Patient preferences in the treatment of stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma: Results from the CONNECT cross-sectional survey.

We explored patient front-line treatment preferences in newly diagnosed stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). The CONNECT patient survey, administered online from 30 December 2020 to 1 March 2021, examined preferences overall and by age at diagnosis in 182 adult patients diagnosed with stage III/IV cHL within the past 10 years in the United States. At diagnosis, patients' median age was 36 years; 66% of patients were younger (aged 16-41 years) and 34% older (aged 42-85 years). When asked about initial treatment goals, 74% of patients ranked cure as their first or second goal (86% younger vs. 52% older patients; p < 0.001). At diagnosis, 72% of patients preferred aggressive treatment, and 85% were willing to accept more short-term risks in exchange for a better-working therapy long term. For long-term risks, younger versus older patients were significantly more concerned about second cancers (p < 0.001) and fertility issues (p = 0.007), whereas older patients were more concerned about lung damage (p = 0.028) and infections (p < 0.001). Most patients (94%) reported having a caregiver at some point, but 99% of these patients retained some control of treatment decisions. Collectively, these survey results highlight patient treatment preferences and differences in treatment goals and long-term side effect concerns based on patient age.

Physician frontline treatment preferences for stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma: the real-world US CONNECT study.

Aim: To understand US physicians' frontline (1L) treatment preferences/decision-making for stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Materials & methods: Medical oncologists and/or hematologists (≥2 years' practice experience) who treat adults with stage III/IV cHL were surveyed online (October-November 2020). Results: Participants (n = 301) most commonly considered trial efficacy/safety data and national guidelines when selecting 1L cHL treatments. Most physicians (91%) rated overall survival (OS) as the most essential attribute when selecting 1L treatment. Variability was seen among regimen selection for hypothetical newly diagnosed patients, with OS cited as the most common reason for regimen selection. Conclusion: While treatment selection varied based on patient characteristics, US physicians consistently cited OS as the top factor considered when selecting a 1L treatment for cHL.

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is a type of cancer that grows in lymph nodes. The researchers created a survey to assess how doctors in the USA choose medicine to treat patients who are newly diagnosed with an advanced stage of cHL (stage 3 or 4 out of 4 stages). We surveyed 301 doctors who treat patients with cHL. When choosing a medicine to treat cHL, most doctors said they consider results from research studies, how well the medicine works, information on the medicine's safety and recommendations in official guidelines. Most doctors said that overall survival (how long the patient survives after being diagnosed with cHL) is the most important outcome they consider when choosing a medicine to treat cHL. During the survey, doctors saw four unique patient profiles. These profiles differed in age, disease stage (how far along the cHL is) and other illnesses the patient has. While medicine choice was different across profiles, overall survival was still the reason for choosing each individual patient's medicine. These survey results show that doctors in the USA highly consider overall survival when choosing medicine for patients newly diagnosed with an advanced stage of cHL.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes With Brentuximab Vedotin or Other Standard Therapies in Patients With Previously Treated Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphomas (pcALCLs) are a type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in which CD30 is uniformly expressed. In mycosis fungoides (MF), another CTCL, CD30 is heterogeneously expressed. In ALCANZA, patients with pcALCLs or CD30-positive MF randomized to brentuximab vedotin (BV) vs. physician's choice of methotrexate or bexarotene had significantly improved outcomes, including higher objective response rates (ORR) lasting ≥4 months (ORR4), as well as longer median progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment (TTNT). In this study, we sought to assess the real-world impact of treatment with BV in second or later lines of therapy for CTCL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective chart review describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource use (HRU) in patients with pcALCLs or MF previously treated with ≥1 systemic therapy and subsequently treated with BV (n = 139) or other standard therapy (OST; n = 164). RESULTS: Most patients in the BV cohort (96.4%) received BV as second-line (2L) systemic therapy. The most common OSTs were methotrexate (11.6%), mogamulizumab (9.1%), and bendamustine (9.1%) monotherapies. For 2L BV and OST, median duration of therapy was 8.4 and 5.2 months, real-world ORR was 82.1% and 66.5%, and real-world ORR4 was 42.5% and 25.0%. Real-world 1- and 2-year PFS, TTNT, and OS were significantly longer (all P < .01) and HRU was lower for BV vs. OST. CONCLUSION: These real-world outcomes are consistent with ALCANZA results, demonstrating favorable outcomes with BV vs. OST in patients with CTCL previously treated with ≥1 systemic therapy.

The impact of classic Hodgkin lymphoma on informal caregivers: results from the CONNECT cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: As part of the CONNECT study, we evaluated the caregiver role in treatment decision-making when caring for patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the USA. METHODS: The CONNECT caregiver survey was administered online December 2020-March 2021 to self-identified adult caregivers of cHL patients recruited from patient referrals and online panels. The caregiver's role in treatment decision-making, health-related quality of life (HRQoL, PROMIS-Global), and work impacts (WPAI:CG) were assessed. RESULTS: We surveyed 209 caregivers (58% women; median age 47 years; 54% employed; 53% spouse/partner); 69% of patients cared for were diagnosed with cHL in the past 1-2 years, with 48% having stage III/IV cHL and 29% in remission. More spouse/partner than other caregivers were involved in caregiving at symptom onset (61% vs 27%), whereas more other than spouse/partner caregivers began after first treatment (34% vs 5%). Cure, caregivers' top treatment goal (49%), was rated higher by spouse/partner than other caregivers (56% vs 42%). More spouse/partner than other caregivers were involved in treatment option discussions with physicians (52% vs 28%), were involved in patients' treatment decisions (54% vs 23%), and were aligned with patients' treatment goals (93% vs 79%). While caregivers reported HRQoL similar to that of the general population, nearly 30% of employed caregivers reported work impairment. CONCLUSION: Cure was caregivers' top treatment goal. Spouse/partner vs other caregivers were more involved, were involved earlier, and reported greater alignment with patient treatment goals and decision-making. Caregivers reported good HRQoL; however, caregiving impacted work productivity regardless of patient relationship.

Estimated Effectiveness of Coadministration of the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 COVID-19 Vaccine With Influenza Vaccine.

Importance: No data comparing the estimated effectiveness of coadministering COVID-19 vaccines with seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) in the community setting exist. Objective: To examine the comparative effectiveness associated with coadministering the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2-biv [Pfizer BioNTech]) and SIV vs giving each vaccine alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective comparative effectiveness study evaluated US adults aged 18 years or older enrolled in commercial health insurance or Medicare Advantage plans and vaccinated with BNT162b2-biv only, SIV only, or both on the same day between August 31, 2022, and January 30, 2023. Individuals with monovalent or another brand of mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccine were excluded. Exposure: Same-day coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV; receipt of BNT162b2-biv only (for COVID-19-related outcomes) or SIV only (for influenza-related outcomes) were the comparator groups. For adults aged 65 years or older, only enhanced SIVs were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19-related and influenza-related hospitalization, emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters, and outpatient visits. Results: Overall, 3 442 996 individuals (57.0% female; mean [SD] age, 65 [16.7] years) were included. A total of 627 735 individuals had BNT162b2-biv and SIV vaccine coadministered, 369 423 had BNT162b2-biv alone, and 2 445 838 had SIV alone. Among those aged 65 years or older (n = 2 210 493; mean [SD] age, 75 [6.7] years; 57.9% female), the coadministration group had a similar incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.24) and slightly higher incidence of emergency department or urgent care encounters (AHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23) and outpatient visits (AHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11) compared with the BNT162b2-biv-only group. Among individuals aged 18 to 64 years (n = 1 232 503; mean [SD] age, 47 [13.1] years; 55.4% female), the incidence of COVID-19-related outcomes was slightly higher among those who received both vaccines vs BNT162b2-biv alone (AHR point estimate range, 1.14-1.57); however, fewer events overall in this age group resulted in wider CIs. Overall, compared with those who received SIV alone, the coadministration group had a slightly lower incidence of most influenza-related end points (AHR point estimates 0.83-0.93 for those aged ≥65 years vs 0.76-1.08 for those aged 18-64 years). Negative control outcomes suggested residual bias and calibration of COVID-19-related and influenza-related outcomes with negative controls moved all estimates closer to the null, with most CIs crossing 1.00. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV was associated with generally similar effectiveness in the community setting against COVID-19-related and SIV-related outcomes compared with giving each vaccine alone and may help improve uptake of both vaccines.

Real-World Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Outcomes for Patients With Stage III or IV Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma Treated With Frontline ABVD: A Retrospective Database Review in the United States.

In newly diagnosed stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improved overall survival (OS) versus ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine). As clinical trial and real-world populations may differ, real-world treatment characteristics and OS (rwOS) were assessed for patients with stage III/IV cHL treated with frontline ABVD. This retrospective, observational analysis of deidentified electronic health record data (1/1/2011-8/31/2020) evaluated baseline disease and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and rwOS in patients with stage III/IV cHL treated with frontline ABVD. Data for 167 patients were analyzed. A median of 6 ABVD cycles were received. Baseline/interim positron emission tomography (PET) scans were obtained for 60.5%/89.8% of patients. Of patients diagnosed in 2016 or later (n = 73), 89% received an interim PET scan; 15/46 patients with no documented Deauville score, 6/15 with a score of 1 to 3, and 3/4 with a score of 4 to 5 de-escalated to AVD. Following frontline ABVD, 55.1% of patients received subsequent systemic therapy and 31.7% stem cell transplantation (SCT). At a median follow-up of 31.8 months, 82.0% of patients were alive (median rwOS, 101.2 months). Patients with stage III/IV cHL treated with frontline ABVD in the real world versus in clinical trials receive more subsequent therapy, including SCTs. Interim PET scans and Deauville scores were not universally obtained after treatment cycle 2, yet treatment de-escalation was observed. Patients with stage III/IV cHL may benefit from frontline A+AVD versus ABVD, as it improves OS and reduces the burden of subsequent therapy, including SCTs.

Retrospective Analysis With Propensity Score Matching of Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Treated Frontline With Brentuximab Vedotin and Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Since Food and Drug Administration approval of brentuximab vedotin in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A + CHP) as initial therapy for previously untreated CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), there has been limited research on real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed claims of patients with PTCL treated with frontline A + CHP or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) using the Symphony Health Solutions database. Adults with International Classification of Diseases-9/10 PTCL diagnosis codes who initiated A + CHP or CHOP between November 2018 and July 2021 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed that adjusted for potential confounders between groups. RESULTS: A total of 1344 patients were included (A + CHP, n = 749; CHOP, n = 595). Before matching, 61% were men; median age at index was 62 (A + CHP) and 69 (CHOP) years. The most common A + CHP-treated PTCL subtypes were systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL; 51%), PTCL-not otherwise specified (NOS; 30%), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL; 12%); the most common CHOP-treated subtypes were PTCL-NOS (51%) and AITL (19%). After matching, similar proportions of patients treated with A + CHP and CHOP received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (89% vs. 86%, P = .3). Fewer patients treated with A + CHP received subsequent therapy than CHOP overall (20% vs. 30%, P < .001) and specifically with the sALCL subtype (15% vs. 28%, P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics and management of this real-world PTCL population who were older and had a higher comorbidity burden than that in the ECHELON-2 trial demonstrate the importance of retrospective studies when assessing the impact of new regimens on clinical practice.

Prior irinotecan exposure does not preclude benefit to liposomal irinotecan in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses of the NAPOLI-1 study identified that among patients who were irinotecan naïve prior to entering the clinical trial, a survival benefit was observed between the study arm and control arm. This treatment benefit was not observed among those previously exposed to irinotecan. This study sought to understand the impact of prior exposure to irinotecan on clinical outcomes among patients treated with liposomal irinotecan in the real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database. Data for adult patients with mPDAC treated with liposomal irinotecan-based regimens between January 2016 and October 2020 were analyzed. Patient characteristics, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. Cox proportional hazard methods were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). HRs were adjusted for demographics and relevant clinical covariates. RESULTS: Six hundred and seventy-five patients with mPDAC treated with a liposomal irinotecan-based regimen were included. The unadjusted OS HR was 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1-1.6, p < 0.001) and unadjusted PFS was HR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.2-1.7, p < 0.001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the adjusted OS HR was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.8-1.3, p = 0.8836) and the adjusted PFS HR was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8-1.4, p = 0.5626). CONCLUSIONS: Prior irinotecan was not found to be a significant predictor of patient outcomes in those later treated with liposomal irinotecan. Thus, the results may inform the rationale for utilizing liposomal irinotecan combination therapy following prior irinotecan exposure in mPDAC, in particular where the prior irinotecan exposure was more distant in time.

Observations of Oncologists on Treatment Selection With Interim Positron Emission Tomography-Adapted Approaches in Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma: The Real-World CONNECT Study.

PURPOSE: We surveyed oncologists who treat classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) as part of the CONNECT study to understand the treatment decision-making process, including the impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging. METHODS: US physicians self-identifying as oncologists, hematologists, or hematologists/oncologists with ≥2 years of practice experience who treated ≥1 adult with stage III/IV cHL in the frontline setting in the last year were surveyed (October 19-November 16, 2020). Physician demographics, guideline adherence, and PET/CT utilization, interpretation, and access barriers were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 301 physicians participated in the survey. Eighty-eight percent of physicians gave somewhat-to-significant consideration to NCCN guidelines. Most physicians (94%; n = 284) reported obtaining a PET/CT scan at diagnosis; of these physicians, 97% reported obtaining an interim PET/CT scan for stage III/IV cHL, with 65% typically obtaining an interim PET/CT scan after cycle 2. The Deauville 5-point scale (5PS) was the primary scoring system used to review PET/CT results by 62% of physicians, with a positive score defined as ≥3 by 44%, ≥4 by 37%, and ≥2 by 12% of physicians. Fifty-five percent of physicians reported difficulty in obtaining PET/CT scans. CONCLUSION: Although most physicians considered NCCN guidelines when treating patients with stage III/IV cHL, interim PET/CT scans after cycle 2 were not universally obtained. When PET/CT scans were obtained, Deauville 5PS scores were not always provided, and variability existed on what defined a positive score. These findings suggest that opportunities exist for education and improved PET-adapted treatment approaches.

Cervical cancer geographical burden analyzer: An interactive, open-access tool for understanding geographical disease burden in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer (CC) disproportionately affects women based on socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic background. There is limited research in quantifying and visualizing whether substantial geographical disparities in the US exist with respect to CC burden, and especially with respect to recurrent or metastatic CC (r/mCC) disease burden. Identifying regions with higher r/mCC burden may help inform effective healthcare resource allocation and navigating patients to appropriate care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the 2015-2020 MarketScan® Commercial and Supplemental Medicare claims data; r/mCC burden was estimated as the number of patients initiating r/mCC systemic therapy over CC-diagnosed patients for each of the 410 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) considered. We developed a public, web-based tool, the Cervical Cancer Geographical Disease Burden Analyzer (Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer, http://www.geo-analyzer.org), that allows users to visualize r/mCC burden across MSAs over multiple years. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in r/mCC burden across MSAs, with a range of 0-83.3%. Burden increased in Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA (r/mCC to CC ratio: 41% in 2018 to 50% in 2020), and Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA (33% in 2018 to 50% in 2020). On the other hand, while r/mCC burden remained high, it decreased in Grand Rapids, MI (55% in 2018 to 31% in 2020) and San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (40% in 2018 to 26% in 2020). There were regions with sparse or no data, suggesting a need for more representative data capture. CONCLUSION: The Cervical Geo-Analyzer is a tool to visualize areas with high need for CC interventions. It also builds the foundation for further work to understand local risk factors of disease burden, identify populations of interest, characterize health disparities of CC or r/mCC and inform targeted interventions.

Factors associated with receipt of second-line recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer treatment in the United States: A retrospective administrative claims analysis.

Purpose: Contemporary, real-world data on eligible patients receiving treatment following progression on first-line (1L) recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) therapy are needed to inform treatment algorithms and identify potential gaps in the r/mCC care continuum. Methods: This study estimated the prevalence and predictors of second-line (2L) r/mCC therapy among 1L-treated patients using the 2015-2020 IBM MarketScan® commercial claims database. Women ≥ 18 years diagnosed with cervical cancer and treated with first-line systemic therapies were identified and followed for 12 months from their 1L therapy end date. Women with claims for a new therapy after 60 days but no later than 365 days from the end of 1L treatment were identified as those who progressed and received 2L therapy for r/mCC. Descriptive statistics examined baseline cohort characteristics and multivariable logistic regression model examined the factors associated with receiving 2L treatment. Results: We identified 384 1L-treated patients with r/mCC with ≥ 12 months of follow-up post-1L treatment. During follow-up, over half (51.0 %) of the 1L-treated r/mCC patients received 2L treatment. Patients from the South and Midwest had a lower likelihood of receiving 2L treatment compared with those living in the Northeast (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.43; 0.23-0.84) and (aOR = 0.52; 0.28-0.95, respectively). Patients not treated with bevacizumab in 1L were also less likely to receive 2L therapy (aOR = 0.65; 0.43-0.99). Conclusion: Additional research and targeted outreach efforts are needed to understand geography-, population-, or practice-specific barriers impacting access to 2L therapy among patients with r/mCC.

Use of the Postacute Sequelae of COVID-19 Diagnosis Code in Routine Clinical Practice in the US.

Importance: A new International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis code (U09.9 Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified) was introduced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on October 1, 2021. Objective: To examine the use of the U09.9 code and describe concurrently diagnosed conditions to understand physician use of this code in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of US patients with an ICD-10-CM code for post-COVID-19 condition used deidentified patient-level claims data aggregated by HealthVerity. Children and adolescents (aged 0-17 years) and adults (aged 18-64 and ≥65 years) with a post-COVID-19 condition code were identified between October 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022. To identify a prior COVID-19 diagnosis, 3 months of continuous enrollment (CE) before the post-COVID-19 diagnosis date was required. Main Outcomes and Measures: Presence of the ICD-10-CM U09.9 code. Results: There were 56 143 patients (7723 female patients [61.2%]; mean [SD] age, 47.6 [19.2] years) with a post-COVID-19 diagnosis code, with cases increasing in mid-December 2021 following the trajectory of the Omicron case wave by 3 to 4 weeks. The analysis cohort included 12 622 patients after the 3-month preindex CE criteria was applied. Among this cohort, the median (IQR) age was 49 (35-61) years; however, 1080 (8.6%) were pediatric patients. The U09.9 code was used most often in the outpatient setting, although 305 older adults (14.0%) were inpatients. Only 698 patients (5.5%) had at least 1 of the 5 codes listed as possible concurrent conditions in the coding guidance. Only 8879 patients (70.4%) had a documented acute COVID-19 diagnosis code (569 [52.7%] among children), and the median (IQR) time between acute COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 diagnosis codes was 56 (21-200) days. The most common concurrently coded conditions varied by age; children experienced COVID-19-like symptoms (eg, 207 [19.2%] had cough and 115 [10.6%] had breathing abnormalities), while 459 older adults aged 65 years or older (21.1%) experienced respiratory failure and 189 (8.7%) experienced viral pneumonia. Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study found patients with a post-COVID-19 ICD-10-CM diagnosis code following the acute phase of COVID-19 disease among patients of all ages in clinical practice in the US. The use of the U09.9 code encompassed a wide range of conditions. It will be important to monitor how the use of this code changes as the pandemic continues to evolve.

Health care resource utilization and costs among individuals with vs without Huntington disease in a US population.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the extent of health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with Huntington disease (HD) is vital for providers, decisionmakers, and payers to understand unmet treatment needs and to ensure limited resources can be used to benefit the maximum number of people with HD. OBJECTIVE: To quantify HCRU and costs for people with HD, overall and by disease stage, and compare these with non-HD controls. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial, Multi-State Medicaid, and Medicare Supplemental Databases from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2018. People with an HD claim between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were selected for this analysis and matched with non-HD controls for comparison. The HD cohort and the non-HD controls were exact matched on their follow-up duration and propensity score matched 1:4 to create the final analytical cohort. Index date was the first HD diagnosis for the HD cohort (proxy index date assigned to controls), and all individuals were required to have continuous enrollment for 12 or more months pre-index (baseline) and 3 or more months post-index. Proportions of all-cause HCRU (ie, outpatient visits, inpatient visits, emergency department visits, pharmacy fills, radiology visits, and physical/occupational therapy visits) in the 6-months post-index and HCRU counts and costs per patient per month (PPPM) over the entire follow-up were calculated for each cohort. RESULTS: A total of 2,473 individuals with HD and 9,522 matched non-HD controls were identified. HCRU in 6 months post-index was significantly greater in people with HD compared with non-HD controls for all health care service categories; P < 0.0001. The mean number of HCRU PPPM for all measured healthcare services was significantly higher in people with HD compared with non-HD controls (P < 0.001). Mean total costs (2018 USD PPPM) for the HD cohort ($2,260 [SD = $4,682]) were twice the total costs in the non-HD cohort ($1,056 [SD = $3,078]) (P < 0.0001) and were highest across all disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides current comprehensive HCRU and cost estimates in individuals with HD relative to those without the disease, thus demonstrating the high economic burden imposed by HD. DISCLOSURES: Dr Ta: Employment with Genentech (at time of study) and stock options with Roche; Dr To: Employment and stock options/dividends with Genentech; Dr Patel: Employment and stock options with Roche/Genentech; Dr Fuller: Employment with CHDI Management/CHDI Foundation; Mr Surinach: Employment with Genesis Research (which receives consulting fees from Genentech/Roche); Dr Abbass: Employment and stock options with Genentech; Dr Exuzides: Employment and stock options with Roche/Genentech; and Ms Luo: Employment with CHDI Management/CHDI Foundation. This study was funded by Genentech Inc. The authors thank Greg Rowe of Chrysalis Medical Communications for providing medical writing support, which was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines (http://www.ismpp.org/gpp3).

Cancer-of-Unknown-Primary-Origin: A SEER-Medicare Study of Patterns of Care and Outcomes among Elderly Patients in Clinical Practice.

Knowledge of contemporary patterns of cancer-of-unknown-primary-origin (CUP) diagnostic work-up, treatment, and outcomes in routine healthcare is limited. Thus, we examined data from elderly patients diagnosed with CUP in real-world US clinical practice. From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database, we included patients ≥ 66 years old with CUP diagnosed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. We analyzed baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, methods of diagnostic work-up (biopsy, immunohistochemistry, imaging), treatment-related factors, and survival. CUP diagnosis was histologically confirmed in 2813/4562 patients (61.7%). Overall, 621/4562 (13.6%) patients received anticancer pharmacotherapy; among these, 97.3% had a histologically confirmed tumor and 83.1% received all three procedures. Among those with a histologically confirmed tumor, increasing age, increasing comorbidity score, not receiving all three diagnostic measures, and having a not-further specified histologic finding of only 'malignant neoplasm' were all negatively associated with receipt of anticancer pharmacotherapy. Median overall survival was 1.2 months for all patients. Median time between CUP diagnosis and treatment initiation was 41 days. Limited diagnostic work-up was common and most patients did not receive anticancer pharmacotherapy. The poor outcomes highlight a substantial unmet need for further research into improving diagnostic work-up and treatment effectiveness in CUP.

Real-world outcomes among patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer with brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), incidence of brain metastases (BMs) is relatively high and increasing. Despite the high unmet need for patients with HER2+ MBC and BMs, real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes for these patients are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) among patients with HER2+ MBC with and without BMs in the United States. METHODS: This was a real-world retrospective cohort study in which adults diagnosed with HER2+ MBC between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2019, were identified in the Flatiron Health electronic health records database. The cohort was stratified by presence of BMs at MBC diagnosis (baseline) and before the initiation of each line of therapy (LOT). Key outcomes were OS and systemic therapy/regimen used within each LOT. An adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the impact of BMs on OS. RESULTS: Of 1,755 included patients, 173 (9.9%) had BMs at baseline. Trastuzumab+ pertuzumab-based regimens were the most common first- (n = 689, 44.3%) and second-line (n = 316, 35.3%) treatments for all patients. Among patients with BMs, trastuzumab emtansine was the most common third-line regimen (n = 18, 23.4%). Lapatinib-based regimens were used more frequently among patients with BMs but were used by less than 20% of patients with BMs within any LOT. Median OS was 22.3 and 37.3 months for patients with and without BMs at baseline, respectively. Patients with BMs had a higher risk of death compared with patients without BMs (HR, 3.2; 95% CI = 2.6-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: BMs are associated with an increased risk of mortality among patients with HER2+ MBC. Further studies are needed to evaluate the extent to which novel systemic therapies for HER2+ MBC address the unmet need among patients with BMs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Seagen Inc. Andres Forero-Torres is an employee of and owns stock in Seagen Inc. Kendra DeBusk is an employee of Seagen Inc. and owns stock in Seagen Inc. and Roche. Andy Surinach and Yutong Liu are employees of Genesis Research, which received funding from Seagen Inc. in connection with this study. At the time of this study, Chimeka Ike was an employee of Seagen Inc. and owns stock in Seagen Inc. At the time of this study, Nicolas Lindegger was an employee of Seagen Inc., Seagen International GmbH, and owns stock in Seagen Inc. and Roche. At the time of this study, Naomi Schwartz was a paid consultant to Seagen Inc.; she currently is an employee of and owns stock in Seagen Inc.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs in individuals with Huntington's disease by disease stage in a US population.

AIMS: To quantify healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs by disease stage in individuals with Huntington's disease (HD) in a US population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial, Multi-State Medicaid, and Medicare Supplemental Databases between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018. Individuals with an HD claim between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 were selected. Index date was the date of first HD diagnosis. Individuals were required to have continuous enrollment for ≥ 12 months pre-index, 3 months post-index, and have no pre-index HD claims. All-cause HRU and costs per patient per month (PPPM) (overall and stratified by disease stage) were assessed for individuals with HD. RESULTS: A total of 2,669 individuals with HD were identified. Of these, 1,432 (53.7%), 689 (25.8%), and 548 (20.5%) had early-, middle-, and late-stage HD at baseline, respectively. Mean HRU PPPM by post-index HD stage increased with disease stage for outpatient visits, pharmacy claims, and HD-related pharmacy claims (p < 0.05 for all). Mean inpatient visits and emergency room visits PPPM were highest in individuals with middle-stage HD (p <0.05 for all). Mean total all-cause healthcare cost PPPM for individuals with HD was $2,889, and it was significantly higher in middle-stage individuals, at $7,988, compared with early- and late-stage individuals, at $3,726 and $5,125, respectively; p <0.0001. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of disease staging information in administrative claims data, staging was based on the presence of clinical markers in claims. Our evaluations didn't include the indirect costs of HD, which may be substantial as HD typically affects people at their peak earning potential. CONCLUSIONS: HRU and costs of care are high among individuals with HD, particularly among those with middle- and late-stage disease. This indicates that the disease burden in HD increases with disease stage, highlighting the need for interventions that can slow or prevent disease progression.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Management of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected health care patterns and outcomes for patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) in 2020 compared with those diagnosed with mPDAC in 2019. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Flatiron Health database to identify adults diagnosed with mPDAC from March 1 to September 30, 2019 (pre-COVID-19 cohort) and March 1 to September 30, 2020 (post-COVID-19 cohort). Between-cohort comparisons included demographic and clinical characteristics and year-over-year data for diagnosis of mPDAC, newly treated patients, time to and types of first-line therapy, and adverse events (AEs) during first-line therapy. Overall survival (OS) and milestone survival rates were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to assess OS. RESULTS: Pre-COVID-19 (n = 923) and post-COVID-19 (n = 796) cohorts had similar baseline demographic characteristics. A smaller proportion of patients in the pre-COVID-19 cohort were initially diagnosed with stage IV disease versus the post-COVID-19 cohort (62.2% vs 69.7%). Between 2019 and 2020, there was a 13.8% decrease in diagnosis of mPDAC and a 13.0% decrease in newly treated patients. Median (interquartile range) times to first-line treatment were similar (21 [13-40] and 19 [12-32] days). Median OS (months) was significantly longer in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (8·4 [95% CI: 7·5, 9·0]) versus the post-COVID-19 cohort (6·1 [95% CI: 5·4, 6·9]; P < .001). Survival rates were higher in the pre-COVID-19 versus post-COVID-19 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, patients were initially diagnosed with PDAC at more advanced stages. While patients in both cohorts appeared to receive similar care, survival outcomes were adversely affected.

Real-world Impact of Age at Diagnosis on Treatment Patterns and Survival Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sixty-eight percent of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are 65 years and older. Older adults are under-represented in clinical trials and their care is complicated with multiple age-related conditions. Research suggests that older patients can experience meaningful responses to treatment for PDAC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics, rate of treatment, and survival outcomes of patients with metastatic PDAC (mPDAC) based on age at diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted for patients diagnosed with mPDAC between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2020, from the Flatiron Health database. Patients were stratified into 3 age groups: <70 years old, 70-79 years, and ≥80 years. The proportion of patients who received first-line therapy, the types of regimens received in the metastatic setting, overall survival (OS) from the start of treatment were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 8382 patients included, 71.3% (n = 5973) received treatment. Among patients who received treatment 55.5% (n = 3313) were aged <70 years at diagnosis, 33.0% (n = 1972) were 70-79 years, and 11.5% (n = 688) were ≥80 years. Patients ≥80 years of age were more likely to receive gemcitabine monotherapy and less likely to receive FOLFIRINOX. Among first-line treated patients, median OS significantly decreased with age. However, when comparing patients treated with the same first-line regimen, no significant differences in median OS were observed by age. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that older adults with mPDAC can benefit substantially by receiving appropriate levels of treatment.

Real-world safety and supportive care use of second-line 5-fluorouracil-based regimens among patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Chemotherapy-related adverse events (AEs) can negatively impact the care of patients. The prevention and management of AEs often require additional medications. This study evaluated the percentages of patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) undergoing second-line therapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens that experienced AEs during treatment and received medication to manage those AEs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational analysis utilizing the Flatiron Health database of adult patients with mPDAC who started second-line therapy between January 2016 and August 2020. The occurrence of diarrhea, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, neuropathy, and hematologic AEs including G3/G4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia was assessed. The use of concomitant medications including atropine and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 825 eligible patients, 29.0% (n = 239) received FOLFIRINOX, 24.0% (n = 198) received FOLFOX, 6.8% (n = 56) received FOLFIRI, and 40.2% (n = 332) received liposomal irinotecan-based regimens. FOLFIRI and FOLFIRINOX regimens were associated with the highest rates of anemia (16.1% and 15.5%), neutropenia (19.6% and 22.6%), and thrombocytopenia (14.3% and 9.6%). The liposomal irinotecan and FOLFOX regimens were associated with lower rates of anemia (11.8% and 12.1%), neutropenia (12.4% and 14.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.4% and 8.1%). G-CSF use was observed among 63.6%, 34.9%, 33.9%, and 44.9% of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Diarrhea was observed among 12.5%, 4.5%, 12.5%, and 10.2% of patients who were treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 14.9%, 12.6%, 10.5%, and 13.1% of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Atropine use was higher in patients treated with FOLFIRINOX and FOLFIRI (90.8% and 94.6%, respectively) than in patients treated with liposomal irinotecan-based regimens (75.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mPDAC who received second-line therapy, those who received liposomal irinotecan-based regimens had the lowest rates of anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia compared to FOLFIRI, FOLFIRINOX, and FOLFOX, while requiring a similar or lower level of medication to treat and manage those adverse events. Patients treated with FOLFIRI received the highest dose of pegfilgrastim to manage neutropenia. The results of this real-world analysis are consistent with prior evaluations of patients with mPDAC and highlight the importance of managing adverse events and associated cost implications.

The Current Landscape and Emerging Applications for Real-World Data in Diagnostics and Clinical Decision Support and its Impact on Regulatory Decision Making.

Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are becoming essential tools for informing regulatory decision making in health care and offer an opportunity for all stakeholders in the healthcare ecosystem to evaluate medical products throughout their lifecycle. Although considerable interest has been given to regulatory decisions supported by RWE for treatment authorization, especially in rare diseases, less attention has been given to RWD/RWE related to in vitro diagnostic (IVD) products and clinical decision support systems (CDSS). This review examines current regulatory practices in relation to IVD product development and discusses the use of CDSS in assisting clinicians to retrieve, filter, and analyze patient data in support of complex decisions regarding diagnosis and treatment. The review then explores how utilizing RWD could augment regulatory body understanding of test performance, clinical outcomes, and benefit-risk profiles, and how RWD could be leveraged to augment CDSS and improve safety, quality, and efficiency of healthcare practices. Whereas we present examples of RWD assisting in the regulation of IVDs and CDSS, we also highlight key challenges within the current healthcare system which are impeding the potential of RWE to be fully realized. These challenges include issues such as data availability, reliability, accessibility, harmonization, and interoperability, often for reasons specific to diagnostics. Finally, we review ways that these challenges are actively being addressed and discuss how private-public collaborations and the implementation of standardized language and protocols are working toward producing more robust RWD and RWE to support regulatory decision making.