Commercial Versus Medicaid Insurance and Use of High-Priced Anticancer Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Because the markups on cancer drugs vary by payor, providers' financial incentive to use high-price drugs is differential according to each patient's insurance type. We evaluated the association between patient insurer (commercial vs Medicaid) and the use of high-priced cancer treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We linked cancer registry, administrative claims, and demographic data for individuals diagnosed with cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011, with either commercial or Medicaid insurance. We selected cancers with multiple FDA-approved, guideline-recommended chemotherapy options and large price differences between treatment options: advanced colorectal, lung, and head and neck cancer. The outcome was a receipt of a higher-priced option, and the exposure was insurer: commercial versus Medicaid. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for the association between insurer and higher-priced treatment using log-binomial models with inverse probability of exposure weights. RESULTS: Of 812 patients, 209 (26%) had Medicaid. The unadjusted risk of receiving higher-priced treatment was 36% (215/603) for commercially insured and 27% (57/209) for Medicaid insured (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.67). After adjustment for confounders the association was attenuated (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.81-1.65). Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested that commercial insurance was associated with increased receipt of higher-priced treatment among patients treated by non-NCI-designated providers (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.14-2.04). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance received high-priced treatments in similar proportion, after accounting for differences in case mix. However, modification by provider characteristics suggests that insurance type may influence treatment selection for some patient groups. Further work is needed to determine the relationship between insurance status and newer, high-price drugs such as immune-oncology agents.

A Pilot Study of Pembrolizumab in Combination With Y90 Radioembolization in Subjects With Poor Prognosis Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Combination checkpoint inhibition therapy with yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization represents an emerging area of interest in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCRN GI15-225 is an open-label, single-arm multicenter, pilot study (NCT03099564). METHODS: Eligible patients had poor prognosis, localized HCC defined as having portal vein thrombus, multifocal disease, and/or diffuse disease that were not eligible for liver transplant or surgical resection. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks in conjunction with glass yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization TheraSphere. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: Between October 23, 2017 and November 24, 2020, 29 patients were enrolled: 2 were excluded per protocol. Fifteen of the remaining 27 patients were free of progression at 6 months (55.6%; 95% CI, 35.3-74.5) with median PFS 9.95 months (95% CI, 4.14-15.24) and OS 27.30 months (95% CI, 10.15-39.52). One patient was not evaluable for response due to death; among the remaining 26 patients, ORR was 30.8% (95% CI, 14.3-51.8) and DCR was 84.6% (95% CI, 65.1-95.6). CONCLUSION: In patients with localized, poor prognosis HCC, pembrolizumab in addition to glass Y90 radioembolization demonstrated promising efficacy and safety consistent with prior observations (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03099564; IRB Approved: 16-3255 approved July 12, 2016).

Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes on genotype-guided irinotecan dosing: feasibility and clinical relevance.

INTRODUCTION: Standard investigator-based adverse events (AE) assessment is via CTCAE for clinical trials. However, including the patient perspective through PRO (patient-reported outcomes) enhances clinicians' understanding of patient toxicity and fosters early detection of AEs. We assessed longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE within clinical workflow in a phase II trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a sub-study in a phase II trial of genotype-directed irinotecan dosing evaluating efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving FOLFIRI and bevacizumab, patients reported on 13 AEs generating a PRO-CTCAE form. The primary objective was to estimate forms completed by patients and clinicians at least 80% of time. Secondary objectives were estimating concordance and time to first score of specific symptoms between patient and clinician pairs. RESULTS: Feasibility of longitudinal PRO-CTCAE integration was met as 96% of patients and clinician-patient pairs completed at least 80% of PRO-CTCAE forms available to them with 79% achieving 100% completion. Concordance between patient and clinician reporting a severe symptom was 73% with 24 disconcordant pairs, 21 involved patients who reported a severe symptom that the clinician did not. Although protocol-mandated dose reductions were guided by CTCAE not PRO-CTCAE responses, the median time to dose reduction of 2.53 months, and the time-to-event curve closely approximated time to patient-reported toxicity. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE paired CTCAE proved feasible. Compared to clinicians, patients reported severe symptoms more frequently and earlier. Patient-reported toxicity more closely aligned with dose decreases indicating incorporation into routine clinical practice may enhance early detection of toxicity improving patient safety and quality of life.

A phase II trial of UGT1A1 genotype-guided FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for advanced, unresectable colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRI is a standard regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We hypothesized that a pharmacogenomic-directed strategy where more efficient irinotecan metabolizers (UGT1A1 *1/*1 homozygotes and *1/*28 heterozygotes) receive higher-than-standard irinotecan doses would improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared to non-genotype selected historical controls with acceptable toxicity. METHODS: In this phase II multicenter study irinotecan dosing in first-line FOLFIRI and bevacizumab for mCRC was based on UGT1A1 genotype with *1/*1, *1/*28, and *28/*28 patients receiving 310 mg/m2, 260 mg/m2, and 180 mg/m2, respectively. Primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were investigator and patient-reported adverse events, and estimation of overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One-hundred patients were enrolled with 91 evaluable for PFS and 83 evaluable for best response. Median PFS was 12.5 months (90% CI 10.9, 15.4), shorter than the anticipated alternative hypothesis of 14 months. PFS by genotype was 12.5 months (90% CI 10.9, 17.4) for *1/*1, 14.6 months (90% CI 11.8, 17.5) for *1/*28, and 6 months (90% CI 2.3, 7.7) for *28/28, respectively. OS was 24.5 months (90% CI 19.1, 30.7) and by genotype was 26.5 (90% CI 19.1, 32.9), 25.9 (90% CI 17.6, 37.7), and 13.4 (90% CI 2.3, 20.5) months for *1/*1, *1/*28, and *28/*28, respectively. G3/4 toxicity was similar between all subgroups, including diarrhea and neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacogenomic-directed irinotecan strategy improved PFS in the *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes with higher rates of neutropenia and similar rates of diarrhea compared to expected with standard FOLFIRI dosing. However, improvements in response rate and PFS were modest. This strategy should not change standard practice for mCRC patients in the first-line setting.

Visualizing External Validity: Graphical Displays to Inform the Extension of Treatment Effects from Trials to Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: In the presence of effect measure modification, estimates of treatment effects from randomized controlled trials may not be valid in clinical practice settings. The development and application of quantitative approaches for extending treatment effects from trials to clinical practice settings is an active area of research. METHODS: In this article, we provide researchers with a practical roadmap and four visualizations to assist in variable selection for models to extend treatment effects observed in trials to clinical practice settings and to assess model specification and performance. We apply this roadmap and visualizations to an example extending the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil vs. plus oxaliplatin) for colon cancer from a trial population to a population of individuals treated in community oncology practices in the United States. RESULTS: The first visualization screens for potential effect measure modifiers to include in models extending trial treatment effects to clinical practice populations. The second visualization displays a measure of covariate overlap between the clinical practice populations and the trial population. The third and fourth visualizations highlight considerations for model specification and influential observations. The conceptual roadmap describes how the output from the visualizations helps interrogate the assumptions required to extend treatment effects from trials to target populations. CONCLUSIONS: The roadmap and visualizations can inform practical decisions required for quantitatively extending treatment effects from trials to clinical practice settings.

Scoping review of values elicitation tools for treatment decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment choices in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) involve consideration of tradeoffs between the benefits, toxicities, inconvenience, and costs. Stated preference elicitation methods have been used in the medical field to help evaluate complex treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to assess the evidence base for the use of preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment decision-making from both the patient and provider perspective. METHODS: We performed a scoping review to identify abstracts or manuscripts focused on the role preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment options among patients, caregivers, and/or providers. Two researchers independently screened full-text references and resolved conflicts through discussion. We summarized key findings, including the type and setting of preference-elicitation tools used for HCC treatment decisions. RESULTS: Ten published abstracts or manuscripts evaluated the role of preference elicitation tools for HCC treatments. The studies revealed several attributes that are considered by patients and providers making HCC treatment decisions. Many of the studies reviewed suggested that while patients place the most value on extending their overall survival, they are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid risks of treatments and maintain quality of life. Studies of physicians and surgeons found that provider preferences are dependent on patient characteristics, provider specialty, and surgeon or hospital-related factors. CONCLUSION: This scoping review explored both patient and physician preferences towards treatment modalities in all stages of HCC. The studies revealed a large scope of potential attributes that may be important to patients and that many patients are willing to forgo survival to maintain quality of life. Further research should explore both preference elicitation of currently available and emerging therapies for HCC as well as the use of this data to develop patient-facing tools to assist in navigating treatment options.

Social Determinants of Health and the Link to Colorectal Cancer Outcomes.

OPINION  STATEMENT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most deadly cancer in the United States, behind only lung cancer. Despite improvements in incidence due to screening and mortality in part due to better treatments, there are some groups that have not seen these promising changes. American Indian/Alaska Native and non-Hispanic Black individuals, certain geographic regions, and lower socioeconomic groups have all been shown to have worse CRC outcomes. A significant body of evidence has linked these disparities in outcomes to social determinants of health (SDH). SDH are defined by the WHO as "the non-medical factors that influence health outcomes." These factors include but are not limited to income, education, social support, neighborhood of residence, and access to healthcare. Individuals who are negatively impacted by SDH have been shown to have a higher incidence of CRC. These individuals are also less likely to receive adequate CRC screening, are less likely to receive appropriate treatment, and have increased CRC mortality. Interventions that target different SDH domains have been shown to lead to increased rates of CRC screening and receipt of appropriate treatment while simultaneously improving CRC mortality. The aim of this review is to highlight the connection between SDH and CRC outcomes while also exploring interventions that target SDH and thereby improve CRC outcomes.

Statewide Survey of Primary Care and Subspecialty Providers on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk-Stratification and Surveillance Practices.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in patients with cirrhosis is associated with improved survival. Provision of HCC surveillance is low in the US, particularly in primary care settings. AIMS: To evaluate current hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HCC surveillance practices and physician attitudes regarding HCC risk-stratification among primary care and subspecialty providers. METHODS: Using the Tailored Design Method, we delivered a 34-item online survey to 7654 North Carolina-licensed internal/family medicine or gastroenterology/hepatology physicians and advanced practice providers in 2022. We included the domains of HCV treatment, cirrhosis diagnosis, HCC surveillance practices, barriers to surveillance, and interest in risk-stratification tools. We performed descriptive analyses to summarize responses. Tabulations were weighted based on sampling weights accounting for non-response and inter-specialty comparisons were made using chi-squared or t test statistics. RESULTS: After exclusions, 266 responses were included in the final sample (response rate 3.8%). Most respondents (78%) diagnosed cirrhosis using imaging and a minority used non-invasive tests that were blood-based (~ 15%) or transient elastography (31%). Compared to primary care providers, subspecialists were more likely to perform HCC surveillance every 6-months (vs annual) (98% vs 35%, p < 0.0001). Most respondents (80%) believed there were strong data to support HCC surveillance, but primary care providers did not know which liver disease patients needed surveillance. Most providers (> 70%) expressed interest in potential solutions to improve HCC risk-stratification. CONCLUSIONS: In this statewide survey, there were great knowledge gaps in HCC surveillance among PCPs and most respondents expressed interest in strategies to increase appropriate HCC surveillance.

Identifying patient profiles of disparate care in resectable pancreas cancer using latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Disparities in pancreas cancer care are multifactorial, but factors are often examined in isolation. Research that integrates these factors in a single conceptual framework is lacking. We use latent class analysis (LCA) to evaluate the association between intersectionality and patterns of care and survival in patients with resectable pancreas cancer. METHODS: LCA was used to identify demographic profiles in resectable pancreas cancer (n = 140 344) diagnosed from 2004 to 2019 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). LCA-derived patient profiles were used to identify differences in receipt of minimum expected treatment (definitive surgery), optimal treatment (definitive surgery and chemotherapy), time to treatment, and overall survival. RESULTS: Minimum expected treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65, 0.75) and optimal treatment (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.62) were associated with improved overall survival. Seven latent classes were identified based on age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) attributes (zip code-linked education and income, insurance, geography). Compared to the referent group (≥65 years + White + med/high SES), the ≥65 years + Black profile had the longest time-to-treatment (24 days vs. 28 days) and lowest odds of receiving minimum (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.71) or optimal treatment (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.81). The Hispanic patient profile had the lowest median overall survival-55.3 months versus 67.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for intersectionality in the NCDB resectable pancreatic cancer patient cohort identifies subgroups at higher risk for inequities in care. LCA demonstrates that older Black patients and Hispanic patients are at particular risk for being underserved and should be prioritiz for directed interventions.

Impact of the Cancer and Aging Research Group score and treatment intensity on survival and toxicity outcomes in older adults with advanced noncolorectal gastrointestinal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the predictive value of the Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) score, a validated chemotherapy toxicity prediction tool for older adults with cancer, for survival outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients ≥65 years old receiving first-line chemotherapy for advanced noncolorectal gastrointestinal cancer for which combination chemotherapy is the standard of care. Overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), which was defined as the time from the start of first-line chemotherapy to the discontinuation of first-line chemotherapy for any reason, and toxicity were compared in 4 groups of patients: 1) non-high-risk (nHR) CARG score (<10) and standard-intensity therapy (ST), 2) nHR score and reduced-intensity therapy (RT), 3) high-risk (HR) CARG score (≥10) and ST, and 4) HR score and RT. RESULTS: Fifty patients (median age, 71 years) were enrolled. The median OS in months was 19.7 in nHR/ST (n = 19) group, 12.7 in nHR/RT (n = 9) group, 4.5 in HR/ST (n = 12) group, and 3.9 in HR/RT (n = 10) group (log-rank test, P = .005). The median TTF in months was 9.1 in nHR/ST group, 2.5 in nHR/RT group, 2.3 in HR/ST group, and 3.0 in HR/RT group (log-rank test, P = .04). The CARG-score category was prognostic of OS (HR, 3.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.59-5.83, P = .001) and TTF (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.31-5.20, P = .007). The incidence of grade 3-5 toxicity was 68% in nHR/ST group, 33% in nHR/RT group, 92% in HR/ST group, and 70% in HR/RT group (Fisher exact test, P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Risk-adapted chemotherapy based on the CARG-score may improve treatment outcomes.

Phase II Single-Arm Study of Palbociclib and Cetuximab Rechallenge in Patients with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF Wild-Type Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab is often administered to patients with KRAS wild-type (KRAS-WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), although resistance inevitably develops. We hypothesized that co-inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with cetuximab and downstream cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) 4/6 with palbociclib would be effective for anti-EGFR rechallenge in KRAS-WT mCRC. METHODS: We designed a single-arm, Simon's 2-stage, phase II trial of cetuximab and palbociclib in KRAS-WT mCRC treated with ≥2 prior lines of therapy. We report here on cohort B rechallenging patients with anti-EGFR-based therapy who had disease control of at least 4 months on prior anti-EGFR therapy. Primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) at 4 months. RESULTS: Ten evaluable patients were enrolled in this cohort. The 4-month DCR was 20%, which did not fulfill the prespecified 4-month DCR rate to continue. Median progression-free survival was 1.8 months and median overall survival was 6.6 months. Three patients had stable disease, although overall response rate was 0%. Most common treatment-related grades 3-4 adverse events were lymphopenia and leukopenia. CONCLUSION: Selection of patients for anti-EGFR rechallenge using clinical criteria alone was insufficient to identify response to palbociclib + cetuximab. Additional biomarkers are needed to select anti-EGFR rechallenge and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis is planned for samples collected in this study. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03446157).

KDR genetic predictor of toxicities induced by sorafenib and regorafenib.

No biomarkers are available to predict toxicities induced by VEGFR TKIs. This study aimed to identify markers of toxicities induced by these drugs using a discovery-validation approach. The discovery set included 140 sorafenib-treated cancer patients (TARGET study) genotyped for SNPs in 56 genes. The most significant SNPs associated with grade ≥2 hypertension, diarrhea, dermatologic toxicities, and composite toxicity (any one of the toxicities) were tested for association with grade ≥2 toxicity in a validation set of 201 sorafenib-treated patients (Alliance/CALGB 80802). The validated SNP was tested for association with grade ≥2 toxicity in 107 (LCCC 1029) and 82 (Italian cohort) regorafenib-treated patients. SNP-toxicity associations were evaluated using logistic regression, and a meta-analysis between the studies was performed by inverse variance. Variant rs4864950 in KDR increased the risk of grade ≥2 composite toxicity in TARGET, Alliance/CALGB 80802, and the Italian cohort (meta-analysis p = 6.79 × 10-4, OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.34-3.01). We identified a predictor of toxicities induced by VEGFR TKIs. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00073307 (TARGET), NCT01015833 (Alliance/CALGB 80802), and NCT01298570 (LCCC 1029).

Introducing longitudinal cumulative dose to describe chemotherapy patterns over time: Case study of a colon cancer trial.

Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens take months to complete. Despite this, studies evaluate chemotherapy adherence via measures assessed at the end of treatment (eg, number of patients missing any dose, relative dose intensity [RDI]). This approach ignores information like the timing of treatment delays. We propose longitudinal cumulative dose (LCD) to integrate impacts of dose reductions, missed doses and dose delays over time. We obtained data from the 2246 participants in the MOSAIC trial randomized to FOLFOX (all three agents) or 5-FU/LV (only 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin). We evaluated proportions of patients stopping treatment early and reducing, missing or delaying a dose in each arm for each chemotherapy agent at each cycle. We calculated LCD, the fraction of the final standard dose a participant reached by a given day, for each participant and each agent and compared it over time and at 24 weeks between treatment arms. Participants randomized to FOLFOX were more likely to stop treatment, reduce doses, miss doses or delay cycles; these differences increased over time. Median LCD for oxaliplatin in the FOLFOX arm at 24 weeks was 77%. The LCD for 5-fluorouracil differed between arms (FOLFOX arm median: 81%; 5-FU/LV arm median: 96%). Visualizing LCD highlighted the timing of deviations from standard administration in a way RDI could not, with major differences in 5-fluorouracil LCD across treatment arms beginning after the sixth dose. Further evaluation of LCD and its impacts on clinical outcomes may clarify mechanisms for heterogeneous patient outcomes.

Medicare/Medicaid Insurance, Rurality, and Black Race Associated With Provision of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Early treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with improved survival, but many patients with HCC do not receive therapy. We aimed to examine factors associated with HCC treatment and survival among incident patients with HCC in a statewide cancer registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with HCC from 2003 through 2013 were identified in the North Carolina cancer registry. These patients were linked to insurance claims from Medicare, Medicaid, and large private insurers in North Carolina. Associations between prespecified covariates and more advanced HCC stage at diagnosis (ie, multifocal cancer), care at a liver transplant center, and provision of HCC treatment were examined using multivariate logistic regression. A Cox proportional hazards model was developed to assess the association between these factors and survival. RESULTS: Of 1,809 patients with HCC, 53% were seen at a transplant center <90 days from diagnosis, with lower odds among those who were Black (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.74), had Medicare insurance (aOR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.59), had Medicaid insurance (aOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.77), and lived in a rural area; odds of transplant center visits were higher among those who had prediagnosis alpha fetoprotein screening (aOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.35-2.23) and PCP and gastroenterology care (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.27-2.18). Treatment was more likely among patients who had prediagnosis gastroenterology care (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.98-2.86) and transplant center visits (aOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.74-3.36). Survival was strongly associated with age, cancer stage, cirrhosis complications, and receipt of HCC treatment. Individuals with Medicare (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09) and Medicaid insurance (aHR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.17-2.05) had shorter survival than those with private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cohort of patients with HCC, Medicare/Medicaid insurance, rural residence, and Black race were associated with lower provision of HCC treatment and poorer survival. Efforts should be made to improve access to care for these vulnerable populations.

Risk stratification and outreach to hematology/oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Cancer patients have many medical and psychosocial needs, which may increase during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to (1) risk-stratify hematology/oncology patients using general medicine and cancer-specific methods to identify those at high risk for acute care utilization, (2) measure the correlation between two risk stratification methods, and (3) perform a telephone-based needs assessment with intervention for high-risk patients. METHODS: Patients were risk-stratified using a general medical health composite score (HCS) and a cancer-specific risk (CSR) stratification based on disease and treatment characteristics. The correlation between HCS and CSR was measured using Spearman's correlation. A multi-disciplinary team developed a focused needs assessment script with recommended interventions for patients categorized as high-risk by either method. The number of patient needs identified and referrals for services made in the first month of outreach are reported. RESULTS: A total of 1697 patients were risk-stratified, with 17% high-risk using HCS and 22% high-risk using CSR. Correlation between HCS and CSR was modest (ρ = 0.41). During the first month of the pilot, 286 patients were called for outreach with 245 contacted (86%). Commonly identified needs were financial difficulties (17%), uncontrolled symptoms (15%), and interest in advance care planning (13%), resulting in referral for supportive services for 33% of patients. CONCLUSION: There is a high burden of unmet medical and psychosocial needs in hematology/oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A telephone-based outreach program results in the identification of and intervention for these needs; however, additional cancer-specific risk models are needed to improve targeting to high-risk patients.

A multi-institutional phase 2 trial of regorafenib in refractory advanced biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting angiogenesis, oncogenesis, and cancer proliferation/metastasis. This study evaluated the efficacy of regorafenib in refractory biliary tract cancer (BTC) in a multi-institutional phase 2 study. METHODS: Patients with BTC who progressed on at least 1 line of systemic therapy received regorafenib at 160 mg daily for 21 days on and 7 days off. The primary endpoint was 6-month overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were median OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rates. Pretreatment plasma was collected for cytokine evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were enrolled, and 33 were evaluable for efficacy. The median PFS and OS were 3.7 and 5.4 months, respectively, with survival rates of 46.2% at 6 months, 35.9% at 12 months, and 25.6% at 18 months for the intention-to-treat population. For the 33 evaluable patients who received regorafenib for at least 3 weeks, the median PFS and OS were 3.9 and 6.7 months, respectively, with survival rates of 51.5% at 6 months, 39.4% at 12 months, and 27.3% at 18 months. The objective response rate was 9.1%, and the disease control rate was 63.6%. Twenty-eight patients (71.8%) experienced grade 3/4 adverse events. Among the 23 cytokines analyzed, elevated baseline vascular endothelial growth factor D (VEGF-D) was associated with shorter PFS, whereas elevated baseline interleukin 6 (IL-6) and glycoprotein 130 (GP130) were associated with shorter OS. CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib demonstrated modest clinical efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with BTC. Further exploration of biomarkers is warranted to identify a group of patients with BTC who may benefit from regorafenib.

Use of High-Cost Cancer Treatments in Academic and Nonacademic Practice.

BACKGROUND: Academic physicians, such as those affiliated with National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, may have different practice patterns regarding the use of high-cost cancer drugs than nonacademic physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this cohort study, we linked cancer registry, administrative, and demographic data for patients with newly diagnosed cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011. We selected cancer types with multiple U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved, National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended treatment options and large differences in reimbursement between higher-priced and lower-priced options (stage IV colorectal, stage IV lung, and stage II-IV head-and-neck cancers). We assessed whether provider's practice setting-NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center ("NCI") versus other location ("non-NCI")-was associated with use of higher-cost treatment options. We used inverse probability of exposure weighting to control for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of 800 eligible patients, 79.6% were treated in non-NCI settings. Patients treated in non-NCI settings were more likely to receive high-cost treatment than patients treated in NCI settings (36.0% vs. 23.2%), with an unadjusted prevalence difference of 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-20.0%). After controlling for potential confounding factors, non-NCI patients remained more likely to receive high-cost treatment, although the strength of association was attenuated (adjusted prevalence difference, 9.6%; 95% CI -0.1%-18.7%). Exploratory analyses suggested potential heterogeneity across cancer type and insurance status. CONCLUSION: Use of higher-cost cancer treatments may be more common in non-NCI than NCI settings. This may reflect differential implementation of clinical evidence, local practice variation, or possibly a response to the reimbursement incentives presented by chemotherapy billing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology care delivery and practice patterns may vary between care settings. By comparing otherwise similar patients treated in National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers with those treated elsewhere, this study suggests that patients may be more likely to receive treatment with certain expensive cancer drugs if treated in the non-NCI setting. These practice differences may result in differences in patient costs and outcomes as a result of where they receive treatment.

Antibacterial Use Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Hematologic and Gastrointestinal Adverse Events in Patients Treated with Gemcitabine for Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical evidence has demonstrated that common intratumor bacteria metabolize the chemotherapeutic drug gemcitabine. The significance of this bacterial metabolism pathway, relative to the known metabolic pathways by host enzymes, is not known. We hypothesized that bacterial metabolism is clinically significant and that "knockdown" by antibacterial therapy has the unintended effect of increasing the effective dose of gemcitabine, thereby increasing the risk for gemcitabine-associated toxicities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reanalyzed the comparator arm of the MPACT trial (NCT01442974), made available through Project Data Sphere, LLC (CEO Roundtable on Cancer's Life Sciences Consortium, Cary, NC; www.projectdatasphere.org). In this arm, 430 patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were treated with gemcitabine. We used the Anderson-Gill survival model to compare the risk of developing an adverse event after antibacterial prescription with time unexposed to antibacterials. Adverse events of grade 3 and greater were considered at three levels of granularity: all aggregated into one endpoint, aggregated by class, and taken individually. Antibiotic exposures were analyzed in aggregate as well as by class. RESULTS: Antibacterial exposure was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.77; confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-2.14), any hematologic adverse event (HR: 1.64; CI: 1.26-2.13), and any gastrointestinal adverse event (HR: 2.14; CI: 1.12-4.10) but not a constitutional (HR: 1.33; CI: 0.611-2.90) or hepatologic adverse event (HR: 0.99; CI: 0.363-2.71). Among specific adverse events, antibacterial exposure was associated with an increased risk of anemia (HR: 3.16; CI: 1.59-6.27), thrombocytopenia (HR: 2.52; CI: 1.31-4.85), leukopenia (HR: 3.91; CI: 1.46-10.5), and neutropenia (HR: 1.53; CI: 1.07-2.17) but not any other specific adverse events. CONCLUSION: Antibacterial exposure was associated with an increased risk of gemcitabine-associated, dose-limiting adverse events, including aggregate hematologic and gastrointestinal events, as well as four specific hematologic adverse events, suggesting that intratumor bacteria may be responsible for a clinically significant portion of gemcitabine metabolism. Alternative avenues of evidence will be necessary to confirm this preliminary finding and assess its generalizability. There is plentiful opportunity for similar analyses on other clinical trial data sets, where gemcitabine or other biomimetic small molecules were used. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients treated with gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have an increased rate of gemcitabine-associated toxicity during and after antibiotic therapy. This observation is consistent with preclinical evidence that intratumor bacteria metabolize gemcitabine to an inactive form. Further research is needed to determine whether this observation merits any changes in clinical practice.

Effectiveness of adjuvant FOLFOX vs 5FU/LV in adults over age 65 with stage II and III colon cancer using a novel hybrid approach.

PURPOSE: Estimates of cancer therapy effects can differ in clinical trials and clinical practice, partly due to underrepresentation of certain patient subgroups in trials. We utilize a hybrid approach, combining clinical trial and real-world data, to estimate the comparative effectiveness of two adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for colon cancer. METHODS: We identified patients aged 66 and older enrolled in the Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin/5FU-LV in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer. Similar patients were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, initiating adjuvant chemotherapy with either 5-fluorouracil (5FU) alone or in combination with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). We used logistic regression to estimate the likelihood of trial enrollment as a function of age, sex, and substage. Using inverse odds of sampling weights (IOSW), we compared 5-year mortality in patients randomized to FOLFOX vs 5FU using weighted Cox proportional hazards regression, the Nelson-Aalen estimator for cumulative hazards, and bootstrapping for 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: There were 690 trial participants and 3834 SEER-Medicare patients. The SEER-Medicare population was older and had a higher proportion of stage IIIB and IIIC patients than the trial. After controlling for differences between populations, the IOSW 5-year HR was 1.21 (0.89, 1.65), slightly farther from the null than the trial estimate (HR = 1.14, 95%CI: 0.87, 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports mounting evidence of little to no incremental reduction in 5-year mortality for FOLFOX vs 5FU in older adults with stage II-III colon cancer, emphasizing the importance of combining clinical trial and real-world data to support such conclusions.