The science and practice of current environmental risk assessment for gene therapy: a review.

Gene therapy is a fast-growing field showing great potential to treat genetic diseases and cancer. With accelerating gene therapy development and approval, their environment risk assessment (ERA) becomes increasingly important. An ERA is an assessment of the risks to human health and the environment upon exposure to a medicinal product as the result of its release during clinical development or after entering the market. Because ERA is an important component of regulatory submission, drug developers must perform a robust assessment to ensure the safety of unintended persons, animal, plants, microorganisms and environment at large. Global regulations on gene therapy ERA continue to evolve. Gene therapy ERAs are carried out according to general principles as provided in regulatory guidelines for application of clinical trials and marketing authorizations. The current review intends to summarize regulations and content requirements on gene therapy ERA in European Union, the USA and Japan. The approved gene therapy products by EMA and US Food and Drug Administration are analyzed for the critical aspects of their ERAs to provide the current status and practice of gene therapy ERAs by drug developers. For this purpose, the main contents of these gene therapy ERAs are summarized. Critical safety factors of gene therapy ERAs are described. With more experience and knowledge to be accumulated, gene therapy ERAs are expected to be less challenging with commonly used viral vectors.

Intense 18 F-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Uptake and Mild 18 F-FDG Uptake in a Biopsy-Proven Pulmonary Hemangioma.

ABSTRACT: We present intense radiotracer activity in a soft tissue density abutting the aortic arch of the left lung on 18 F-prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT scan in a patient with prostate cancer, mimicking metastatic disease from prostate cancer versus primary lung malignancy. 18 F-FDG PET/CT scan, however, shows no elevated FDG activity. The results of pathology examination from resected specimen are consistent with pulmonary hemangioma.

Inhibition of Polyinosinic-Polycytidylic Acid-Induced Acute Pulmonary Inflammation and NF-κB Activation in Mice by a Banana Plant Extract.

NF-κB activation is pivotal for the excess inflammation causing the critical condition and mortality of respiratory viral infection patients. This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of a banana plant extract (BPE) on suppressing NF-κB activity and acute lung inflammatory responses in mice induced by a synthetic double-stranded RNA viral mimetic, polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid (poly (I:C)). The inflammatory responses were analyzed by immunohistochemistry and HE stains and ELISA. The NF-κB activities were detected by immunohistochemistry in vivo and immunofluorescence and Western blot in vitro. Results showed that BPE significantly decreased influx of immune cells (neutrophils, lymphocytes, and total WBC), markedly suppressed the elevation of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines (IL-6, RANTES, IFN-γ, MCP-1, keratinocyte-derived chemokine, and IL-17), and restored the diminished anti-inflammatory IL-10 in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) of poly (I:C)-stimulated mice. Accordingly, HE staining revealed that BPE treatment alleviated poly (I:C)-induced inflammatory cell infiltration and histopathologic changes in mice lungs. Moreover, immunohistochemical analysis showed that BPE reduced the pulmonary IL-6, CD11b (macrophage marker), and nuclear NF-κB p65 staining intensities, whilst restored that of IL-10 in poly (I:C)-stimulated mice. In vitro, BPE antagonized poly(I:C)-induced elevation of IL-6, nitric oxide, reactive oxygen species, NF-κB p65 signaling, and transient activation of p38 MAPK in human lung epithelial-like A549 cells. Taken together, BPE ameliorated viral mimic poly(I:C)-induced acute pulmonary inflammation in mice, evidenced by reduced inflammatory cell infiltration and regulation of both pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. The mechanism of action might closely associate with NF-κB signaling inhibition.

Evaluating Oncologists' Practice Patterns and Decision-Making in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: The US Physician PARADIGM Study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) has evolved. This study examined US prescribing patterns and clinical decision-making for first-line (1L) and first-line maintenance (1LM) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: US-based oncologists (N = 150) completed an online survey on patient demographics, practice patterns, and important factors considered in 1L/1LM selection. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with more vs less frequent 1L/1LM prescribing. RESULTS: Physician reports estimated that 23% of patients with la/mUC had not received any systemic therapy in the previous 6 months; however, 46% received 1L, 32% received second-line, and 22% received subsequent-line systemic treatments. Of patients who were receiving 1L treatment, 72% were estimated to be receiving 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Around 69% of patients eligible for 1LM received the treatment. Physicians categorized as frequent prescribers reported overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and rate of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) as factors associated with 1L treatment selection (all P < .05). OS, rate of grade 3/4 immune-mediated AEs, and inclusion in institutional guidelines were reported as attributes used in 1LM treatment selection (all P < .05). Multivariable analysis revealed OS, DCR, and rate of grade 3/4 AEs as important factors in oncologists' 1L treatment selection; academic practice setting and use of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 were associated with 1LM use (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: OS and AEs were found to be relevant factors associated with offering 1L and 1LM treatment. Variability exists in physicians' decision-making in the real-world setting for la/mUC.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Receiving First-Line Systemic Treatment (the IMPACT UC I Study).

BACKGROUND: The IMPACT UC I study assessed real-world treatment patterns, outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receiving first-line (1L) systemic treatment after the FDA approval of 1L immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study used 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims from 1/1/2015 to 6/30/2019 to identify patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with UC with evidence of metastatic disease, continuously enrolled for 6 months before and after initial diagnosis. Patients were grouped by 1L treatment: cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy, or nonplatinum-containing therapy. Unadjusted time on 1L treatment (TOT), overall survival (OS), HCRU, and total healthcare costs were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 18 888 patients with mUC, 8630 (45.7%) had received identified 1L systemic treatment; platinum-containing chemotherapy was the most common (cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, 37.6%; carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, 30.2%). Cisplatin- and carboplatin-containing chemotherapy had the shortest time-to-treatment initiation (median, 1.7-3.0 months) and longest TOT (median, 4.0-4.3 months). Median OS was longest with cisplatin-containing chemotherapy (20.0 months) and shortest with ICI monotherapy (7.6 months). Cisplatin- and carboplatin-containing chemotherapy were associated with highest HCRU; total healthcare costs were approximately 2-fold higher with ICI monotherapy vs other 1L treatments ($10 359 vs $5042-$5709 per patient per month). CONCLUSION: 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy resulted in the longest median OS and highest HCRU, whereas 1L ICI treatment had the shortest median OS and the highest costs. Over 50% of patients diagnosed with advanced UC (aUC) received no systemic therapy, highlighting the importance of optimal 1L treatment decisions in aUC.

Complementary Role of 18 F-Fluciclovine PET/CT and 18 F-NaF PET/CT in Detecting Prostate Cancer Metastasis.

ABSTRACT: We present different findings on 18 F-fluciclovine (Axumin) PET/CT and 18 F-NaF PET/CT images in a patient with prostate cancer metastasis. 18 F-Fluciclovine PET/CT scan showed intense uptake in left adrenal gland metastasis, only faint to mild uptake in multiple sclerotic osseous metastasis where 18 F-NaF bone PET/CT demonstrated intense uptake at these sites. Both examinations are needed to accurately evaluate visceral and osseous metastasis from prostate cancer.

Non-small cell lung cancer with MET amplification: review of epidemiology, associated disease characteristics, testing procedures, burden, and treatments.

Introduction: Mesenchymal-epidermal transition factor gene amplification (METamp) is being investigated as a therapeutic target in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We reviewed the epidemiology and disease characteristics associated with primary and secondary METamp, as well as the testing procedures used to identify METamp, in advanced NSCLC. Economic and humanistic burdens, and the practice patterns and treatments under investigation for METamp were also examined. Methods: Embase and Medline (via ProQuest), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (2015-2022) were systematically searched. Conference abstracts were searched via Embase and conference proceedings websites (2020-2022). The review focused on evidence from the United States; global evidence was included for identified evidence gaps. Results: The median rate of primary METamp in NSCLC across the references was 4.8% (n=4 studies) and of secondary METamp (epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]-mutant NSCLC) was 15% (n=10). Next-generation sequencing (NGS; n=12) and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH; n=11) were most frequently used in real-world studies and FISH testing most frequently used in clinical trials (n=9/10). METamp definitions varied among clinical trials using ISH/FISH testing (MET to chromosome 7 centromere ratio of ≥1.8 to ≥3.0; or gene copy number [GCN] ≥5 to ≥10) and among trials using NGS (tissue testing: GCN ≥6; liquid biopsy: MET copy number ≥2.1 to >5). Limited to no data were identified on the economic and humanistic burdens, and real-world treatment of METamp NSCLC. Promising preliminary results from trials enrolling patients with EGFR-mutated, METamp advanced NSCLC progressing on an EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) were observed with MET-TKIs (i.e., tepotinib, savolitinib, and capmatinib) in combination with EGFR-TKIs (i.e., gefitinib and osimertinib). For metastatic NSCLC and high-level METamp, monotherapy with capmatinib, crizotinib, and tepotinib are recommended in the 2022 published NSCLC NCCN Guidelines. Conclusion: Primary METamp occurs in approximately 5% of NSCLC cases, and secondary METamp in approximately 15% of cases previously treated with an EGFR inhibitor. Variability in testing methods (including ISH/FISH and NGS) and definitions were observed. Several treatments are promising in treating METamp NSCLC. Additional studies evaluating the clinical, economic, and humanistic burdens are needed.

Diagnostic and economic value of biomarker testing for targetable mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: a literature review.

We aimed to assess the diagnostic and economic value of next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing, and of liquid biopsy (LBx) versus tissue biopsy (TBx) in non-small-cell lung cancer biomarker testing through literature review. Embase and MEDLINE were searched to identify relevant studies (n = 43) from 2015 to 2020 in adults with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. For NGS versus single-gene testing, concordance was 70-99% and sensitivity was 86-100%. For LBx versus TBx, specificity was 43-100% and sensitivity was ≥60%. Turnaround times were longer for NGS versus single-gene testing (but not vs sequential testing) and faster for LBx versus TBx. NGS was cost-effective, and LBx reduced US per-patient costs. NGS versus single-gene testing and LBx versus TBx were concordant. NGS and LBx may be cost-effective for initial screening.

Plain language summary Patients with lung cancer with specific genetic mutations can benefit from medications that are specific to those mutations, known as targetable mutations. There are many methods to test for specific genetic mutations in patients with lung cancer. To detect genetic mutations, doctors can test the blood or urine, or they can test biopsy tissue; a small piece of the tumor removed from the lung. These tests can either look for mutations in one specific gene at a time, or they can use technology that reads the entire DNA sequence to observe multiple genes at once. In this review, we examined scientific reports to answer important questions about using genetic testing to find targetable mutations in patients with lung cancer. How accurate are different genetic tests? How fast can doctors get results from different genetic tests? How much do different genetic tests cost? We found that reading the entire DNA sequence was as accurate as testing one specific gene. Reading the entire DNA sequence takes more time than testing one specific gene, but it might reduce overall costs. Testing blood or urine was not as accurate as testing tissue, but it took less time for doctors to receive genetic test results and reduced costs.

Health care resource utilization and costs associated with advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has evolved from 2015 onward, since the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Considering this shift, there have been limited prior analyses that assess the economic burden of NSCLC within the current treatment landscape. OBJECTIVE: To present an analysis of health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC in the United States between 2010 and 2019. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who initiated first-line (1L) systemic treatment between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2019, were included from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database using a previously developed claims-based predictive model algorithm. Mean total HCRU and costs and mean per-person-per-year (PPPY) HCRU and costs were estimated for 2 follow-up periods: the time during the entire follow-up period and the time during the 1L treatment period. Distribution of treatment classes (defined as chemotherapy, ICIs, targeted therapies, and others) were also analyzed by index year. RESULTS: 27,257 patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean duration of follow-up for all patients was 16.6 months (median 10.6 months), and the median time to discontinuation of 1L treatment was 2.8 months. The number of outpatient visits accounted for the majority of HCRU across the entire study follow-up (mean 97.7 in total and 147.1 PPPY) and for the 1L treatment period (mean 46.3 in total and 167.5 PPPY). The total mean cost across the entire study follow-up was $158,908 ($250,942 PPPY). For the 1L treatment period, the total mean cost was $72,760 ($271,590 PPPY). Total mean outpatient costs for systemic anticancer treatment were $61,797 for the entire study follow-up ($85,609 PPPY) and $27,138 during the 1L treatment period ($92,412 PPPY). Total costs increased over the study duration, which were mainly due to increasing outpatient costs for systemic therapy. In both follow-up periods, inpatient costs, other outpatient costs (nonsystemic therapy-related costs), and pharmacy costs remained relatively stable but still accounted for more than 60% of the total costs. Analysis of treatment classes over time showed that chemotherapy was the most frequently used treatment, regardless of line of therapy. A trend was observed for increased ICI use from 2015 onward. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the improvement in treatment options, a high economic burden associated with the treatment of NSCLC still exists. The total costs have been increasing, mainly driven by outpatient costs for systemic therapy, which might reflect the greater use of ICIs for advanced NSCLC. Costs for inpatient services, other outpatient services, and pharmacy services remained stable but still accounted for the majority of the economic burden. Further studies are required to assess the impact of innovative treatments on the disease management costs of advanced NSCLC. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the healthcare business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945) as part of an alliance between the healthcare business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Pfizer. Zhang, Liu, and Yang are employees of EMD Serono. Beachler, Dinh, and Jamal-Allial are employees of HealthCore Inc., which received funding from the healthcare business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Pfizer for the implementation of this study. Masters and Kolitsopoulos are employees of Pfizer. Lamy was an employee of the healthcare business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, at the time this study was conducted.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma Treated in U.S. Oncology Clinical Practices: Results from SPEAR-Merkel.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) has been associated with improved outcomes in patients with locally advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (laMCC) and metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC). The primary objective of SPEAR-Merkel was to explore treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with laMCC or mMCC initiating first-line (1L) treatment with avelumab, non-avelumab IO, or chemotherapy in a U.S. community oncology setting. METHODS: Adult patients with laMCC or mMCC initiating 1L avelumab, non-avelumab IO, or chemotherapy from January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019, were identified from the U.S. Oncology Network electronic health care record database and followed up through September 30, 2019. Baseline characteristics and HCRU were analyzed descriptively, including physician-stated overall response rate in the real-world clinical setting. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to measure duration of response, real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among the overall population (n = 94), 28 received 1L avelumab (9 laMCC, 19 mMCC), 26 received 1L non-avelumab IO (8 laMCC, 18 mMCC), and 40 received 1L chemotherapy (10 laMCC, 30 mMCC). The real-world overall response rate was 64.3%, 61.5%, and 42.5%, respectively. From 1L treatment initiation, median rwPFS was 11.4, 8.1, and 6.1 months, and median OS was 20.2 months, not reached, and 14.7 months for the respective cohorts. CONCLUSION: SPEAR-Merkel showed that patients with laMCC or mMCC treated with IO had improved outcomes compared with chemotherapy in clinical practice. The study provides insight on utilization and clinical outcomes associated with newer, more innovative therapies in clinical practice, which may help clinicians understand the variety of newer treatment options for both laMCC and mMCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: To the authors' knowledge, SPEAR-Merkel is the first study to evaluate real-world clinical outcomes in patients with locally advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (laMCC) and metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) receiving first-line (1L) avelumab, non-avelumab immuno-oncology therapies, or chemotherapy in a real-world setting. SPEAR-Merkel showed clinical benefit for immuno-oncology therapies compared with chemotherapy. The study provides insight on uses and clinical outcomes associated with innovative therapies in clinical practice, which may help clinicians understand the variety of newer treatment options for both laMCC and mMCC. The study is of particular importance as it shows that chemotherapy is still being used as 1L treatment despite its inferior clinical and safety profile.

Effects of early vs delayed progression on clinical and economic outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line therapy: results from the IMPACT RCC claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: A key therapeutic goal of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment is delayed disease progression. The degree to which early therapeutic success affects downstream outcomes is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and economic impact of early vs delayed disease progression in patients with mRCC treated with first-line (1L) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) followed by second-line (2L) therapy in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database. METHODS: Adult patients newly diagnosed with mRCC who were treated with a TKI as 1L therapy and who progressed to 2L therapy from October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2018, were identified from the US VHA database. Patients were stratified by median time from initiation of 1L therapy to initiation of 2L therapy into early (median time or sooner)and delayed (longer than the median) progression cohorts. Clinical outcomes (time to 2L therapy discontinuation, time to third-line [3L] treatment initiation, and overall survival) were assessed descriptively, and health care resource utilization and costs were compared between patients in the early and those in the delayed progression cohorts. Survival analyses (Kaplan-Meier curves) were used to estimate descriptively the median time to discontinuation, time to next line of treatment, and time to death for each cohort. Multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for the influence of differences in cohort characteristics, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to descriptively assess the impact of predictive factors on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 289 patients were included in the analysis: 145 in the early progression cohort and 144 in the delayed progression cohort. Baseline characteristics were similar between the early and delayed progression cohorts. Median time from 1L therapy initiation to 2L therapy discontinuation was 7.9 months in the early progression cohort and 18.0 months in the delayed progression cohort, whereas time from 1L therapy initiation to 3L therapy initiation was 9.4 and 21.8 months, respectively; overall survival was 19.7 and 36.4 months, respectively. Descriptive analysis revealed generally lower risks for 2L therapy discontinuation (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.31-0.52), 3L therapy initiation (HR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.32-0.55), and death (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33-0.64) for those with delayed progression. After adjustment for possible confounding factors, comparative analysis during the follow-up period showed that delayed progression was associated with a shorter median all-cause hospital length of stay (0.4 days vs 0.8 days for early progression; P = 0.0004), fewer pharmacy visits (3.57 vs 4.08 visits; P = 0.0266), and lower total health care costs ($10,342 vs $13,388; P = 0.0347) per patient per month. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mRCC, early progression after 1L therapy initiation is associated with generally worse clinical outcomes and statistically significantly greater health care resource utilization and costs than delayed progression. This finding highlights the importance of initiating therapy with an optimal 1L treatment regimen that has been proven to delay disease progression. DISCLOSURES This study was sponsored by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA, and Pfizer Inc. EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer Inc. were involved in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Liu and Bhanegaonkar are employed by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA. Kasturi was employed by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA, at the time of this study. Kim and Krulewicz are employed by Pfizer Inc. Dieyi is an employee of STATinMED Research, which received consulting fees from EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer Inc. Hutson has received grants from Pfizer Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Inc., and Eisai Co., Ltd., outside of this work. Data from this analysis were presented at the Virtual International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2020 conference, May 18-20, 2020; the virtual American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, May 29-31, 2020; and AMCP Nexus 2020 Virtual, October 20-23, 2020.

Budget impact of tepotinib in the treatment of adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring METex14 skipping alterations in the United States.

AIMS: To estimate the budget impact of adding tepotinib to United States (US) health plans for treating adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition exon 14 (METex14) skipping alterations. METHODS: The base-case analysis was conducted from the perspective of a hypothetical Medicare plan of 1 million members. Scenarios were analysed for other US health plans. Treatments included tepotinib, capmatinib, crizotinib, and standard of care (SoC). Patients eligible for tepotinib were estimated from published epidemiological data and literature, and real-world evidence. Clinical inputs were derived from the phase II VISION trial, US prescribing information, and published literature. Tepotinib uptake and projected testing rates for METex14 skipping alterations were based on market research. Unit costs (2020 US dollars (USD)) and resource utilization associated with drug acquisition and administration, treatment monitoring, disease and adverse event (AE) management, and subsequent treatment were derived primarily from public sources. RESULTS: In the base-case, 38-65 patients were eligible for tepotinib each year over the three-year time horizon. The cumulative net budgetary impact of tepotinib was -$692,541 (-2.6%); $26,531,670 in the scenario without tepotinib and $25,839,129 in the scenario with tepotinib. A negligible net budget impact was observed per member per month (PMPM) at $0.2457 and $0.2393, respectively, before and after tepotinib's introduction. Results were most sensitive to variability in unit costs of capmatinib and tepotinib and their corresponding median treatment durations. Sensitivity and scenario analyses support the conclusion that introducing tepotinib will have minimal budgetary impact for Medicare health plans. Similar results were obtained for other US health plans. LIMITATIONS: Assumptions and expert opinion were applied to address data gaps in key model inputs. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated budgetary impact of tepotinib for the treatment of adult patients with mNSCLC harboring METex14 skipping alterations is minimal from the perspective of US health plans.

The Impact of Adverse Events on Health Care Resource Utilization, Costs, and Mortality Among Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the association between adverse events (AEs) suspected to be immune-related and health care resource utilization, costs, and mortality among patients receiving programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death ligand 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy for urothelial carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, or Merkel cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using medical and pharmacy claims and enrollment information from U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees in the Optum Research Database from March 1, 2014, through April 30, 2019. Claims were linked with mortality data from the Social Security Death Index and the National Death Index. Eligible patients had at least one ICI claim between September 1, 2014, and April 30, 2019. RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounding variables, we found patients with AEs had more than double the risk of an inpatient stay (hazard ratio [HR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-2.5) and an 80% higher risk of an emergency visit (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1) than patients without AEs. Adjusted 6-month total costs were $24,301 higher among patients with an AE versus those without ($99,037 vs. $74,736; 95% CI, $18,828-29,774; p < .001). Mean ± SD AE-related medical costs averaged $2,359 ± $7,496 per patient per month, driven by inpatient visits, which accounted for 89.9% of AE-related costs. Adjusted risk of mortality was similar in patients with and without AEs. CONCLUSION: Patients with AEs had higher risks of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and higher health care costs, driven by inpatient stays, than patients without AEs. The adjusted risk of mortality was similar between the two cohorts. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) who had adverse events (AEs) had significantly higher health care costs and utilization, driven by inpatient stays, compared with patients who did not. Given this high cost associated with AEs and the differences in the side effect profile of ICIs versus traditional chemotherapy, it is important for physicians to be cognizant of these differences when treating patients with ICIs. Ongoing evaluation, earlier recognition, and more effective, multidisciplinary management of AEs may improve patient outcomes and reduce the need for costly inpatient stays.

Real-world clinical outcomes with first-line avelumab in locally advanced/metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma in the USA: SPEAR-Merkel.

Aim: To assess clinical outcomes in patients with locally advanced (la) or metastatic (m) Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) initiating first-line (1L) avelumab in a USA community oncology setting. Materials & methods: Adults with laMCC or mMCC initiating 1L avelumab were identified from The US Oncology Network electronic health record database and chart review. Results: Median overall survival and progression-free survival were not reached in laMCC (n = 9) vs 20.2 and 10.0 months in mMCC (n = 19); response rates were similar (66.7% vs 63.2%). Conclusion: This is the first study to show clinical benefit in patients with laMCC receiving 1L avelumab in a US real-world setting. Response rates in patients with mMCC were consistent with pivotal trials.

Lay abstract Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. Because MCC progresses quickly, many patients have a poor prognosis. Avelumab is a type of drug that helps the patient's immune system to fight cancer. Avelumab was the first such drug approved by the US FDA for treating metastatic MCC based on the results of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 clinical trial. In SPEAR-Merkel, we studied how MCC patients with locally advanced as well as metastatic disease responded when they were treated with first-line avelumab in a real-world setting. These patients were from oncology practices in communities throughout the USA. Overall response rates in SPEAR-Merkel were comparable between patients with locally advanced and metastatic MCC. Importantly, we found that these patients experienced survival benefit similar to patients in the JAVELIN Merkel 200 (part B) study and other real-world studies.

Real-world symptoms, disease burden, resource use and quality of life in US patients with advanced renal cell cancer.

Aim: To assess symptoms, healthcare resource utilization and health-related quality of life in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) clinical practice. Materials & methods: The USA point-in-time survey of physicians and patients was conducted between February and September 2019. Results: Data were available for 227 patients. Mean (standard deviation) number of symptoms was 3.4 (3.2); differences were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk categories (p < 0.001), with fewer symptoms in favorable-risk patients. Disease burden, measured by greater healthcare resource utilization and worse health-related quality of life, was high, particularly in International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium intermediate- or poor- versus favorable-risk patients. In total, 45 patients (21.6%) were hospitalized due to aRCC within a 6-month period, 35 (16.8%) had one hospitalization and ten (4.8%) experienced ≥2 hospitalizations due to aRCC. Mean (standard deviation) 19-Item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score was 53.6 (13.2) for this population, significantly lower than the reference value (59.8; p < 0.001). Conclusion: A clear need exists for improved disease management in patients with aRCC.

Lay abstract Late-stage/advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) is kidney cancer that has spread to other body parts. aRCC is expensive to treat and affects patients in many ways. New treatments have become available, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immuno-oncology therapies. The type of treatment recommended depends on the patient's International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk score. This is a way of classifying patients as having a good, intermediate or poor survival risk. We asked physicians questions about their patients such as their age, how long they had aRCC, their treatment and symptoms, and asked patients how aRCC affected their lives, including how often they visited doctors and hospitals. aRCC had the greatest effect on patients with poor-risk scores. Those patients had more symptoms and worse quality of life than patients with intermediate or good risk scores. Treatment also affected patients' lives, although not as much as risk score. Patients with aRCC need better treatment options to help improve their quality of life.

Treatment patterns, outcomes and clinical characteristics in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a real-world US study.

Aim: Assessing treatment patterns, outcomes and clinical characteristics in advanced renal cell carcinoma clinical practice. Materials & methods: A US cross-sectional physician survey conducted February-September 2019. Results: Surveyed physicians reported first-line treatment of 445 patients involving tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (51.0%), immuno-oncology (IO/IO combination) therapy (25.8%) or other regimens (23.1%). A total of 60.9% had physician-assessed IMDC risk. Of these 61.9, 50.9 and 27.6% of patients with favorable, intermediate and poor risk, respectively, received tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy. A total of 16.7, 26.9 and 34.5% of patients with favorable, intermediate or poor risk received IO/IO combination therapy. Complete/partial responses (∼35% patients) remained comparable across first-line treatments. Conclusion: Guideline-recommended therapies are not widely prescribed. Many patients experienced poor clinical outcomes highlighting a need for more effective treatments.

Health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immunotherapies in real-world clinical practice settings.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are approved advanced melanoma (AM) immunotherapies. To address limited health-related quality of life (QoL) real-world evidence with immunotherapies in AM, we compared QoL in AM patients receiving either treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: A prospective US observational study enrolled adult AM patients initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between June 2017 and March 2018. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 global health score (GHS) and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Mean changes were compared using repeated measures mixed-effects models and are presented covariate adjusted. RESULTS: 225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI + NIVO patients were enrolled. From baseline through week 24, PEMBRO was associated with 3.2 mean GHS score increase (95% CI 0.5, 5.9; p = .02), while no change was observed with IPI + NIVO; 0.2 (95% CI - 2.6, 3.0; p = 0.87). Among objective treatment-responders, GHS scores associated with PEMBRO increased 6.0 (95% CI 3.1, 8.8; p < .0001); IPI + NIVO patients increased 3.8 (95% CI 0.8, 6.9; p = .01). In treatment non-responders, IPI + NIVO was associated with GHS/QoL deterioration of - 3.7 (95% CI - 6.8, - 0.6; p = .02), PEMBRO non-responders demonstrated no change; 0.7 (95% CI - 2.3, 3.7; p = 0.6). Between treatments, PEMBRO patients increased 2.6 greater in EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.6, 4.5; p = .01) vs IPI + NIVO at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: PEMBRO was associated with better 24-week QoL compared to IPI + NIVO in actual clinical practice settings. Real-world data has known limitations, but with further confirmation these results may have implications for treatment selection.

Hospitalization and emergency department utilization in patients with advanced melanoma receiving pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab plus nivolumab in US academic centers.

Background: Both pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are FDA-approved immunotherapy regimens for advanced melanoma (AM). Each regimen has different toxicity profiles potentially impacting healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This study compared real-world hospitalization and emergency department (ED) utilization within 12 months of therapy initiation of each regimen.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in AM patients ≥18 years old initiating PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between January 1, 2016-December 30, 2017. Patients were identified from 12 US-based academic and satellite centers. All-cause hospitalization ED visits were identified. These events were used to calculate rates per 1,000 patient months. Utilization between groups was compared using multivariate logistic regression.Results: In total, 400 patients were included (200 PEMBRO, 200 IPI + NIVO). PEMBRO vs IPI + NIVO patients had poorer Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) performance status, 29% 2-4, vs 12% (p < .001); more diabetes, 21% vs 13% (p = .045); were more often PD-L1 expression positive, 77% vs 63% (p = .011); and less likely BRAF mutant, 35% vs 50% (p = .003). The proportion with more than one hospitalization over 12 months was 17% PEMBRO vs 24% IPI + NIVO. Less than 2% had more than one admission and none had more than two. Unadjusted mean (SD) hospitalizations per 1,000 patient-months were 16 (37) and 20 (38), PEMBRO and IPI + NIVO, respectively. Adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization was 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3-0.9; p = .027) for PEMBRO vs IPI + NIVO. ED visits occurred in 18% vs 21%, PEMBRO and IPI + NIVO, respectively, 0.7 (p = .186).Conclusions: PEMBRO patients had a significantly lower probability of hospitalization through 12 months vs IPI + NIVO. The probability of ED visits did not differ.

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of pembrolizumab versus competing regimens for the adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma.

Objective: To determine the efficacy of pembrolizumab relative to other treatments used in stage III melanoma by conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: A SLR was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating approved adjuvant treatments including interferon-containing regimens, BRAF-inhibitors, and PD-L1 inhibitors in stage III melanoma patients. Relative treatment effects for recurrence-free survival (RFS) were synthesized with Bayesian NMA models that allowed for hazard ratios (HRs) to vary over time. Results: Included studies formed a connected network of evidence composed of eight trials. In high-risk stage III patients, the HR for pembrolizumab vs observation decreased significantly over time with the superiority of pembrolizumab over observation becoming statistically meaningful before 3 months. By 9 months, the HR for pembrolizumab vs observation was statistically significantly lower than the HR for most other treatments vs observation, with the exception of ipilimumab and biochemotherapy due to overlapping 95% credible intervals. In BRAF + patients, pembrolizumab was statistically significantly better than observation after 3 months. The HR for both BRAF-inhibitors vs observation increased significantly over time and pembrolizumab was statistically superior to both BRAF-inhibitors after 15 months. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab results in statistically significantly improved RFS compared to all competing regimens after 9 months, except ipilimumab and biochemotherapy, for the adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma. However, point estimate HRs vs observation for pembrolizumab are much lower than those for ipilimumab. In BRAF + patients, the advantage of pembrolizumab versus competing interventions increases over time with respect to RFS.