Osimertinib in Patients With Treatment-Naive EGFR-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Overall Survival, Post-progression Management and Budget Impact Analysis in Real-World.

INTRODUCTION: The observational multicenter prospective FLOWER study (NCT04965701) confirmed effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in the real-world (RW) management of untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients. METHODS: Herein, we report updated survival data, post-progression management, cost/effectiveness and budget impact (BI) of osimertinib compared with a RW population receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. RESULTS: Overall, 189 Caucasian patients receiving first-line osimertinib were included. After a follow-up of 20.7 months, 74(39.2%) patients discontinued osimertinib, median time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) was 27.9 months, overall survival 36.8 months. At progression, tissue biopsy was performed in 29 (56.9%), liquid biopsy in 15 (29.4%) and both in 7 (13.7%) cases. The most frequent resistant mechanism was MET amplification (N = 14, 29.8%). At data cutoff, 13 (6.9%) patients were continuing osimertinib beyond progression; 52 (67.5%) received second-line treatment; no further treatments were administered in 25 (32.5%) cases. Thirty-three (63.4%) patients received chemotherapy, 12(23.1%) TKIs combination. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed a total cost per patient based on RW mTTD of 98,957.34€, 21,726.28€ and 19,637.83€ for osimertinib, erlotinib and gefitinib, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/month for osimertinib was 359,806.0€/life-year-gained (LYG) and 197,789.77€/LYG compared to erlotinib and gefitinib. For osimertinib, the BI-gap between RW-TTD and theoretical-TTD was 16,501.0€ per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This updated analysis confirms the effectiveness of osimertinib in RW. Although the ICER of osimertinib seems not cost-effective, additional costs for the management of disease progression to old generation TKIs were not considered in this study. The BI-gap suggests RW mTTD as a more reliable measure for expense estimation.

Antigen rapid diagnostic test monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients: Is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Routine testing for cancer patients not presenting COVID-19-related symptoms and fully vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 prior to cancer treatment is controversial. METHODS: In this retrospective study we evaluated whether antigen-rapid-diagnostic-test (Ag-RDT) monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in a large cohort of consecutive asymptomatic (absence of SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat or nasal congestion) and fully vaccinated cancer patients enrolled in a short period during cancer treatment has an impact on the therapeutic path of cancer patients. RESULTS: From December 27, 2021, to February 11, 2022, 2439 cancer patients were screened through Ag-RDT for SARS-CoV-2 before entering the hospital for systemic treatment. Fifty-three patients (2.17%) tested positive, of whom 7 (13.2%) subsequently developed COVID-related symptoms, generally mild. Cancer treatment was discontinued, as a precaution, in 49 patients (92.5%) due to the test positivity. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 screening in asymptomatic and fully vaccinated cancer patients during systemic treatment appeared to be not cost-effective: the low rate of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and the low percentage of overt associated infection do not seem proportional to the direct costs (nursing work for swabs, costs of materials and patient monitoring) and indirect costs (dedicated rooms, extension of waiting times for patients and oncologists in delivering therapy as well as its discontinuation in the positive ones). It can, on the other hand, be detrimental when systemic cancer treatment is suspended as a precaution. Given the small number of patients testing positive and the rapid and favorable trend of the infection, it is recommended to always consider continuing systemic oncological treatment, especially when this impacts patient survival as in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Cost Consequence Analysis.

PURPOSE: The present work aimed at conducting a real-world data analysis on the management costs and survival analysis comparing data from non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases diagnosed in the Veneto region before (2015) and after (2017) the implementation of a regional diagnostic and therapeutic pathway including all new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. METHOD: This study considered 254 incidental cases of NSCLC in 2015 and 228 in 2017 within the territory of the Padua province (Italy), as recorded by the Veneto Cancer Registry. Tobit regression analysis was performed to verify if total and each item costs (2 years after NSCLC diagnosis) are associated with index year, adjusting by year of diagnosis, sex, age, and stage at diagnosis. Logistic regression models were run to study overall mortality at 2 years, adjusting by the same covariates. RESULTS: The 2017 cohort had a lower mortality odd (odds ratio, 0.93; P = .02) and a significant increase in the average overall costs (P = .009) than the 2015 cohort. The Tobit regression analysis by cost item showed a very significant increase in the average cost of drugs (coefficient = 5,953, P = .008) for the 2017 cohort, as well as a decrease in the average cost of hospice care (coefficient = -1,822.6, P = .022). CONCLUSION: Our study showed a survival improvement for patients with NSCLC as well as an economic burden growth. Physicians should therefore be encouraged to follow new clinical care pathways, while the steadily rising related costs underscore the need for policymakers and health professionals to pursue.

Early assessment of KRAS mutation in cfDNA correlates with risk of progression and death in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy has the potential to monitor biological effects of treatment. KRAS represents the most commonly mutated oncogene in Caucasian non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to explore association of dynamic plasma KRAS genotyping with outcome in advanced NSCLC patients. METHODS: Advanced NSCLC patients were prospectively enrolled. Plasma samples were collected at baseline (T1), after 3 or 4 weeks, according to treatment schedule (T2) and at first radiological restaging (T3). Patients carrying KRAS mutation in tissue were analysed in plasma with droplet digital PCR. Semi-quantitative index of fractional abundance of mutated allele (MAFA) was used. RESULTS: KRAS-mutated cohort included 58 patients, and overall 73 treatments (N = 39 chemotherapy and N = 34 immune checkpoint inhibitors) were followed with longitudinal liquid biopsy. Sensitivity of KRAS detection in plasma at baseline was 48.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 35.0-61.8). KRAS mutation at T2 was associated with increased probability of experiencing progressive disease as best radiological response (adjusted odds ratio: 7.3; 95% CI: 2.1-25.0, p = 0.0016). Increased MAFA (T1-T2) predicted shorter progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 2.1; 95% CI: 1.2-3.8, p = 0.0142) and overall survival (adjusted HR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.2-8.4, p = 0.0168). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal analysis of plasma KRAS mutations correlated with outcome: its early assessment during treatment has great potentialities for monitoring treatment outcome in NSCLC patients.

From Diagnostic-Therapeutic Pathways to Real-World Data: A Multicenter Prospective Study on Upfront Treatment for EGFR-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (MOST Study).

INTRODUCTION: Gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib represent the approved first-line options for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because pivotal trials frequently lack external validity, real-world data may help to depict the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway and treatment outcome in clinical practice. METHODS: MOST is a multicenter observational study promoted by the Veneto Oncology Network, aiming at monitoring the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway of patients with nonsquamous EGFR-mutant NSCLC. We reported treatment outcome in terms of median time to treatment failure (mTTF) and assessed the impact of each agent on the expense of the regional health system, comparing it with a prediction based on the pivotal trials. RESULTS: An EGFR mutation test was performed in 447 enrolled patients, of whom 124 had EGFR mutation and who received gefitinib (n = 69, 55%), erlotinib (n = 33, 27%), or afatinib (n = 22, 18%) as first-line treatment. Because erlotinib was administered within a clinical trial to 15 patients, final analysis was limited to 109 patients. mTTF was 15.3 months, regardless of the type of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) used. In the MOST study, the budget impact analysis showed a total expense of €3,238,602.17, whereas the cost estimation according to median progression-free survival from pivotal phase III trials was €1,813,557.88. CONCLUSION: Good regional adherence and compliance to the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway defined for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC was shown. mTTF did not significantly differ among the three targeted TKIs. Our budget impact analysis suggests the potential application of real-world data in the process of drug price negotiation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The MOST study is a real-world data collection reporting a multicenter adherence and compliance to diagnostic-therapeutic pathways defined for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. This represents an essential element of evidence-based medicine, providing information on patients and situations that may be challenging to assess using only data from randomized controlled trials, e.g., turn-around time of diagnostic tests, treatment compliance and persistence, guideline adherence, challenging-to-treat populations, drug safety, comparative effectiveness, and cost effectiveness. This study may be of interest to various stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and payers), providing a meaningful picture of the value of a given therapy in routine clinical practice.

External validation of Modified Breast Graded Prognostic Assessment for breast cancer patients with brain metastases: A multicentric European experience.

BACKGROUND: Several prognostic scores have been developed to estimate survival of breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BM). Modified Breast Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA), based on a single-institution cohort of 1552 patients, has been proposed as refinement of Breast-GPA. In addition to age, tumour subtype and KPS, Modified Breast-GPA comprises number of BM. This study was designed to validate Modified Breast-GPA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical data of 668 BC patients diagnosed with BM at four institutions between 1996 and 2016 were reviewed. Patients were classified by Breast-GPA and Modified Breast-GPA. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of BM diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Cox proportional models were used to calculate hazard-ratios and their 95% CI. The performances of Breast-GPA and Modified Breast-GPA were compared using Harrell's concordance index. RESULTS: Median age at BM diagnosis was 56 years (range 24-85). At last follow-up, 632 patients (94.6%) had died. Median OS was 8.1 months (95% CI 6.9-9.4). The number of BM (1-3 vs. >3) was significantly associated with OS in univariate analysis (p < 0.001) and having >3 BM was identified as a negative prognostic factor in multivariate analysis. Both Breast-GPA and Modified Breast-GPA accurately predicted OS (p < 0.001 for both scores). Performance of Modified Breast-GPA was better: concordance indices were 0.6390 (95% CI, 0.6381 to 0.6399) and 0.6647 (95% CI, 0.6639 to 0.6655) for Breast-GPA and Modified Breast-GPA, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This work provides the first external independent validation of Modified Breast-GPA and confirms its better performance as compared to Breast-GPA.

Beyond breast specific-Graded Prognostic Assessment in patients with brain metastases from breast cancer: treatment impact on outcome.

Brain metastases are a serious relatively common complication of breast cancer. We evaluated prognostic factors for survival after diagnosis of brain metastases from breast cancer in a contemporary cohort of patients. Patients diagnosed with breast cancer brain metastases at our institution between 1999 and March 2016 were evaluated. Overall survival was defined as time from brain metastasis diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Patients were classified according to the Breast cancer-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (BS-GPA), based on age, Karnofsky performance score and breast cancer phenotype. 181 patients were identified. Tumor phenotype distribution was as follows: triple negative (TN, 18.8%), hormone receptor (HR)-HER2+ (16.6%), HR+HER2+ (23.2%) and HR+HER2- (30.9%), not available (10.5%). Median overall survival from brain metastasis diagnosis was 7.7 mos (95% CI 5.4-10.0 mos). Although TN patients experienced the worse outcome, no significant difference was observed across tumor phenotypes (median 5.1, 7.7, 11.0 and 8.6 months in TN, HR-HER2+, HR+HER2+, HR+HER2-, p = 0.081). The BS-GPA index was significantly associated with overall survival (median 18.8, 8.8, 6.2 and 3.6 months, respectively, for BS-GPA categories 3.5-4, 2.5-3, 1.5-2 and 0-1, p = 0.014). Increased number of local treatments for brain metastasis (radiotherapy or neurosurgery) or the administration of systemic therapy after brain metastasis diagnosis were also significant predictors of better overall survival (p < 0.001) and, when evaluated in multivariate analysis with BS-GPA, both added independent prognostication beyond BS-GPA. Patient-related features, tumor phenotype and multimodal treatments all independently contribute to modulate prognosis of patients diagnosed with breast cancer brain metastases.

Agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and comparison with alternative tests: individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may guide breast cancer surgery by measuring residual tumor size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Accurate measurement may avoid overly radical surgery or reduce the need for repeat surgery. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis examines MRI's agreement with pathology in measuring the longest tumor diameter and compares MRI with alternative tests. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Heath Technology Assessment, and Cochrane databases identified eligible studies. Primary study authors supplied IPD in a template format constructed a priori. Mean differences (MDs) between tests and pathology (i.e. systematic bias) were calculated and pooled by the inverse variance method; limits of agreement (LOA) were estimated. Test measurements of 0.0 cm in the presence of pathologic residual tumor, and measurements >0.0 cm despite pathologic complete response (pCR) were described for MRI and alternative tests. RESULTS: Eight studies contributed IPD (N = 300). The pooled MD for MRI was 0.0 cm (LOA: +/-3.8 cm). Ultrasound underestimated pathologic size (MD: -0.3 cm) relative to MRI (MD: 0.1 cm), with comparable LOA. MDs were similar for MRI (0.1 cm) and mammography (0.0 cm), with wider LOA for mammography. Clinical examination underestimated size (MD: -0.8 cm) relative to MRI (MD: 0.0 cm), with wider LOA. Tumors "missed" by MRI typically measured 2.0 cm or less at pathology; tumors >2.0 cm were more commonly "missed" by clinical examination (9.3 %). MRI measurements >5.0 cm occurred in 5.3 % of patients with pCR, but were more frequent for mammography (46.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: There was no systematic bias in MRI tumor measurement, but LOA are large enough to be clinically important. MRI's performance was generally superior to ultrasound, mammography, and clinical examination, and it may be considered the most appropriate test in this setting. Test combinations should be explored in future studies.