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.

Prospective validation of a prognostic score for patients in immunotherapy phase I trials: The Gustave Roussy Immune Score (GRIm-Score).

INTRODUCTION: Life expectancy evaluation is crucial when selecting patients who may benefit from phase I studies. The Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score, based on three objective variables (number of metastatic sites, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and serum albumin) was validated in patients treated with cytotoxics and targeted therapies. We aimed to determine if those factors were applicable to immune-checkpoint therapies (ICTs) in phase I trials and to evaluate new variables that may preclude a better prognosis in patients receiving ICT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of survival risk factors in a discovery cohort of 155 patients enrolled into ICT phase I trials at our institution. We computed univariate analysis and multivariate analysis (MVA) of demographics, clinical and biological data to assess their prognostic value for overall survival (OS). MVA results were used to build a prognostic score for OS. A validation cohort of 113 patients enrolled in phase I ICT trials was used to prospectively validate this score. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients (M/F: 83/72; median age 59) receiving an experimental ICT between March 2012 and January 2016 were included in the discovery cohort. An MVA assessing the RMH score variables showed that low albumin (hazard ratio [HR] 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.86) and LDH > upper limit normal (ULN) (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.12-3.15) were independent negative prognostic factors for OS. Interestingly, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) > 6 (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.04-2.95) was associated with a decrease in OS. The number of metastases was not associated with a poorer outcome for this ICT cohort (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51-1.35). A risk score based on the results of the MVA (NLR > 6 = 1; LDH > ULN = 1; albumin < 35 g/l = 1) showed that patients presenting a high score (>1) had a significantly shorter OS (20.4 weeks; 95% CI 5.7-35.2) compared to those with a low score (0 or 1) (68.9 weeks; 95% CI 50-83.7) (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.87-4.64). In the validation cohort of 113 patients, again the patients presenting a high score showed an inferior OS (HR 6.3, 95% CI 2.7-14.8). CONCLUSION: In ICT phase I trials, traditional prognostic variables included in the RMH score may be suboptimal to determine patient's prognosis. In this context, the NLR is a significant prognostic variable. The Gustave Roussy Immune Score, based on albumin, LDH and NLR, allows a better selection of patients for ICT phase I trials.