Search

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]

Background: In the phase III MONARCH 2 study (NCT02107703), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor‐positive (HR+), HER2‐negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assessed patient‐reported pain, global health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. Materials and Methods: Abemaciclib or placebo (150 p.o. mg twice daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per label) were randomly assigned (2:1). The modified Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form (mBPI‐sf); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Core 30 (QLQ‐C30); and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ‐BR23) assessed outcomes. Data were collected at baseline, cycle 2, every two cycles 3–13, thereafter at every three cycles, and 30 days postdiscontinuation. Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) by study arm. Results: On‐treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and similar between arms. Patients in the abemaciclib arm (n = 446) experienced a 4.9‐month delay in pain deterioration (mBPI‐sf), compared with the control arm (n = 223), and significantly greater TTSD on the mBPI‐sf and analgesic use (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59–0.98) and QLQ‐C30 pain item (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48–0.79). TTSD for functioning and most symptoms significantly favored the abemaciclib arm, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and cognitive and social functioning. Only diarrhea significantly favored the control arm (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20–2.10). Conclusion: HRQoL was maintained on abemaciclib plus fulvestrant. Alongside superior PFS and manageable safety profile, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in a population of patients with endocrine‐resistant HR+, HER2‐negative ABC. Implications for Practice: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with in hormone receptor‐positive (HR+), HER2‐negative (−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to consider, given the palliative nature of ABC treatment. In this study, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, significantly delayed sustained deterioration of pain and other patient‐reported symptoms (including fatigue, nausea, vomiting), and social and cognitive functioning. Combined with demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability, the stabilization of patient‐reported symptoms and HRQoL further supports abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as a desirable treatment option in endocrine resistant, HR+, HER2− ABC. This study assessed patient‐reported pain and global health‐related quality of life, functioning, and symptoms of patients participating in the phase III MONARCH 2 study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Limited data exist regarding real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and costs of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (esSCLC) among elderly patients in the United States. While abundant data are available on treatment patterns in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), to our knowledge no data exist comparing costs and resource use between patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC. Methods We retrospectively analyzed administrative claims data (2000–2008) of patients aged ≥65 years from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were selected on the basis of having newly diagnosed esSCLC (n=5,855) or mNSCLC (n=24,090) during 1/1/-12/31/2005, and were required to have received cancerdirected therapy. Survival and other measures were compared between esSCLC and mNSCLC patients using Kaplan-Meier log-rank and univariate chi-square and t-tests. Study measures were followed from first diagnosis date of either esSCLC or mNSCLC until the earlier of death or end of the database. Results Survival between the cohorts did not differ significantly: mean of 10.4 months for esSCLC patients versus 11.1 months for mNSCLC; median survival was 7.4 months versus 5.9 months. A higher percentage of mNSCLC patients (vs. esSCLC) received radiation therapy (75.6% vs. 65.4%; P < 0.001) and surgery (13.6% vs. 7.8%; P < 0.001) during the metastatic disease period. Conversely, a higher percentage of esSCLC patients than mNSCLC patients received chemotherapy (85.5% vs. 60.3%; P < 0.001), red blood-cell transfusion (20.7% vs. 10.9%; P < 0.001), platelet transfusion (5.6% vs. 1.8%; P < 0.001), and growth-factor support (59.0% vs. 39.5%; P < 0.001). esSCLC patients incurred higher lifetime disease-related costs ($44,167 vs. $37,932; P < 0.001) and all-cause costs ($70,549 vs. $67,176; P < 0.001) than mNSCLC patients. Conclusions Lifetime total and disease-related costs per patient were high. Increased use of chemotherapy, supportive care therapies (including growth factors), and disease-related hospitalizations were observed in esSCLC patients as compared with mNSCLC patients. Disease-related and allcause costs for esSCLC also exceeded those of mNSCLC, except for hospice and skilled nursing services. Survival and per-patient costs for both groups underscore the unmet medical need for more effective therapies in patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]