Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Following Discontinuation of PD-1/L1 Inhibitor Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The patterns of care and attrition of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) patients eligible for systemic therapy following PD-1/L1 inhibitors are unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and treatment patterns among patients with la/mUC following discontinuation of first-line (1L) or second-line (2L) PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy. METHODS: An ambispective, multisite, chart review study was conducted in the United States, including patients with la/mUC. Eligible patients had initiated and subsequently discontinued PD-1/L1 therapy in the 1L or 2L setting for la/mUC between May 2016 and July 2018; with follow-up through October 2019. Patient characteristics, treatments, and overall survival (OS) were described. Patients had the option to complete a 1-time patient reported outcomes (PRO) survey. RESULTS: Among 300 patients included in the chart review, 198 (66%) received 1L PD-1/L1 inhibitor and 102 (34%) received 2L PD-1/L1 inhibitor. Following discontinuation of PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy, 34% (n = 68) received subsequent therapy in 2L and 29% (n = 30) in third-line (3L). The median OS post-1L PD-1/L1 inhibitor was 9.4 (95% CI 8.6-NA) and 2.5 months (95% CI 2.24-3.50) for those who received and did not receive subsequent therapy, respectively. Following 2L PD-1/L1 inhibitor discontinuation, the median OS was 5.7 (95% CI 5.1-7.8) and 3.98 (95% CI 3.29-4.87) months for those who received and did not receive subsequent therapy, respectively. Among those with PRO data, 64% reported experiencing cancer-related pain and 29.6% received an opioid. Only 12.7% reported having a caregiver, requiring approximately 13 h/d of service. CONCLUSION: The symptom and caregiver burden are high among real-world patients with la/mUC who discontinued 1L or 2L PD-1/L1 inhibitors and outcomes are dismal, with a minority receiving subsequent therapy. Patterns of care in the setting of 1L maintenance avelumab and novel agents require further investigation.

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.

Factors associated with immunotherapy selection in patients with advanced melanoma.

AIM: To explore factors associated with pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) versus ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) selection in advanced melanoma. MATERIALS & METHODS: Total of 12 academic and satellite clinics contributed to this study. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore associations between clinical characteristics and treatment choice.  Results: Total of 400 patients were included: 200 PEMBRO and 200 IPI+NIVO. Patients were significantly more likely to receive PEMBRO versus IPI+NIVO if they had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, 2-4 versus 0-1 (odds ratio [OR]: 6.6; 95% CI: 3.0-14.7), if they were PD-L1 positive (OR: 4.5; 95% CI: 1.9-10.4) or had BRAF wild-type tumor (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.4-3.6). CONCLUSION: Patient factors are significantly associated with treatment selection in advanced melanoma. Outcomes comparisons should take this into consideration.

Impact of breakthrough pain on community-dwelling cancer patients: results from the National Breakthrough Pain Study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize cancer-related breakthrough pain (BTcP) among community-dwelling patients with cancer. METHODS: Data from the National Breakthrough Pain Study, a cross-sectional observational survey describing breakthrough pain (BTP) in the community, were analyzed for a subset of patients with BTcP. Eligible patients were community-dwelling adults with commercial insurance and insurance claims consistent with cancer and chronic pain who consented to a structured telephone interview. Assessments included the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI), the Short Form 12 Health Survey, the Sheehan Disability Scale, the Work Performance Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Screener, and Patient Health Questionnaire-2. RESULTS: In total, 112 patients with cancer pain also experienced BTcP; 83.3% were in remission. Most patients reported experiencing ≥2 BTcP episodes per day, a median time to BTcP peak of 15 minutes, and a median duration of BTcP of 30 minutes. Mild pain at onset that gradually worsened was reported by 54.5% of patients, and incidental pain triggered by physical activity was reported by 58.0%. Most patients who reported using a medication to manage BTcP received an oral immediate-release opioid, such as oxycodone or hydrocodone, and only 1 received a rapid-onset opioid; few (24.1%) reported that pharmacologic treatment for BTcP worked every time. Patients reported mean (standard deviation) BPI scores of 4.2 (1.75) and 5.7 (1.98) for average and worst pain intensity during the preceding 24 hours, respectively, and high interference with activity, mood, ability to walk and work, social relations, sleep, and enjoyment of life. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that BTcP among community-dwelling patients with cancer continues to be a health burden and reveals opportunities to improve its management.

Knowledge of binge eating disorder: a cross-sectional survey of physicians in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Binge eating disorder (BED)--now a designated disorder in the DSM-5--is the most prevalent eating disorder (ED), affecting 2-3% of the US population. This survey of US physicians assesses how BED is diagnosed, treated and referred. METHODS: Internists, family practitioners, obstetrics/gynecologist (OB/GYNs) and psychiatrists were randomly selected from a nationally-representative panel. Participants completed an online survey and reviewed case vignettes consistent with DSM-5-defined BED, then answered questions to elicit whether they would assess for psychiatric conditions including EDs. Those reporting they would screen and who correctly identified BED in vignettes received additional questions about BED diagnosis, treatment, and referral patterns. RESULTS: Of 278 physicians surveyed, 96% were board-certified and 87% had practiced >10 years. 23% were psychiatrists, 27% family practitioners, 31% internists and 19% OB/GYNs. 92% were 'somewhat likely' to screen for ED after reviewing DSM-5-consistent vignettes. 206 (74%) correctly identified BED. Of these, 33% and 68% reported they proactively screen eating habits for all patients and obese patients, respectively. 10% reported not screening eating habits even in the presence of ED symptoms. Fewer than half reported using DSM criteria in Diagnosing BED, and 56 (27%) did not recognize BED to be a discreet ED. CONCLUSION: Although ED awareness is improving, understanding BED as a distinct ED is lacking, which may result in low rates of screening and diagnosis. This study illustrates how taking a complete patient history (including probing BED characteristics) may be an effective first-line strategy for clinicians to facilitate optimal care for these patients.

Treatment of venous thromboembolism: adherence to guidelines and impact of physician knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients enrolled in a national, multicenter database. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cohort study that randomly selected VTE patients from 38 academic/teaching, community, and Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals. The study included a physician survey component. The patients selected were those treated between January 2002 and June 2003 who had an ICD-9-CM code for pulmonary embolus (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or pregnancy-related PE or DVT. RESULTS: The study included 939 patients: 52.7% with DVT, 28.4% with PE, and 18.8% with PE and DVT. Mean age was 59.5 years. Risk factors included obesity (body mass index > 30) in 30.1%, history of VTE in 28.0%, malignancy in 27.4%, surgery in 21.1%, and immobility in 18.5%. Only 56.1% of patients were treated with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Bridging from LMWH or unfractionated heparin (UFH) to warfarin was completed during hospitalization in 486 (68.6%), but only 246 (50.6%) had an international normalized ratio (INR) > or = 2 for 48 hours before discontinuation of the injectable anticoagulant. Length of stay in patients discharged on bridge therapy was 4.0 +/- 3.7 days vs 8.1 +/- 5.8 days for patients discharged on warfarin therapy (P < .001). Ninety-two (10.1%) patients were discharged with neither oral nor injectable anticoagulation and had a mean duration of treatment of only 10.6 +/- 16.2 days. Of 245 physicians surveyed from participating hospitals, 84% and 53%, respectively, indicated that LMWH was their preferred agent for treatment of DVT and treatment of PE. With regard to warfarin, 30% did not believe it was necessary to have a therapeutic INR for > or = 2 days before discontinuing LMWH or UFH, and 27% responded that it was necessary to keep DVT patients in the hospital until they were therapeutic. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-section of United States hospitals, lower than anticipated use of LMWH, insufficient bridging from UFH or LMWH to warfarin, and continuation of anticoagulation after hospitalization were all problems discovered with the treatment of VTE. Physician knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs are partially responsible for the gap between actual practice and international guidelines. These results suggest that hospitals should evaluate their adherence to international VTE treatment guidelines and develop strategies to optimize antithrombotic therapy.

Antithrombotic therapy practices in US hospitals in an era of practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic therapy is efficacious for the prevention of thromboembolic disease, but it necessitates careful risk-benefit assessment. METHODS: Antithrombotic therapy data were retrospectively collected from inpatient medical records at 38 US hospitals. Patients treated for atrial fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism and patients given prophylaxis for total knee replacement, total hip replacement, or hip fracture surgery between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003, were randomly selected. RESULTS: The medical records of 3778 patients (53.3% men) were included. The mean patient age was 66.1 years. Of patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk for stroke, only 54.7% received warfarin sodium, and 20.6% received neither aspirin nor warfarin. Of patients with acute myocardial infarction, only 75.5% received aspirin on hospital arrival. After orthopedic surgery procedures, only 85.6% of patients received prophylaxis with a parenteral anticoagulant agent or warfarin. In 49.4% of patients with deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or both, unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin use was discontinued before an international normalized ratio of 2.0 or greater was achieved for 2 consecutive days. Patients with deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were rarely discharged from the hospital with bridge therapy (an injectable anticoagulant agent plus warfarin), although the length of hospitalization was significantly shorter than if discharged taking warfarin alone (4.0 vs 8.1 days; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of hospitalized patients do not receive adequate antithrombotic therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of thromboembolic disease.