Epidemiology, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes in de novo oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to better characterize the epidemiology, clinical outcomes, and current treatment patterns of de novo oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (omHSPC) in the United States Veterans Affairs Health Care System. METHODS: In this observational retrospective cohort study, 400 de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive PC (mHSPC) patients diagnosed from January 2015 to December 2020 (follow-up through December 2021) were randomly selected. omHSPC was defined as five or less total metastases (excluding liver) by conventional imaging. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)-free survival from mHSPC diagnosis date and a log-rank test compared these outcomes by oligometastatic status. RESULTS: Twenty percent (79 of 400) of de novo mHSPC patients were oligometastatic. Most baseline characteristics were similar by oligometastatic status; however, men with non-omHSPC had higher median prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis (151.7) than omHSPC (44.1). First-line (1L) novel hormonal therapy was similar between groups (20%); 1L chemotherapy was lower in omHSPC (5%) versus non-omHSPC (14%). More omHSPC patients received metastasis-directed therapy/prostate radiation therapy (14%) versus non-omHSPC (2%). Median OS and CRPC-free survival (in months) were higher in omHSPC versus non-omHSPC (44.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 33.9-not estimated vs. 26.2; 95% CI, 20.5-32.5, p = .0089 and 27.6; 95% CI, 22.1-37.2 vs. 15.3; 95% CI, 12.8-17.9, p = .0049), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 20% of de novo mHSPC were oligometastatic, and OS was significantly longer in omHSPC versus non-omHSPC. Although potentially "curative" therapy use was higher in omHSPC versus non-omHSPC, the percentages were still relatively low. Future studies are warranted given potential for prolonged responses with multimodal therapy inclusive of systemic and local therapies.

Real-World Treatment Patterns in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Across Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most common cancer, and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related mortality among male patients, worldwide. In Europe and Japan, the incidence of PC in men in 2020 exceeded that of lung cancer. Although national and regional clinical guidelines for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are available in Europe and Japan, a literature review did not identify a published comparison of differing guidelines, but identified a lack of studies reporting treatment patterns of approved mCRPC treatments in Europe and Japan in normal clinical practice. The objective of this real-world study was to compare national treatment guidelines and real-world treatment for mCRPC in Europe and Japan. METHODS: Physician-reported demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment data of patients with mCRPC were drawn from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme™, conducted in five European countries and Japan (2020) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS: All current treatment guidelines recommended the use of novel hormonal agents (NHA-abiraterone/enzalutamide) and chemotherapy (mainly docetaxel), with some intercountry differences, with NHA rechallenge accepted in Germany, Italy and Japan, but not in France, Spain or the United Kingdom. Overall, 271 physicians provided data for 1753 patients. At 1st-line (1L), the most common treatment was NHAs followed by (→) chemotherapy, in all countries. Chemotherapy was the most common 2nd-line (2L) treatment, except in Japan, where 2L NHA use was preferred, and Spain, where both were used equally. NHA â†’ chemotherapy and chemotherapy â†’ NHA were the first and second usual 1L â†’ 2L sequence in most countries, except for France, where the second most common sequence was NHA â†’ NHA, and Japan, with androgen deprivation therapy alone â†’ NHA. CONCLUSION: Real-world mCRPC treatment patterns largely reflected national guidelines. It is expected that guidelines and treatment patterns will change with the development of new treatment options.

Impact of next-generation hormonal agents on treatment patterns among patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a real-world study from the United States, five European countries and Japan.

BACKGROUND: Until five years ago, the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treatment landscape was dominated by the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. However, novel hormonal agents (NHAs) and chemotherapy are now approved for male patients with mHSPC. This study aimed to understand the impact NHA approvals had on mHSPC real-world treatment patterns and to identify the key factors associated with NHA or chemotherapy (± ADT) usage vs ADT alone. METHODS: Data were collected from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme (DSP)™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their consulting patients conducted in the United States (US), five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom), and Japan between January and August 2020. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics for individual countries, regions, and all countries combined. Pairwise analyses were used to further investigate differences between treatment groups at global level. RESULTS: 336 physicians provided data on 1195 mHSPC patients. Globally, at data collection, the most common mHSPC regimen initiated first was ADT alone (47%), followed by NHAs (± ADT) (31%, of which 21% was abiraterone, 8% was enzalutamide, and 2% was apalutamide) and chemotherapy (± ADT) (19%). The highest rates of ADT alone usage were observed in Japan (78%) and Italy (66%), and the lowest in Spain (34%) and in the US (36%). Our results showed that clinical decision making was driven by patient fitness, compliance, tolerance of adverse events, and balance of impact on quality of life vs overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world survey offered early insights into the evolving mHSPC treatment paradigm. It showed that in 2020, ADT alone remained the most common initial mHSPC therapy, suggesting that physicians may prefer using treatments which they are familiar and have experience with, despite clinical trial evidence of improved survival with NHAs or chemotherapy (± ADT) vs ADT alone. Results also indicated that physicians prescribed specific mHSPC treatments primarily based on the following criteria: patient preference, disease burden/severity, and the performance status and comorbidities of the patient. To fully appreciate the rapidly changing mHSPC treatment landscape and monitor NHA uptake, additional real-world studies are required.

Real-world homologous recombination repair mutation testing in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the USA, Europe and Japan.

Aim: To assess homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) testing patterns in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Methods: A point-in-time, international survey conducted January-August 2020. Results: Three-quarters of physicians (oncologists, urologists, specialist surgeons) globally reported access to genetic/genomic testing and just over half were HRRm testers. Surveyed physicians reported HRRm testing and positivity rates for 1913 patients, which were 18.1% and 33.7%, respectively. Of patients tested (n = 347), the most common HRR genes tested were BRCA (91.6%) and ATM (47.3%). Conclusion: Overall testing rates were low, with physicians mostly testing patients they considered higher risk. Increased awareness and education are needed to encourage broader testing, to understand familial risk and to identify patients with worse outcomes or those eligible for life-prolonging treatments.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is cancer that has spread beyond the prostate gland and that no longer responds to hormone therapy. Genetic testing is now recommended for patients with mCRPC to help doctors understand familial risk and identify patients who may benefit from new treatments. The authors asked doctors questions about their patients, such as their age, symptoms and genetic testing. The authors found that overall genetic testing rates were low, with doctors mostly testing patients they thought were at higher risk of developing cancer. Increased doctor awareness and education are needed to encourage more genetic testing in mCRPC patients. However, doctors claimed that the cost of these tests was a challenge to conducting genetic testing.

Exploring the Impact of Treatment Switching on Overall Survival from the PROfound Study in Homologous Recombination Repair (HRR)-Mutated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC).

BACKGROUND: In oncology trials, treatment switching from the comparator to the experimental regimen is often allowed but may lead to underestimating overall survival (OS) of an experimental therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of treatment switching from control to olaparib on OS using the final survival data from the PROfound study and compares validated adjustment methods to estimate the magnitude of OS benefit with olaparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary population from PROfound (Cohort A) was included, alongside two populations approved for treatment with olaparib by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration: BRCAm and Cohort A+B (excluding the PPP2R2A gene). Five methods were explored to adjust for switching: excluding or censoring patients in the control arm who receive subsequent olaparib, Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Model (RPSFTM), Inverse Probability of Censoring Weights, and Two-Stage Estimation. RESULTS: The RPSFTM was considered the most appropriate approach for PROfound as the results were robust to sensitivity analysis testing of the common treatment effect assumption. For Cohort A, the final OS hazard ratio reduced from 0.69 (95% CI 0.5-0.97) to between 0.42 (0.18-0.90) and 0.52 (0.31-1.00) for olaparib versus control, depending on the RPSFTM selected. Median OS reduced from 14.7 months to between 11.73 and 12.63 months for control. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the statistically significant (P < 0.05) survival benefit of olaparib versus control observed in Cohort A of PROfound is likely to be underestimated if adjustment for treatment switching from control to olaparib is not conducted. The RPSFTM was considered the most plausible method, although further development and validation of robust methods to estimate the magnitude of impact of treatment switching is needed.

Beyond Frontline Therapy with Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Real-World US Study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence suggest that next generation hormonal agents (NHAs) abiraterone and enzalutamide were preferred as first-line (1L) therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the United States (US) pre-2020, with chemotherapies, particularly docetaxel, being preferred in subsequent lines (2L+). This real-world study described patient characteristics, treatment patterns, time on treatment (ToT) and overall survival (OS) among patients with mCRPC treated with 2L and 3L docetaxel post-NHAs in the mCRPC setting. METHODS: Adults with confirmed adenocarcinoma mCRPC diagnosis and ≥1 month of follow-up post-diagnosis were selected from a US electronic health record-derived oncology de-identified database (01/2013-03/2019). Based on the observed line of therapy sequences post-mCRPC diagnosis, patients who received NHA therapy in 1L and docetaxel therapy in 2L were included in the 2L docetaxel cohort, and patients who received NHA therapy in both 1L and 2L and docetaxel therapy in 3L were included in the 3L docetaxel cohort. ToT and OS were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Among 5,213 patients with mCRPC, 278 and 166 were included in the 2L and the 3L docetaxel cohorts, respectively (median age: 73 years for both cohorts). ADT was the most used class of medication pre-mCRPC (>75%). For the 2L cohort, the most common sequence post-mCRPC was 1L abiraterone â†’ 2L docetaxel (52.5%), while the median ToT and OS post-2L start were 4.1 and 10.5 months, respectively; for the 3L cohort, the most common sequence post-mCRPC was 1L abiraterone â†’ 2L enzalutamide â†’ 3L docetaxel (67.5%), while the median ToT and OS post-3L start were 3.8 and 8.7 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study provides novel data on patients treated with docetaxel post-NHAs in a mCRPC setting and highlights the critical unmet need for developing more effective treatment options in this population.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Overall Survival of Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in the US Prior to PARP Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients are continuously advancing. We described mCRPC treatment patterns in the US from 2013 to 2019. METHODS: Patients with a confirmed mCRPC diagnosis and adenocarcinoma histology were included in the US Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record-derived de-identified database. Treatment patterns [including treatment per lines of therapies (LOTs), LOT sequences, and time on treatment] and overall survival (OS) have been described in mCRPC settings. RESULTS: Of 5213 patients (mean age: 72.6 years), 4374 (83.9%) were treated with ≥ 1 LOT post-mCRPC diagnosis (among those with ≥ 1 LOT, 55.3%, 29.5%, 14.7%, and 6.7% had ≥ 2, 3, 4, and 5 LOTs, respectively). In first line (1L), the main treatment class was next-generation hormonal agents (NHA; 62.5% of patients with ≥ 1 LOT), while the shortest and longest time on 1L were observed for chemotherapy (median 2.8 months) and NHA (median 5.1 months), respectively. The most common LOT sequences were NHA â†’ NHA (29.4% of patients with ≥ 2 LOTs) and NHA â†’ NHA â†’ chemotherapy (16.7% of patients with ≥ 3 LOTs). In Kaplan-Meier analyses, the median OS was 19.4, 14.6, and 11.1 months post-1L, 2L, and 3L start, respectively. Patients who moved rapidly through LOTs had an increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: NHA were widely used as 1L therapy in mCRPC patients from 2013 to 2019, but time on 1L NHA treatment was on average < 6 months. While NHA â†’ NHA was the most observed 1L â†’ 2L LOT sequence, a plethora of other LOT sequences were observed. OS was poor, highlighting an unmet need for life-prolonging treatments.

Real-world genetic testing patterns in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Aim: To assess the patterns of genetic testing for homologous recombination repair mutations in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) pre-PARP inhibitors approval. Patients & methods: mCRPC patients were selected in an oncology electronic medical records database. Patterns and predictors of testing for ATM, BRCA1/2, CDK12, PALB2 and FANCA gene alterations were assessed. Results: Of 5213 mCRPC patients, 674 (13%) had a documented genetic test. The number of tested patients increased from 1 in 2013 to 313 in 2018 (out of 3161 and 3010 clinically active patients, respectively). Receiving care in an academic oncology center (versus a community-based center) strongly predicted genetic testing (hazard ratio = 2.41). Conclusion: The use of and access to genetic testing pre-PARP inhibitor approval was suboptimal.

Lay abstract In 2017, US guidelines recommended the use of genetic testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). While the initial goal of genetic testing was to guide referral to genetic counselling and clinical trial enrollment, it is now also used to identify patients who could benefit from new drugs that target specific molecular defects. Using medical record data of US patients with mCRPC, we found that the rates of genetic testing and the breadth of molecular defects tested were suboptimal from 2013 to 2019. We also found lower rates of genetic testing in patients treated in community-based centers compared with those treated in academic oncology centers. These results underscore the importance of increasing the take up rate of genetic testing in patients with mCRPC to help guide treatment decisions.

Systematic Literature Review of the Epidemiology of Advanced Prostate Cancer and Associated Homologous Recombination Repair Gene Alterations.

PURPOSE: To characterize the global epidemiology of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Additionally, to assess the prevalence of homologous recombination repair gene alterations (HRRm) and their prognostic impact in advanced disease setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of real-world evidence published from January 2009 through May 2019 was conducted to assess global epidemiology and clinical practice trends for mCSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC and HRRm; 4,732 papers were systematically screened for inclusion. Ten conference proceedings from 2014 through 2019 were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the screened articles 22 relevant publications were identified for this paper. Six publications reported global epidemiology of advanced prostate cancer. The prevalence of nmCRPC was estimated as 1.1% to 12.3% of prostate cancer cases and for mCRPC 1.2% to 2.1% of prostate cancer cases. No mCSPC prevalence was captured. Sixteen publications investigated HRRm prevalence in advanced prostate cancer with the majority conducted in mCRPC assessed using next-generation sequencing of tissue and germline samples. In mCRPC, the highest prevalence HRRm in both germline (3.3%-6.0%) and somatic (5.0%-15.1%) was BRCA2. Five publications reported the prognostic impact of HRRm in advanced prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Published real-world evidence quantifying the prevalence of advanced prostate cancer and HRRm beyond mCRPC is sparse. Published data on HRRm, specifically BRCA2, are consistent with published clinical trial data for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in mCRPC. In mCRPC, real-world evidence suggests that patients with HRRm have different clinical outcomes to noncarriers. More data are needed to better understand real-world patient segmentation and clinical outcomes for biomarkers given increasing interest in profiling.

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective.Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually.Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%.Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Targeted agents or immuno-oncology therapies as first-line therapy for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a real-world study.

Aim: Targeted therapy (TT) and immuno-oncology (IO) drugs are approved for patients with BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma (MM). We compared real-world outcomes for first-line (1L) TT versus 1L IO to evaluate optimal sequencing. Materials & methods: Physicians-identified BRAF mutant MM patients initiating 1L TT or IO therapies and extracted treatment, disease and clinical outcomes including disease response which were compared between TT and IO and individual regimens. Results: 440 MM patients (TT = 283, IO = 157) were identified. A higher proportion of TT patients had liver metastases (46.3 vs 35.0%) and abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (61.1 vs 42.7%). IO-treated had a RECIST-determined response rate of 45.9 versus 60.1% for TT and time on treatment of 7.2 versus 11.4 months, respectively. There was no survival difference between cohorts. Conclusion: Despite higher risk patients, 1L TT resulted in higher response rate and longer treatment duration suggesting a preferred 1L sequence.

Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic melanoma.

AIM: To investigate patient preferences for clinical attributes of first-line metastatic melanoma treatments. MATERIALS & METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment and best-worst scaling exercise were used to assess relative preferences for treatment attributes. RESULTS: The 200 survey respondents had distinct preferences. Avoiding a 30% risk of colitis or hormone gland problems and avoiding severe fever were more important to respondents than avoiding a 20% risk of extreme sun sensitivity (p < 0.05). Patients preferred taking pills to receiving intravenous infusions in a clinic. When attributes were combined, approximately 85% of respondents preferred a risk profile similar to targeted therapy over a profile similar to immunotherapy, holding efficacy constant. CONCLUSION: Taking patient preferences into account can help patients get the full benefit from metastatic melanoma therapies.

Patterns of treatment and BRAF testing with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma presumed to be BRAF positive.

Patients with BRAF V600 (BRAF) mutated metastatic melanoma are eligible for therapy with both immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, making treatment choice a complex decision. The present study aimed to describe patterns of treatment with immunotherapy and targeted therapy and BRAF testing in patients with metastatic melanoma presumed to have BRAF mutations (BRAF+) in the years following the approval of the newer generation of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies (2014-2016). Two large US commercial claims databases [Truven Health Analytics MarketScan and IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims - USA (IQVIA RWD Adjudicated Claims - USA)] were used. Patients were presumed BRAF+ if they received at least 2 lines of therapy of which at least 1 included targeted therapy. Sequence of lines of therapy and regimens used in first (1L), second (2L), and third (3L), as well as timing of BRAF testing by sequence of therapy were described. In the Truven sample (n=162), targeted therapy was used by 66% in 1L and by 54% in 2L, and 62% had a BRAF test; in the IQVIA RWD Adjudicated Claims - USA sample (n=247), targeted therapy was used by 62% in 1L and by 50% in 2L, and 68% had a BRAF test. Among those with a claim for a BRAF test prior to 1L, over two-thirds were initiated on targeted therapy. These findings suggest that the rate of BRAF testing remained low in the years following the approval of BRAF-targeted regimens for metastatic disease. Given the recently approved adjuvant treatment options for stage III melanoma, improving the rates of BRAF testing becomes increasingly important.

Stage III melanoma incidence and impact of transitioning to the 8th AJCC staging system: a US population-based study.

AIM: To estimate incidence of stage III melanoma using the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging, 7th and 8th edition. PATIENTS & METHODS: The SEER US cancer registry was analyzed (2010-2014). AJCC7 stages were recorded in the data; AJCC8 stages were inferred. RESULTS: Of 106,195 melanoma patients, 7669 and 7342 had stage III melanoma by AJCC7 and AJCC8, respectively (95% overlap). Nearly 30% of patients with AJCC7 stage III melanoma were reclassified in a higher stage III group by AJCC8 versus 7% in lower stage group. Regardless of the AJCC edition, incidence of stage III melanoma has increased from 2010 to 2014 both overall and within each stage III group. CONCLUSION: Providing appropriate management to this growing population of high-risk patients is a priority.

Postsurgical treatment landscape and economic burden of locoregional and distant recurrence in patients with operable nonmetastatic melanoma.

Surgery is the mainstay treatment for operable nonmetastatic melanoma, but recurrences are common and limit patients' survival. This study aimed to describe real-world patterns of treatment and recurrence in patients with melanoma and to quantify healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with episodes of locoregional/distant recurrences. Adults with nonmetastatic melanoma who underwent melanoma lymph node surgery were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan database (1 January 2008 to 31 July 2017). Locoregional and distant recurrence(s) were identified on the basis of postsurgery recurrence indicators (i.e. initiation of new melanoma pharmacotherapy, new radiotherapy, or new surgery; secondary malignancy diagnoses). Of 6400 eligible patients, 219 (3.4%) initiated adjuvant therapy within 3 months of surgery, mostly with interferon α-2b (n=206/219, 94.1%). A total of 1191/6400 (18.6%) patients developed recurrence(s) over a median follow-up of 23.1 months (102/6400, 1.6% distant recurrences). Among the 219 patients initiated on adjuvant therapy, 73 (33.3%) experienced recurrences (distant recurrences: 13/219, 5.9%). The mean total all-cause healthcare cost was $2645 per patient per month (PPPM) during locoregional recurrence episodes and $12 940 PPPM during distant recurrence episodes. In the year after recurrence, HRU was particularly higher in patients with distant recurrence versus recurrence-free matched controls: by 9.2 inpatient admissions, 54.4 inpatient days, 8.8 emergency department admissions, and 185.9 outpatient visits (per 100 person-months), whereas all-cause healthcare costs were higher by $14 953 PPPM. It remains to be determined whether the new generation of adjuvant therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents, will increase the use of adjuvant therapies, and reduce the risk of recurrences and associated HRU/cost.

Healthcare resource utilization in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving first-line therapy with dabrafenib + trametinib versus nivolumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) between patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) initiated on first-line (1L) combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib (D + T; oral) and those initiated on 1 L monotherapy with the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies nivolumab or pembrolizumab (N/P; intravenous). METHODS: Patients with melanoma initiated on D + T or N/P from Q1/2014 to Q2/2016 (defined as 1 L treatment for MM) were identified in the Truven MarketScan database. Entropy balancing was used to reweight the N/P cohort in order to make it comparable to the D + T cohort with respect to the mean and variance of baseline covariates. HRU outcomes during 1 L therapy, reported per patient-year (PPY), were described and compared between the two cohorts post-weighting (i.e. independently of baseline covariates). RESULTS: Of the 445 patients included, 202 and 243 were initiated on D + T and N/P, respectively. After weighting, patients initiated on N/P had more outpatient visits for drug administration during 1 L therapy than those initiated on D + T (difference = 18.6 visits PPY [95% CI = 16.0-21.1]). Patients initiated on N/P also had more outpatient office visits for reasons other than drug administration (difference = 8.1 visits PPY [95% CI = 1.9-13.7]). No significant differences were observed for other HRU parameters (i.e. inpatient admissions, inpatient days, and emergency department visits during 1 L therapy). CONCLUSIONS: HRU during 1 L therapy was generally similar between patients initiated on D + T and N/P. Nonetheless, patients initiated on N/P had more outpatient visits, including more outpatient visits for reasons unrelated to drug administration.

Real-World Economic Outcomes During Time on Treatment Among Patients Who Initiated Sunitinib or Pazopanib as First Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis of Medicare Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: The median age at renal cell carcinoma (RCC) diagnosis is 64 years. However, few studies have assessed the real-world time on treatment (TOT), health resource utilization (HRU), costs, or treatment compliance associated with targeted therapy use among patients in this age group with RCC. OBJECTIVE: To assess the HRU, costs, and compliance during TOT among Medicare patients aged ≥ 65 years with advanced RCC (aRCC) who initiated first targeted therapy with pazopanib or sunitinib. METHODS: Patients with aRCC were identified in the 100% Medicare + Part D databases administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Eligible patients initiated first targeted therapy with sunitinib or pazopanib (index drug) on or after their first diagnosis of secondary neoplasm between October 19, 2009, and January 1, 2014, and were aged ≥ 65 years as of 1 year before first targeted therapy initiation (index date). Included patients were stratified into pazopanib and sunitinib cohorts based on first targeted therapy and matched 1:1 on baseline characteristics using propensity scores. TOT was defined as the time from the index date to treatment discontinuation (prescription gap > 90 days) or death. Compliance was defined as the ratio of drug supply days to TOT. Monthly all-cause costs and costs associated with RCC diagnosis (medical and pharmacy in 2015 U.S. dollars) and HRU (inpatient [admissions, readmissions, and days], outpatient, and emergency room visits) were assessed in the 1-year post-index period during TOT. Matched cohorts' TOT was compared using Kaplan-Meier analyses and univariable Cox models, and compliance, HRU, and costs were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Of 1,711 included patients, 526 initiated pazopanib and 1,185 initiated sunitinib. Before matching, more patients in the pazopanib cohort were white, diagnosed in 2010-2014 versus 2006-2009, and had lung metastases compared with the sunitinib cohort (all P < 0.05). The pazopanib cohort also had higher mean outpatient visits and costs but lower mean total all-cause pharmacy costs, than the sunitinib cohort (all P < 0.05). After matching, the pazopanib and sunitinib cohorts had similar characteristics (mean age 75 years, 58% male, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 9.2 in both cohorts) and median TOT (4.8 and 4.1 months, respectively). Among the 522 matched pairs, pazopanib was associated with significantly lower total all-cause health care costs ($8,527 vs. $10,924, respectively [mean difference = $2,397]); total medical costs ($3,991 vs. $5,881, respectively, [$1,890]); and inpatient costs ($2,040 vs. $3,731, respectively, [$1,692]; all P < 0.01) compared with sunitinib. Patients receiving pazopanib had significantly fewer inpatient admissions (0.179 vs. 0.289, respectively) and days (1.063 vs. 1.904, respectively; both P < 0.01) than patients receiving sunitinib. Mean treatment compliance was lower for the pazopanib versus sunitinib cohort (0.91 vs. 0.94, respectively; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients with aRCC from a TOT perspective, first targeted therapy with pazopanib was associated with significantly lower all-cause health care costs and HRU, but lower compliance, compared with sunitinib. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The sponsor was involved in all stages of the study's conduct and reporting. Vogelzang has been a consultant for Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Medivation, Eisai, Exelixis, and Roche; has spoken at Novartis, Astellas, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Dendreon, Bayer/Algeta, GSK, and Veridex/Janssen; and has received research support from Novartis, Bayer, Exelixis, Progenics, Bavarian Nordic, and Viamet. Pal has been a consultant for Novartis, Pfizer, Aveo, Dendreon, and Myriad and has spoken at Novartis, Pfizer and Medivation. Agarwal has been a consultant or advisor for Novartis, Pfizer, Exelixis, Cerulean Pharma, Medivation, Eisai, and Argos Therapeutics. Swallow, Peeples, Zichlin, and Meiselbach are employees of Analysis Group, which received consultancy fees from Novartis for this project. Li was an employee of Analysis Group during the conduct of this study. Ghate is an employee of Novartis and owns stock/stock options. Perez was an employee of Novartis during the conduct of this study. A synopsis of the economic outcomes was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017 in Denver, Colorado, during March 27-30, 2017. A synopsis of the clinical outcomes was presented at the 22nd ISPOR Annual International Meeting in Boston, Massachusetts, during May 20-24, 2017.

Predictors of Long-Term Response With Pazopanib in Patients With Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib is among the current standards of care for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable advanced renal-cell carcinoma (aRCC) or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This real-world study aimed to characterize those with long-term response to pazopanib in the treatment of aRCC in a community oncology setting, and to identify predictors of long-term response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: aRCC patients treated with first-line pazopanib were classified as having long-term or non-long-term response (progression-free survival [PFS] of ≥ 18 or < 18 months, respectively). Baseline patient demographics and clinical characteristics were evaluated and compared between the 2 groups. Differences in PFS and overall survival were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 153 eligible patients were identified, of which 33 (21.6%) and 120 (78.4%) patients were identified as having disease with long-term and non-long-term response, respectively. The median PFS for those with long-term response was 27.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.0-35.2) versus 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.6) for those with non-long-term response. Median overall survival was not reached (NR) for those with long-term response (95% CI, NR to 39.1) compared to 15.3 months (95% CI, 12.3-21.6) for those with non-long-term response. Baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) of 0 (vs. ECOG PS of 1 and ≥ 2) and history of nephrectomy were identified as significant predictors of long-term response to pazopanib. CONCLUSION: In aRCC patients treated with first-line pazopanib, 22% had a long-term response. Significant predictors of long-term response included an ECOG PS of 0 and a history of nephrectomy.

The Additional Costs per Month of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival: An Economic Model Comparing Everolimus with Cabozantinib, Nivolumab, and Axitinib for Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: When considering optimal second-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), clinicians and payers seek to understand the relative clinical benefits and costs of treatment. OBJECTIVE: To use an economic model to compare the additional cost per month of overall survival (OS) and of progression-free survival (PFS) for cabozantinib, nivolumab, and axitinib with everolimus for the second-line treatment of mRCC from a third-party U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: The model evaluated mean OS and PFS and costs associated with drug acquisition/administration; adverse event (AE) treatment; monitoring; and postprogression (third-line treatment, monitoring, and end-of-life costs) over 1- and 2-year horizons. Efficacy, safety, and treatment duration inputs were estimated from regimens' pivotal clinical trials; for everolimus, results were weighted across trials. Mean 1- and 2-year OS and mean 1-year PFS were estimated using regimens' reported OS and PFS Kaplan-Meier curves. Dosing and administration inputs were consistent with approved prescribing information and the clinical trials used to estimate efficacy and safety inputs. Cost inputs came from published literature and public data. Additional cost per additional month of OS or PFS was calculated using the ratio of the cost difference per treated patient and the corresponding difference in mean OS or PFS between everolimus and each comparator. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying efficacy and cost inputs. RESULTS: Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib, nivolumab, and axitinib were associated with 1.6, 0.3, and 0.5 additional months of PFS, respectively, over 1 year. Cabozantinib and nivolumab were associated with additional months of OS compared with everolimus (1 year: 0.7 and 0.8 months; 2 years: 1.6 and 2.3 months; respectively); axitinib was associated with fewer months (1 year: -0.2 months; 2 years: -0.7 months). The additional costs of treatment with cabozantinib, nivolumab, or axitinib versus everolimus over 1 year were $34,141, $19,371, and $17,506 higher, respectively. Everolimus had similar OS and lower costs compared with axitinib. The additional cost per month of OS was $48,773 for cabozantinib and $24,214 for nivolumab versus everolimus. The additional treatment cost with cabozantinib, nivolumab, or axitinib versus everolimus for each additional month of PFS was estimated at $21,338, $64,570, and $35,012, respectively. Over 2 years, the additional costs per additional month of OS for nivolumab and axitinib versus everolimus were similar to the 1-year analysis; for cabozantinib, the cost was lower. Results were sensitive to changes in mean OS, mean PFS, therapy duration, and drug costs estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus for second-line mRCC was associated with similar OS and lower costs compared with axitinib over 1- and 2-year horizons. The additional cost per additional month of OS and PFS associated with cabozantinib or nivolumab versus everolimus creates a metric for evaluating the cost of second-line therapies in relation to their respective treatment effects. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by Novartis, which was involved in all stages of study research and manuscript preparation. Ghate and Perez are employees of Novartis and own stock/stock options. Swallow, Messali, McDonald, and Duchesneau are employees of Analysis Group, which has received consultancy fees from Novartis. Study concept and design were contributed by Swallow, Messali, Ghate, and Perez, along with McDonald and Duchesneau. Swallow, Messali, McDonald, and Duchesneau collected the data, and all authors participated in data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Swallow, Messali, and Ghate, along with the other authors, and revised by Swallow, Messali, Ghate, and Perez. A synopsis of the current research was presented in poster format at the 15th International Kidney Cancer Symposium on November 4-5, 2016, in Miami, Florida.