Patient preferences in the treatment of stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma: Results from the CONNECT cross-sectional survey.

We explored patient front-line treatment preferences in newly diagnosed stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). The CONNECT patient survey, administered online from 30 December 2020 to 1 March 2021, examined preferences overall and by age at diagnosis in 182 adult patients diagnosed with stage III/IV cHL within the past 10 years in the United States. At diagnosis, patients' median age was 36 years; 66% of patients were younger (aged 16-41 years) and 34% older (aged 42-85 years). When asked about initial treatment goals, 74% of patients ranked cure as their first or second goal (86% younger vs. 52% older patients; p < 0.001). At diagnosis, 72% of patients preferred aggressive treatment, and 85% were willing to accept more short-term risks in exchange for a better-working therapy long term. For long-term risks, younger versus older patients were significantly more concerned about second cancers (p < 0.001) and fertility issues (p = 0.007), whereas older patients were more concerned about lung damage (p = 0.028) and infections (p < 0.001). Most patients (94%) reported having a caregiver at some point, but 99% of these patients retained some control of treatment decisions. Collectively, these survey results highlight patient treatment preferences and differences in treatment goals and long-term side effect concerns based on patient age.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes With Brentuximab Vedotin or Other Standard Therapies in Patients With Previously Treated Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphomas (pcALCLs) are a type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in which CD30 is uniformly expressed. In mycosis fungoides (MF), another CTCL, CD30 is heterogeneously expressed. In ALCANZA, patients with pcALCLs or CD30-positive MF randomized to brentuximab vedotin (BV) vs. physician's choice of methotrexate or bexarotene had significantly improved outcomes, including higher objective response rates (ORR) lasting ≥4 months (ORR4), as well as longer median progression-free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment (TTNT). In this study, we sought to assess the real-world impact of treatment with BV in second or later lines of therapy for CTCL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective chart review describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and healthcare resource use (HRU) in patients with pcALCLs or MF previously treated with ≥1 systemic therapy and subsequently treated with BV (n = 139) or other standard therapy (OST; n = 164). RESULTS: Most patients in the BV cohort (96.4%) received BV as second-line (2L) systemic therapy. The most common OSTs were methotrexate (11.6%), mogamulizumab (9.1%), and bendamustine (9.1%) monotherapies. For 2L BV and OST, median duration of therapy was 8.4 and 5.2 months, real-world ORR was 82.1% and 66.5%, and real-world ORR4 was 42.5% and 25.0%. Real-world 1- and 2-year PFS, TTNT, and OS were significantly longer (all P < .01) and HRU was lower for BV vs. OST. CONCLUSION: These real-world outcomes are consistent with ALCANZA results, demonstrating favorable outcomes with BV vs. OST in patients with CTCL previously treated with ≥1 systemic therapy.

Physician frontline treatment preferences for stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma: the real-world US CONNECT study.

Aim: To understand US physicians' frontline (1L) treatment preferences/decision-making for stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Materials & methods: Medical oncologists and/or hematologists (≥2 years' practice experience) who treat adults with stage III/IV cHL were surveyed online (October-November 2020). Results: Participants (n = 301) most commonly considered trial efficacy/safety data and national guidelines when selecting 1L cHL treatments. Most physicians (91%) rated overall survival (OS) as the most essential attribute when selecting 1L treatment. Variability was seen among regimen selection for hypothetical newly diagnosed patients, with OS cited as the most common reason for regimen selection. Conclusion: While treatment selection varied based on patient characteristics, US physicians consistently cited OS as the top factor considered when selecting a 1L treatment for cHL.

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is a type of cancer that grows in lymph nodes. The researchers created a survey to assess how doctors in the USA choose medicine to treat patients who are newly diagnosed with an advanced stage of cHL (stage 3 or 4 out of 4 stages). We surveyed 301 doctors who treat patients with cHL. When choosing a medicine to treat cHL, most doctors said they consider results from research studies, how well the medicine works, information on the medicine's safety and recommendations in official guidelines. Most doctors said that overall survival (how long the patient survives after being diagnosed with cHL) is the most important outcome they consider when choosing a medicine to treat cHL. During the survey, doctors saw four unique patient profiles. These profiles differed in age, disease stage (how far along the cHL is) and other illnesses the patient has. While medicine choice was different across profiles, overall survival was still the reason for choosing each individual patient's medicine. These survey results show that doctors in the USA highly consider overall survival when choosing medicine for patients newly diagnosed with an advanced stage of cHL.

The impact of classic Hodgkin lymphoma on informal caregivers: results from the CONNECT cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: As part of the CONNECT study, we evaluated the caregiver role in treatment decision-making when caring for patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the USA. METHODS: The CONNECT caregiver survey was administered online December 2020-March 2021 to self-identified adult caregivers of cHL patients recruited from patient referrals and online panels. The caregiver's role in treatment decision-making, health-related quality of life (HRQoL, PROMIS-Global), and work impacts (WPAI:CG) were assessed. RESULTS: We surveyed 209 caregivers (58% women; median age 47 years; 54% employed; 53% spouse/partner); 69% of patients cared for were diagnosed with cHL in the past 1-2 years, with 48% having stage III/IV cHL and 29% in remission. More spouse/partner than other caregivers were involved in caregiving at symptom onset (61% vs 27%), whereas more other than spouse/partner caregivers began after first treatment (34% vs 5%). Cure, caregivers' top treatment goal (49%), was rated higher by spouse/partner than other caregivers (56% vs 42%). More spouse/partner than other caregivers were involved in treatment option discussions with physicians (52% vs 28%), were involved in patients' treatment decisions (54% vs 23%), and were aligned with patients' treatment goals (93% vs 79%). While caregivers reported HRQoL similar to that of the general population, nearly 30% of employed caregivers reported work impairment. CONCLUSION: Cure was caregivers' top treatment goal. Spouse/partner vs other caregivers were more involved, were involved earlier, and reported greater alignment with patient treatment goals and decision-making. Caregivers reported good HRQoL; however, caregiving impacted work productivity regardless of patient relationship.

Real-World Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Outcomes for Patients With Stage III or IV Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma Treated With Frontline ABVD: A Retrospective Database Review in the United States.

In newly diagnosed stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improved overall survival (OS) versus ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine). As clinical trial and real-world populations may differ, real-world treatment characteristics and OS (rwOS) were assessed for patients with stage III/IV cHL treated with frontline ABVD. This retrospective, observational analysis of deidentified electronic health record data (1/1/2011-8/31/2020) evaluated baseline disease and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and rwOS in patients with stage III/IV cHL treated with frontline ABVD. Data for 167 patients were analyzed. A median of 6 ABVD cycles were received. Baseline/interim positron emission tomography (PET) scans were obtained for 60.5%/89.8% of patients. Of patients diagnosed in 2016 or later (n = 73), 89% received an interim PET scan; 15/46 patients with no documented Deauville score, 6/15 with a score of 1 to 3, and 3/4 with a score of 4 to 5 de-escalated to AVD. Following frontline ABVD, 55.1% of patients received subsequent systemic therapy and 31.7% stem cell transplantation (SCT). At a median follow-up of 31.8 months, 82.0% of patients were alive (median rwOS, 101.2 months). Patients with stage III/IV cHL treated with frontline ABVD in the real world versus in clinical trials receive more subsequent therapy, including SCTs. Interim PET scans and Deauville scores were not universally obtained after treatment cycle 2, yet treatment de-escalation was observed. Patients with stage III/IV cHL may benefit from frontline A+AVD versus ABVD, as it improves OS and reduces the burden of subsequent therapy, including SCTs.

Retrospective Analysis With Propensity Score Matching of Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Treated Frontline With Brentuximab Vedotin and Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Since Food and Drug Administration approval of brentuximab vedotin in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A + CHP) as initial therapy for previously untreated CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), there has been limited research on real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed claims of patients with PTCL treated with frontline A + CHP or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) using the Symphony Health Solutions database. Adults with International Classification of Diseases-9/10 PTCL diagnosis codes who initiated A + CHP or CHOP between November 2018 and July 2021 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed that adjusted for potential confounders between groups. RESULTS: A total of 1344 patients were included (A + CHP, n = 749; CHOP, n = 595). Before matching, 61% were men; median age at index was 62 (A + CHP) and 69 (CHOP) years. The most common A + CHP-treated PTCL subtypes were systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL; 51%), PTCL-not otherwise specified (NOS; 30%), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL; 12%); the most common CHOP-treated subtypes were PTCL-NOS (51%) and AITL (19%). After matching, similar proportions of patients treated with A + CHP and CHOP received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (89% vs. 86%, P = .3). Fewer patients treated with A + CHP received subsequent therapy than CHOP overall (20% vs. 30%, P < .001) and specifically with the sALCL subtype (15% vs. 28%, P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics and management of this real-world PTCL population who were older and had a higher comorbidity burden than that in the ECHELON-2 trial demonstrate the importance of retrospective studies when assessing the impact of new regimens on clinical practice.

Observations of Oncologists on Treatment Selection With Interim Positron Emission Tomography-Adapted Approaches in Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma: The Real-World CONNECT Study.

PURPOSE: We surveyed oncologists who treat classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) as part of the CONNECT study to understand the treatment decision-making process, including the impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging. METHODS: US physicians self-identifying as oncologists, hematologists, or hematologists/oncologists with ≥2 years of practice experience who treated ≥1 adult with stage III/IV cHL in the frontline setting in the last year were surveyed (October 19-November 16, 2020). Physician demographics, guideline adherence, and PET/CT utilization, interpretation, and access barriers were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 301 physicians participated in the survey. Eighty-eight percent of physicians gave somewhat-to-significant consideration to NCCN guidelines. Most physicians (94%; n = 284) reported obtaining a PET/CT scan at diagnosis; of these physicians, 97% reported obtaining an interim PET/CT scan for stage III/IV cHL, with 65% typically obtaining an interim PET/CT scan after cycle 2. The Deauville 5-point scale (5PS) was the primary scoring system used to review PET/CT results by 62% of physicians, with a positive score defined as ≥3 by 44%, ≥4 by 37%, and ≥2 by 12% of physicians. Fifty-five percent of physicians reported difficulty in obtaining PET/CT scans. CONCLUSION: Although most physicians considered NCCN guidelines when treating patients with stage III/IV cHL, interim PET/CT scans after cycle 2 were not universally obtained. When PET/CT scans were obtained, Deauville 5PS scores were not always provided, and variability existed on what defined a positive score. These findings suggest that opportunities exist for education and improved PET-adapted treatment approaches.

Prior irinotecan exposure does not preclude benefit to liposomal irinotecan in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses of the NAPOLI-1 study identified that among patients who were irinotecan naïve prior to entering the clinical trial, a survival benefit was observed between the study arm and control arm. This treatment benefit was not observed among those previously exposed to irinotecan. This study sought to understand the impact of prior exposure to irinotecan on clinical outcomes among patients treated with liposomal irinotecan in the real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database. Data for adult patients with mPDAC treated with liposomal irinotecan-based regimens between January 2016 and October 2020 were analyzed. Patient characteristics, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. Cox proportional hazard methods were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). HRs were adjusted for demographics and relevant clinical covariates. RESULTS: Six hundred and seventy-five patients with mPDAC treated with a liposomal irinotecan-based regimen were included. The unadjusted OS HR was 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1-1.6, p < 0.001) and unadjusted PFS was HR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.2-1.7, p < 0.001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the adjusted OS HR was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.8-1.3, p = 0.8836) and the adjusted PFS HR was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8-1.4, p = 0.5626). CONCLUSIONS: Prior irinotecan was not found to be a significant predictor of patient outcomes in those later treated with liposomal irinotecan. Thus, the results may inform the rationale for utilizing liposomal irinotecan combination therapy following prior irinotecan exposure in mPDAC, in particular where the prior irinotecan exposure was more distant in time.

Cervical cancer geographical burden analyzer: An interactive, open-access tool for understanding geographical disease burden in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer (CC) disproportionately affects women based on socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic background. There is limited research in quantifying and visualizing whether substantial geographical disparities in the US exist with respect to CC burden, and especially with respect to recurrent or metastatic CC (r/mCC) disease burden. Identifying regions with higher r/mCC burden may help inform effective healthcare resource allocation and navigating patients to appropriate care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the 2015-2020 MarketScan® Commercial and Supplemental Medicare claims data; r/mCC burden was estimated as the number of patients initiating r/mCC systemic therapy over CC-diagnosed patients for each of the 410 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) considered. We developed a public, web-based tool, the Cervical Cancer Geographical Disease Burden Analyzer (Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer, http://www.geo-analyzer.org), that allows users to visualize r/mCC burden across MSAs over multiple years. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in r/mCC burden across MSAs, with a range of 0-83.3%. Burden increased in Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA (r/mCC to CC ratio: 41% in 2018 to 50% in 2020), and Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, CA (33% in 2018 to 50% in 2020). On the other hand, while r/mCC burden remained high, it decreased in Grand Rapids, MI (55% in 2018 to 31% in 2020) and San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (40% in 2018 to 26% in 2020). There were regions with sparse or no data, suggesting a need for more representative data capture. CONCLUSION: The Cervical Geo-Analyzer is a tool to visualize areas with high need for CC interventions. It also builds the foundation for further work to understand local risk factors of disease burden, identify populations of interest, characterize health disparities of CC or r/mCC and inform targeted interventions.

Factors associated with receipt of second-line recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer treatment in the United States: A retrospective administrative claims analysis.

Purpose: Contemporary, real-world data on eligible patients receiving treatment following progression on first-line (1L) recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) therapy are needed to inform treatment algorithms and identify potential gaps in the r/mCC care continuum. Methods: This study estimated the prevalence and predictors of second-line (2L) r/mCC therapy among 1L-treated patients using the 2015-2020 IBM MarketScan® commercial claims database. Women ≥ 18 years diagnosed with cervical cancer and treated with first-line systemic therapies were identified and followed for 12 months from their 1L therapy end date. Women with claims for a new therapy after 60 days but no later than 365 days from the end of 1L treatment were identified as those who progressed and received 2L therapy for r/mCC. Descriptive statistics examined baseline cohort characteristics and multivariable logistic regression model examined the factors associated with receiving 2L treatment. Results: We identified 384 1L-treated patients with r/mCC with ≥ 12 months of follow-up post-1L treatment. During follow-up, over half (51.0 %) of the 1L-treated r/mCC patients received 2L treatment. Patients from the South and Midwest had a lower likelihood of receiving 2L treatment compared with those living in the Northeast (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.43; 0.23-0.84) and (aOR = 0.52; 0.28-0.95, respectively). Patients not treated with bevacizumab in 1L were also less likely to receive 2L therapy (aOR = 0.65; 0.43-0.99). Conclusion: Additional research and targeted outreach efforts are needed to understand geography-, population-, or practice-specific barriers impacting access to 2L therapy among patients with r/mCC.

Cancer-of-Unknown-Primary-Origin: A SEER-Medicare Study of Patterns of Care and Outcomes among Elderly Patients in Clinical Practice.

Knowledge of contemporary patterns of cancer-of-unknown-primary-origin (CUP) diagnostic work-up, treatment, and outcomes in routine healthcare is limited. Thus, we examined data from elderly patients diagnosed with CUP in real-world US clinical practice. From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database, we included patients ≥ 66 years old with CUP diagnosed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. We analyzed baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, methods of diagnostic work-up (biopsy, immunohistochemistry, imaging), treatment-related factors, and survival. CUP diagnosis was histologically confirmed in 2813/4562 patients (61.7%). Overall, 621/4562 (13.6%) patients received anticancer pharmacotherapy; among these, 97.3% had a histologically confirmed tumor and 83.1% received all three procedures. Among those with a histologically confirmed tumor, increasing age, increasing comorbidity score, not receiving all three diagnostic measures, and having a not-further specified histologic finding of only 'malignant neoplasm' were all negatively associated with receipt of anticancer pharmacotherapy. Median overall survival was 1.2 months for all patients. Median time between CUP diagnosis and treatment initiation was 41 days. Limited diagnostic work-up was common and most patients did not receive anticancer pharmacotherapy. The poor outcomes highlight a substantial unmet need for further research into improving diagnostic work-up and treatment effectiveness in CUP.

Real-world outcomes among patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer with brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), incidence of brain metastases (BMs) is relatively high and increasing. Despite the high unmet need for patients with HER2+ MBC and BMs, real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes for these patients are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) among patients with HER2+ MBC with and without BMs in the United States. METHODS: This was a real-world retrospective cohort study in which adults diagnosed with HER2+ MBC between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2019, were identified in the Flatiron Health electronic health records database. The cohort was stratified by presence of BMs at MBC diagnosis (baseline) and before the initiation of each line of therapy (LOT). Key outcomes were OS and systemic therapy/regimen used within each LOT. An adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the impact of BMs on OS. RESULTS: Of 1,755 included patients, 173 (9.9%) had BMs at baseline. Trastuzumab+ pertuzumab-based regimens were the most common first- (n = 689, 44.3%) and second-line (n = 316, 35.3%) treatments for all patients. Among patients with BMs, trastuzumab emtansine was the most common third-line regimen (n = 18, 23.4%). Lapatinib-based regimens were used more frequently among patients with BMs but were used by less than 20% of patients with BMs within any LOT. Median OS was 22.3 and 37.3 months for patients with and without BMs at baseline, respectively. Patients with BMs had a higher risk of death compared with patients without BMs (HR, 3.2; 95% CI = 2.6-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: BMs are associated with an increased risk of mortality among patients with HER2+ MBC. Further studies are needed to evaluate the extent to which novel systemic therapies for HER2+ MBC address the unmet need among patients with BMs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Seagen Inc. Andres Forero-Torres is an employee of and owns stock in Seagen Inc. Kendra DeBusk is an employee of Seagen Inc. and owns stock in Seagen Inc. and Roche. Andy Surinach and Yutong Liu are employees of Genesis Research, which received funding from Seagen Inc. in connection with this study. At the time of this study, Chimeka Ike was an employee of Seagen Inc. and owns stock in Seagen Inc. At the time of this study, Nicolas Lindegger was an employee of Seagen Inc., Seagen International GmbH, and owns stock in Seagen Inc. and Roche. At the time of this study, Naomi Schwartz was a paid consultant to Seagen Inc.; she currently is an employee of and owns stock in Seagen Inc.

Real-world safety and supportive care use of second-line 5-fluorouracil-based regimens among patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Chemotherapy-related adverse events (AEs) can negatively impact the care of patients. The prevention and management of AEs often require additional medications. This study evaluated the percentages of patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) undergoing second-line therapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens that experienced AEs during treatment and received medication to manage those AEs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational analysis utilizing the Flatiron Health database of adult patients with mPDAC who started second-line therapy between January 2016 and August 2020. The occurrence of diarrhea, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, neuropathy, and hematologic AEs including G3/G4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia was assessed. The use of concomitant medications including atropine and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 825 eligible patients, 29.0% (n = 239) received FOLFIRINOX, 24.0% (n = 198) received FOLFOX, 6.8% (n = 56) received FOLFIRI, and 40.2% (n = 332) received liposomal irinotecan-based regimens. FOLFIRI and FOLFIRINOX regimens were associated with the highest rates of anemia (16.1% and 15.5%), neutropenia (19.6% and 22.6%), and thrombocytopenia (14.3% and 9.6%). The liposomal irinotecan and FOLFOX regimens were associated with lower rates of anemia (11.8% and 12.1%), neutropenia (12.4% and 14.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.4% and 8.1%). G-CSF use was observed among 63.6%, 34.9%, 33.9%, and 44.9% of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Diarrhea was observed among 12.5%, 4.5%, 12.5%, and 10.2% of patients who were treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 14.9%, 12.6%, 10.5%, and 13.1% of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Atropine use was higher in patients treated with FOLFIRINOX and FOLFIRI (90.8% and 94.6%, respectively) than in patients treated with liposomal irinotecan-based regimens (75.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mPDAC who received second-line therapy, those who received liposomal irinotecan-based regimens had the lowest rates of anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia compared to FOLFIRI, FOLFIRINOX, and FOLFOX, while requiring a similar or lower level of medication to treat and manage those adverse events. Patients treated with FOLFIRI received the highest dose of pegfilgrastim to manage neutropenia. The results of this real-world analysis are consistent with prior evaluations of patients with mPDAC and highlight the importance of managing adverse events and associated cost implications.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Management of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected health care patterns and outcomes for patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) in 2020 compared with those diagnosed with mPDAC in 2019. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Flatiron Health database to identify adults diagnosed with mPDAC from March 1 to September 30, 2019 (pre-COVID-19 cohort) and March 1 to September 30, 2020 (post-COVID-19 cohort). Between-cohort comparisons included demographic and clinical characteristics and year-over-year data for diagnosis of mPDAC, newly treated patients, time to and types of first-line therapy, and adverse events (AEs) during first-line therapy. Overall survival (OS) and milestone survival rates were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to assess OS. RESULTS: Pre-COVID-19 (n = 923) and post-COVID-19 (n = 796) cohorts had similar baseline demographic characteristics. A smaller proportion of patients in the pre-COVID-19 cohort were initially diagnosed with stage IV disease versus the post-COVID-19 cohort (62.2% vs 69.7%). Between 2019 and 2020, there was a 13.8% decrease in diagnosis of mPDAC and a 13.0% decrease in newly treated patients. Median (interquartile range) times to first-line treatment were similar (21 [13-40] and 19 [12-32] days). Median OS (months) was significantly longer in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (8·4 [95% CI: 7·5, 9·0]) versus the post-COVID-19 cohort (6·1 [95% CI: 5·4, 6·9]; P < .001). Survival rates were higher in the pre-COVID-19 versus post-COVID-19 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, patients were initially diagnosed with PDAC at more advanced stages. While patients in both cohorts appeared to receive similar care, survival outcomes were adversely affected.

Real-world Impact of Age at Diagnosis on Treatment Patterns and Survival Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sixty-eight percent of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are 65 years and older. Older adults are under-represented in clinical trials and their care is complicated with multiple age-related conditions. Research suggests that older patients can experience meaningful responses to treatment for PDAC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics, rate of treatment, and survival outcomes of patients with metastatic PDAC (mPDAC) based on age at diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted for patients diagnosed with mPDAC between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2020, from the Flatiron Health database. Patients were stratified into 3 age groups: <70 years old, 70-79 years, and ≥80 years. The proportion of patients who received first-line therapy, the types of regimens received in the metastatic setting, overall survival (OS) from the start of treatment were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 8382 patients included, 71.3% (n = 5973) received treatment. Among patients who received treatment 55.5% (n = 3313) were aged <70 years at diagnosis, 33.0% (n = 1972) were 70-79 years, and 11.5% (n = 688) were ≥80 years. Patients ≥80 years of age were more likely to receive gemcitabine monotherapy and less likely to receive FOLFIRINOX. Among first-line treated patients, median OS significantly decreased with age. However, when comparing patients treated with the same first-line regimen, no significant differences in median OS were observed by age. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that older adults with mPDAC can benefit substantially by receiving appropriate levels of treatment.

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.

Factors associated with receipt of second-line recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer treatment in the United States: A retrospective administrative claims analysis.

Purpose: Contemporary, real-world data on eligible patients receiving treatment following progression on first-line (1L) recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) therapy are needed to inform treatment algorithms and identify potential gaps in the r/mCC care continuum. Methods: This study estimated the prevalence and predictors of second-line (2L) r/mCC therapy among 1L-treated patients using the 2015-2020 IBM MarketScan® commercial claims database. Women ≥ 18 years diagnosed with cervical cancer and treated with first-line systemic therapies were identified and followed for 12 months from their 1L therapy end date. Women with claims for a new therapy after 60 days but no later than 365 days from the end of 1L treatment were identified as those who progressed and received 2L therapy for r/mCC. Descriptive statistics examined baseline cohort characteristics and multivariable logistic regression model examined the factors associated with receiving 2L treatment. Results: We identified 384 1L-treated patients with r/mCC with ≥ 12 months of follow-up post-1L treatment. During follow-up, over half (51.0 %) of the 1L-treated r/mCC patients received 2L treatment. Patients from the South and Midwest had a lower likelihood of receiving 2L treatment compared with those living in the Northeast (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.43; 0.23-0.84) and (aOR = 0.52; 0.28-0.95, respectively). Patients not treated with bevacizumab in 1L were also less likely to receive 2L therapy (aOR = 0.65; 0.43-0.99). Conclusion: Additional research and targeted outreach efforts are needed to understand geography-, population-, or practice-specific barriers impacting access to 2L therapy among patients with r/mCC.

Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections among immunocompromised patients fully vaccinated with BNT162b2.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections among immunocompromised (IC) individuals. METHODS: Individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 were selected from the US HealthVerity database (10 December 2020 to 8  July 2021). COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections were examined in fully vaccinated (≥14 days after 2nd dose) IC individuals (IC cohort), 12 mutually exclusive IC condition groups, and a non-IC cohort. IC conditions were identified using an algorithm based on diagnosis codes and immunosuppressive (IS) medication usage. RESULTS: Of 1,277,747 individuals ≥16 years of age who received 2 BNT162b2 doses, 225,796 (17.7%) were identified as IC (median age: 58 years; 56.3% female). The most prevalent IC conditions were solid malignancy (32.0%), kidney disease (19.5%), and rheumatologic/inflammatory conditions (16.7%). Among the fully vaccinated IC and non-IC cohorts, a total of 978 breakthrough infections were observed during the study period; 124 (12.7%) resulted in hospitalization and 2 (0.2%) were inpatient deaths. IC individuals accounted for 38.2% (N = 374) of all breakthrough infections, 59.7% (N = 74) of all hospitalizations, and 100% (N = 2) of inpatient deaths. The proportion with breakthrough infections was 3 times higher in the IC cohort compared to the non-IC cohort (N = 374 [0.18%] vs. N = 604 [0.06%]; unadjusted incidence rates were 0.89 and 0.34 per 100 person-years, respectively. Organ transplant recipients had the highest incidence rate; those with >1 IC condition, antimetabolite usage, primary immunodeficiencies, and hematologic malignancies also had higher incidence rates compared to the overall IC cohort. Incidence rates in older (≥65 years old) IC individuals were generally higher versus younger IC individuals (<65). LIMITATIONS: This retrospective analysis relied on coding accuracy and had limited capture of COVID-19 vaccine receipt. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections are rare but are more common and severe in IC individuals. The findings from this large study support the FDA authorization and CDC recommendations to offer a 3rd vaccine dose to increase protection among IC individuals.

Real-world prognostic factors for survival among treated patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Many real-world studies of patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) are restricted to single centers, limiting the generalizability of their insights. This study aimed to identify important population-based predictors for survival in patients diagnosed with mPDAC in a broader setting. METHODS: Data between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2019 were extracted from the Flatiron Health EHR database. Treatment-specific predictive models were generated for patients treated with first-line gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (GNP), FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine monotherapy (gem-mono), and second-line liposomal irinotecan-based regimens. The holdout method was used for cross-validation. Age at diagnosis, sex, BMI, smoking status, and ECOG performance score were included in all models with additional demographic, clinical characteristics, and hematological function assessed for inclusion. RESULTS: Of the 3625 patients, 43% received GNP, 26% received FOLFIRINOX, 7% received gem-mono, and 23% received other regimens; 40% (n = 1448) advanced to the second line. Among all first-line patients, the following were included in the final model: prior surgery, white blood cell (WBC) counts, serum albumin (SA), liver function tests (LFTs), serum bilirubin, serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9, and ascites. Models for patients receiving specific therapies differed from the overall model, GNP (ascites removed), FOLFIRINOX (stage at initial diagnosis added), and gem-mono (LFTs omitted). Alkaline phosphatase (ALP), SA, and WBC counts were important predictors of survival among patients treated with second-line liposomal irinotecan. Across all regimens, the strongest predictors of survival were ECOG score, SA, and ALP. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of patients with mPDAC, important population prognostic factors of survival were identified in a large cohort of patients receiving systemic treatment.

The Association of Real-World CA 19-9 Level Monitoring Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is expected to be the third deadliest cancer in the US in 2021. Evaluation of treatment response in patients with mPDAC necessitates scheduled clinical and radiographic assessments along with monitoring serum CA 19-9 levels. Currently available single-institution data examining the importance of CA 19-9 monitoring cannot be generalized to real-world settings. We investigated the impact of serum CA 19-9 monitoring and its association with clinical outcomes in patients with mPDAC in a population-based setting. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database for patients diagnosed with mPDAC between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2020. Serum CA 19-9 levels at baseline - defined as the values obtained ≤ 60 days prior to treatment initiation - and during treatment were extracted. CA 19-9 levels > 40 IU/mL were considered elevated. Survival outcomes were compared based on testing frequency, baseline CA 19-9 levels, and change in CA 19-9. RESULTS: 6,118 patients with mPDAC who received treatment were included in the analysis. The median age at diagnosis was 68 years (IQR: 61-75). Patients with normal baseline CA 19-9 experienced longer median survival than patients with elevated levels [1L: 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.9 - 10) vs. 7.2 months (6.8 - 7.5), p < 0.001; 2L: 7.2 months (6.1 - 9.2) vs. 5.2 months (4.9 - 5.6), p < 0.001; 3L: 6.1 months (5.4 - 9.1) vs. 3.9 months (3.4 - 4.3), p < 0.001]. Patients with decreasing/stable CA 19-9 during treatment experienced longer survival than patients who experienced an increase in CA 19-9 levels [1L: 10.9 months (10.5 - 11.3) vs. 5.4 months (5.1 - 5.9), p < 0.0001; 2L: 8.2 months (7.7 - 8.5) vs. 4.3 months (4.1 - 4.7), p < 0.001; 3L: 7.5 months (6.6 - 9.2) vs. 3.7 months (3.4 - 4.3), p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: In one of the largest, contemporary, real-world studies of patients with mPDAC, elevated CA 19-9 level at treatment initiation demonstrated a prognostic impact. Routine serial monitoring of CA 19-9 levels during treatment may be warranted, in addition to clinical and radiographic assessment, and may translate into better patient outcomes. Further validation studies are needed to understand the generalizability of these results.