Racial and Ethnic Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Diagnosed with CLL/SLL in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to compare outcomes among patients by race and ethnicity in the post-covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (cBTKi) treatment era. METHODS: A nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database was utilized that included patients diagnosed with CLL from 2013 to 2022 who received systemic therapy for their disease. Use of cBTKi therapy, time to next treatment or death (TTNT-D), and overall survival (OS) were compared by race in unadjusted (Kaplan-Meier method) and adjusted analyses (Cox proportional hazards regression). RESULTS: This study included 4,572 White (71.8%) and 558 Black (8.8%) patients with CLL; 270 were Hispanic or Latino (4.2%). Patients who were Black were significantly younger, more were female, had later stage disease, were of lower socioeconomic status (SES), and were more likely to have unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IGHV) and to have received cBTKi therapy than White patients (all p ≤ 0.002). SES was also significantly different by ethnicity. TTNT-D and OS were not different by race in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, TTNT-D and OS were not different by race. These data did not identify racial healthcare disparities in the era following the introduction of cBTKi therapy despite differences in baseline characteristics.

Pirtobrutinib versus venetoclax in covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor-pretreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Venetoclax is a standard treatment for patients with CLL following covalent BTK inhibitor (cBTKi) therapy, despite relatively limited prospective data in this setting. Pirtobrutinib is a highly selective, non-covalent (reversible) BTKi that was designed to overcome the pharmacologic limitations of cBTKi and re-establish BTK inhibition. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to estimate the treatment effect of pirtobrutinib versus venetoclax monotherapy in patients with cBTKi pre-treated CLL. Data from patients with CLL who were venetoclax-naïve and pre-treated with cBTKi received pirtobrutinib (n=146) in the phase 1/2 BRUIN study were compared with the only identified trial of patients with CLL receiving venetoclax after a cBTKi (n=91), as administered as monotherapy until progression. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Both unweighted and weighted analyses were conducted. PFS and OS of pirtobrutinib and venetoclax were comparable in both unweighted and weighted analyses (weighted hazard ratios for PFS: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.58-1.73, p=0.98 and OS: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.25-1.67, p=0.34). ORR was significantly higher for pirtobrutinib (80.2% vs 64.8%, p=0.01). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were lower in weighted analyses for pirtobrutinib vs venetoclax (all p.

Biomarker Testing, Treatment, and Outcomes in Patients With Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using a Real-World Database.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of up-front biomarker testing on long-term outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (a/mNSCLC). This study compared overall survival (OS) by biomarker testing status and by receipt of guideline-concordant therapy in a large real-world cohort of patients with a/mNSCLC in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study used an a/mNSCLC database derived from real-world electronic healthcare records. Patients diagnosed with nonsquamous a/mNSCLC who initiated first-line therapy on or after January 1, 2015, were included. We describe the testing of patients for actionable biomarkers and whether they subsequently received guideline-recommended first-line treatment. OS was defined as the number of months from the initiation of first-line therapy to the date of death or end of follow-up, and was described using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard modeling was conducted to compare OS between groups adjusting for baseline covariates; adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were reported. RESULTS: A total of 21,572 patients with a median age of 69 years (IQR, 61-76 years) and follow-up of 9.5 months (IQR, 3.5-21.5 months) were included. Among patients in the database, 88% had a record of receiving testing for at least 1 biomarker at any time, and 69% of these patients received testing before or at the start of first-line treatment. The adjusted hazard of death was 30% higher in patients who never (vs ever) received biomarker testing in the database (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37), and 12% higher in patients who did not receive (vs did receive) biomarker testing before or at the start of first-line treatment (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16). The adjusted hazard of death was 25% higher in patients who did not receive guideline-concordant first-line treatment (vs those who did) after having a biomarker-positive disease (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that receipt of first-line treatment that is concordant with biomarker testing results and treatment guidelines is associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with a/mNSCLC in the United States.

Patient-Reported Outcomes with Selpercatinib Treatment Among Patients with RET-Mutant Medullary Thyroid Cancer in the Phase I/II LIBRETTO-001 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) standard of care includes multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), which can exacerbate disease-related diarrhea, primarily because of non-RET kinase inhibition. We report diarrhea and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with selpercatinib, a highly selective RET inhibitor, among patients with RET-mutant MTC in the ongoing, phase I/II LIBRETTO-001 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Instrument completion time points were baseline (cycle 1, day 1) and approximately every other 28-day cycle until cycle 13 (every 12 weeks thereafter) for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, and baseline, weekly during cycle 1, and day 1 of every cycle for the modified Systemic Therapy-Induced Diarrhea Assessment Tool (mSTIDAT). A ≥10-point change from baseline in domain score was considered clinically meaningful. PROs were summarized through cycle 13 in all patients and by subgroups with or without prior exposure to MKIs vandetanib and/or cabozantinib (V/C). RESULTS: Among the overall MTC population (n = 226), 88 (39%) and 124 (55%) patients comprised the V/C-naïve and previous V/C subgroups, respectively. Compliance was >85% for both instruments at each time point. Most patients maintained/improved in all health-related quality of life (HRQoL) subscales throughout treatment. Improvements in diarrhea were clinically meaningful in 43.5% of patients overall and in 36.8% and 51.3% of V/C-naïve and previous V/C subgroups, respectively. At baseline, 80.4% of all patients reported diarrhea on mSTIDAT. The percentage of patients who reported diarrhea was reduced to less than half of all patients (range: 33.3%-48.3%) after cycle 2. CONCLUSION: These interim results demonstrate that patients with RET-mutant MTC improved/remained stable on all domains of HRQoL during treatment with selpercatinib. Future analyses will be conducted as the data mature.

Patient-Reported Outcomes with Selpercatinib Among Patients with RET Fusion-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Phase I/II LIBRETTO-001 Trial.

BACKGROUND: LIBRETTO-001 is an ongoing, global, open-label, phase I/II study of selpercatinib in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. We report interim patient-reported outcomes in patients with RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) version 3.0 at baseline (cycle 1, day 1), approximately every other 28-day cycle until cycle 13, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Data were evaluated through cycle 13 as few patients had reached later time points. A change of ≥10 points from baseline in domain scores was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Among 253 selpercatinib-treated patients, 239 were categorized into subgroups by prior therapy: treatment-naïve (n = 39), one prior line of therapy (n = 64), or two or more prior lines of therapy (n = 136). The QLQ-C30 was completed by >85% of patients at each time point. Most patients overall and in each subgroup maintained or improved in all health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains during treatment. The percentage of patients who experienced clinically meaningful improvements ranged from 61.1% to 66.7% for global health status, 33.3% to 61.1% for dyspnea, and 46.2% to 63.0% for pain. The 61.1% of patients with improved dyspnea had two or more prior lines of therapy; median time to first improvement was 3.4 months. At the first postbaseline evaluation (cycle 3), 45.9% of all patients reported a ≥10-point reduction in pain. CONCLUSION: In this interim analysis, the majority of patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC remained stable or improved on all QLQ-C30 subscales at each study visit, demonstrating favorable HRQoL as measured by the QLQ-C30 during treatment with selpercatinib.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with RET-fusion positive non-small lung cancer in real-world practice in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Contradictory and limited data are available about the presentation and outcomes of patients with RET-fusion positive metastatic NSCLC as compared to patients without RET fusions. This observational study utilizing a linked electronic health records (EHR) database to genomics testing results was designed to compare characteristics, tumor response, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes by RET fusion status among patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with standard therapies. METHODS: Adult patients with metastatic NSCLC with linked EHR and genomics data were eligible who received systemic anti-cancer therapy on or after January 1, 2011. Adjusted, using all available baseline covariates, and unadjusted analyses were conducted to compare tumor response, PFS and OS between patients with RET-fusion positive and RET-fusion negative disease as detected by next-generation sequencing. Tumor response outcomes were analysed using Fisher's exact test, and time-to-event analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: There were 5807 eligible patients identified (RET+ cohort, N = 46; RET- cohort, N = 5761). Patients with RET fusions were younger, more likely to have non-squamous disease and be non-smokers and had better performance status (all p < 0.01). In unadjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in tumor response (p = 0.17) or PFS (p = 0.06) but OS was significantly different by RET status (hazard ratio, HR = 1.91, 95% CI:1.22-3.0, p = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences by RET fusion status in adjusted analyses of either PFS or OS (PFS HR = 1.24, 95% CI:0.86-1.78, p = 0.25; OS HR = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.95-2.43, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RET fusions have different baseline characteristics that contribute to favorable OS in unadjusted analysis. However, after adjusting for baseline covariates, there were no significant differences in either OS or PFS by RET status among patients treated with standard therapy prior to the availability of selective RET inhibitors.

Defining treatment regimens and lines of therapy using real-world data in oncology.

Retrospective observational research relies on databases that do not routinely record lines of therapy or reasons for treatment change. Standardized approaches to estimate lines of therapy were developed and evaluated in this study. A number of rules were developed, assumptions varied and macros developed to apply to large datasets. Results were investigated in an iterative process to refine line of therapy algorithms in three different cancers (lung, colorectal and gastric). Three primary factors were evaluated and included in the estimation of lines of therapy in oncology: defining a treatment regimen, addition/removal of drugs and gap periods. Algorithms and associated Statistical Analysis Software (SAS®) macros for line of therapy identification are provided to facilitate and standardize the use of real-world databases for oncology research.

Lay abstract Most, if not all, real-world healthcare databases do not contain data explaining treatment changes, requiring that rules be applied to estimate when treatment changes may reflect advancement of underlying disease. This study investigated three tumor types (lung, colorectal and gastric cancer) to develop and provide rules that researchers can apply to real-world databases. The resulting algorithms and associated SAS^® macros from this work are provided for use in the Supplementary data.

Health and resource burden of a cancer diagnosis on the caregiver: an analysis of administrative claims data.

PURPOSE: Cancer diagnosis is known to affect the family; however, administrative claims data are not commonly used to evaluate the broader impact of cancer diagnosis. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of using claims data to explore the impact of cancer diagnosis on the caregiver. METHODS: IBM Marketscan data were used to identify eligible cancer patients, who were required to have a second adult over the age of 18 (defined as "caregiver" for this study) covered by the same the healthcare policy. Eligible control pairs included any two adults in the same policy with no evidence of cancer; for each pair one adult was randomly assigned to be the "patient control" while their partner was assigned as "caregiver control". Probabilistic stratified sampling was used select control pairs for analysis by matching the relative frequencies within sex and age group strata to those of patient/caregiver pairs. Eligible control pairs were probabilistically sampled without replacement until the stratum with at least 0.5 % relative frequency had been completely sampled. Caregiver and caregiver control healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), new diagnoses, and healthcare costs were compared during the 12-month post-diagnosis period. Subgroup analyses were conducted by cancer subtypes (breast, colorectal, lung, gastric, sarcoma) and by sex of the patient and caregiver. RESULTS: A total of 62,893 patient/caregiver pairs and 449,177 control pairs were included. Overall, caregivers used slightly fewer healthcare resources and expended less costs during the 12-month period after the cancer diagnosis than controls (physician visits; 85.8 % vs. 95.7 %; hospitalizations 5.4 % vs. 7.0 %; emergency room visits 15.7 % versus 16.2 %, all p ≤ 0.001). This finding was consistent in all subgroup analyses. New diagnoses were lower in the caregiver cohort, except for mental disorders, which were higher than controls (14.3 % vs. 9.9 %, p < 0.0001). Psychotherapeutic/antidepressant utilization occurred among 21.0 % of caregivers versus 17.2 % of caregiver controls during this period. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to use administrative claims data to evaluate the impact of a cancer diagnosis on the caregiver to evaluate outcomes such as HCRU, diagnoses and costs. These findings raise hypotheses about deferment of health care and increased mental distress during the caregiving period.

Systematic literature review of machine learning methods used in the analysis of real-world data for patient-provider decision making.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning is a broad term encompassing a number of methods that allow the investigator to learn from the data. These methods may permit large real-world databases to be more rapidly translated to applications to inform patient-provider decision making. METHODS: This systematic literature review was conducted to identify published observational research of employed machine learning to inform decision making at the patient-provider level. The search strategy was implemented and studies meeting eligibility criteria were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Relevant data related to study design, statistical methods and strengths and limitations were identified; study quality was assessed using a modified version of the Luo checklist. RESULTS: A total of 34 publications from January 2014 to September 2020 were identified and evaluated for this review. There were diverse methods, statistical packages and approaches used across identified studies. The most common methods included decision tree and random forest approaches. Most studies applied internal validation but only two conducted external validation. Most studies utilized one algorithm, and only eight studies applied multiple machine learning algorithms to the data. Seven items on the Luo checklist failed to be met by more than 50% of published studies. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of approaches, algorithms, statistical software, and validation strategies were employed in the application of machine learning methods to inform patient-provider decision making. There is a need to ensure that multiple machine learning approaches are used, the model selection strategy is clearly defined, and both internal and external validation are necessary to be sure that decisions for patient care are being made with the highest quality evidence. Future work should routinely employ ensemble methods incorporating multiple machine learning algorithms.

Real-World Outcomes and Factors Associated With the Second-Line Treatment of Patients With Gastric, Gastroesophageal Junction, or Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

This retrospective observational study was designed to evaluate overall survival in a real-world patient population and to identify predictive factors associated with receipt of second-line therapy. A retrospective analysis of electronic medical records (Flatiron Health, New York) was conducted among patients initiating first-line therapy from January 1, 2013, through April 30, 2018. Eligible patients were diagnosed with advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma and ≥18 years of age at the time of treatment initiation. Patients alive 45 days after discontinuation of first-line therapy were considered potentially eligible for continued therapy and were categorized into those who received and those who did not receive second-line therapy. Survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test without adjusting for any baseline covariates. Factors associated with further treatment were evaluated using logistic regression. A total of 3850 patients met eligibility criteria. Among the 2516 patients available to receive second-line therapy, 1515 (60.2%) received second-line therapy and 1001 (39.8%) did not receive further therapy. Among those potentially eligible to receive second-line therapy, median survival was 15.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.6-16.0) from initiation of first-line therapy for those who received second-line therapy and 10.0 months (95% CI: 9.3-10.7) for those who did not. Longer duration of first-line therapy (≥169 vs ≤84 days), HER2-positive tumors, initially diagnosed with stage IV disease, less weight loss during first-line therapy, and younger age were associated with receipt of second-line therapy (all P < .001). Longer survival was associated with multiple lines of therapy; however, these results should be interpreted with caution, and no causal relationship can be inferred.

Treatment patterns and survival outcomes for patients receiving second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death in the USA. It is important to identify patients who may experience poor outcomes from available treatments. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, treatment patterns and survival outcomes were described among adult patients from the Flatiron Health electronic medical records database who were treated with at least two lines of therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in the USA between January 2013 and May 2018. Patients with rapid progression were defined as those whose time from start of first- to second-line therapy was ≤ 183 days. RESULTS: A total of 14,315 patients formed the study cohort. The most common first-line treatments were FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) plus bevacizumab, received by 34.7% (n = 4962) of patients, followed by FOLFOX alone (17.1%, n = 2445). Of all patients, 6991 (48.9%) also received second-line anti-cancer therapy and of those, 3338 (47.7%) had rapid progression and 3653 (52.3%) did not. Median overall survival from the start of first- and second-line therapy was 20.8 months (95% CI 20.2-21.3) and 14.5 months (95% CI 13.9-15.0) for the entire study population, respectively. Median overall survival from the start of second-line therapy was 14.1 (95% CI 13.2-14.8) for patients with rapid progression and 14.6 months (95% CI 13.8-15.4) for patients without rapid progression. CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer lived less than 2 years in this real-world database. While the time to initiation of second-line therapy was by definition longer among patients without rapidly progressing disease, survival outcomes were comparable from initiation of second-line therapy.

Sequential therapy with ramucirumab and/or checkpoint inhibitors for non-small-cell lung cancer in routine practice.

Aim: To describe treatment patterns and outcomes for advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treated with single-agent or combination ramucirumab (ramucirumab-based) and/or immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI-based) therapy. Materials & methods: Retrospective study of aNSCLC patients (n = 4054) identified in the Flatiron Health database, who received at least two treatment lines including ramucirumab- and/or ICI-based regimens between December 2014 and May 2017. Results: Median overall survival (95% CI) from aNSCLC diagnosis was 29.3 (25.5-33.0) months for patients receiving sequential ramucirumab- and ICI-based therapy (n = 245), 15.1 (12.6-18.2) months for patients receiving sequences including ramucirumab- without ICI-based therapy (n = 112), and 23.1 (21.9-24.2) months for patients receiving ICI-based therapy without ramucirumab-based therapy in sequence (n = 3697). Conclusion: Results provide real-world survival estimates for aNSCLC treated with sequences including ramucirumab- and/or ICI-based therapies.

Predictors of heterogeneity in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced/metastatic gastric cancer in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic gastric cancer have a poor prognosis (5-year survival of less than 10%). This study was designed to describe the treatment patterns of patients with gastric cancer and to understand the factors associated with treatment choices to inform evidence-based care. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using two real-world databases to describe treatment trends and to quantify variability in treatment patterns of patients diagnosed with advanced/metastatic gastric cancer between 1/1/2007 and 9/30/2014 in the U.S. Heterogeneity was measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). Predictors (baseline clinical, treatment, and demographic variables) of treatment regimen choice were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 5772 patients with advanced/metastatic gastric cancer were included in this study [5044 from claims data and 728 from electronic medical records (EMR)]. Of the 5044 from claims data, 2457 had evidence of metastatic disease at diagnosis. Only the fluorouracil + oxaliplatin regimen exceeded 10% utilization in the first-line setting [claims metastatic (12.1%), claims advanced (8.2%), and EMR metastatic (16.6%) cohorts]. The HHI demonstrated extreme heterogeneity (0.14 for first-line therapy and 0.13 for second-line therapy). Patient age and geographic region of residence were significantly associated with treatment choice across all three cohorts in the first-line setting (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with gastric cancer was highly variable. Despite the availability of treatment guidelines, there is a lack of consistent treatment patterns. There is a need to improve evidence-based care for patients with gastric cancer.

Ramucirumab for the treatment of patients with gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer in community oncology practices.

BACKGROUND: Limited real-world research has investigated ramucirumab for the treatment of patients with gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. This study was designed to describe ramucirumab monotherapy or combination therapy use in a community oncology practice setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study to describe the treatment of adult patients with gastric or GEJ cancer who initiated ramucirumab treatment between 4/21/14 and 6/30/16 within the US Oncology Network. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to assess clinical outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess patient-level predictors of ramucirumab monotherapy or combination therapy. RESULTS: A total of 505 patients (mean age 64.4 years; 75.1% male) were included in the analysis; subgroups included: monotherapy (22.8%; n = 115), combination therapy (77.2%; n = 390). Monotherapy patients were significantly older (67.7 vs. 63.4 years; P = 0.0006), received ramucirumab approximately 3 months later after diagnosis (16.9 vs. 14.1 months; P = 0.0318) and more frequently initiated ramucirumab in the third or later lines of treatment (38.3 vs. 8.2%; P<0.0001) than patients receiving combination therapy. Median overall survival (OS) for monotherapy and combination therapy from the start of second-line therapy was 5.5 months (confidence interval [CI] 4.3, 7.8) and 7.4 months (CI 6.6, 8.8), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that patients who received ramucirumab monotherapy started ramucirumab therapy later after diagnosis and were older than those who received ramucirumab in combination. Additionally, survival data suggest that outcomes observed in community oncology practices are similar to data from phase 3 clinical trials.

Chemotherapy treatment patterns, costs, and outcomes of patients with gastric cancer in the United States: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record (EMR) and administrative claims data.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to conduct a retrospective database analysis to describe the chemotherapy treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with gastric cancer. METHODS: Individuals diagnosed with gastric cancer were identified from the IMS Oncology Database, which contains electronic medical record (EMR) data collected from a variety of community practices, and the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Research database, an administrative claims database. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older and had an ICD-9 code 151.0-151.9. Patients were excluded if they had evidence of cancer within 6 months of the index diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 5257 eligible patients identified in EMR data: 1982 (37.7 %) of these patients also had data regarding chemotherapy treatments. Of the 1982 patients who received first-line therapy, 42.3 %, 18.1 %, and 7.9 % went on to receive a second, third, and fourth line of chemotherapy, respectively. There were 11891 eligible patients identified in the administrative database; 5299 (44.6 %) had data regarding chemotherapy. Of those initiating chemotherapy, 2888 (54.5 %) received a second line and 1598 (30.2 %) received a third line of treatment. The average total cost of care during first-line therapy was $40,811 [standard deviation (SD) = $49,916], which was incurred over an average of 53.5 (SD = 63.4) days. A similar pattern was evident in second-line treatment (mean/SD, $26,588/$33,301) over 41.2 (SD = 55.7) days. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and duration of care received vary among gastric cancer patients in the U.S. There is a need to understand which regimens may be associated with better health outcomes and to standardize treatment as appropriate.

Enhancing the Budget Impact Model for Institutional Use: A Tool with Practical Applications for the Hospital Oncology Pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer care is increasing, and tools are needed to understand the economic impact of new drugs on the hospital pharmacy budget. OBJECTIVE: To develop an interactive budget impact model (BIM) through a collaborative effort of industry, academia, and modeling experts to evaluate the use of a new agent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); this BIM included an institutional module specific to the needs of practices that purchase medications for use in institutional settings. METHODS: Treatment regimens, doses, duration of therapy, toxicity, and cost data are from published sources. All input data may be modified to match the local population. Outputs include cost of care, reimbursement, and margin overall and by treatment regimen. RESULTS: The base case assumes 20 NSCLC patients progressing after initial therapy (3 receiving ramucirumab+docetaxel, 2 bevacizumab+erlotinib, 3 docetaxel, 6 erlotinib, and 6 pemetrexed), wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) purchase price, and reimbursement at WAC+4.3%. The model estimated the total cost and reimbursement for the institutional oncology pharmacy to be $699,413 and $729,487, respectively, resulting in a margin of $30,075 (difference due to rounding) for the year for regimens utilized in the treatment of NSCLC in the post-progression setting. Results will vary depending on the input data. CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing need for institutional pharmacies to plan ahead and anticipate the impact of new drugs on their oncology budgets. This interactive Excel-based institutional BIM may provide evidence-based support for pharmacy decision making.

Cognitive function during and six months following chemotherapy for front-line treatment of ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer: An NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group study.

OBJECTIVES: Changes in cognitive function have been identified in and reported by many cancer survivors. These changes have the potential to impact patient quality of life and functional ability. This prospective longitudinal study was designed to quantify the incidence of change in cognitive function in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients throughout and following primary chemotherapy. METHODS: Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, untreated ovarian cancer and had planned to receive chemotherapy. Web-based and patient reported cognitive assessments and quality of life questionnaires were conducted prior to chemotherapy, prior to cycle four, after cycle six, and six months after completion of primary therapy. RESULTS: Two-hundred-thirty-one evaluable patients entered this study between May 2010 and October 2011. At the cycle 4 time point, 25.2% (55/218) of patients exhibited cognitive impairment in at least one domain. At the post-cycle 6 and 6-month follow up time points, 21.1% (44/208) and 17.8% (30/169) of patients, respectively, demonstrated impairment in at least one domain of cognitive function. There were statistically significant, but clinically small, improvements in processing speed (p<0.001) and attention (p<0.001) but not in motor response time (p=0.066), from baseline through the six-month follow up time period. CONCLUSIONS: This was a large, prospective study designed to measure cognitive function in ovarian cancer. A subset of patients had evidence of cognitive decline from baseline during chemotherapy treatment in this study as measured by the web-based assessment; however, changes were generally limited to no more than one domain.

Biomarker Testing, Targeted Therapy and Clinical Trial Participation by Race Among Patients With Lung Cancer: A Real-World Medicaid Database Study.

Introduction: Biomarker testing in oncology is fundamental for targeted therapy use and clinical trial participation. Factors contributing to previously identified racial disparities in biomarker testing remain unclear. This study investigated biomarker testing, clinical trial participation, and targeted therapy by race among patients with metastatic lung cancer with Medicaid coverage in the United States. Methods: The Merative MarketScan Medicaid claims database was used for this study to identify patients diagnosed with having metastatic lung cancer between 2017 and 2019 with at least 121 days of follow-up. Racial differences in biomarker testing, clinical trial enrollment, and targeted therapy use were analyzed using chi-square/t tests followed by logistic regression for confounding covariates. Results: A total of 3845 patients were eligible. A total of 970 (25.2%) patients included in this study were Black. Biomarker testing was observed among 57.0%, targeted therapy among 4.6%, and 2.6% of the study cohort had evidence of clinical trial participation. No significant disparities between Black and White races were identified. Younger age and metastatic disease at initial diagnosis were the strongest independent factors associated with increased biomarker testing. Biomarker testing was positively associated with targeted therapy use (OR = 1.69, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Patients with metastatic lung cancer with Medicaid coverage were found to have exceedingly low biomarker testing rates; only 57% had evidence of any biomarker testing. Although no consistent differences between Black and White races were identified, this study calls attention to care experienced by socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with metastatic lung cancer in the United States.