Uptake of novel therapies into first-line treatment for acute myeloid leukemia patients: EU4 + UK perspective.

Aim: To explore the incorporation of novel agents in the first-line setting for acute myeloid leukemia patients. Materials & methods: Observational study based on data from a multi-country cross-sectional retrospective web-based survey sent to 518 physicians in Europe between 2020 and 2021. Information from 2040 patients was analyzed. Results: 604 patients (29.6%) received novel agents in both intensive and non-intensive setting. Comorbidities were not a barrier for the use of novel agents. The presence of tumor mutations was observed to be an important element for treatment decision. Conclusion: There is a progressive incorporation of novel agents for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia patients.

What is this article about? We now have new treatments for patients suffering from a type of blood cancer called acute myeloid leukemia (acronym AML). They are available as the first choice of therapy. In this study we explored how these new treatments are included in daily patient care. What were the results? We reviewed the data of 2040 patients in Europe, obtained from an online survey sent to physicians in two waves (between 2020 and 2021). The use of these new AML treatments was more frequent in patients who presented some specific gene alterations (changes in their DNA sequence) and were in worse health due to other diseases and old age. Most of the new treatments were administered together with other milder chemotherapies. What do the results of the study mean? The results of this study help us understand how new AML treatments are being used.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic synovial sarcoma in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.

Aim: Describing the treatment patterns, outcomes by line of treatment (LOT), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with metastatic synovial sarcoma (mSS). Patients & methods: In this descriptive, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study, physicians from five European countries reported on patients with recent pharmacological treatment for mSS. Results: Among 296 patients with mSS, 86.1, 38.9 and 8.4% received 1 LOT (1L), 2 LOTs (2L) and 3+ LOTs (L3+), respectively. Common regimens were doxorubicin/ifosfamide-based (37.4%) for 1L and trabectedin-based for 2L (29.7%). For 1L, median time to next treatment was 13.1 and 6.0 months for living and deceased patients, respectively. Median OS was 22.0, 6.0 and 4.9 months in all patients, 2L and 3L, respectively. HCRU data showed median one inpatient hospital admission, 3 days in hospital and four outpatient visits yearly. Conclusion: This large-scale study documents high unmet needs in patients previously treated for mSS and for more effective therapies.

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource use in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in Western Europe.

Aim: Assess treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in patients with treatment-naive (TN) or relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in Europe. Patients & methods: Cross-sectional, retrospective, web-based survey of AML-treating healthcare professionals (HCPs) in 12 European countries. Results: 320 HCPs provided information on 1280 TN or R/R patients. Patients ineligible versus eligible for intensive induction therapy required more general practitioner visits (4.1 vs 2.4), more uses of healthcare-related transport (6.9 vs 4.5), but less hospitalization (11.4 vs 27.5 days). Differences were observed in HRU and treatment patterns across countries. Conclusions: This analysis of 'real-world' patients with TN or R/R AML in Europe demonstrates substantial healthcare use, including higher use of resources in patients ineligible for intensive induction therapy.

Lay abstract Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a common cancer, mostly affecting elderly people. Older patients with AML are often unable to receive intensive chemotherapy and they may have limited treatment options, resulting in poor outcomes. This study analyzed the management of AML across 12 European countries and collected data for 1280 patients. Patients who were unable to receive intensive therapy required more general practitioner visits and more use of healthcare-related transport than those who received intensive therapies, but fewer hospital visits. The use of AML therapies also varied across some countries. AML treatment, particularly that associated with hospital stays and related travel, can have a negative impact on the patient's quality of life; therefore, new AML therapies that can reduce the treatment burden will be important in the future.

Impact of biomarkers and primary tumor location on the metastatic colorectal cancer first-line treatment landscape in five European countries.

Background: Advances in therapies for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and improved understanding of prognostic and predictive factors have impacted treatment decisions. Materials & methods: This study used a large oncology database to investigate patterns of monoclonal antibody (mAb) plus chemotherapy treatment in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK in mCRC patients treated in first line in 2018. Results: Anti-EGFR mAbs were most often administered to patients with RAS wild-type mCRC and those with left-sided tumors, while anti-VEGF mAbs were preferred in RAS mutant and right-sided tumors. Adopted treatment strategies differed between countries, largely due to reimbursement. Conclusion: Biomarker status and primary tumor location steered treatment decisions in first line. Adopted treatment strategies differed between participating countries.

Lay abstract Each patient's cancer is unique. For example, colon cancer on the left side is different from colon cancer on the right side. Colon cancer is different from cancer of the rectum. Cancers also have changes in their genes, which means some treatments should work, while others may not. Doctors can select among different medicines to find the drug that works best for each patient. We looked at patients with cancer of the colon or rectum that has spread to other organs. We tried to find out how doctors in Europe select drugs for their patients after performing tests called RAS or BRAF. We found that doctors make different choices in different countries.

Biomarker testing and mutation prevalence in metastatic colorectal cancer patients in five European countries using a large oncology database.

Background: The literature on biomarker testing for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Europe is scarce. This study aimed to estimate the percentage of mCRC patients from five European countries tested for biomarkers over time. Materials & methods: An oncology database was retrospectively analyzed; evaluated biomarkers were RAS, BRAF and microsatellite instability (MSI). The patients were drug treated during 2018 and tested for relevant biomarkers in 2013-2018. Results: RAS testing was conducted in >90% of mCRC patients from 2014 onwards. BRAF testing increased from 31% of mCRC patients in 2013 to 67% in 2018. MSI testing increased from 10 to 41%. There was no notable trend over time for RAS and BRAF mutation or MSI-high prevalence. Conclusion: Biomarker testing among patients diagnosed with mCRC was increased over time. This study demonstrates the quick uptake of biomarker testing in clinical practice. These findings are significant as biomarker-based drugs are becoming more common.

Lay abstract Each patient's cancer is unique. To find the best medicine for each patient, doctors perform tests to look at the cancer's genes. It is unknown how often and how well these tests are done. We tried to find this out for patients with cancer of the bowel or rectum that has spread to other organs. We found that an important genetic test called RAS is done in most patients. Other tests, called BRAF and microsatellite instability, are also conducted increasingly frequently. This is important because the results of such tests allow doctors to decide which drug(s) should be the most effective depending on the patient's cancer genes.

Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes after introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors: Results from a retrospective chart review of patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the EU5.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence is increasingly used to guide treatment and regulatory decisions for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK (EU5) were assessed. METHODS: This retrospective physician-completed patient chart review assessed treatment patterns (regimen, duration of treatment [DOT], time to discontinuation), and clinical outcomes (duration of response [DOR], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]) of patients with stage IIIB/C or IV NSCLC who received pembrolizumab-based first-line induction chemotherapy. RESULTS: Overall, 322 patients were included; at first-line maintenance (1LM), 92% had stage IV NSCLC, 68% had nonsquamous histology, and 89% had no central nervous system (CNS)/brain metastasis. The two most common 1LM regimens were pembrolizumab monotherapy (76% overall) and pembrolizumab + pemetrexed (21% overall). Docetaxel monotherapy was the most common second-line regimen in all countries except Germany (54% overall). For 1LM therapy, the overall median DOT and DOR were 5 and 10 months, respectively; PFS was 7 months and OS was 8 months. Germany had a longer duration of each outcome except for DOR which was longer in Spain. Clinical outcomes were generally poorer for patients with squamous histology and CNS/brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated differences in treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in NSCLC across the EU5 and patient subgroups. Improved survival was generally associated with response to first-line therapy, nonsquamous histology, and CNS/brain metastases absence. These real-world data provide valuable insights which may aid treatment decision-making and clinical trial design.