Uptake of novel therapies into first-line treatment for acute myeloid leukemia patients: EU4 + UK perspective.

Aim: To explore the incorporation of novel agents in the first-line setting for acute myeloid leukemia patients. Materials & methods: Observational study based on data from a multi-country cross-sectional retrospective web-based survey sent to 518 physicians in Europe between 2020 and 2021. Information from 2040 patients was analyzed. Results: 604 patients (29.6%) received novel agents in both intensive and non-intensive setting. Comorbidities were not a barrier for the use of novel agents. The presence of tumor mutations was observed to be an important element for treatment decision. Conclusion: There is a progressive incorporation of novel agents for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia patients.

What is this article about? We now have new treatments for patients suffering from a type of blood cancer called acute myeloid leukemia (acronym AML). They are available as the first choice of therapy. In this study we explored how these new treatments are included in daily patient care. What were the results? We reviewed the data of 2040 patients in Europe, obtained from an online survey sent to physicians in two waves (between 2020 and 2021). The use of these new AML treatments was more frequent in patients who presented some specific gene alterations (changes in their DNA sequence) and were in worse health due to other diseases and old age. Most of the new treatments were administered together with other milder chemotherapies. What do the results of the study mean? The results of this study help us understand how new AML treatments are being used.

Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes after introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors: Results from a retrospective chart review of patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the EU5.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence is increasingly used to guide treatment and regulatory decisions for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK (EU5) were assessed. METHODS: This retrospective physician-completed patient chart review assessed treatment patterns (regimen, duration of treatment [DOT], time to discontinuation), and clinical outcomes (duration of response [DOR], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) of patients with stage IIIB/C or IV NSCLC who received pembrolizumab-based first-line induction chemotherapy. RESULTS: Overall, 322 patients were included; at first-line maintenance (1LM), 92% had stage IV NSCLC, 68% had nonsquamous histology, and 89% had no central nervous system (CNS)/brain metastasis. The two most common 1LM regimens were pembrolizumab monotherapy (76% overall) and pembrolizumab + pemetrexed (21% overall). Docetaxel monotherapy was the most common second-line regimen in all countries except Germany (54% overall). For 1LM therapy, the overall median DOT and DOR were 5 and 10 months, respectively; PFS was 7 months and OS was 8 months. Germany had a longer duration of each outcome except for DOR which was longer in Spain. Clinical outcomes were generally poorer for patients with squamous histology and CNS/brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated differences in treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in NSCLC across the EU5 and patient subgroups. Improved survival was generally associated with response to first-line therapy, nonsquamous histology, and CNS/brain metastases absence. These real-world data provide valuable insights which may aid treatment decision-making and clinical trial design.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic synovial sarcoma in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.

Aim: Describing the treatment patterns, outcomes by line of treatment (LOT), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with metastatic synovial sarcoma (mSS). Patients & methods: In this descriptive, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study, physicians from five European countries reported on patients with recent pharmacological treatment for mSS. Results: Among 296 patients with mSS, 86.1, 38.9 and 8.4% received 1 LOT (1L), 2 LOTs (2L) and 3+ LOTs (L3+), respectively. Common regimens were doxorubicin/ifosfamide-based (37.4%) for 1L and trabectedin-based for 2L (29.7%). For 1L, median time to next treatment was 13.1 and 6.0 months for living and deceased patients, respectively. Median OS was 22.0, 6.0 and 4.9 months in all patients, 2L and 3L, respectively. HCRU data showed median one inpatient hospital admission, 3 days in hospital and four outpatient visits yearly. Conclusion: This large-scale study documents high unmet needs in patients previously treated for mSS and for more effective therapies.

Evaluation of the representativeness of the German Oncology Dynamics dataset.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the representativeness of the German Oncology Dynamics (OD) dataset by comparing its projected patient population structure with that outlined in published epidemiological literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The OD is an international cross-sectional semi-retrospective survey collecting anonymized patient cases from a representative panel of physicians via a web-based questionnaire; the cases are quality-checked and projected to the drug-treated prevalence using physician workload information. The present study verifies the OD 2018 projected patient proportions by indication and sex against prevalence figures in IARC's Globocan and the Cancer in Germany report by the Robert Koch Institute. Additionally, age group and metastasis presence distributions in gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog (GnRHa)-treated prostate cancer patients are compared with the findings of a registry-based study: Retrospective Analysis of Patients with Prostate Cancer Initiating GnRH Agonists/Antagonists Therapy Using a German Claims Database: Epidemiological and Patient Outcomes by Hupe et al. [3]. RESULTS: The OD demonstrated a cancer type distribution similar to the comparator sources. Cancer-specific sex distribution differences could be attributed to real-world diagnosis and treatment patterns. The age group distributions of GnRH-treated prostate cancer patients did not differ significantly between the OD and the Hupe et al. [3] study according to confidence interval comparisons and a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. CONCLUSION: Projected patient distributions for the OD Germany were similar to those documented in the published literature. The dissimilarities can be attributed to the low drug-treated prevalence of some cancer types and sex-specific diagnosis timeline differences. Further investigations are needed to verify the reliability of histological biomarker data as well as patient demographics in other countries.