RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Real-world studies of lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) are limited. We evaluated treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among patients with LR-MDS treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with LR-MDS who initiated treatment with ESAs between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2019. The primary analysis assessed patient demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes (hematologic response, transfusion requirements, disease progression), and HCRU (medical encounters, laboratory tests, and medication use). Subgroup analyses of patients repeatedly treated with ESA therapy evaluated selected clinical outcomes and primary ESA failure by SF3B1 mutational status, per recently updated NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines©). RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were included with a median follow-up time of 17 months (interquartile range [IQR], 7-33). Median age at ESA initiation was 79 years (IQR, 73-85). Patients were predominantly male (54%), overweight or obese (32% and 23%, respectively), of White race (96%) and non-Hispanic ethnicity (89%). Overall, 57% patients were initially treated with darbepoetin alfa and 43% with epoetin alfa. Clinical outcomes were poor, and there was a significant burden on both the health system and individual patients treated with ESA therapies. Hematologic improvement- erythroid was only seen in 26% of 142 patients treated with ESAs, and 65% of 82 retreated patients experienced primary ESA failure. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that primary ESA failure is largely unrecognized and that many patients should be considered for alternative treatments.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To accelerate drug approvals while maintaining scientific rigor in the evaluation of a therapeutic's efficacy and safety, the United States Food and Drug Administration now considers real-world data (RWD) to support New Drug Applications and expanded indications. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are the gold standard in clinical trials, but the derivation of RECIST-based treatment response from RWD is unproven. This study investigated the feasibility of implementing RECIST criteria in RWD by comparing lung cancer response assessments from RECIST-based measurement of lesions on archived radiologic films with results from medical oncologist and radiologist narratives recorded in electronic health records (EHR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Response to index treatment via different assessment approaches was compared among 30 metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients receiving systemic treatment (index) after progression on a platinum or anti-PD(L)-1-containing regimen. Specifically, responses based on assessments documented in the medical oncologists' narratives were compared to a radiologist's assessments of archived images using RECIST v1.1 criteria. Each patient's best overall response was characterized as complete or partial (CR/PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), or not evaluable (NE). RESULTS: Similar distributions of best overall response and substantial concordance (77%) between medical oncologist-reported and radiologist re-assessed responses were observed. There were no instances of CR/PR to PD or PD to CR/PR discordance. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that accurate treatment responses, similar to RECIST, may be derived using RWD. Further validation and improvement of real-world response assessment are needed to develop a scalable real-world approach for response assessment.