Patient perspectives on BCMA-targeted therapies for multiple myeloma: a survey conducted in a patient advocacy group.

Background: Advances in multiple myeloma (MM) treatment have shifted the therapeutic landscape. Understanding patients' perspectives can assist physicians in helping patients make informed decisions. This study aimed to understand the patient decision-making process and gain insights into patient perspectives on B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeted therapies for MM. Methods: An 18-question survey was completed by patients with MM enrolled in HealthTree® Cure Hub, an online portal helping patients with plasma cell dyscrasias navigate their disease. Results: From October 28, 2022, to January 12, 2023, 325 patients with MM participated in the survey. The mean age (standard deviation) of the respondents was 66 (8) years; 54% were female and 90% were White. Among 218 patients with complete clinical records in the database, the median (min, max) lines of therapy (LOT) was 2 (1,16). Among 61 (28%) patients who had received ≥4 LOTs, 55 (90%) were triple-class exposed. Of the 290 patients who responded to the question about openness to new therapies, 76 (26%) were open to trying a new therapy immediately and 125 (43%) wanted more information on safety and efficacy. Most respondents reported likely or very likely to try a BCMA CAR T-cell therapy (60%) or a bispecific antibody (74%) and some needed more information to decide (16% for CAR T-cell therapy and 13% for bispecific antibody). The most requested information included efficacy, side effects (SEs), eligibility, and administration process for both CAR T-cell and bispecific therapies. When 2 therapies with the same efficacy and duration of response were offered, 69% of respondents would prefer the therapy with a lower risk of severe SEs but requires continuous dosing with no treatment-free interval, and 31% preferred a therapy given once followed by a treatment-free interval but with a potentially higher risk of severe SEs. To receive an effective therapy, the top acceptable trade-offs included frequent monitoring of SEs and initiating a new therapy in a hospital setting, and the least acceptable compromise was caregiver burden. Conclusions: This study found a high level of openness in patients with MM to try BCMA-targeted therapies. Information on efficacy, safety, availability, and eligibility may assist patients on decision-making.

The Impact of Outpatient versus Inpatient Administration of CAR-T Therapies on Clinical, Economic, and Humanistic Outcomes in Patients with Hematological Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies are typically administered in the inpatient setting, outpatient administration is rapidly expanding. However, there is limited summarized evidence comparing outcomes between outpatient and inpatient administration. This systematic literature review aims to compare the safety, efficacy, quality of life (QoL), costs, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) outcomes in patients with hematological cancer who are administered CAR-T therapy in an outpatient versus an inpatient setting. Publications (2016 or later) that reported the outcomes of interest in patients treated with a CAR-T therapy in both outpatient and inpatient settings, or only the outpatient setting, were reviewed. In total, 38 publications based on 21 studies were included. Safety findings suggested the comparable frequency of adverse events in the two settings. Eleven studies that reported data in both settings showed comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient). Improvements in the QoL were observed in both settings while costs associated with CAR-T therapy were lower in the outpatient setting. Although unplanned hospitalizations were higher in the outpatient cohort, overall HCRU was lower. Outpatient administration of CAR-T therapy appears to have comparable outcomes in safety, efficacy, and QoL to inpatient administration while reducing the economic burden.

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: This large-scale, US-based study characterized real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC). METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis included patients with stage IV or node-positive aUC between January 1, 2011, and August 31, 2020, from an electronic health record-derived, de-identified database (Flatiron Health). Baseline characteristics and treatment patterns were assessed by first-line (1L) systemic treatment received and cisplatin eligibility status. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 8,183 patients included, 5,855 (71.6%) received systemic 1L therapy and 2,328 (28.4%) did not. Median (range) follow-up from aUC diagnosis was 9.7 (0.2-116.6) months. Of patients who received 1L systemic therapy, 30.1% were cisplatin-eligible, 39.2% were cisplatin-ineligible, 10.5% did not receive cisplatin despite qualifying ECOG PS and renal function, and cisplatin eligibility was unknown in 20.2%. Of those treated, 74.8% received 1L chemotherapy and 23.0% received 1L immuno-oncology-based monotherapy. Median OS (95% CI) was 14.5 (14.0-15.2) months in patients who received 1L systemic therapy and 6.8 (6.2-7.3) months in those who did not. Of those treated, cisplatin-ineligible patients had worse OS and PFS outcomes vs. other subgroups. Among cisplatin-ineligible patients, 1L immuno-oncology monotherapy (n = 865) was associated with worse OS and PFS outcomes than 1L chemotherapy (n = 1,369). CONCLUSIONS: More than 25% of aUC patients did not receive 1L systemic therapy; of patients who were treated, most received chemotherapy, with less than 25% receiving immuno-oncology-based monotherapy. Overall, these results highlight the substantial unmet need in this population, specifically among cisplatin-ineligible patients.

Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

Immunotherapy combinations are now accepted as safe and effective first-line treatment options for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This study used patient data from the CheckMate 214 clinical trial to evaluate the temporal trends and costs related to grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) among patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. We found that the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time and that patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower AE costs compared with those treated with sunitinib (at 42 months: US$19,096 vs US$27,473 per patient). As such, nivolumab plus ipilimumab may represent a treatment option that may reduce both the clinical and economic burden among patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Treatment-free Survival after Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy versus Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 42-Month Results of the CheckMate 214 Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients discontinuing immuno-oncology regimens may experience periods of disease control without need for ongoing anticancer therapy, but toxicity may persist. We describe treatment-free survival (TFS), with and without toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analyzed from the randomized phase III CheckMate 214 trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 550) versus sunitinib (n = 546) for treatment-naïve, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). TFS was estimated by the 42-month restricted mean times defined by the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints defined from randomization: time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was subdivided as TFS with and without toxicity by counting days with ≥1 grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). RESULTS: At 42 months since randomization, 52% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 39% of sunitinib intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive; 18% and 5% surviving treatment-free, respectively. Among favorable-risk patients, 70% and 73% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and sunitinib patients were alive; 20% and 9% treatment-free. Over the 42-month period, mean TFS was over twice as long after nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk (6.9 vs. 3.1 months) and three times as long for favorable-risk patients (11.0 vs. 3.7 months). Mean TFS with grade ≥3 TRAEs was a small proportion of time for both treatments (0.6 vs. 0.3 months after nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk, and 0.9 vs. 0.3 months for favorable-risk patients). CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for aRCC spent more survival time treatment-free without toxicity versus those on sunitinib, regardless of risk group.

Traumatic cervical epidural hematoma due to fusion mass fracture following elective rod removal.

Many studies have examined complications associated with spinal instrumentation, however, few have analyzed complications associated with removal. In this case report, we outline the course of a patient who presented with cervical epidural hematoma secondary to fusion mass fracture five years after removal of spinal hardware.