Efficacy-effectiveness analysis on survival in a population-based real-world study of BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with encorafenib-cetuximab.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib-cetuximab has been approved for pretreated BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients based on efficacy demonstrated in the randomized phase III BEACON trial. The aim of this real-world effectiveness study is to improve knowledge on the generalizability of trial results. METHODS: This population-based real-world study includes all mCRC patients in the Netherlands treated with encorafenib-cetuximab since approval. Individual patient data and pathology reports were collected. Overall survival (OS) was compared to BEACON and subgroup analyses were conducted for patients who would have been eligible and ineligible for BEACON. RESULTS: 166 patients were included with a median follow-up time of 14.5 months. Median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI:6.0-8.3) and differed from BEACON (9.3 months; 95% CI:8.0-11.3, p-value 0.002). Thirty-six percent of real-world patients would have been ineligible for the BEACON trial. Trial ineligible subgroups with symptomatic brain metastases and WHO performance status ≥2 had the poorest median OS of 5.0 months (95% CI:4.0-NR) and 3.9 months (95% CI:2.4-NR). CONCLUSION: This real-world cohort of mCRC patients treated with encorafenib-cetuximab showed a clinically relevant efficacy-effectiveness gap for OS. The chance of survival benefit from encorafenib-cetuximab in patients with brain metastases and/or WHO performance status ≥2 is negligible as neither efficacy nor effectiveness has been demonstrated.

A federated approach to identify women with early-stage cervical cancer at low risk of lymph node metastases.

OBJECTIVE: Lymph node metastases (pN+) in presumed early-stage cervical cancer negatively impact prognosis. Using federated learning, we aimed to develop a tool to identify a group of women at low risk of pN+, to guide the shared decision-making process concerning the extent of lymph node dissection. METHODS: Women with cervical cancer between 2005 and 2020 were identified retrospectively from population-based registries: the Danish Gynaecological Cancer Database, Swedish Quality Registry for Gynaecologic Cancer and Netherlands Cancer Registry. Inclusion criteria were: squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma; The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 IA2, IB1 and IIA1; treatment with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node assessment. We applied privacy-preserving federated logistic regression to identify risk factors of pN+. Significant factors were used to stratify the risk of pN+. RESULTS: We included 3606 women (pN+ 11%). The most important risk factors of pN+ were lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (odds ratio [OR] 5.16, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.59-5.79), tumour size 21-40 mm (OR 2.14, 95% CI, 1.89-2.43) and depth of invasion>10 mm (OR 1.81, 95% CI, 1.59-2.08). A group of 1469 women (41%)-with tumours without LVSI, tumour size ≤20 mm, and depth of invasion ≤10 mm-had a very low risk of pN+ (2.4%, 95% CI, 1.7-3.3%). CONCLUSION: Early-stage cervical cancer without LVSI, a tumour size ≤20 mm and depth of invasion ≤10 mm, confers a low risk of pN+. Based on an international privacy-preserving analysis, we developed a useful tool to guide the shared decision-making process regarding lymph node dissection.