Assessment of Clinical Response Following Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Treatment in Patients With Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Therapies for patients with advanced well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have expanded but remain inadequate, with patients dying of disease despite recent advances in NET therapy. While patients with other cancers have seen long-term disease control and tumor regression with the application of immunotherapies, initial prospective studies of single-agent programmed cell death 1 inhibitors in NET have been disappointing. Objective: To evaluate the response rate following treatment with the combination of the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab with the programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 inhibitor atezolizumab in patients with advanced NETs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-arm, open-label nonrandomized clinical study in patients with rare cancers included 40 patients with advanced, progressive grade 1 to 2 NETs (20 with pancreatic NETs [pNETs] and 20 with extrapancreatic NETs [epNETs]) treated at a tertiary care referral cancer center between March 31, 2017, and February 19, 2019. Data were analyzed from June to September 2021. Interventions: Patients received intravenous bevacizumab and atezolizumab at standard doses every 3 weeks until progression, death, or withdrawal. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was objective radiographic response using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, with progression-free survival (PFS) as a key secondary end point. Results: Following treatment of the 40 study patients with bevacizumab and atezolizumab, objective response was observed in 4 patients with pNETs (20%; 95% CI, 5.7%-43.7%) and 3 patients with epNETs (15%; 95% CI, 3.2%-37.9%). The PFS was 14.9 (95% CI, 4.4-32.0) months and 14.2 (95% CI, 10.2-19.6) months in these cohorts, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized clinical trial, findings suggest that clinical responses in patients with NET may follow treatment with the combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab, with a PFS consistent with effective therapies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03074513.

Demonstrating value: association of cost and quality outcomes with implementation of a value-driven oncology-hospitalist inpatient collaboration for patients with lung cancer.

The hospitalist model of care has gained favour in many hospital systems for the value, cost-effectiveness and quality of care that hospitalists provide. Hospitalists are experts in high-acuity medical problems of patients and they are intimately knowledgeable about hospital operations that enable efficiency of patient care. This results in tremendous cost-savings for institutions especially since hospitalists are also obligated to be involved in quality and practice improvement initiatives. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center employs oncology-hospitalists for many of their patients with cancer needing inpatient services. This physician team has expertise in both cancer-related and comorbidity-related reasons for hospitalisation. In September 2015, the thoracic and head and neck medical oncology team started a collaboration with the Oncology Hospitalist team whereby a proportion of patients with thoracic malignancies were directly admitted to hospitalists for inpatient care. To determine the value of this collaboration, a pre- and post- implementation study was done to compare quality outcomes such as readmission rates and length of stay (LOS) between the two groups. Adjusted outcomes showed that readmission rates were similar for both physician groups both at baseline and after implementation of the collaborative (p=0.680 and p=0.840, respectively). Median LOS was similar for both groups at baseline (4 days) and was not significantly different post-implementation (4vs5 days, p=0.07). The adjusted cost of a hospitalisation was also similar for hospitalist encounters and thoracic oncology encounters. This initial study showed that quality of care remained comparable for patients with lung cancer who were admitted to either service. With possibly shorter LOS but comparable readmission outcomes and adjusted cost for patients discharged from the hospitalist service, there is a strong value benefit for the implemented Thoracic Oncology-Hospitalist inpatient collaborative.