Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes in adult patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: a retrospective medical record review in the United States.

Aim: To examine clinical characteristics, real-world treatment patterns, and health outcomes among patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using medical records from patients with HER2-negative ABC with BRCA1/2 mutation who received cytotoxic chemotherapy. Data were stratified into groups with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative diagnoses. Time-to-event outcomes (i.e., real-world progression-free survival [rwPFS] and overall survival [OS]) were calculated to summarize health outcomes. Results: When diagnosed with ABC, most patients were younger than 60 years (mean age = 57.3 years), were white (76.4%), and had a family history of BRCA-related cancer (71.5%). A total of 305 patient records were examined; 194 patients (63.6%) had advanced TNBC, and 111 patients (36.4%) had HR+/HER2-negative ABC. Chemotherapy was primarily used as first-line treatment for both subgroups, but the TNBC subgroup received poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors at triple the rate as a second-line treatment and double the rate as a third-line treatment compared with the HR+/HER2-negative subgroup. Two-year OS rates were similar between the TNBC (73.9%) and the HR+/HER2-negative subgroups (77.0%), and anemia, nausea, and neutropenia were the most commonly reported toxicities across all treatments. Conclusion: Clinicians should consider the use of targeted agents such as PARP inhibitors in earlier lines of therapy for ABC given the growing evidence that PARP inhibitors may improve PFS compared with chemotherapy while potentially offering a more manageable toxicity profile and improved quality of life.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer Harboring Homologous Recombination Repair Mutations.

BACKGROUND: There is currently limited literature assessing the real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations. METHODS: Medical charts were abstracted for mCRPC patients with ≥ 1 of 12 HRR somatic gene alterations treated at US oncology centers participating in the American Association for Cancer Research Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange. Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes were assessed from the initiation of first-line or later (1L+) mCRPC therapy received on or after July 1, 2014. RESULTS: Among 138 patients included in the study, the most common somatic HRR mutations were CDK12 (47.8%), BRCA2 (22.5%), and ATM (21.0%). Novel hormonal therapy and taxane chemotherapy were most commonly used in 1L; taxane use increased in later lines. Median overall survival (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 36.3 (30.7-47.8) months from initiation of 1L therapy and decreased for subsequent lines. Similarly, there was a trend of decreasing progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response from 1L to 4L+ therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns identified in this study were similar to those among patients with mCRPC regardless of tumor HRR mutation status in the literature.

Real-world treatment patterns and overall survival among men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) in the US Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Real-world treatment patterns and survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have not been characterized for the full fee-for-service Medicare population. METHODS: Men newly diagnosed with mCRPC were identified in Medicare fee-for-service claims during 1/1/2014-6/30/2019. Men had evidence of mCRPC and continuous insurance coverage ≥1 year before and ≥6 months after diagnosis unless patients died. Treatment patterns after diagnosis were described. Survival from mCRPC diagnosis and from start of first-line (1 L) therapy was modeled using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Among 14,780 men with mCRPC, mean age was 76 and median follow-up after mCRPC was 17.0 months. 22% received no life-prolonging therapy after mCRPC, 78% received ≥1 line of therapy (LOT), 42% underwent ≥2 LOTs, and 20% had ≥3 LOTs. Median time from start of 1 L to next LOT or end of follow-up was 13.7 months, 10.9 months from 2 L start, and 8.9 months from 3 L start. The most common 1 L to 2 L treatment sequences among men with ≥2 lines were NHT followed by a different NHT (33%), chemotherapy followed by NHT (14%), and NHT followed by chemotherapy (13%). For those initiating 1 L treatment with NHTs, only 28% received subsequent treatment with a different class of therapy. Median survival was 25.6 months after mCRPC and 23.4 months following treatment initiation. CONCLUSIONS: More than 1 in 5 Medicare patients with mCRPC did not receive any life-prolonging therapy, and less than half received 2 L therapy. NHTs were the most common 1 L and 2 L therapies, with patients treated with NHT as 1 L followed by a different NHT for 2 L as the most common treatment sequence. Median survival from diagnosis for all patients was 25.6 months. These data highlight the dramatic undertreatment that occurs for mCRPC patients, particularly for therapies beyond NHTs as well as the common use of sequential NHTs in real-world data.

Healthcare Costs in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of US Medicare Fee-For-Service Claims.

INTRODUCTION: To analyze healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the US Medicare population. METHODS: A published claims-based algorithm was used to identify men with mCRPC in the fee-for-service Medicare population between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. Unadjusted all-cause HRU (days) and healthcare costs paid by Medicare (medical and pharmacy) per patient per year (PPPY) are described for the periods before mCRPC diagnosis, after diagnosis, and from the start of first-line (1L), second-line (2L), and third-line (3L) therapy with mCRPC life-prolonging treatments to the start of subsequent therapy or end of follow-up/death. RESULTS: A total of 14,780 men with mCRPC were identified. After mCRPC diagnosis, 11,528 men initiated 1L mCRPC therapy, 6275 initiated 2L, and 2945 initiated 3L. All-cause medical HRU (days PPPY) increased after mCRPC diagnosis and from 1L through 3L treatment, particularly for outpatient care (pre-diagnosis, 10.4; 1L, 16.2; 2L, 18.9; 3L, 22.0) and physician/other visits (pre-diagnosis, 30.1; 1L, 46.5; 2L, 50.2; 3L, 56.9). Similarly, mean all-cause healthcare costs PPPY were $27,468 in the year before mCRPC diagnosis and increased over four fold to $124,379 after mCRPC diagnosis and continued to rise from start of 1L ($148,325) to 2L ($160,118) to 3L ($165,186) therapy. CONCLUSION: HRU and healthcare costs increased substantially following mCRPC diagnosis, and continued to increase even further through progression from 1L through 3L mCRPC therapy. These findings help to quantify the economic burden of mCRPC and to contextualize the economic value of treatments that delay disease progression.

The impact of race on survival in metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most diagnosed cancer in men worldwide. While racial and ethnic differences exist in incidence and mortality, increasing data suggest outcomes by race among men with newly diagnosed PC are similar. However, outcomes among races beyond Black/White have been poorly studied. Moreover, whether outcomes differ by race among men who all have metastatic PC (mPC) is unclear. This systematic literature review (SLR) provides a comprehensive synthesis of current evidence relating race to survival in mPC. METHODS: An SLR was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane Library using the Ovid® interface were searched for real-world studies published from January 2012 to July 2022 investigating the impact of race on overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in patients with mPC. A supplemental search of key congresses was also conducted. Studies were appraised for risk of bias. RESULTS: Of 3228 unique records identified, 62 records (47 full-text and 15 conference abstracts), corresponding to 54 unique studies (51 United States and 3 ex-United States) reporting on race and survival were included. While most studies showed no difference between Black vs White patients for OS (n = 21/27) or PCSM (n = 8/9), most showed that Black patients demonstrated improved OS on certain mPC treatments (n = 7/10). Most studies found no survival difference between White patients and Hispanic (OS: n = 6/8; PCSM: n = 5/6) or American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) (OS: n = 2/3; PCSM: n = 5/5). Most studies found Asian patients had improved OS (n = 3/4) and PCSM (n = 6/6) vs White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies found Black, Hispanic, and AI/AN patients with mPC had similar survival as White patients, while Black patients on certain therapies and Asian patients showed improved survival. Future studies are needed to understand what aspects of race including social determinants of health are driving these findings.

Real-World Treatment Patterns Among Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results From an International Study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited real-world evidence on how increasing use of treatment intensification in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has influenced treatment decisions in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The study objective was to evaluate the impact of novel hormonal therapy (NHT) and docetaxel use in mCSPC on first-line treatment patterns among patients with mCRPC in 5 European countries and the United States (US). METHODS: Physician-reported data on patients with mCRPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Program were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 215 physicians provided data on 722 patients with mCRPC. Across 5 European countries and the US, 65% and 75% of patients, respectively, received NHT, and 28% and 9% of patients, respectively, received taxane chemotherapy as first-line mCRPC treatment. In Europe, patients who had received NHT in mCSPC (n = 76) mostly received taxane chemotherapy in mCRPC (55%). Patients who had received taxane chemotherapy, or who did not receive taxane chemotherapy or NHT in mCSPC (n = 98 and 434, respectively) mostly received NHT in mCRPC (62% and 73%, respectively). In the US, patients who had received NHT, taxane chemotherapy, or neither in mCSPC (n = 32, 12, and 72, respectively) mostly received NHT in mCRPC (53%, 83%, and 83%, respectively). Two patients in Europe were rechallenged with the same NHT. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that physicians consider mCSPC treatment history when making first-line treatment decisions in mCRPC. Further studies are needed to better understand optimal treatment sequencing, especially as new treatments emerge.

Real-World Treatment Trends Among Patients with Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Results from an International Study.

BACKGROUND: Continuous androgen deprivation therapy ± first-generation non-steroidal antiandrogen was previously the standard-of-care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Treatment intensification with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) or taxane chemotherapy is now approved and guideline-recommended for these patients. METHODS: Physician-reported data on adult patients with mCSPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme were analyzed descriptively. We evaluated real-world treatment trends for patients with mCSPC in 5 European countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy) and the United States (US), looking at differences between patients initiating treatment in 2016-2018 and in 2019-2020. We also investigated treatment trends by ethnicity and insurance status in the US. RESULTS: This study found that most patients with mCSPC do not receive treatment intensification. However, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT and taxane chemotherapy was observed in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 across 5 European countries. In the US, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 was observed for all ethnicity groups and those with Medicare and commercial insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: As the number of patients with mCSPC who receive treatment intensification increases, more patients who progress to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have been exposed to intensified treatments. Treatment options for patients with mCSPC and mCRPC overlap, suggesting that an unmet need will emerge for new therapies. Further studies are needed to understand optimal treatment sequencing in mCSPC and mCRPC.

Real-World Study of Regional Differences in Patient Demographics, Clinical Characteristics, and BRCA1/2 Mutation Testing in Patients with Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer in the United States, Europe, and Israel.

INTRODUCTION: Genetic mutations in breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) confer a high risk for developing breast cancer; however, at least 50% of women with BRCA1/2 mutations go undiagnosed. This study evaluated differences in patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and BRCA1/2 mutation testing in the USA, European Union (EU4), and Israel in a real-world population of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the Adelphi Real World ABC Disease Specific Programme in the USA, EU4, and Israel. Medical oncologists completed a patient record form, which included detailed questions on demographics, clinical assessments and outcomes, and treatment history. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age and receiving therapy for stage IIIb-IV ABC. RESULTS: Among the 2527 study patients, 407 were from the USA, 1926 were from the EU4, and 194 were from Israel; 86% had hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- ABC and 14% had triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Israeli patients had a higher rate of family history of BRCA-related cancer (69%) compared with patients in the EU4 (18%; p < 0.0001) and USA (18%; p < 0.0001). Among patients with HR+/HER2- ABC, the BRCA1/2 testing rate was 99% in Israel, 37% in the EU4, and 68% in the USA (p < 0.0001 vs Israel and the EU4). The age of tested patients was significantly younger in Israel (56 years) compared with the EU4 (59 years; p = 0.016 vs Israel) and USA (64 years; p < 0.0001 vs Israel and the EU4). Among patients with TNBC, the BRCA1/2 testing rate was 100% in Israel, 78% in the EU4 (p < 0.0001 vs Israel), and 93% in the USA (p < 0.002 vs the EU4). Among tested patients, genetic counseling rates were also higher in Israel (98%) compared with the EU4 (40%; p < 0.0001) and USA (38%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Testing and genetic counseling rates for BRCA1/2 mutations were very high in Israel, potentially due to the high rate of family history of BRCA-related cancer in this population and higher general awareness of genetic testing. In the EU4 and USA, overall rates of testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and genetic counseling were significantly lower compared with Israel. Given the high risk of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and the efficacy of new therapies in treating ABC with a BRCA1/2 mutation, efforts should be made to improve BRCA1/2 testing rates in Europe and the USA.

Patient-reported Outcomes in Men with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Harboring DNA Damage Response Alterations Treated with Talazoparib: Results from TALAPRO-1.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib has shown antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and DNA damage response (DDR)/homologous recombination repair (HRR) alterations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain in patients who received talazoparib in the TALAPRO-1 study, with a special interest in patients harboring breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TALAPRO-1 is a single-arm, phase 2 study in men with mCRPC DDR alterations either directly or indirectly involved in HRR, who previously received one to two taxane-based chemotherapy regimens for advanced prostate cancer and whose mCRPC progressed on one or more novel hormonal agents. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Men completed the European Quality-of-life Five-dimension Five-level scale (EQ-5D-5L), EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at predefined time points during the study. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) population included men who completed a baseline and one or more postbaseline assessments before study end. Longitudinal mixed-effect models assuming an unstructured covariance matrix were used to estimate the mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change from baseline for pain and general health status measurements among all patients and patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the 97 men in the PRO population treated with talazoparib (BRCA1/2, n = 56), the mean (95% CI) EQ-5D-5L Index improved (all patients, 0.05 [0.01, 0.08]; BRCA1/2 subset, 0.07 [0.03, 0.10]), as did the EQ-5D VAS scores (all patients, 5.42 [2.65, 8.18]; BRCA1/2 subset, 4.74 [1.07, 8.41]). Improvements in the estimated overall change from baseline (95% CI) in the mean worst pain were observed in all patients (-1.08 [-1.52, -0.65]) and the BRCA1/2 subset (-1.15 [-1.67, -0.62]). The probability of not having had experienced deterioration of worst pain by month 12 was 84% for all patients and 83% for the BRCA1/2 subset. CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated men with mCRPC and DDR/HRR alterations, talazoparib was associated with improved HRQoL in all patients and the BRCA1/2 subset. In both patient groups, worst pain improved from baseline and the probability of not experiencing a deterioration in worst pain with talazoparib was high. PATIENT SUMMARY: We show that talazoparib was associated at least with no change or improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain burden in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA damage response/homologous recombination repair gene alterations in the TALAPRO-1 study. These findings in patient-reported HRQoL and pain complement the antitumor activity and tolerability profile of talazoparib.

Real-world patient-reported outcomes and physician satisfaction with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors versus chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer from the United States, Europe, and Israel.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) versus chemotherapy resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival, manageable adverse event profiles, and favorable patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) and germline BRCA1/2 mutations (gBRCA1/2mut). The objective of this study was to evaluate PROs and physician satisfaction with treatment in patients with gBRCA1/2mut HER2- ABC receiving PARPi or physician's choice of chemotherapy in a multi-country, real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used data from the Adelphi Real World ABC Disease Specific Programmes in the United States, European Union, and Israel. PROs were assessed at a single timepoint using the EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) scale, Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the breast cancer-specific module (QLQ-BR23). Baseline PROs were not assessed. Physician satisfaction with treatment scores was dichotomized to a 0/1 variable (0 = very dissatisfied/dissatisfied/moderately satisfied; 1 = satisfied/very satisfied). Scores were compared using inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment, controlling for multiple confounding factors. RESULTS: The study included 96 patients (PARPi, n = 38; platinum/non-platinum-based chemotherapy, n = 58). Patients receiving PARPi versus chemotherapy reported significantly better scores on the EQ-5D-5L Health Utility Index. On the EORTC QLQ-C30 functional scales, patients receiving PARPi reported significantly better scores (mean ± SE) for physical functioning (80.0 ± 2.4 vs 71.9 ± 3.4; p < 0.05) and social functioning (82.0 ± 6.2 vs 63.6 ± 3.7; p < 0.05) and, on the symptom scales, reported significantly better scores for constipation (1.9 ± 1.8 vs 18.7 ± 3.2; p < 0.001), breast symptoms (0.4 ± 3.9 vs 13.3 ± 2.6; p < 0.01), arm symptoms (2.6 ± 1.3 vs 11.4 ± 2.4; p = 0.001), and systemic therapy side effects (13.5 ± 1.8 vs 29.4 ± 2.3; p < 0.001). In contrast, patients receiving chemotherapy scored significantly better on the nausea/vomiting scale (18.3 ± 2.8 vs 34.5 ± 5.1; p < 0.01). Patients receiving PARPi reported numerically better satisfaction scores on the CTSQ scales. Physicians were more likely to be satisfied/very satisfied with PARPi versus chemotherapy (95.4% ± 7.3% vs 40.8% ± 6.2%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The PRO findings in this real-world population of patients with gBRCA1/2mut HER2- ABC complement those from the pivotal clinical trials, providing further support for treatment with PARPi in these patients.

Real-world study of patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒Negative advanced breast cancer: Patient demographics, treatment patterns, adverse events, and physician-reported satisfaction in the United States, Europe, and Israel.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) are informed by tumor characteristics and include platinum- and non-platinum-based chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, endocrine monotherapy, or endocrine therapy plus a targeted therapy. In addition, poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have recently demonstrated improved clinical and patient-reported outcomes and manageable toxicity profiles compared with chemotherapy in patients with germline breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (gBRCA1/2)‒mutated HER2- ABC in clinical trials and are now approved to treat this patient population. This study provides complementary real-world data regarding treatment patterns, adverse events, and physician-reported treatment satisfaction in this population. METHODS: This retrospective analysis using the Adelphi Real World ABC Disease Specific Programme in the United States, European Union, and Israel included patients aged ≥18 years receiving therapy for stage IIIb or IV gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2- ABC. Oncologists completed a patient record form detailing patient demographics, clinical assessments, and treatment history and a survey regarding their use of and satisfaction with treatments. RESULTS: Among the 543 patients, mean age was 55 years, 25% were premenopausal, 70% had hormone receptor‒positive (HR+) ABC, and 30% had triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). PARPi were used in 5%, 11%, and 12% of first-line, second-line, and third-line therapies, respectively, for patients with HR+ ABC; for TNBC, percentages were 18%, 44%, and 36%. Across treatment lines, neutropenia, anemia, and nausea occurred in 16%, 24%, and 32% of patients receiving PARPi, respectively; 22%, 38%, and 33% of patients receiving platinum chemotherapy; and 20%, 20%, and 33% of patients receiving non-platinum-based chemotherapy. Physician satisfaction was highest with PARPi and with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings in this real-world population complement clinical trial observations and provide further support for treatment of patients with PARPi in gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2- ABC.

BRCA1/2 Mutation Testing in Patients with HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Real-World Data from the United States, Europe, and Israel.

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are approved to treat patients harboring a germline breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 mutation (BRCA1/2mut) with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2­negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study evaluated differences in patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and BRCA1/2mut testing within the United States (US), European Union 4 (EU4; France, Germany, Italy, and Spain), and Israel in a real-world population of patients with HER2− ABC. Oncologists provided chart data from eligible patients from October 2019 through March 2020. In the US, EU4, and Israel, 73%, 42%, and 99% of patients were tested for BRCA1/2mut, respectively. In the US and the EU4, patients who were not tested versus tested for BRCA1/2mut were more likely to have hormone receptor­positive (HR+)/HER2− ABC (US, 94% vs. 74%, p < 0.001; EU4, 96% vs. 78%, p < 0.001), less likely to have a known family history of BRCA1/2-related cancer (US, 6% vs. 19%, p = 0.002; EU4, 10% vs. 28%, p < 0.001), and were older (US, 68.9 vs. 62.5 years, p < 0.001; EU4, 66.7 vs. 58.0 years, p < 0.001). Among tested patients, genetic counseling was received by 45%, 53%, and 98% with triple-negative breast cancer, and 36%, 36%, and 98% with HR+/HER2− ABC in the US, EU4, and Israel, respectively. Efforts should be made to improve BRCA1/2 testing rates in the US and Europe.

Real-World Evidence in Support of Oncology Product Registration: A Systematic Review of New Drug Application and Biologics License Application Approvals from 2015-2020.

Real-world evidence (RWE) has garnered great interest to support registration of new therapies and label expansions by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Currently, practical insights on the design and analysis of regulatory-grade RWE are lacking. This study aimed to analyze attributes of real-world studies in FDA's decision-making and characteristics of full versus accelerated approvals through a systematic review of oncology product approvals. Oncology approvals from 2015 to 2020 were reviewed from FDA.gov. Applications were screened for inclusion of RWE, and variables related to regulatory designations of the application, pivotal clinical trial, and real-world studies were extracted. FDA feedback was reviewed to identify takeaways and best practices for adequate RWE. Among 133 original and 573 supplemental approvals for oncology, 11 and 2, respectively, included RWE; none predated 2017. All real-world studies were retrospective in nature; the most common data source was chart review, and the most common primary endpoint was overall response rate, as in the pivotal trial. The FDA critiqued the lack of the following: a prespecified study protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria matching to the trial, comparability of endpoint definitions, methods to minimize confounding and address unmeasured confounding, and plans to handle missing data. All full (versus accelerated) approvals shared the following characteristics: high magnitude of efficacy in the pivotal trial; designations of orphan disease, breakthrough therapy, and priority review; and no advisory committee meeting held. This study found that findings from external control real-world studies complemented efficacy data from single-arm trials in successful oncology product approvals.

Payer perceptions on the use of patient-reported outcomes in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, US payers appreciate all evidence that can help support formulary decision making, including evidence beyond traditional safety and efficacy data from clinical trials. Research suggests payers incorporate patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence in their decision making and expect the importance of PRO evidence to grow. Greater understanding on payers' use of PRO information in oncology is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use of PRO evidence in informing oncology formulary decision making. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving a measurement specialist, health economics and outcomes research experts, and payers developed a survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists who were invited to discuss and contextualize the survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Two-tailed values are reported and a P value less than or equal to 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers (45.9%) completed the survey; 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% of all respondents indicating their job was pharmacy administrator. The majority of payers (60.0% of small health plans and 57.8% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from clinical trials is useful. Similarly, the majority of payers (57.8% of small plans and 51.9% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from real-world studies is useful. Almost half (47.1%) suggested formulary review would be influenced by a lack of PRO evidence from oncology clinical trials either somewhat, much, or a great deal. Most payers (78.2%) thought PRO evidence is useful for providing additional context for safety of oncology therapies. More than one-third of payers (34.3%) valued PRO evidence when comparing 2 similar therapies, and 51.5% felt PRO evidence may help in measuring value for value-based agreements. Panelists indicated PRO evidence can be useful for developing treatment pathways for addressing health-related quality of life, informing provider-patient dialogues, and defining progression-free survival length and quality. CONCLUSIONS: US payers view PRO evidence from both clinical trials and real-world studies as useful for supplementing traditional clinical trial data when making oncology formulary decisions and for refining treatment pathways and care delivery models. Manufacturers of oncology therapies should collect and consider leveraging PRO evidence from both settings when engaging with US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer contributed to the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the interpretation of the data, and contributed to the discussion and output as authors. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Arondekar, Deal, and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer and own Pfizer stock. Qwek was an employee of Pfizer at the time of this project and owns Pfizer stock.

Payer perceptions on the use of economic models in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: To support oncology formulary decisions, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, payers desire data beyond what regulators review. Economic models showing financial impact of treatments may help, but data on payers' use of economic models in oncology are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess payer perceptions regarding use of economic models in informing oncology formulary decisions. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving health economists and payers developed a survey containing singleanswer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists, who were invited to discuss survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Two-tailed values were reported and an alpha level of 0.05 or less was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers completed the survey (45.9%); 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), and 55.6% indicated that their job was pharmacy administrator. Payers indicated moderate/most interest in cost-effectiveness models (CEMs; 85.3%) and budget impact models (BIMs; 80.4%). Overall, 51.6% of respondents claimed oncology expertise on their pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Large plans were more likely to have expertise in reviewing oncology economic models than small plans (55.6% vs 31.1%, P = 0.015). The most common reasons for not reviewing economic models included "not available at time of review" (44.1%) and "potential bias" (38.2%). Overall, 43.1% of payers conduct analyses using their own data after reviewing a manufacturer-sponsored economic model. To inform formulary decisions, 62.7% of payers use BIMs and 66.7% use CEMs sometimes, often, or always. When comparing therapies with similar safety/efficacy profiles, 68.6% of payers reported economic models as helpful a moderate amount, a lot, or a great deal. Over one-third of payers (37.3%) were willing to partner with manufacturers on economic models using their plans' data. Payers valued preapproval information, data on total cost of care, and early access to models. Concerns remained regarding model transparency and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Most US payers reported interest in using economic models to inform oncology formulary decision making. Opportunities exist to educate payers in assessing economic models, especially among small health plans. Ensuring model availability at launch, transparency in model assumptions, and payer-manufacturer partnership in model development may increase the utility of oncology economic models among US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and Pfizer employees led the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employed by Pfizer. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project.

Payer perceptions of the use of real-world evidence in oncology-based decision making.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the gold standard of safety and efficacy evidence, are conducted in select patients that may not mirror real-world populations. As a result, healthcare decision makers may have limited information when making formulary decisions, especially in oncology, given accelerated regulatory approvals and niche patient populations. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies may help address these knowledge gaps and help inform oncology formulary decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use and relevance of RWE in informing oncology formulary decisionmaking. METHODS: A national survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions evaluated 4 key areas: (1) the value of RWE, (2) barriers to RWE, (3) sources of RWE, and (4) use of RWE in outcomes-based contracting. The survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights program in February 2020. Ten additional respondents were invited to discuss the survey results. The survey results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and were evaluated by the respondent's plan size, type, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in responses for categorical data were compared using a Pearson Chi-Square or a Fisher's Exact test. Two-tailed values are reported and a level of ≤ 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: The national survey had a 45.9% response rate, with 106 payers responding. Most were from managed care organizations (MCOs; 47.5%) and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs; 37.4%), with 54.5% from large plans (≥ 1 million lives) and 45.5% from small plans (< 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% overall indicating their job was a pharmacy administrator. Most (84.9%) used RWE to inform formulary decisions in oncology to support comparative effectiveness in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials (4.1 on a scale of 1 = Not At All Useful to 5 = Extremely Useful) and validation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations (4.0). Almost half (41.5%) used RWE results to inform off-label usage decisions. Payers valued RWE pre-launch to inform formulary and contracting decisions and desired real-world comparative effectiveness data post-launch to validate coverage decisions. However, the majority of payers (54.7%) did not conduct their own real-world studies. Commonly considered RWE sources included claims data (79.2%), medical records (68.9%), prospective cohort studies (60.4%), patient registries (36.8%), and patient outcome surveys (33.0%). Barriers to conducting internal RWE studies included the lack of resources and personnel, analytic capabilities, appropriate in-house data, and perceived value in conducting analyses. Payers expressed interest in using outcomes-based contracting in oncology; few have direct experience, and operationalizing through value measurement is challenging. CONCLUSIONS: RWE providing comparative treatment data, validation of NCCN treatment recommendations, and information on off-label usage are appreciated pre launch with post launch validation. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer led the development of the survey and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer; Oderda, Biskupiak, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Malone was paid by Millcreek Outcomes as a consultant on this project.

The value of new drugs for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved a number of new cancer drugs. The clinical trials that serve as the basis for new cancer drug approvals may not reflect how the drugs will perform in routine practice and do not measure the impact of the drugs on spending. The authors sought to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and value of drugs recently approved for advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, the authors identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who began treatment with a drug approved for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in 2007-2009, when only 1 drug was approved for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and in 2014-2016, when 5 additional drugs were approved. They calculated life expectancy and lifetime medical costs (ie, Medicare reimbursements) for each group. RESULTS: Between 2007-2009 and 2014-2016, life expectancy increased by 12.6 months. Lifetime medical costs increased by $87,000. The incremental cost per life-year gained was $83,000. CONCLUSION: The release of 5 new drugs coincided with increases in survival rates and spending. This study's estimates indicate that the new drugs collectively were cost-effective.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer initiating first-line treatment in the US community oncology setting: a real-world retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have evolved to include targeted and immuno-oncology therapies, which have demonstrated clinical benefits in clinical trials. However, few real-world studies have evaluated these treatments in the first-line setting. METHODS: Adult patients with advanced NSCLC who initiated first-line treatment with chemotherapy, targeted therapies (TT), or immuno-oncology-based regimens in the US Oncology Network (USON) between March 1, 2015, and August 1, 2018, were included and followed up through February 1, 2019. Data were sourced from structured fields of USON electronic health records. Patient and treatment characteristics were assessed descriptively, with Kaplan-Meier methods used to evaluate time-to-event outcomes, including time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS). Adjusted Cox regression analyses and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to control for covariates that may have affected treatment selection and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 7746 patients, 75.6% received first-line systemic chemotherapy, 11.7% received immuno-oncology monotherapies, 8.5% received TT, and 4.2% received immuno-oncology combination regimens. Patients who received immuno-oncology monotherapies had the longest median TTD (3.5 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-4.2) and OS (19.9 months; 95% CI, 16.6-24.1). On the basis of multivariable Cox regression and IPTW, immuno-oncology monotherapy was associated with reduced risk of death and treatment discontinuation relative to other treatments. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that real-world outcomes in this community oncology setting improved with the introduction of immuno-oncology therapies. However, clinical benefits are limited in certain subgroups and tend to be reduced compared with clinical trial observations.

Overall survival of glasdegib in combination with low-dose cytarabine, azacitidine, and decitabine among adult patients with previously untreated AML: comparative effectiveness using simulated treatment comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, treatments for older patients with AML ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapies were limited to hypomethylating agents, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), or clinical trials. In 2018, the FDA approved combination glasdegib (GLAS) plus LDAC based on Phase II results demonstrating improved overall survival (OS) versus LDAC alone in previously untreated AML. However, no randomized clinical trials have directly compared GLAS + LDAC with other AML treatments. OBJECTIVE: Using both indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC), which adjusts for baseline differences between trials, the comparative effectiveness of GLAS + LDAC was compared with hypomethylating agent azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DEC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified published trials of AZA or DEC versus LDAC among older AML patients ineligible for high-intensity chemotherapy. In addition to standard and covariate-adjusted ITC, STC was performed following guidance from the NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU). Using individual patient data from the Phase II GLAS + LDAC study, population-specific OS hazard ratios (HR) for GLAS + LDAC versus AZA or DEC were compared. Furthermore, covariate-adjusted ITC (Cox multivariate models) and STC were repeated using GLAS + LDAC versus LDAC data propensity-weighted for within-trial mean cytogenetic risk. As this initial step was not specified in the DSU, results from this second method were compared to the first STC following DSU guidance only. RESULTS: Standard ITC and STC both demonstrated significantly improved OS for GLAS + LDAC versus either AZA or DEC. Adjusting for key covariates, STC stepwise exponential models demonstrated GLAS + LDAC superiority to both AZA (HR=0.424; 95% CI: 0.228, 0.789) and DEC (HR=0.505; 95% CI: 0.269, 0.949). These significant results held using full or step-wise approaches, following DSU guidance only or the weighted STC approach. CONCLUSION: Using ITC and STC, GLAS + LDAC demonstrated superior OS to AZA or DEC in an adult population with previously untreated AML for whom intensive chemotherapy is not an option.