Real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes associated with tucatinib therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Background: Tucatinib is an oral human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-directed therapy approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in patients with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with/without brain metastases (BM). To inform clinical decision-making, it is important to understand tucatinib use in real-world clinical practice. We describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes for tucatinib treatment in the real-world setting. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with HER2+ MBC (January 2017-December 2022) who received tucatinib treatment in a nationwide, de-identified electronic health record-derived metastatic breast cancer database. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were described at baseline (prior to tucatinib initiation). Key outcomes included real-world time to treatment discontinuation (rwTTD), time to next treatment (rwTTNT), and overall survival (rwOS). Results: Of 3,449 patients with HER2+ MBC, 216 received tucatinib treatment (n=153 with BM; n=63 without BM) and met inclusion criteria. Median (range) age of patients was 56 (28-84) years, 57.9% were White, and 68.5% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Median (IQR) follow-up from start of tucatinib treatment was 12 (6-18) months. Among all patients who received tucatinib treatment, median (95% CI) rwTTD was 6.5 (5.4-8.8) months with 39.8% and 21.4% remaining on treatment at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Median (95% CI) rwTTNT was 8.7 (6.8-10.7) months. Patients who received the approved tucatinib triplet combination after ≥1 HER2-directed regimen in the metastatic setting had a similar median (95% CI) rwTTD (any line: 8.1 [5.7-9.5] months; second-line (2L) and third-line (3L): 9.4 [6.3-14.1] months) and rwTTNT (any line: 8.8 [7.1-11.8] months; 2L and 3L: 9.8 [6.8-14.1] months) to the overall population. Overall, median (95% CI) rwOS was 26.6 (20.2-not reached [NR]) months, with similar findings for patients who received the tucatinib triplet (26.1 [18.8-NR] months) and was NR in the subgroup limited to the 2L/3L population. Conclusion: Tucatinib treatment in the real-world setting was associated with a similar median rwTTD, rwTTNT, and rwOS as in the pivotal HER2CLIMB trial, with particular effectiveness in patients in the 2L/3L setting. These results highlight the importance of earlier use of tucatinib in HER2+ MBC.

Trends in treatment patterns and costs of care among patients with advanced stage cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) do not offer satisfactory clinical benefits, with most patients progressing beyond first-line (1L) treatment. With new treatments under investigation, understanding current treatment patterns, the impact of newly approved therapies, and total costs of care for r/mCC are important. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a US commercial insurance claims database to identify adult patients with r/mCC between 2015 and Q1-2020; defining 1L treatment as the first administration of systemic treatment without concomitant chemoradiation or surgery. Patient characteristics, treatment regimens, duration of therapy, and total costs of care were evaluated for each line of therapy. RESULTS: 1323 women initiated 1L treatment for r/mCC (mean age, 56.1 years; mean follow-up, 16.5 months). One-third (n = 438) had evidence of second-line (2L) treatment; of these, 129 (29%) had evidence of third-line (3L) treatment. No regimen represented a majority among 2L+ treatments. The 2018 approval of pembrolizumab led to increased 2L immunotherapy use (0% in 2015, 37% in 2019/Q1-2020). However, only a small proportion of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period. Mean per-patient-per-month total costs of care during treatment were $47,387 (1L), $77,661 (2L), and $53,609 (3L), driven primarily by outpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: No clear standard of care was observed in 2L+. Although immunotherapy is increasingly used in 2L+, only a small subset of patients stayed on immunotherapy for a prolonged period, suggesting a need for more therapeutic options. Better understanding of disease biology and the introduction of new therapies may address these unmet needs.

Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Based Pancreatic Cancer Screening in Patients With New-Onset Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: There are no established methods for pancreatic cancer (PAC) screening, but the NCI and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) are investigating risk-based screening strategies in patients with new-onset diabetes (NOD), a group with elevated PAC risk. Preliminary estimates of the cost-effectiveness of these strategies can provide insights about potential value and inform supplemental data collection. Using data from the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (END-PAC) risk model validation study, we assessed the potential value of CT screening for PAC in those determined to be at elevated risk, as is being done in a planned PanCAN Early Detection Initiative trial. METHODS: We created an integrated decision tree and Markov state-transition model to assess the cost-effectiveness of PAC screening in patients aged ≥50 years with NOD using CT imaging versus no screening. PAC prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity were derived from the END-PAC validation study. PAC stage distribution in the no-screening strategy and PAC survival were derived from the SEER program. Background mortality for patients with diabetes, screening and cancer care expenditure, and health state utilities were derived from the literature. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs were tracked over a lifetime horizon and discounted at 3% per year. Results are presented in 2020 US dollars, and we took a limited US healthcare perspective. RESULTS: In the base case, screening resulted in 0.0055 more LYs, 0.0045 more QALYs, and $293 in additional expenditures for a cost per QALY gained of $65,076. In probabilistic analyses, screening resulted in a cost per QALY gained of <$50,000 and <$100,000 in 34% and 99% of simulations, respectively. In the threshold analysis, >25% of screen-detected PAC cases needed to be resectable for the cost per QALY gained with screening to be <$100,000. CONCLUSIONS: We found that risk-based PAC screening in patients with NOD is likely to be cost-effective in the United States if even a modest fraction (>25%) of screen-detected patients with PAC are resectable. Future studies should reassess the value of this intervention once clinical trial data become available.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Neratinib Following Trastuzumab in Early-Stage HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Disease-free survival (DFS) in early-stage human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer is significantly greater with the addition of neratinib after adjuvant trastuzumab versus no additional therapy. However, it remains uncertain whether these survival gains represent good value for the money, given the substantial cost of neratinib. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical and economic implications of adding neratinib after adjuvant trastuzumab based on results from the phase III ExteNET trial. METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of neratinib for women with early-stage (I-III) HER2-positive breast cancer. Five-year recurrence rates were derived from the ExteNET trial. Mortality and recurrence rates after 5 years were derived from the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. Outcomes included life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and direct medical expenditures. The analysis was performed from a payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were conducted to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS: Total cost of neratinib following adjuvant trastuzumab was $317,619 versus $152,812 for adjuvant trastuzumab alone. A gain of 0.4 QALYs (15.7 vs. 15.3) and 0.1 years of projected life expectancy (18.3 vs. 18.2) favored neratinib after trastuzumab versus trastuzumab alone. The neratinib cost per QALY gained was $416,106. At standard willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained, neratinib has a probability of 2.8%, 16.7%, and 33.9% of cost-effectiveness, respectively. The cost per QALY gained in a scenario analysis only including patients with hormone-receptor positive disease was $275,311. CONCLUSIONS: Based on 5-year data from ExteNET, neratinib following adjuvant trastuzumab is not projected to be cost-effective, even among those patients shown to derive the greatest clinical benefit. Future analyses should reassess the cost-effectiveness associated with neratinib treatment as trial data mature. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Roth reports consulting fees from Genentech. Steuten reports grants from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, and Genomic Health, along with personal fees from Agendia, unrelated to this study. The other authors have no conflicts of interest in connection with this study.