RESUMO
The study objective was to assess US physicians' Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability (MMR/MSI) testing practices for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. A non-interventional, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 151 physicians (91 oncologists, 15 surgeons and 45 pathologists) treating mCRC patients in the US. Eligible physicians were US-based with at least 5 years of experience treating CRC patients, had at least one mCRC patient in their routine care in the past 6 months, and had ordered at least one MMR/MSI test for CRC in the past 6 months. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were performed. Awareness of specific MMR/MSI testing guidelines was high (n = 127, 84.1%). Of those, 93.7% (119/127) physicians had awareness of specific published guidelines with majority 67.2% (80/119) being aware of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Universal testing for all CRC patients was performed by 68.9% (104/151) physicians, while 29.8% (45/151) selectively order the test for some CRC patients. Key barriers for testing included insufficient tissue sample (48.3%, 73/151), patient declined to have the test done (35.8%, 54/151) and insurance cost concerns for patients (31.1%, 47/151), while 27.2% (41/151) reported no barriers. The survey demonstrated high awareness and compliance with MMR/MSI testing guidelines although universal testing rates seem to be suboptimal.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: An increased number of pharmacotherapies exist to treat advanced NSCLC. This necessitates a review of the available information on routine-care treatment patterns, the outcome of treatment, and resource utilization for patients diagnosed and treated with advanced NSCLC that could inform evidence-based treatment decisions and aid decisions on the most cost-effective treatment alternatives. METHODS: PubMed and the Health Economic Evaluations Database were searched for retrospective or non-randomized prospective studies between January 2000 and May 2012 that included information on treatment patterns, treatment outcomes including health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), and resource utilization. In addition, registries and databases were identified from retrieved publications and internet searches. Data collected in registries and databases was summarized for eight European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Turkey, the Netherlands, the UK), Australia, and Canada. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 410 studies, whereof 87 studies met the study inclusion criteria. In total, 49 were retrospective chart reviews or database analyses, 30 non-randomized prospective studies, and eight HRQoL studies. Two studies compared treatment patterns and/or treatment outcomes across countries. Altogether, 181 cancer registries in the countries studied were identified. Clinical cancer-specific patient registries were identified in Australia and Germany. Databases or linkage systems that enable retrieval of complete information of patient disease history were found in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Cancer registries and databases were found to collect information on NSCLC patient demographics, NSCLC or lung cancer diagnosis, disease stage, performance status, treatment, treatment outcomes, and resource use. Differences existed between country registries and databases in whether information was collected on each of these data points. CONCLUSION: The literature review revealed few published NSCLC studies on treatment, treatment outcomes, and resource use in routine clinical practice and on HRQoL. Registries and databases were found to collect some of this information, however not systematically.