Comparative efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy versus immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, in the absence of head-to-head trials, it is unclear whether chemoimmunotherapy provides an additional overall survival (OS) benefit compared with immunotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors conducted a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy versus ICI. METHODS: MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to April 2020. Phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy of first-line ICI or chemoimmunotherapy and reporting efficacy outcomes (OS, progression-free survival [PFS], and the overall response rate [ORR]) stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status were included. NMA with a Bayesian random effects model was performed. RESULTS: A total of 12 eligible trials comprising 7845 patients were included. In patients who were negative for PD-L1 (tumor proportion score [TPS] <1%), NMA comparing chemoimmunotherapy with dual-agent ICI failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference with regard to OS, PFS, or the ORR. In patients with low PD-L1 (TPS 1%-49%), there was no statistically significant difference observed between chemoimmunotherapy compared with either single-agent ICI or dual-agent ICI with regard to OS or the ORR. In patients with high PD-L1 (TPS ≥50%), chemoimmunotherapy was found to be associated with an improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent ICI, but not with dual-agent ICI. No differences in OS were observed with chemoimmunotherapy when compared with either single-agent or dual-agent ICIs. CONCLUSIONS: Although chemoimmunotherapy appears to improve the ORR and PFS in patients with PD-L1-high tumors when compared with single-agent ICI, it does not appear to confer an OS benefit over single-agent or dual-agent ICI for patients with advanced NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 status. Prospective trials are needed to validate these findings.

Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. METHODS: In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57-76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53-2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07-2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03-2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33-15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11-7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77-9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79-4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07-0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28-0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. FUNDING: American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Patients with Cancer: Experience in a Latin American Country: The ACHOCC-19 Study.

INTRODUCTION: The ACHOCC-19 study was performed to characterize COVID-19 infection in a Colombian oncological population. METHODOLOGY: Analytical cohort study of patients with cancer and COVID-19 infection in Colombia. From April 1 to October 31, 2020. Demographic and clinical variables related to cancer and COVID-19 infection were collected. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality from all causes. The association between the outcome and the prognostic variables was analyzed using logistic regression models and survival analysis with Cox regression. RESULTS: The study included 742 patients; 72% were >51 years. The most prevalent neoplasms were breast (132, 17.77%), colorectal (92, 12.34%), and prostate (81, 10.9%). Two hundred twenty (29.6%) patients were asymptomatic and 96 (26.3%) died. In the bivariate descriptive analysis, higher mortality occurred in patients who were >70 years, patients with lung cancer, ≥2 comorbidities, former smokers, receiving antibiotics, corticosteroids, and anticoagulants, residents of rural areas, low socioeconomic status, and increased acute-phase reactants. In the logistic regression analysis, higher mortality was associated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 3 (odds ratio [OR] 28.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.2-99.6); ECOG PS 4 (OR 20.89; 95% CI, 3.36-129.7); two complications from COVID-19 (OR 5.3; 95% CI, 1.50-18.1); and cancer in progression (OR 2.08; 95% CI, 1.01-4.27). In the Cox regression analysis, the statistically significant hazard ratios (HR) were metastatic disease (HR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.16-2.16), cancer in progression (HR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.24-2.61) cancer in partial response (HR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.88), use of steroids (HR 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01-2.06), and use of antibiotics (HR 2.11; 95% CI, 1.47-2.95). CONCLUSION: In our study, patients with cancer have higher mortality due to COVID-19 infection if they have active cancer, metastatic or progressive cancer, ECOG PS >2, and low socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study's findings raise the need to carefully evaluate patients with metastatic cancer, in progression, and with impaired Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status to define the relevance of cancer treatment during the pandemic, consider the risk/benefit of the interventions, and establish clear and complete communication with the patients and their families about the risk of complications. There is also the importance of offering additional support to patients with low income and residence in rural areas so that they can have more support during cancer treatment.

Outcomes associated with immune-related adverse events in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab: a pooled exploratory analysis from a global cohort.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) comprise a distinct spectrum of auto-inflammatory manifestations triggered due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Current data on the association of irAEs with outcomes in NSCLC treated with nivolumab are limited. METHODS AND OBJECTIVES: We pooled data from 531 metastatic NSCLC patients from five centers treated with nivolumab after failing platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary objective was to investigate the relationship between irAEs with clinical benefit to nivolumab as well as to elucidate patterns of irAE-related ICI discontinuations and their impact on survival. RESULTS: 33.0% (173/531) of patients treated with nivolumab were noted to have an irAE. Patients with irAEs had a significantly longer median PFS [6.1 vs. 3.1 months, HR 0.68 95% CI (0.55-0.85); p = 0.001] and OS [14.9 vs. 7.4 months, HR 0.66 95% CI (0.52-0.82); p < 0.001)] compared to those without irAEs. In multivariate analysis, the presence of irAEs showed a significantly better PFS [HR 0.69, 95% CI (0.55-0.87); p = 0.002] and a trend for better OS [HR 0.62, 95% CI (0.55-1.03); p = 0.057]. Patients with permanent ICI discontinuation secondary to index irAE had a significantly shorter median PFS [2.3 vs. 6.6 months, HR 1.74 95% CI (1.06-2.80); p = 0.02] and median OS [3.6 vs. 17.6 months; HR 2.61 95% CI (1.61-4.21); p < 0.001] compared to those that did not have permanent ICI discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Our pooled exploratory analysis demonstrates improved clinical benefit to nivolumab in NSCLC patients experiencing irAEs. We also observed negative impact of irAE-related treatment discontinuation on survival in this group of patients.

Correction to: Outcomes associated with immune-related adverse events in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab: a pooled exploratory analysis from a global cohort.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The second sentence of the section "irAEs and ICI efficacy" should read as.

The Concept of Biosimilars: From Characterization to Evolution-A Narrative Review.

Biologic agents are currently the fastest emerging segment of drug expenditure. Unlike chemically synthesized small-molecule drugs, biologics are more complex, medicinal products produced by a living organism. They have become part of the standard of care in the treatment of a large variety of diseases, such as growth disorders, autoimmune diseases, cancer, cardiovascular illnesses, hemophilia, and rare genetic conditions, to name a few. Biosimilars, which are copies of biologics that are highly similar, were introduced in the market with an aim to offer efficacy that is not clinically different from the originator or reference product, at lower prices. We aim to clarify the concept of biosimilar, from definitions, history, market entry, challenges faced, and future evolution. For that purpose, we performed a literature search on the sites of the medicines regulatory agencies and PubMed from 1990 to 2014 with the keywords "biosimilars," "market," and "regulatory." In 2006, the first biosimilar, somatropin [rDNA origin], was marketed and led the way for biosimilar drug manufacturing. As a result, manufacturers have entered a diversified competition, facing challenges in manufacturing these complex agents, such as immunogenicity and efficiency. Biosimilars are set to evolve differently in various markets, namely the U.S., Japan, the European Union, and the "pharmerging" economies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article highlights the importance of biosimilars, as a cost-cutting strategy, in the delivery of state-of-the-art health care in developing countries, at a fraction of what a reference biological agent would cost.

Economic evaluation of sequencing strategies in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Mexico: a contrast between public and private payer perspectives.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in Mexico. A large proportion of Mexican patients present with advanced disease, and 25% have HER2-positive tumors. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequencing strategies of HER2-targeted agents in Mexico according to various payer perspectives. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2-targeted treatment sequences among patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer treated in Mexico according to three public and one private payer perspectives. Patients were followed weekly over their remaining life expectancies within the model. Health states considered were progression-free survival (PFS) 1st-3rd lines, and death. Transition probabilities between states were based on published trials. Cost data were obtained from official publications from Mexican healthcare institutions. The evaluated outcomes were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the public payer perspective, sequences containing pertuzumab or T-DM1 were not cost-effective when compared with a sequence including the combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab, even when utilizing alternate definitions for willingness to pay thresholds. In the private payer perspective, a sequence containing T-DM1 but not pertuzumab proved cost-effective at a lower clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In Mexico, the use of at least three lines of trastuzumab in combination with other therapies, but not with pertuzumab or TDM-1, represents the most cost-effective option for patients covered by the public healthcare system, and this sequence should be made available for all patients.

Cervical cancer control in Latin America: A call to action.

Cervical cancer (CC) is second most common cause of cancer in Latin America and is a leading cause of cancer mortality among women. In 2015, an estimated 74,488 women will be diagnosed with CC in Latin America and 31,303 will die of the disease. CC mortality is projected to increase by 45% by 2030 despite human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and screening efforts. In this setting, the goal was of the current study was to examine CC control efforts in Latin America and identify deficiencies in these efforts that could be addressed to reduce CC incidence and mortality. The authors found that HPV vaccination has been introduced in the majority of Latin American countries, and there is now a need to monitor the success (or shortcomings) of these programs and to ensure that these programs are sustainable. This topic was also reviewed in light of emerging data demonstrating that visual inspection with acetic acid and HPV DNA testing without Papanicolaou tests have efficacy from a screening perspective and are good alternatives to cytology-based screening programs. Overall, there is a need to build capacity for CC control in Latin America and the best strategy will depend on the country/region and must be tailored to meet the needs of the population as well as available resources.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: Based on available phase III trial data, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies that can be used in patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2 targeted treatment sequences in patients with HER2-positive mBC treated in the U.S. The model followed patients weekly over their remaining life expectancies. Health states considered were progression-free survival (PFS) 1st to 3rd lines, and death. Transitional probabilities were based on published phase III trials. Cost data (2015 US dollars) were captured from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) drug payment table and physician fee schedule. Health utility data were extracted from published studies. The outcomes considered were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, the incremental cost per QALY gained ratio, and the net monetary benefit. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty around key model parameters and their joint impact on the base-case results. RESULTS: The combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and docetaxel (THP) as first-line therapy, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) as second-line therapy, and lapatinib/capecitabine third-line resulted in 1.81 QALYs, at a cost of $335,231.35. The combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab yielded 1.41 QALYs, at a cost of $175,240.69. The least clinically effective sequence (1.27 QALYs), but most cost-effective at a total cost of $149,250.19, was trastuzumab/docetaxel as first-line therapy, T-DM1 as second-line therapy, and trastuzumab/lapatinib as third-line therapy. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that THP as first-line therapy, followed by T-DM1 as second-line therapy, would require at least a 50 % reduction in the total drug acquisition cost for it to be considered a cost-effective strategy.

Progress and remaining challenges for cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide, and an increasing threat in low-income and middle-income countries. Our findings in the 2013 Commission in The Lancet Oncology showed several discrepancies between the cancer landscape in Latin America and more developed countries. We reported that funding for health care was a small percentage of national gross domestic product and the percentage of health-care funds diverted to cancer care was even lower. Funds, insurance coverage, doctors, health-care workers, resources, and equipment were also very inequitably distributed between and within countries. We reported that a scarcity of cancer registries hampered the design of credible cancer plans, including initiatives for primary prevention. When we were commissioned by The Lancet Oncology to write an update to our report, we were sceptical that we would uncover much change. To our surprise and gratification much progress has been made in this short time. We are pleased to highlight structural reforms in health-care systems, new programmes for disenfranchised populations, expansion of cancer registries and cancer plans, and implementation of policies to improve primary cancer prevention.

Incidence and predictors of anticipatory nausea and vomiting in Asia Pacific clinical practice--a longitudinal analysis.

PURPOSE: Some patients experience nausea and/or vomiting (NV) before receipt of chemotherapy. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of prior chemotherapy-induced NV (CINV) on the incidence of anticipatory NV in later cycles. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective non-interventional study enrolled chemotherapy-naïve adults scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries, excluding those with emesis within 24 h before cycle 1 chemotherapy. On day 1 before chemotherapy, patients answered four questions regarding emesis in the past 24 h, nausea, expectation of post-chemotherapy nausea, and anxiety in the past 24 h, the latter three scored from 0-10 (none-maximum). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of prior CINV on anticipatory NV in cycles 2 and 3. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-eight patients (59% female) were evaluable in cycle 2 (49% HEC, 51% MEC). The incidence of anticipatory emesis was low before cycles 2 and 3 (1.5-2.3%). The incidence of clinically significant anticipatory nausea (score of ≥3) was 4.8, 7.9, and 8.3% before cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with adjusted odds ratio (OR), 3.95 (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.23-7.00; p < 0.001) for patients with clinically significant nausea in prior cycles, compared with none. The adjusted ORs for other anticipatory NV endpoints ranged from 4.54-4.74 for patients with prior CINV. The occurrence of clinically significant anxiety in the prior cycle also resulted in a significantly increased likelihood of anticipatory nausea. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of preventing CINV in cycle 1 to reduce anticipatory NV in subsequent cycles.

International Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Durvalumab in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Standard of care for unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) involves definitive chemoradiotherapy followed by maintenance therapy with durvalumab. However, the cost of durvalumab has been cited as a barrier to its use in various health systems. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab vs placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from 4 international payer perspectives (US, Brazil, Singapore, and Spain). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was designed to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of maintenance durvalumab for unresectable stage III NSCLC with that of placebo, using 5-year outcomes data from the PACIFIC randomized placebo-controlled trial. Individual patient data were extracted from the PACIFIC, KEYNOTE-189, ADAURA, ALEX, and REVEL randomized clinical trials to develop a decision-analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared with placebo maintenance therapy over a 10-year time horizon. Direct costs, adverse events, and patient characteristics were based on country-specific payer perspectives and demographic characteristics. The study was conducted from June 1, 2022, through December 27, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds ([data reported in US$] US: $150 000 per QALY; Brazil: $22 251 per QALY; Singapore: $55 288 per QALY, and Spain: $107 069 per QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameters of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed. Results: The US base-case model found that treatment with durvalumab was associated with an increased cost of $114 394 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $228 788 per QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, according to base-case models, were $141 146 for Brazil, $153 461 for Singapore, and $125 193 for Spain. Durvalumab price adjustments to the PACIFIC data improved cost-effectiveness in Singapore, with an ICER of $45 164. The model was most sensitive to the utility of durvalumab. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab as maintenance therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC, the therapy was found to be cost-prohibitive from the perspective of various international payers according to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY. The findings of the study suggest that discounted durvalumab acquisition costs, as possible in Singapore, might improve cost-effectiveness globally.

Pharmacoeconomic issues in head and neck oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite medical advances, the global incidence, morbidity and mortality associated with head and neck cancer remain high. Pharmacoeconomic analyses of chemotherapeutic options commonly used by head and neck oncologists are reviewed in context with current clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: From the British health system perspective, cetuximab with radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck was found to be cost-effective compared to single modality radiotherapy in patients with a good performance status, and in whom platinum agents are contraindicated. Induction chemotherapy with the three-drug regimen docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil is considered cost-effective when compared to the doublet cisplatin-5-fluorouracil from the British and Italian perspectives. However, it is unclear whether induction chemotherapy per se is effective when compared to chemoradiotherapy. Cetuximab with chemotherapy is not recommended from a British health perspective for patients with metastatic/recurrent disease, whereas it is the preferred regimen in commonly used guidelines in the US, where economic evaluations are not incorporated in the drug approval process. SUMMARY: The critical assessment and utilization of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, always in context with current clinical practice, should be further performed and promoted in head and neck oncology.

Management of colon cancer: resource-stratified guidelines from the Asian Oncology Summit 2012.

Colon cancer is seen with increasing frequency in the Asia-Pacific region, and it is one of the most important causes of cancer mortality worldwide. This article reviews the available evidence for optimum management of colon cancer-in particular, with respect to screening and early detection of colon cancer, laparoscopic surgical treatment, adjuvant treatment of individuals with high-risk stage II and stage III cancer, palliative treatment of patients with metastatic disease, and management of resectable and potentially resectable metastases-and how these strategies can be applied in Asian countries with different levels of health-care resources and economic development, stratified by basic, limited, enhanced, and maximum resource levels.

Mentorship Experiences Are Not All the Same: A Survey Study of Oncology Trainees and Early-Career Faculty.

PURPOSE: Physician workforce diversity can be a driver of institutional excellence, improving innovation and reducing health disparities. However, the current diversity of the hematology/oncology (HO) workforce does not reflect that of the US population. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of current trainees and faculty within 5 years of completing terminal training in oncology specialties. RESULTS: Of the 306 respondents, 64 (21%) were under-represented in medicine (URiM) and 161 (53%) identified as male. URiM participants were less likely to have a primary mentor (66%) than non-URiM participants (80%; P = .015). Among those who had a primary mentor, URiMs met less frequently (once every 3-6 months or less) with their mentor (19% v 7% non-URiM; P = .003). Furthermore, URiMs were more likely to report having mentors outside their own institution (47% v 40% non-URiM; P = .002) and making compromises to gain access to mentorship (36% v 23% non-URiM; P ≤ 0.001). URiMs were also less likely to apply for grants (34% v 42% non-URiM; P = .035) and awards (28% v 43% non-URiM; P = .019). In multivariable models, URiM individuals were more likely to make compromises to gain access to mentors (odds ratio [OR], 1.96; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.82) and this remained significant for females (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.26 to 3.75). CONCLUSION: URiM individuals may be less likely to have effective mentorship and apply for awards and grant support. Understanding the challenges of URiM trainees can help shape training environments in academic medicine to ensure that they are grounded in diversity, inclusion, and retention.

Disparities in Survival Due to Social Determinants of Health and Access to Treatment in US Patients With Operable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

Importance: Outcomes of localized malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) remain poor despite multimodality therapy. It is unclear what role disparities have in the overall survival (OS) of patients with operable MPM. Objective: To examine survival disparities associated with social determinants of health (SDOHs) and treatment access in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this observational, retrospective cohort study, patients with MPM diagnosed between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2017, were identified from the National Cancer Database with a maximum follow-up time of 13.6 years. The analysis was conducted from February 16, 2022, to July 29, 2022. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with potentially resectable clinical stage I to IIIA MPM, had epithelioid and biphasic histologic subtypes, and received chemotherapy. Patients were excluded if they could not receive curative surgery, were 75 years or older, or had metastasis, unknown stage, or tumor extension to the chest wall, mediastinal tissues, or organs. Exposures: Chemotherapy alone vs chemotherapy with curative surgery in the form of pleurectomy and decortication or extrapleural pneumonectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was OS. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) for OS, including univariable and multivariable models controlling for potential confounders, including demographic, comorbidity, clinical, treatment, tumor, and hospital-related variables, as well as SDOHs. Results: A total of 1389 patients with MPM were identified (median [IQR] age, 66 [61-70] years; 1024 [74%] male; 12 [1%] Asian, 49 [3%] Black, 74 [5%] Hispanic, 1233 [89%] White, and 21 [2%] of other race). The median OS was 1.7 years (95% CI, 1.6-1.8). Risk factors associated with worse OS included older age, male sex, Black race, low income, and low educational attainment. Factors associated with greater odds of survival included receipt of surgical therapy, recent year of treatment, increased distance to travel, and treatment at high-volume academic hospitals. The risk factors most strongly associated with poor OS included Black race (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.43-2.69) and male sex (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.38-1.86). Surgical treatment in addition to systemic chemotherapy (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81) was independently associated with improved OS, as were chemotherapy initiation (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99) and greater travel distance from the hospital (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of patients with operable MPM, there was significant variability in access to care by SDOHs. Addressing disparities in access to multimodality therapy can help ensure equity of care for patients with MPM.

Clinical Characteristics, Racial Inequities, and Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1,383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32 - 1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24-2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70 - 6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71-5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83 - 12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63 - 3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20 - 2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66 - 3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89 - 22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to Non-Hispanic White patients.

Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with cancer following two and three doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a retrospective observational study from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

Background: Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections following vaccination against COVID-19 are of international concern. Patients with cancer have been observed to have worse outcomes associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic. We sought to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after 2 or 3 doses of mRNA vaccines. Methods: We evaluated the clinical characteristics of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough infections using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19; NCT04354701). Analysis was restricted to patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed in 2021 or 2022, to allow for a contemporary unvaccinated control population; potential differences were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for potential baseline confounding variables. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with key secondary endpoints of hospitalization and ICU and/or mechanical ventilation (ICU/MV). Findings: The analysis included 2486 patients, of which 564 and 385 had received 2 or 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine prior to infection, respectively. Hematologic malignancies and recent receipt of systemic anti-neoplastic therapy were more frequent among vaccinated patients. Vaccination was associated with improved outcomes: in the primary analysis, 2 doses (aOR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.88) and 3 doses (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.36) were associated with decreased 30-day mortality. There were similar findings for the key secondary endpoints of ICU/MV (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82 and 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58) and hospitalization (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.75 and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.46) for 2 and 3 doses, respectively. Importantly, Black patients had higher rates of hospitalization (aOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.12-1.92), and Hispanic patients presented with higher rates of ICU/MV (aOR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.06-2.44). Interpretation: Vaccination against COVID-19, especially with additional doses, is a fundamental strategy in the prevention of adverse outcomes including death, among patients with cancer. Funding: This study was partly supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to C-YH, YS, SM, JLW; T32-CA236621 and P30-CA046592 to C.R.F; CTSA 2UL1TR001425-05A1 to TMW-D; ACS/FHI Real-World Data Impact Award, P50 MD017341-01, R21 CA242044-01A1, Susan G. Komen Leadership Grant Hunt to MKA. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH).

Cost-effectiveness of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing and first-line treatment with gefitinib for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing and first-line therapy with gefitinib for patients with activating mutations is quickly becoming the standard option for the treatment of advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Yet, to date, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of EGFR testing and first-line treatment with gefitinib for those patients who harbor activating mutations versus standard care, which includes first-line treatment with chemotherapy followed by gefitinib as second-line treatment. The model uses clinical and outcomes data from randomized clinical trials and societal costs from Singapore cancer centers. Health effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years. All costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed in 2010 Singapore dollars. Sensitivity and different scenarios analyses were conducted. RESULTS: EGFR testing and first-line treatment with gefitinib is a dominant strategy (with lower costs and greater effectiveness) compared with standard care. Because the primary savings result from not providing gefitinib to those who are not likely to benefit, this finding holds regardless of the prevalence of activating mutations. In a secondary analysis, first-line treatment with gefitinib was also dominant when compared with first-line chemotherapy in patients with activating EGFR mutations. CONCLUSIONS: This strategy can be considered a new standard of care and should be of great interest for health care payers and decision makers in an era in which our greatest challenge is to balance hard-won and incremental, yet small, improvements in patient outcomes with exponentially rising costs.

Lung cancer in never smokers: Distinct population-based patterns by age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

OBJECTIVES: Epidemiological patterns for lung cancer among never smokers (LCNS) are largely unknown, even though LCNS cases comprise 15% of lung cancers. Past studies were based on epidemiologic or health system cohorts, and not fully representative of the underlying population. The objective was to analyze rates (and trends) of LCNS by sex, age group, and race and ethnicity based on all-inclusive truly population-based sources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual-level data from 2014 to 2018 on smoking status among microscopically-confirmed lung cancer cases from Florida's cancer registry were combined with population denominators adjusted with NHIS data on smoking prevalence to compute population-based LCNS incidence rates and rate ratios. Incidence rates and proportional mortality were ranked against other cancers. Joinpoint regression analyses examined trends. RESULTS: Proportions of LCNS ranged from 9% among White men to 83% among Chinese women. Overall, LCNS was 13% (IRR 1.13, 95%CI 1.08-1.17) more common among men than women, but variation occurred by age group, with female rates exceeding male in younger ages. Age-adjusted rates per 100,000 were highest among Asian/Pacific Islander (API) men and women (15.3 and 13.5, respectively) and Black populations (14.6, 12.9), intermediate for White (13.2, 11.8) and lowest among the Hispanic population (12.1, 10.6). Among API women, LCNS was the second leading cause of cancer death, surpassed only by breast cancer. LCNS trends were stable over time. CONCLUSION: LCNS is the 11th most frequently occurring cancer in men and 8th in women. LCNS differences by race/ethnicity are small, within a 15% range of the White population's rates. Surprisingly, API men and women have the highest LCNS rates and proportional mortality. As smoking prevalence decreases in the US, LCNS cases will inevitably increase, warranting inquiry into risk factors across the lifespan.