%, median PFS was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.1, 6.4), and median OS was 9.8 months (95% CI 8.6, 11.0)., Conclusion: The current retrospective chart review study reinforces the clinical effectiveness of eribulin in patients with MBC, including those with TNBC, when used according to the approved US indication in real-world clinical practice.

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a promising treatment for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel). Although the incidence of LBCL is highest among patients age ≥ 65, clinical trials supporting approval of these 2 products primarily enrolled younger patients. Safety data for axi-cel and tis-cel in older patients is limited., Methods: In this analysis, we queried the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) database for cases associated with axi-cel or tis-cel from the FDA approval dates for the LBCL indication for each product through December 31, 2019, and compared adverse events (AEs) reported for cases involving patients aged <65 and ≥ 65., Results: A total of 804 cases were retrieved, with 333 (41%) involving patients age ≥ 65. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the most common AE reported in both age groups. Cases involving older patients had a significantly higher proportion of neurological AEs, including CAR T-cell-related encephalopathy syndrome (8% vs. 4%, p = 0.03). Some individual clinical features of CRS were significantly more common among younger age group cases, including pyrexia (33% vs. 23%, p < 0.01), tachycardia (10% vs. 5%, p < 0.01), and thrombocytopenia (4% vs. 2%, p = 0.03)., Discussion: In this age-based analysis of FAERS reports for patients treated with axi-cel or tis-cel, we identified differences in patterns of AEs experienced. This large-scale post-marketing study complements clinical trial safety data and may help inform clinicians' decision making when treating adult patients with CAR-T cell therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors report employment with Cardinal Health; AG reports employment with ICON Clinical Research., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In clinical trials supporting the regulatory approval of oncology drugs, solid tumor response is assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Calculation of RECIST-based responses requires sequential, timed imaging data, which presents challenges to the method's application in real-world evidence research., Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and validity of a novel real-world RECIST method in assessing tumor burden associated with therapy for a large heterogeneous patient population undergoing treatment in routine clinical practice., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used physician-abstracted data pooled from retrospective, multisite electronic health record (EHR) review studies of patients treated with anticancer drugs at US oncology practices from 2014 through 2017. Included patients were receiving first-line treatment for thyroid cancer, breast cancer, or metastatic melanoma. Data were analyzed from March through August 2020., Exposures: Undergoing treatment with immunotherapy or targeted therapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Tumor response was classified according to RECIST guidelines (ie, change in sum diameter of target lesions) post hoc with measurements derived from imaging scans and reports., Results: Among 1308 completed electronic case report forms, 956 forms (73.1%) had adequate data to classify real-world RECIST response. The greatest difference between physician-recorded responses and real-world RECIST-based responses was found in the proportion of complete responses: 118 responses (12.3%) vs 46 responses (4.8%) (P < .001). Among 609 patients in the metastatic melanoma population, complete responses were reported in 112 physician-recorded responses (18.4%) vs 44 real-world RECIST-based responses (7.2%) (P < .001), compared with 11 of 247 responses (4.5%) to 31 of 192 responses (16.1%) across pivotal trials of the same melanoma therapies., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that comparing tumor lesion sizes and categorizing treatment response according to RECIST guidelines may be feasible using real-world data. This study found that physician-recorded assessments were associated with overestimation of treatment response, with the largest overestimation among complete responses. Real-world RECIST-based assessments were associated with better approximations of tumor response reported in clinical trials compared with those reported in EHRs.

Objectives: Real-world evidence (RWE) has gained increased attention in recent years as a complement to traditional clinical trials. The use of RWE to establish the efficacy of oncology drugs for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval has not been described. In this paper, we review 5 recent examples where RWE was submitted in support of the FDA approvals of original or supplementary indications for oncology drugs., Methods: To identify cases where RWE was used, we reviewed drug approval packages available at Drugs@FDA for oncology drugs approved between 2017 and 2019. Five cases were selected to present a broad overview of different types of RWE, different circumstances under which RWE has been used for regulatory approvals, and how FDA evaluated the data in each case. The type of RWE submitted, the indication, limitations identified by FDA reviewers, and the outcome of the submission are discussed., Results: RWE, particularly historical controls for rare or orphan indications, has been used to support both original and supplementary oncology drug approvals. Types of RWE included data from electronic health records, claims, post-marketing safety reports, retrospective medical record reviews, and expanded access studies. Small sample sizes, data quality, and methodological issues were among concerns cited by FDA reviewers., Conclusion: By bridging the gap between the constraints of the trial setting and the realities of clinical practice, RWE can add value to a regulatory submission. These early examples provide insight into how regulators evaluated RWE submitted as evidence of efficacy for oncology drugs., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To characterize real-world neurological adverse events (AEs) associated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphomas. Materials & methods: Postmarketing case reports from the US FDA AEs reporting system involving axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) for large B-cell lymphomas were analyzed. Results: Of 804 AE cases identified (637 axi-cel, 167 tisa-cel), 428 (67%) of axi-cel cases and 43 (26%) of tisa-cel cases reported neurological AEs. Compared with cases without neurological AEs, significant associations were observed between neurological AEs and use of axi-cel, age ≥65 years, and the outcome of hospitalization. Conclusion: Neurological AEs were common with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in the real world and largely reflected those reported in clinical trials.