Projecting long-term clinical outcomes with larotrectinib compared with immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer and differentiated thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is approved for patients with advanced NTRK gene fusion-positive solid tumors. Prior studies demonstrated promising results with larotrectinib compared with other systemic therapy. However, comparisons to checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab or pembrolizumab, have not been done. OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare expected life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eligible for larotrectinib vs patients with unknown NTRK gene fusion status on nivolumab or pembrolizumab. We also assessed patients with metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), as pembrolizumab may be considered in certain circumstances. METHODS: We developed partitioned survival models to project long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Larotrectinib survival data were derived from an updated July 2021 analysis of 21 adult patients (≥18 years of age) with metastatic NTRK gene fusion-positive NSCLC and 21 with DTC. Survival inputs for nivolumab and pembrolizumab were obtained from published articles. Progression-free and overall survival were estimated using survival distributions (Exponential, Weibull, Log-logistic, and Log-normal). Exponential fits were chosen based on goodness-of-fit and clinical plausibility. RESULTS: In NSCLC, larotrectinib resulted in gains of 5.87 and 5.91 LYs compared to nivolumab and pembrolizumab, respectively, which translated to gains of 3.53 and 3.56 QALYs. In DTC, larotrectinib resulted in a gain of 5.23 LYs and 4.24 QALYs compared to pembrolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In metastatic NSCLC and DTC, larotrectinib may produce substantial life expectancy and QALY gains compared to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Additional data with longer follow-up will further inform this comparison.

Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing.

PURPOSE: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) improves use of primary prophylactic CSF (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Among SOE sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization was done among intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the SOE. RESULTS: Overall, PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms; however, rates of PP-CSF use varied widely by site, ranging from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms; however, PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites. In the intermediate-risk substudy, PP-CSF was five-fold higher among sites randomized to SOE; however, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE. Despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF prescribing ranged from 0% to 33%. CONCLUSION: In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. Although the ability to opt out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power.

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk. RESULTS: Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) of First-Line Therapies (1L) for Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (la/mUC).

To compare efficacy outcomes for all approved and investigational first-line (1L) treatment regimens for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with standard of care (SOC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified phase 2 and 3 randomized trials investigating 1L treatment regimens in la/mUC published January 2001-September 2021. Three networks were formed based on cisplatin (cis) eligibility: cis-eligible/mixed (cis-eligible patients and mixed populations of cis-eligible/ineligible patients), cis-ineligible (strict; exclusively cis-ineligible patients), and cis-ineligible (wide; including studies with investigator's choice of carbo). Analyses examined comparative efficacy by hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratio (OR) for overall response rate (ORR), with 1L regimens vs. SOC. SOC was gemcitabine + cis (GemCis) or carboplatin (GemCarbo), cis-eligible/mixed network, and GemCarbo cis-ineligible networks. Of 1906 SLR identified citations, 55 trials were selected for data extraction. The NMA comprised 11, 6, and 8 studies in the cis-eligible/mixed, cis-ineligible (strict), cis-ineligible (wide) networks, respectively. In a meta-analysis of SOC control arms, median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) in months varied by network: 13.19 (12.43, 13.95) cis-eligible/mixed, 11.96 (10.43, 13.48) cis-ineligible (wide), and 9.74 (6.71, 12.76) cis-ineligible (strict). Most differences in OS, PFS, and ORR with treatment regimens across treatment networks were not statistically significant compared with SOC. Outcomes with current 1L regimens remain poor, and few significant improvements over SOC have been made, despite inclusion of recent clinical trial data, highlighting an unmet need in the la/mUC patient population.

Supporting Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology: A Genomic Testing Cost Calculator.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of high-throughput, gene panel-based, next-generation sequencing (NGS) into routine cancer care is widely supported, but hampered by concerns about cost. To inform policies regarding genomic testing strategies, we propose a simple metric, cost per correctly identified patient (CCIP), that compares sequential single-gene testing (SGT) vs. multiplex NGS in different tumor types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A genomic testing cost calculator was developed based on clinically actionable genomic alterations identified in the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets. Using sensitivity/specificity data for SGTs (immunohistochemistry, polymerase chain reaction, and fluorescence in situ hybridization) and NGS and marker prevalence, the number needed to predict metric was monetarized to estimate CCIP. RESULTS: At base case, CCIP was lower with NGS than sequential SGT for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, colorectal, gastric cancers, and cholangiocarcinoma. CCIP with NGS was also favorable for squamous NSCLC, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers, but with overlapping confidence intervals. CCIP favored SGT for prostate cancer. Alternate scenarios using different price estimates for each test showed similar trends, but with incremental changes in the magnitude of difference between NGS and SGT, depending on price estimates for each test. CONCLUSIONS: The cost to correctly identify clinically actionable genomic alterations was lower for NGS than sequential SGT in most cancer types evaluated. Decreasing price estimates for NGS and the rapid expansion of targeted therapies and accompanying biomarkers are anticipated to further support NGS as a preferred diagnostic standard for precision oncology.

Survival Outcomes of Patients With Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase Fusion-Positive Cancer Receiving Larotrectinib Versus Standard of Care: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Using Real-World Data.

PURPOSE: Larotrectinib, a highly specific tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor, previously demonstrated high response rates in single-arm trials of patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer, but there are limited data on comparative effectiveness against standard-of-care (SoC) regimens used in routine health care practice, before widespread adoption of TRK inhibitors as SoC for TRK fusion-positive cancers. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison, a validated methodology that balances population characteristics to facilitate cross-trial comparisons, was used to compare the overall survival (OS) of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from three larotrectinib trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431) were compared with published aggregate real-world data from patients with locally advanced/metastatic TRK fusion-positive cancer identified in the Flatiron Health/Foundation Medicine database. OS was defined as the time from advanced/metastatic disease diagnosis to death. After matching population characteristics, the analyses included (1) a log-rank test of equality to test whether the two groups were similar before larotrectinib initiation; and (2) estimation of treatment effect of larotrectinib versus non-TRK-inhibitor SoC. These analyses are limited to prognostic variables available in real-world data. RESULTS: Eighty-five larotrectinib patients and 28 non-TRK-inhibitor SoC patients were included in the analyses. After matching, log-rank testing showed no difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P = .31). After matching, larotrectinib was associated with a 78% lower risk of death, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.52]; P = .001); median OS was 39.7 months (95% CI: 16.4, NE [not estimable]) for larotrectinib and 10.2 months (95% CI: 7.2, 14.1) for SoC. CONCLUSION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses suggest longer OS with larotrectinib, compared with non-TRK-inhibitor SoC, in adult patients with TRK fusion-positive cancer.

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens. METHODS: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%). CONCLUSION: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines. Objective: To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021. Interventions: Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic. Results: A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus entrectinib for the treatment of metastatic NTRK gene fusion cancers.

Aim: To extrapolate clinical trial results to estimate and compare expected progression-free and overall life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) for larotrectinib and entrectinib in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and brain metastases prior to treatment with larotrectinib or entrectinib. Methods: A naive direct comparison of larotrectinib versus entrectinib was made using partitioned survival modeling methods from clinical trial data. Results: Larotrectinib resulted in an additional 1.58 LYs (1.17 QALYs), 5.81 LYs (2.02 QALYs) and 1.01 LYs in CRC, STS and baseline brain metastases, respectively, compared with entrectinib. Conclusion: Larotrectinib provided life expectancy and QALY gains compared with entrectinib. Additional studies will be beneficial as more patients are treated and survival data develop to better inform comparative effectiveness results.

Comparison of Alternative Methods to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Triangulation Approach Using Larotrectinib as a Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to investigate the economic value of tumor-agnostic therapies when only single-arm effectiveness data are available at launch by applying multiple methodologies to establish comparative effectiveness. METHODS: In the absence of direct comparative data, 3 methods were used to estimate the counterfactual: (1) a historical control based on a systematic literature review for each tumor site from the larotrectinib trials, (2) an intracohort comparison using the previous line of therapy time to progression from larotrectinib trials, and (3) a nonresponder control that applied outcomes for larotrectinib nonresponders. Cost-effectiveness was modeled using the partitioned survival approach. Stochastic parameter uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). A triangulated estimate of the mean cost-effectiveness result was generated combining all 3 counterfactual estimates. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were similar across the 3 methodologies in the deterministic analysis ranging from £83 868 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] £65 698-£107 668) to £104 922 per quality-adjusted life-year (95% UI £80 132-£139 658). PSA results for each method substantially overlapped when plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane. Weighting PSA results for each method equally in the triangulation method produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £95 587 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% UI £70 449-£137 431). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of direct comparative data, different methods of estimating a counterfactual are possible, each with strengths and limitations. Triangulating results across the methods provides a composite view of the total uncertainty and a more consistent estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the tumor-agnostic intervention compared with choosing a single method.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of semaglutide 2.4 mg for the treatment of adult patients with overweight and obesity in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence and associated public health burden of obesity has led to advancements in pharmaceuticals for weight management. Semaglutide 2.4 mg, an anti-obesity medication (AOM) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has demonstrated clinically relevant weight loss in its phase 3 clinical trials. Economic evaluation comparing semaglutide 2.4 mg with other available weight management therapies is essential to inform payers for decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 2.4 mg in the treatment of adult patients with obesity (ie, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30) and adult patients who are overweight (ie, BMI 27-29.9) with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort Markov model was constructed to compare semaglutide 2.4 mg with the following comparators: no treatment, diet and exercise (D&E), and 3 branded AOMs (liraglutide 3 mg, phentermine-topiramate, and naltrexone-bupropion). All AOMs, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, were assumed to be taken in conjunction with D&E. Changes in BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol level, experience of acute and chronic obesity-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were simulated over 30 years based on pivotal trials of the AOMs and other relevant literature. Drug and health care prices reflect 2021 standardized values. Cost-effectiveness was examined with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to plausible variation in model inputs. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to improve QALYs by 0.138 to 0.925 and incur higher costs by $3,254 to $25,086 over the 30-year time horizon vs comparators. Semaglutide 2.4 mg is cost-effective against all comparators at the prespecified WTP threshold, with the incremental cost per QALY gained ranging from $23,556 to $144,296 per QALY gained. In the sensitivity analysis, extended maximum treatment duration, types of subsequent treatment following therapy discontinuation, and weight-rebound rates were identified as key drivers for model results. The estimated probability of semaglutide 2.4 mg being cost-effective compared with comparators ranged from 67% to 100% when varying model parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: As a long-term weight management therapy, semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to be cost-effective compared with no treatment, D&E alone, and all other branded AOM comparators under a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained over a 30-year time horizon. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this research was provided by Novo Nordisk Inc. The study sponsor was involved in several aspects of the research, including the study design, the interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Kim and Ms Ramasamy are employees of Novo Nordisk Inc. Ms Kumar and Dr Burudpakdee were employees of Novo Nordisk Inc at the time this study was conducted. Dr Sullivan received research support from Novo Nordisk Inc for this study. Drs Wang, Song, Wu, Ms Xie, and Ms Sun are employees of Analysis Group, Inc, who received consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk Inc in connection with this study.

The potential long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs standard of care for treatment of metastatic TRK fusion thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is approved for patients with metastatic TRK fusion cancers, including differentiated thyroid (DTC), colorectal cancer (CRC), and soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Given the basket clinical trial design of larotrectinib, direct comparisons against standard of care in each of the mentioned cancers have not been assessed. Also, owing to the limited duration of follow-up in clinical trials, long-term outcomes for treatments are generally not known or estimated. OBJECTIVE: To compare expected life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients with metastatic DTC, CRC, and STS who are eligible to receive larotrectinib against patients with unknown NTRK gene fusion status receiving standard-of-care therapy. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to estimate the long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and standard of care for 3 tumor types. Larotrectinib survival data, assessed by independent review committee, were derived from an updated July 2020 analysis of 19, 8, and 23 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with metastatic TRK fusion DTC, CRC, and STS, respectively. The DTC survival data also included 2 patients aged less than 18 years for a total of 21 patients. Survival estimates for standard of care were derived from published clinical trials. Progressionfree and overall survival for all treatments were estimated using survival distributions (Exponential, Weibull, Log-logistic, and Lognormal) fit to the available data. The final exponential form was selected based on goodness-of-fit and clinical plausibility. QALYs were estimated by adjusting the time spent in the preprogression and postprogression health states by utility weights derived from publicly available literature. RESULTS: Patients receiving larotrectinib experienced more LYs and QALYs compared with those receiving standard-of-care treatments across all 3 assessed cancer types. In DTC, patients receiving larotrectinib had 7.15-8.26 additional LYs (5.87-6.12 QALYs); in CRC, patients receiving larotrectinib had 1.26-1.27 additional LYs (1.00 QALYs); and in STS, patients receiving larotrectinib had 5.56 additional LYs (1.99 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard of care in metastatic TRK wild-type cancers, larotrectinib is estimated to result in improved LY and QALY outcomes based on parametric extrapolations of intrial survival data. Because patient-level data were unavailable for adjusted analyses, a cross-trial comparison was performed. Given the limitations of this analytic approach and the small sample size for larotrectinib in trials, future studies should reassess the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib vs standard of care as treated patients accrue and long-term survival data mature. DISCLOSURES: K. Suh, J. Carlson, and S. Sullivan report consulting fees from Bayer US LLC. F. Xia and T. Williamson are employees of Bayer US LLC. This study was funded by Bayer US LLC. The sponsor had no role in the design of the study and did not have any role in the execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results.

Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.

BACKGROUND: Cancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions. METHODS: The order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems. RESULTS: The average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596 , registered April 5, 2016.

Diagnosis and management of TRK fusion cancer.

The tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) family of proteins is encoded by neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) genes and has a role in the development and normal functioning of the nervous system. NTRK gene fusions have been identified as oncogenic drivers in a wide range of tumors in both adult and pediatric patients. There has recently been a paradigm shift in cancer treatment toward biomarker-based targeted therapies, as an increasing number of actionable targets are being identified across different tumors and/or tumor histologies. These targeted agents offer greater comparative effectiveness and safety vs historical nontargeted standard therapies. The development of drugs that specifically target oncogenic drivers of cancer has led to the emergence of screening technologies to identify the patients most likely to benefit from targeted therapy. This review describes the role of NTRK gene fusions in cancer and outlines the epidemiology of NTRK gene fusions, the therapeutic benefits of targeting TRK fusions with small molecule inhibitors, and recommendations for NTRK gene fusion testing in adult and pediatric patients with cancer, in order to guide treatment decisions.

Comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and entrectinib for TRK fusion cancer.

Larotrectinib and entrectinib are tumor-agnostic tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors that are indicated for the treatment of advanced or metastatic solid tumor cancers with neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions. Regulatory approval of both agents was based on data from single-arm phase 1/2 studies, including tumor-agnostic basket trials. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, there remains a paucity of data to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and entrectinib vs established standard-of-care treatments in cancers with NTRK gene fusions. Furthermore, no studies have directly compared the 2 agents. This article reviews what is known about the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib and entrectinib vs standard therapies in TRK fusion cancer and examines the comparative effectiveness of the 2 TRK inhibitors. Historical and intrapatient comparisons suggest that TRK inhibitors improve disease response compared with preexisting treatments across most tumor histologies; indirect and limited comparisons of phase 1/2 data and preliminary simulation modeling suggest a potential advantage for larotrectinib over entrectinib in terms of clinical response and survival. Although limited, these data provide some insight into the position of these treatments in established treatment paradigms for TRK fusion cancer, a setting where real-world evidence will be slow to accrue due to the rare nature of these tumors but may be the only way in the future to answer the outstanding questions regarding these 2 agents. Meanwhile, we need to try to obtain the maximum benefit that can be achieved for our patients using the currently available knowledge.

Estimating Long-Term Survival Outcomes for Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: Larotrectinib Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is a precision oncology treatment for solid tumors with neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions. Larotrectinib efficacy has been evaluated in single-arm basket trials with limited follow-up and sample sizes at the initial regulatory approval due to the rarity of solid tumors with NTRK gene fusion. OBJECTIVES: We aim to demonstrate that trends in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in survival data with longer follow-up may be predicted from long-term survival estimates from survival data with shorter follow-up, including predictions for median survival when it is not observed in the trial. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from 3 clinical trials (NCT02122913, NCT02576431, and NCT02637687) using the 2018 and 2020 data cuts for the same subset of pediatric and adult patients. The Weibull distribution was selected for survival models. Survival predictions using 2018 data were compared to 2020 Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients representing 15 tumor types were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 37 years. When comparing PFS from the 2018 survival prediction to observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month PFS rate was identical (66.6%). The 36-month PFS rate was lower for the 2018 prediction (35.3%) compared to 2020 KM data (44.4%). The median OS had not yet been reached in either data cut but was predicted to be 90 months using the 2018 data. When comparing OS from the 2018 survival prediction to the observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month OS rate was 89.0% and 86.6% and the 48-month OS rate was 67.2% and 63.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Long-term PFS predictions deviated from observed PFS rates due to response differences across tumor types and heavy censoring towards the end of the survival curve. However, for OS, the 48-month survival prediction was consistent with the observed 2020 KM estimate.

Application of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to Evaluate New Laboratory Tests in a Health System: A Case Study of Bladder Cancer Testing.

We describe the methods and decision from a health technology assessment of a new molecular test for bladder cancer (Cxbladder), which was proposed for adoption to our send-out test menu by urology providers. The Cxbladder health technology assessment report contained mixed evidence; predominant concerns were related to the test's low specificity and high cost. The low specificity indicated a high false-positive rate, which our laboratory formulary committee concluded would result in unnecessary confirmatory testing and follow-up. Our committee voted unanimously to not adopt the test system-wide for use for the initial diagnosis of bladder cancer but supported a pilot study for bladder cancer recurrence surveillance. The pilot study used real-world data from patient management in the scenario in which a patient is evaluated for possible recurrent bladder cancer after a finding of atypical cytopathology in the urine. We evaluated the type and number of follow-up tests conducted including urine cytopathology, imaging studies, repeat cystoscopy evaluation, biopsy, and repeat Cxbladder and their test results. The pilot identified ordering challenges and suggested potential use cases in which the results of Cxbladder affected a change in management. Our health technology assessment provided an objective process to efficiently review test performance and guide new test adoption. Based on our pilot, there were real-world data indicating improved clinician decision-making among select patients who underwent Cxbladder testing.

The Potential Long-Term Comparative Effectiveness of Larotrectinib and Entrectinib for Second-Line Treatment of TRK Fusion-Positive Metastatic Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib and entrectinib are FDA-approved therapies for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase gene fusion (TRK fusion-positive) whose cancer has metastasized and progressed. Early evidence indicates that these targeted therapies may offer dramatic survival benefits versus traditional cytotoxic regimens, but it remains uncertain how larotrectinib and entrectinib compare with each other. OBJECTIVE: To simulate and compare expected life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for both TRK inhibitors. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to project the long-term comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus entrectinib in second-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Larotrectinib survival data were derived from a 13-month follow-up of 12 patients with TRK fusion-positive NSCLC in the NCT02122913 (phase 1) and NCT02576431 (NAVIGATE) trials. Entrectinib survival data were derived from a 13-month follow-up of 10 patients with TRK fusion-positive NSCLC in the ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1, and STARTRK-2 trials. For larotrectinib and entrectinib progression-free survival and overall survival (OS), in-trial survival was extrapolated using parametric curve fits. Exponential fits were selected for all survival models based on minimal Bayesian information criteria and clinical plausibility. Lifetime survival curves were used to estimate expected mean/median survival. QALYs were estimated by applying preprogression and postprogression health state utilities derived from the literature. RESULTS: In the base case, treatment with larotrectinib and entrectinib resulted in 5.4 and 1.2 median preprogression life-years and 7.0 and 1.8 median total life-years, respectively. Mean preprogression life-years (QALYs) were 7.5 (5.0) and 1.9 (1.2), and mean total life-years (QALYs) were 9.2 (5.8) and 4.4 (2.4), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among TRK inhibitors for metastatic NSCLC, larotrectinib is estimated to provide improved life-year and QALY outcomes versus entrectinib based on parametric extrapolations of in-trial survival data. Our analysis is limited by lack of NSCLC-specific data on entrectinib OS, the small samples of patients with NSCLC in the trials, and a cross-trial comparison. Future studies should re-evaluate the comparative effectiveness of larotrectinib versus entrectinib as more patients are treated and as long-term survival data mature. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by Bayer Healthcare, which reviewed the manuscript drafts, and employees contributed to the manuscript as coauthors. Xia and Williamson are employees of Bayer Healthcare. Roth, Carlson, and Sullivan are consultants to Bayer Healthcare and retain rights to all final revisions to the manuscript. Carlson also reports fees from Adaptive Biotechnologies, unrelated to this work. Roth reports consulting fees from BMS, unrelated to this work.

Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care.

BACKGROUND: The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has engaged an External Stakeholder Advisory Group (ESAG) in the planning and implementation of the TrACER Study (S1415CD), a five-year pragmatic clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of a guideline-based colony stimulating factor standing order intervention. The trial is being conducted by SWOG through the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program in 45 clinics. The ESAG includes ten patient partners, two payers, two pharmacists, two guideline experts, four providers and one medical ethicist. This manuscript describes the ESAG's role and impact on the trial. METHODS: During early trial development, the research team assembled the ESAG to inform plans for each phase of the trial. ESAG members provide feedback and engage in problem solving to improve trial implementation. Each year, members participate in one in-person meeting, web conferences and targeted email discussion. Additionally, they complete a survey that assesses their satisfaction with communication and collaboration. The research team collected and reviewed stakeholder input from 2014 to 2018 for impact on the trial. RESULTS: The ESAG has informed trial design, implementation and dissemination planning. The group advised the trial's endpoints, regimen list and development of cohort and usual care arms. Based on ESAG input, the research team enhanced patient surveys and added pharmacy-related questions to the component application to assess order entry systems. ESAG patient partners collaborated with the research team to develop a patient brochure and study summary for clinic staff. In addition to identifying recruitment strategies and patient-oriented platforms for publicly sharing results, ESAG members participated as co-authors on this manuscript and a conference poster presentation highlighting stakeholder influence on the trial. The annual satisfaction survey results suggest that ESAG members were satisfied with the methods, frequency and target areas of their engagement in the trial during project years 1-3. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse stakeholder engagement has been essential in optimizing the design, implementation and planned dissemination of the TrACER Study. The lessons described in the manuscript may assist others to effectively partner with stakeholders on clinical research.

Treatment Patterns, Overall Survival, and Total Healthcare Costs of Advanced Merkel Cell Carcinoma in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive type of cancer with poor outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment patterns, overall survival, and healthcare costs associated with advanced MCC (aMCC) using data from Medicare enrollees who received an aMCC diagnosis in the USA States between 2006 and 2013. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 2006 to 2013 were used to describe treatment patterns, 1- and 5-year overall survival, and total healthcare costs for the periods 12 months before aMCC diagnosis and 4-12 months afterward in patients aged ≥ 65 years. RESULTS: We identified 257 patients with an aMCC diagnosis, of whom 51% had stage IIIb disease and 49% had stage IV. Within 4 months after diagnosis, 84% of patients (n = 216) received treatment; 45% (n = 115) received surgery, 48% (n = 124) radiation therapy, and 31% (n = 80) chemotherapy. Second-line chemotherapy was administered in 33% of patients (n = 26) receiving first-line chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 27 months in patients whose aMCC was diagnosed at stage IIIb and 12 months in patients whose aMCC was diagnosed at stage IV. Median total 12-month direct healthcare costs were US$48,006 (25th-75th percentile range = US$30,594-US$69,797) per patient. Total costs were highest in patients receiving chemotherapy, either alone or combined with radiation and/or surgery (US$52,854; 25th-75th percentile range = US$34,473-US$71,987). CONCLUSION: Most patients with aMCC received initial treatment, including surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy, and approximately one-third of those receiving chemotherapy received second-line chemotherapy. Total 12-month direct healthcare costs were highest in patients who received chemotherapy alone or combined with radiation and/or surgery. These poor survival results and high treatment costs highlight the need for effective new aMCC therapies.