Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Per PD-L1 Stratum In Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Effectiveness Versus Trial Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness of oncological treatments can differ. This study assessed the real-world survival outcomes of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy per PD-L1 stratum in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) and compared them to clinical trial results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with nonsquamous and squamous mNSCLC who received first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in 7 Dutch teaching hospitals between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021 were included. Hazard ratios (HR) with confidence intervals (95% CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated to determine the efficacy-effectiveness gap (EE gap) between real-world and clinical trial, stratified by PD-L1 stratum. RESULTS: The nonsquamous cohort (n = 486) consisted of 269 patients with PD-L1 < 1%, 158 with PD-L1 1% to 49%, and 59 with PD-L1 ≥ 50%. The squamous cohort (n = 117) consisted of 70 patients with PD-L1 < 1% and 47 with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. For OS, an EE gap was observed in nonsquamous patients with PD-L1 < 1% (HR 1.38 (95% CI 1.06-1.78; median OS 10 vs. 17.2 months) and HRs consistently >1 in all other nonsquamous and squamous PD-L1 strata, although not statistically significant. No EE-gap for PFS was observed in any stratum. CONCLUSION: No significant EE gap was found for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, except in the stratum nonsquamous mNSCLC with <1% PD-L1 tumor expression. In these patients, the survival in real-world was considerably shorter compared to the clinical trial results. Further studies are needed to determine which patient, treatment and or context factors contribute to this disparity.

Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer.

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (<20.0 kg/m2 ) had significantly shorter PFS/OS compared to all other subgroups. Patients with a high plasma trough concentration in steady state (Cmin,SS ; >271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (<163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib.

Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: real-world outcomes versus clinical trial results.

Aim: We investigated the effectiveness of durvalumab post-concurrent CRT (cCRT) and post-sequential CRT (sCRT) versus cCRT and sCRT alone and compared these outcomes with the PACIFIC trial. Methods: Four cohorts of stage III NSCLC patients who received CRT were included: cCRT with and without durvalumab, sCRT with and without durvalumab. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox regression. Results: Durvalumab improved PFS (cCRT: aHR = 0.69, sCRT: aHR = 0.71) and OS (cCRT: aHR = 0.71, sCRT: aHR = 0.32), although not all results were significant. PFS was longer in the real-world than in the trial, while OS did not differ. Conclusion: Durvalumab after CRT improved the survival outcomes. The difference between PFS in our study and the trial may be due to differences in follow-up methods.

We assessed a medicine called durvalumab on patients with non-small cell lung cancer who received chemoradiotherapy in a real-world setting. We compared their outcomes with those from a clinical trial. Patients who received two types of chemoradiotherapy with or without durvalumab were included, and their progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were analyzed. We found that patients treated with durvalumab had better PFS and OS than those treated without durvalumab. PFS was longer in the real-world than in the clinical trial, but OS was similar. The difference in PFS may be due to differences in measuring PFS.

Critical appraisal of evidence for anti-Xa monitoring and dosing of low-molecular-weight heparin in renal insufficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Several guidelines advise to monitor therapeutic LMWH therapy with peak anti-Xa concentrations in renal insufficiency with subsequent dose adjustments. A better understanding of the clinical association between peak anti-Xa concentrations and clinical outcomes is mandatory, because misunderstanding this association could lead to erroneous, and potentially even harmful, LMWH dose adjustments. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed the evidence of the widely applied therapeutic window for anti-Xa peak concentrations and report on the evidence for pharmacokinetic dose reduction in renal insufficiency, limitations of peak and trough anti-Xa concentration monitoring. EXPERT OPINION: The added value of peak anti-Xa monitoring in patients with renal insufficiency, receiving a dose reduced for pharmacokinetic changes, is not supported by data. Enoxaparin and nadroparin should be adjusted to 50-65% and 75-85% of the original dose for patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCL) of <30 ml/min and 30-60 ml/min, respectively. Tinzaparin should be adjusted to around 50% of the original dose for patients with a CrCL of <30 ml/min. In case anti-Xa monitoring is applied, trough concentration anti-Xa monitoring is preferred over peak monitoring, aiming at a maximum concentration of 0.4 IU/mL for once-daily dosed tinzaparin and 0.5 IU/mL for twice-daily dosed enoxaparin and nadroparin.

Real-world outcomes versus clinical trial results of immunotherapy in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Netherlands.

This study aims to assess how clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in real-world (effectiveness) correspond to outcomes in clinical trials (efficacy) and to look into factors that might explain an efficacy-effectiveness (EE) gap. All patients diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2015-2018 in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were identified and followed-up from date of diagnosis until death or end of data collection. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from first-line (1L) pembrolizumab and second-line (2L) nivolumab were compared with clinical trial data by calculating hazard ratios (HRs). From 1950 diagnosed patients, 1005 (52%) started with any 1L treatment, of which 83 received pembrolizumab. Nivolumab was started as 2L treatment in 141 patients. For both settings, PFS times were comparable between real-world and trials (HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.75-1.55), and HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.74-1.14), respectively). OS was significantly shorter in real-world for 1L pembrolizumab (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.07-2.25). Receiving subsequent lines of treatment was less frequent in real-world compared to trials. There is no EE gap for PFS from immunotherapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC. However, there is a gap in OS for 1L pembrolizumab. Fewer patients proceeding to a subsequent line of treatment in real-world could partly explain this.