Real-world utilization, patient characteristics, and treatment patterns among men with localized prostate cancer tested with the 17-gene genomic prostate score® (GPSTM) assay.

OBJECTIVES: Descriptive study focusing on real-world utilization and characteristics of men with prostate cancer tested with the 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score® (GPS™) assay by linking administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data with GPS results. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study (January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020) included men aged 40-80 years with localized prostate cancer claims, continuous enrollment in Optum's Integrated Claims data set, ≥1 day of EHR clinical activity, and a GPS result. Men were classified as undergoing definitive therapy (DT) (prostatectomy, radiation, or focal therapy) or active surveillance (AS). AS and DT distribution were analyzed across GPS results, National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) risk, and race. Costs were assessed 6 months after the first GPS result (index); clinical outcomes and AS persistence were assessed during the variable follow-up. All variables were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 834 men, 650 (77.9%) underwent AS and 184 (22.1%) DT. Most men had Quan-Charlson comorbidity scores of 1-2 and a tumor stage of T1c (index). The most common Gleason patterns were 3 + 3 (79.6%) (AS cohort) and 3 + 4 (55.9%) (DT cohort). The mean (standard deviation) GPS results at index were 23.2 (11.3) (AS) and 30.9 (12.9) (DT). AS decreased with increasing GPS result and NCCN risk. Differences between races were minimal. Total costs were substantially higher in the DT cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Most men with GPS-tested localized prostate cancer underwent AS, indicating the GPS result can inform clinical management. Decreasing AS with increasing GPS result and NCCN risk suggests the GPS complements NCCN risk stratification.

Predicting optimal treatment regimens for patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer using machine learning based on electronic health records.

Aim: To predict optimal treatments maximizing overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) using machine learning methods on electronic health records. Patients/methods: Adult females with HR+/HER2- MBC on first- or second-line systemic therapy were eligible. Random survival forest (RSF) models were used to predict optimal regimen classes for individual patients and each line of therapy based on baseline characteristics. Results: RSF models suggested greater use of CDK4 & 6 inhibitor-based therapies may maximize OS and TTD. RSF-predicted optimal treatments demonstrated longer OS and TTD compared with nonoptimal treatments across line of therapy (hazard ratios = 0.44∼0.79). Conclusion: RSF may help inform optimal treatment choices and improve outcomes for patients with HR+/HER2- MBC.

Treatment patterns for patients with advanced/metastatic cancers by site of care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare treatments, overall survival (OS), and total costs among patients receiving anticancer therapy in hospital outpatient vs physician office settings. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective observational study utilized claims data from a large national health plan to identify patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated in hospital outpatient or physician office settings. METHODS: Patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug or commercial plans for at least 180 days prior to and at least 30 days after start of first-line (1L) therapy were included. Treatments by lines of therapy, OS, and total costs were evaluated by site of care. RESULTS: Eligible patients included 4618 with aNSCLC, 2304 with mCRC, and 1411 with mBC. There were no major differences in 1L, second-line, or third-line therapy by site of care. Patients with aNSCLC in physician office had longer 1L duration (hospital outpatient, 96 days vs physician office, 102 days; P < .01), but there were no differences in duration of therapy by site of care for mBC or mCRC. Costs were higher in the hospital outpatient setting for mCRC and mBC, but there were no differences in OS for any of the cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients received similar care in hospital outpatient and physician office settings, the differences in duration of treatment and costs warrant further evaluation.

Development of a Prognostic Factor Index Among Women With HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer in a Community Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: This study explored the impact of multiple prognostic factors on patient overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study used electronic health record data of patients in the United States from community oncology practices from January 1, 2008 to April 30, 2017. Eligibility included HR+/HER2- MBC diagnosis in 2008 or later and prior systemic therapy for MBC. An index variable was created to assess the effect of multiple clinical prognostic factors collectively, including liver metastases (LM), primary endocrine resistance (PER), negative progesterone receptor (PR-) status, and high tumor grade (TG). Patients were grouped based on the number of prognostic factors present at MBC diagnosis: 0, 1, and 2+. Differences in rwPFS and OS from start of first-line therapy were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Approximately 29.1% of the 378 eligible patient sample had 0, 36.0% had 1, and 34.9% had 2+ prognostic factors. For the patients with 1 of the prognostic factors, 24.3% had high TG, 14.7% were LM+, 39.7% had PER, and 21.3% were PR-. Univariate and multivariate results showed that rwPFS and OS were significantly (P < .05) shorter in patients with 1 and 2+ prognostic factors compared with patients with 0. CONCLUSIONS: The individual prognostic factors and the prognostic factor index may enable early identification of patients with a less favorable prognosis across the HR+/HER2- MBC population and help inform treatment decisions in difficult-to-treat populations.

Real-world patient-reported outcomes of women receiving initial endocrine-based therapy for HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer in five European countries.

BACKGROUND: Endocrine therapy (ET)-based regimens are the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. With the introduction of new treatment classes, it is important to examine patient symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at the start of this changing therapeutic landscape. This real-world study describes the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer receiving ET-based regimens who were naïve to systemic treatment in the advanced setting across five European countries (EU5). METHODS: Data were collected between March and July 2017 from surveyed oncologists and their patients at a single time point using the multinational Adelphi Advanced Breast Cancer Disease Specific Programme™. Patients completed PRO questionnaires on HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), pain severity and interference, and work and activity impairment. A multiple linear regression model explored factors associated with HRQoL. RESULTS: Across EU5, 226 physicians provided data on 781 women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer taking their first ET-based regimen for advanced disease, of whom 252 provided PRO data. This subset had a mean age of 67.1 years, 94% were postmenopausal, 89% were diagnosed with advanced breast cancer at initial presentation, 79% had stage IV disease (66% of these patients had bone metastases and 38% had visceral metastases, including 18% with liver metastases) and 77% were on endocrine-only therapy as their initial treatment for advanced disease. The mean EORTC QLQ-C30 global health score (50.9) was worse than the reference value for patients with advanced breast cancer (60.2). Fatigue, pain, and insomnia were the most severe symptoms, and mean functioning scores were also worse than reference values. "Worst pain" and "pain interference" were moderate/severe for 42 and 80% of patients. Mean activity impairment was 44%, and greater activity impairment was associated with poorer HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite receiving first-line ET-based regimens for advanced disease, these women had a poor HRQoL and high levels of symptoms, pain, pain interference and activity impairment. New treatments that maintain a stable disease state and reduce activity impairment may have a positive effect on the HRQoL of those living with advanced breast cancer.

Real-world survival outcomes of heavily pretreated patients with refractory HR+, HER2-metastatic breast cancer receiving single-agent chemotherapy-a comparison with MONARCH 1.

PURPOSE: In MONARCH 1 (NCT02102490), single-agent abemaciclib demonstrated promising efficacy activity and tolerability in a population of heavily pretreated women with refractory HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). To help interpret these results and put in clinical context, we compared overall survival (OS) and duration of therapy (DoT) between MONARCH 1 and a real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort. METHODS: The real-world chemotherapy cohort was created from a Flatiron Health electronic health records-derived database based on key eligibility criteria from MONARCH 1. The chemotherapies included in the cohort were single-agent capecitabine, gemcitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine. Results were adjusted for baseline demographics and clinical differences using Mahalanobis distance matching (primary analysis) and entropy balancing (sensitivity analysis). OS and DoT were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort (n = 281) with eligibility criteria similar to the MONARCH 1 population (n = 132) was identified. The MONARCH 1 (n = 108) cohort was matched to the real-world chemotherapy cohort (n = 108). Median OS was 22.3 months in the abemaciclib arm versus 13.6 months in the matched real-world chemotherapy cohort with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54. The median DoT was 4.1 months in MONARCH 1 compared to 2.9 months in the real-world chemotherapy cohort with HR of 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an approach to create a real-world chemotherapy cohort suitable to serve as a comparator for trial data. These exploratory results suggest a survival advantage and place the benefit of abemaciclib monotherapy in clinical context.

KRAS mutation as a prognostic factor and predictive factor in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

KRAS (Kirsten Rat Sarcoma) is the most common oncogenic mutation detected in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the role of KRAS as either a prognostic factor or predictive factor (modifier of treatment effects) in NSCLC is not well established at this time. This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis synthesized the available evidence regarding the role of KRAS mutation as a predictive factor and/or prognostic factor of survival and response outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB-IV) NSCLC. Relevant clinical trials and observational studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Meta-analyses were performed using data extracted from multivariable and univariable analyses from clinical studies to assess the empirical evidence of KRAS mutation status as a prognostic or/and predicitive factor. 43 selected studies were identified by the SLR and included in this meta-analysis. Pairwise meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) did not demonstrate a significant prognostic effect of mutant KRAS on overall survival (OS) (HR=1.10; 95% CI [0.88, 1.38]) or progression free survival (PFS) (HR=1.03; 95% CI [0.80, 1.33]). However, when conducting meta-analyses on HRs reported in observational studies, a statistically significant negative prognostic effect of mutant KRAS was observed (OS HR=1.71; 95% CI [1.07, 2.84]; PFS HR=1.18; 95% CI [1.02, 1.36]). Meta-analyses of objective response rate (ORR) in RCTs demonstrated a negative prognostic effect of mutant KRAS (RR=0.38; 95% CI [0.16, 0.63]). Limited data were available to evaluate the role of KRAS mutation as a predictive factor. In conclusion, this research offers evidence that KRAS mutation may be a negative prognostic factor for survival and response outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, but further research is needed to address conflicting results on the importance of KRAS mutations as a predictive factor.

Quality of life analysis of patients treated with cetuximab or cisplatin for locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck in the United States.

BACKGROUND: To compare quality of life of patients treated with cetuximab with or without radiation therapy (±RT) vs. cisplatin±RT for locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in the real-world setting. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, electronic medical records and Patient Care Monitor (PCM) survey data from the Vector Oncology Data Warehouse were utilized from adult patients in the United States who received initial treatment with cetuximab±RT or cisplatin±RT for locoregionally advanced SCCHN between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2017. Quality of life was assessed using PCM index scores and individual PCM items. Cetuximab±RT and cisplatin±RT cohorts were balanced using propensity score weighting. Linear mixed models were used to assess the impact of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics on PCM endpoints. RESULTS: Of 531 patients with locoregionally advanced SCCHN, 187 received cetuximab±RT, and 344 received cisplatin±RT. Before propensity score weighting, the cetuximab±RT cohort was older (mean [SD] age of 63.9 [9.6] years vs. 57.4 [8.6] years), and more likely to be white (82.4% vs. 72.4%) compared to the cisplatin±RT cohort. After propensity score weighting, the two cohort subsamples (cetuximab±RT, N = 60; cisplatin±RT, N = 177) with PCM data showed no significant differences in General Physical Symptoms, Treatment Side Effects, Impaired Ambulation, or Impaired Performance index scores. Patients in the cetuximab±RT cohort had higher Acute Distress index (p = 0.023), Despair index (p = 0.011), and rash (p = 0.003) scores but lower numbness/tingling scores (p = 0.022) than patients in the cisplatin±RT cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Significant group differences were observed in this comparative analysis, as the cetuximab±RT cohort had significantly higher Acute Distress index, Despair index, and rash scores compared with the cisplatin±RT cohort but lower numbness/tingling scores. These patterns of symptoms appear consistent with previously reported symptoms associated with the treatment of SCCHN.

Health-Related Quality of Life in MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer After Endocrine Therapy.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III MONARCH 2 study (NCT02107703), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assessed patient-reported pain, global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Abemaciclib or placebo (150 p.o. mg twice daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per label) were randomly assigned (2:1). The modified Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form (mBPI-sf); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Core 30 (QLQ-C30); and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-BR23) assessed outcomes. Data were collected at baseline, cycle 2, every two cycles 3-13, thereafter at every three cycles, and 30 days postdiscontinuation. Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) by study arm. RESULTS: On-treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and similar between arms. Patients in the abemaciclib arm (n = 446) experienced a 4.9-month delay in pain deterioration (mBPI-sf), compared with the control arm (n = 223), and significantly greater TTSD on the mBPI-sf and analgesic use (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and QLQ-C30 pain item (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). TTSD for functioning and most symptoms significantly favored the abemaciclib arm, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and cognitive and social functioning. Only diarrhea significantly favored the control arm (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.10). CONCLUSION: HRQoL was maintained on abemaciclib plus fulvestrant. Alongside superior PFS and manageable safety profile, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in a population of patients with endocrine-resistant HR+, HER2-negative ABC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to consider, given the palliative nature of ABC treatment. In this study, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, significantly delayed sustained deterioration of pain and other patient-reported symptoms (including fatigue, nausea, vomiting), and social and cognitive functioning. Combined with demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability, the stabilization of patient-reported symptoms and HRQoL further supports abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as a desirable treatment option in endocrine resistant, HR+, HER2- ABC.

Treatment patterns, survival and economic outcomes in Medicare-enrolled, older patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer.

Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) remains a foundation of systemic therapy for HR+/ HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC), although chemotherapy (CT) is used in select patients. In this "real-world" study, we explored treatment patterns, health care resource use (HCRU), costs, adverse events (AEs) and overall survival (OS) in Medicare-enrolled, older patients with HR+/HER2- MBC. Methods: Patients with HR+/HER2- MBC (2007-2011) and aged >66 years were retrospectively analyzed using the SEER-Medicare data. Treatment patterns, HCRU, costs, AEs and OS after MBC diagnosis through end of study period (31 December 2013) were examined using descriptive and multivariable analyses. Results: Among 3622 eligible patients, ET was the most common treatment (77%), followed by CT (50%), radiation (48%) and surgery (19%). The proportion of patients treated with ET monotherapy decreased across therapy lines, from 74% in first line (1 L) to 35% in 4 L. The total number of unique therapy regimens used was 181 in 1 L, 171 in 2 L, 128 in 3 L, and 95 in 4 L. The median OS from MBC diagnosis was 25.3 months (95% CI, 24.0-26.7). In multivariable analyses, receipt of CT and combination CT + ET (versus ET monotherapy) in 1 L, metastatic disease at initial diagnosis, larger tumor size, and presence of visceral and brain metastases at MBC diagnosis significantly predicted receipt of 2 L therapy. Conclusions: ET was the most common first-line treatment for study patients, but its use decreased gradually in the subsequent lines. The heterogeneity in the treatment selection highlights a lack of consensus for the management of HR+/HER2- MBC in routine practice.

The Budget Impact of Including Necitumumab on the Formulary for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: U.S. Commercial Payer and Medicare Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab (Neci) was the first biologic approved by the FDA for use in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin (Neci + GCis) in first-line treatment of metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (msqNSCLC). The potential financial impact on a health plan of adding Neci + GCis to drug formularies may be important to value-based decision makers in the United States, given ever-tightening budget constraints. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of introducing Neci + GCis for first-line treatment of msqNSCLC from U.S. commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. METHODS: The budget impact model estimates the costs of msqNSCLC before and after adoption of Neci + GCis in hypothetical U.S. commercial and Medicare health plans over a 3-year time horizon. The eligible patient population was estimated from U.S. epidemiology statistics. Clinical data were obtained from randomized clinical trials, U.S. prescribing information, and clinical guidelines. Market share projections were based on market research data. Cost data were obtained from online sources and published literature. The incremental aggregate annual health plan, per-patient-per-year (PPPY), and per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs were estimated in 2015 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effect of model parameters on results. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 1,000,000-member commercial health plan with an estimated population of 30 msqNSCLC patients receiving first-line chemotherapy, the introduction of Neci + GCis at an initial market share of approximately 5% had an overall year 1 incremental budget impact of $88,394 ($3,177 PPPY, $0.007 PMPM), representing a 2.9% cost increase and reaching $304,079 ($10,397 PPPY, $0.025 PMPM) or a 7.4% cost increase at a market share of 14.7% in year 3. This increase in total costs was largely attributable to Neci drug costs and, in part, due to longer survival and treatment duration for patients treated with Neci+GCis. Overall, treatment costs increased by $81,812 (13.5%), and disease costs increased by $7,951 (0.4%), whereas adverse event costs decreased by $1,368 (0.5%) in year 1. From the Medicare perspective, the overall year 1 incremental budget impact was $438,056 ($0.037 PMPM, $3,112 PPPY), representing a 3.0% cost increase. The higher incremental budget in Medicare, compared with commercial plans, was due to higher msqNSCLC incidence in the older Medicare patients (154 vs. 30 patients, respectively). Results were most sensitive to Neci drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on projected market shares, coverage for first-line therapy with Neci + GCis appeared to modestly affect overall U.S. health care budgets for msqNSCLC-related care. Given the small eligible patient population, the PMPM budgetary impact on a commercial health plan of reimbursing Neci + GCis in the first year was less than $0.01, rising with increased use of Neci + GCis to $0.025 in the third year. The real-world effect of Neci + GCis needs to be evaluated to validate this analysis; however, these findings may help policymakers in making coverage decisions for Neci + GCis. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Molife, Brown, Tawney, and Cuyun Carter are equity holders and employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Bly, Cinfio, and Klein are employees of Medical Decision Modeling, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct this research and prepare this manuscript.

Efficacy and Safety of Ramucirumab With Docetaxel Versus Placebo With Docetaxel as Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Subgroup Analysis According to Patient Age in the REVEL Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ramucirumab, a recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody receptor antagonist designed to block the ligand-binding site of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2), was evaluated as second-line treatment in combination with docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in the REVEL trial (NCT01168973). Ramucirumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). We report age subgroup analysis results primarily on the basis of a 65-year cutoff. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ramucirumab with docetaxel or placebo with docetaxel (n = 1253). Of these, 798 were younger than 65 years (ramucirumab, n = 391; control, n = 407) and 455 were 65 years or older (ramucirumab, n = 237; control, n = 218). Treatment comprised 21-day cycles of 75 mg/m2 docetaxel with 10 mg/kg ramucirumab or placebo. Prespecified age subgroup analyses were performed, including OS, PFS, and objective response rate. Quintiles age analysis was conducted to establish a relationship between efficacy and age. The Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) measured quality of life outcomes. Safety was assessed according to adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Patients younger than 65 years showed favorable OS outcomes with ramucirumab treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.87; P < .001) and PFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .001). In patients 65 years or older, benefits of ramucirumab were not as evident; after model adjustment for prognostic factors, OS and PFS HRs were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.77-1.21; P = .04) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.05; P = .03), respectively. Age analysis according to quintiles showed HRs favoring ramucirumab for all age groupings. LCSS scores and AEs did not considerably differ between age groups. CONCLUSION: In this subgroup analysis, true treatment effect differences on the basis of age have not been established, and treatment should not be deterred solely because of age.

Treatment outcomes by histology in REVEL: A randomized phase III trial of Ramucirumab plus docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Ramucirumab, a recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, increased overall survival (OS) combined with docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the REVEL trial. Pre-specified exploratory analysis examined efficacy and safety by histology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1253 patients with NSCLC were randomized to receive ramucirumab (10mg/kg; n=628) plus docetaxel (75mg/m2) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=625) after disease progression on or after platinum-based therapy, with or without bevacizumab or maintenance therapy. OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. Primary quality-of-life analysis was time to deterioration (TtD) of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) scores using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. RESULTS: Median OS for adenocarcinoma was 11.2 months for ramucirumab-docetaxel (n = 377) and 9.8 months for placebo-docetaxel (n=348); HR=0.83 (95% CI: 0.69-0.99). In squamous disease, median OS was 9.5 months for ramucirumab-docetaxel (n=157) versus 8.2 months for placebo-docetaxel (n=171); HR 0.88 (95% CI: 0.69-1.13). Median OS for other nonsquamous was 10.8 months for ramucirumab-docetaxel (n=74) and 9.3 months for placebo-docetaxel (n=78); HR=0.86 (95% CI: 0.59-1.26). Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between treatment arms across histologic subgroups. TtD for LCSS scores was similar between treatment arms in the nonsquamous and squamous subgroups. CONCLUSION: REVEL demonstrated similar favorable efficacy and manageable safety for ramucirumab-docetaxel across histologic subgroups of NSCLC.

Outcomes in patients with aggressive or refractory disease from REVEL: A randomized phase III study of docetaxel with ramucirumab or placebo for second-line treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The REVEL study demonstrated improved efficacy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with ramucirumab plus docetaxel, independent of histology. This exploratory analysis characterized the treatment effect in REVEL patients who were refractory to prior first-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Refractory patients had a best response of progressive disease to first-line treatment. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and safety. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed for OS and PFS, and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used for response. QoL was assessed with the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale. Sensitivity analyses were performed on subgroups of the intent-to-treat population with limited time on first-line therapy. RESULTS: Of 1253 randomized patients in REVEL, 360 (29%) were refractory to first-line treatment. Baseline characteristics were largely balanced between treatment arms. In the control arm, median OS for refractory patients was 6.3 versus 10.3 months for patients not meeting this criterion, demonstrating the poor prognosis of refractory patients. Median OS (8.3 vs. 6.3 months; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08), median PFS (4.0 vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), and ORR (22.5% vs. 12.6%) were improved in refractory patients treated with ramucirumab compared to placebo, without new safety concerns or further deteriorating patient QoL. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of ramucirumab in refractory patients is similar to that in the intent-to-treat population. The benefit/risk profile for refractory patients suggests that ramucirumab plus docetaxel is an appropriate treatment option even in this difficult-to-treat population.

Real-World Treatment Sequences and Outcomes Among Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (RESOUNDS) in the United States: Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes are related to treatment choices in a line of therapy and to treatment sequences across all lines of therapy. OBJECTIVE: The Real-World Treatment Sequences and Outcomes among Patients with NSCLC (RESOUNDS) study is designed to (1) evaluate treatment sequences used for patients who receive at least two lines of therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the United States and (2) evaluate patient outcomes in terms of progression-free and overall survival related to treatment sequencing. Additional objectives include the evaluation of symptoms, comorbidities, and health care resource utilization and costs. METHODS: Patients will be censored at loss to follow-up due to leaving the health plan or reaching the end of the study period. RESULTS: This study is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: The RESOUNDS cohort study is a novel approach to building a comprehensive dataset that mimics a prospective observational study using linked patient-level data from four real-world data sources. This study will provide timely information on the sequencing of treatments for patients with NSCLC.

Real-World Treatment Patterns among Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer in South Korea.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand patient treatment patterns, outcomes, and healthcare resource use in cases of metastatic and/or locally recurrent, unresectable gastric cancer (MGC) in South Korea. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty physicians reviewed charts of eligible patients to collect de-identified data. Patients must have received platinum/fluoropyrimidine first-line therapy followed by second-line therapy or best supportive care, had no other primary cancer, and not participated in a clinical trial following MGC diagnosis. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to describe survival. RESULTS: Of 198 patients, 73.7% were male, 78.3% were diagnosed with MGC after age 55 (mean, 61.3 years), and 47.0% were current or former smokers. The majority of tumorswere located in the antrum/pylorus (51.5%). Metastatic sites most often occurred in the peritoneum (53.5%), lymph nodes (47.5%), and liver (38.9%). At diagnosis, the mean Charlson comorbidity indexwas 0.4 (standard deviation, 0.6). The most common comorbidities were chronic gastritis (22.7%) and cardiovascular disease (18.7%). Most patients (80.3%) received second-line treatment. Single-agent fluoropyrimidine was reported for 22.0% of patients, while 19.5% were treated with irinotecan and a fluoropyrimidine or platinum agent. The most common physician-reported symptoms during second-line treatment were nausea/vomiting (44.7%) and pain (11.3%), with antiemetics (44.7%), analgesics (36.5%), and nutritional support (11.3%) most often used as supportive care. Two-thirds of inpatient hospitalizations were for chemotherapy infusion. Outpatient hospitalization (31.6%) and visits to the oncologist (58.8%) were common among second-line patients. CONCLUSION: Most patients received second-line treatment, although regimens varied. Understanding MGC patient characteristics and treatment patterns in South Korea will help address unmet needs.

Quality of life results from the phase 3 REVEL randomized clinical trial of ramucirumab-plus-docetaxel versus placebo-plus-docetaxel in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: REVEL demonstrated that ramucirumab+docetaxel (RAM+DTX) improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy. This analysis examined quality of life (QoL) as assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and clinician-reported functional status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The LCSS includes 6 symptom and 3 global items measured on a 0-100-mm scale; higher scores represent greater symptom burden. LCSS and ECOG PS data were collected at baseline, every 3-week cycle, the summary visit, and at the 30-day follow-up. LCSS total score and Average Symptom Burden Index (ASBI) were calculated. The primary analysis compared time to deterioration (TtD) between treatment arms for all individual items and summary scores, defined as increase from baseline by ≥ 15 mm using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. TtD to ECOG PS ≥ 2 was analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1253 patients randomized to receive RAM+DTX or placebo+docetaxel (PL+DTX). Across all assessments, LCSS compliance was approximately 75% and balanced across arms. The mean (SD) baseline LCSS total score was 27.3mm (17.08 mm) on RAM+DTX and 29.6mm (17.59 mm) on PL+DTX. At 30-day follow-up, mean (SD) LCSS total score was 32.0 (19.03) on RAM+DTX and 32.5 (19.87) on PL+DTX. The TtD for all LCSS scores was similar between treatment arms. Stratified HRs (95% CI) for LCSS total score and ASBI were HR=0.99 (0.81, 1.22), p=0.932 and HR=0.93 (0.75, 1.15), p=0.514 with approximately 70% of patients censored. TtD to PS ≥ 2 was similar between treatment arms (HR=1.03 [95% CI: 0.85, 1.26], p=0.743) with approximately two-thirds of the patients censored. CONCLUSION: In addition to improvement of clinical efficacy outcomes demonstrated in REVEL, these results suggest that adding ramucirumab to docetaxel did not impair patient QoL, symptoms, or functioning.

Health state utility values associated with advanced gastric, oesophageal, or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify utility values associated with advanced gastric cancer (GC), oesophageal cancer (OC), or gastro-oesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Utility values relating to health states are an essential component for cost-utility analysis (CUA). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and EconLit databases were reviewed for relevant studies using a pre-defined search strategy. Studies eligible for inclusion reported health state utility values (HSUVs) using direct (standard gamble [SG] and time-trade-off [TTO]) and indirect (such as EuroQol 5D [EQ-5D], short-form 6D [SF-6D], and the 15-dimensional instrument [15D]) methods for patients with advanced GC, OC, or GEJ cancer. RESULTS: A total of 539 unique publications were identified, of which eight met the inclusion criteria (GC, n = 2; mixed population [gastrointestinal cancers], n = 4; OC, n = ). The most commonly used instrument to estimate HSUVs was the EQ-5D (n = 7). Utilities were also estimated using the SF-6D and the 15D in the same study (n = 1). Direct elicitation methods included the TTO (n = 2) and SG (n = 1). Across the eight identified publications, health states and study populations were heterogeneous and sample sizes were limited. LIMITATIONS: This review, as with all summaries of this nature, is only as robust as the data derived from the identified studies. The systematic review process does not resolve any design issues or biases associated with the original studies. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data estimate HSUVs in patients with advanced GC, OC, or GEJ cancer. Utilities for advanced GC alone and advanced OC alone were reported in only two publications for each cancer type. No publications considered advanced GEJ utilities alone, and four publications considered utilities for a mixed population of gastrointestinal cancer types. Comparisons are confounded by heterogeneity across the identified publications. Further research into HSUVs associated with advanced GC and OC is required to improve the evidence available for use in CUAs.

KRAS testing of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in a community-based oncology setting: a retrospective database analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, treatment guidelines were updated to recommend KRAS testing at diagnosis for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We investigated KRAS testing rates over time and compared characteristics of KRAS-tested and not-tested patients in a community-based oncology setting. METHODS: Adult patients with a diagnosis of mCRC from 2008-2011 were selected from the ACORN Data Warehouse (ACORN Research LLC, Memphis, TN). Text mining of physician progress notes and full chart reviews identified KRAS-tested patients, test dates, and test results (KRAS status). The overall proportion of eligible patients KRAS-tested in each calendar year was calculated. Among KRAS-tested patients, the proportion tested at diagnosis (within 60 days) was calculated by year. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare patient characteristics at diagnosis between tested and not-tested cohorts, and to identify factors associated with KRAS testing. RESULTS: Among 1,363 mCRC patients seen from 2008-2011, 648 (47.5%) were KRAS-tested. Among newly diagnosed mCRC patients, the rate of KRAS testing increased from 5.9% prior to 2008, to 13.9% in 2008, and then jumped dramatically to 32.3% in 2009, after which a modest yearly increase continued. The proportions of KRAS-tested patients who had been diagnosed in previous years but not tested previously increased from 17.7% in 2008 to 27.0% in 2009, then decreased to 19.0% in 2010 and 17.6% in 2011. Among patients who were KRAS-tested, the proportions tested at the time of diagnosis increased annually (to 78.4% in 2011). Patients more likely to have been tested included those with lung metastases, poor performance status, more comorbidities, and mCRC diagnosis in 2009 or later. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of KRAS testing increased over time, corresponding to changes in treatment guidelines and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor product labels; however, approximately 50% of eligible patients were untested during the study period.

Metastatic colorectal cancer treatment patterns according to kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog genotype in U.S. Community-based oncology practices.

INTRODUCTION: In 2008, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were revised in light of the identification of the Kirsten Rat Sarcoma Viral Oncogene Homolog (KRAS) gene as a biomarker of nonresponse to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. This study sought to describe and compare real-world treatment patterns of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) according to KRAS genotype in community-based oncology practices in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the ACORN (ACORN LLC, Memphis, TN) electronic medical record data warehouse, containing data of approximately 180,000 patients from 12 oncology practices across the United States were used. Records of adult patients with mCRC who had undergone KRAS testing between January 2008 and December 2011 were evaluated. Patient demographic characteristics, KRAS genotype, and treatment patterns were identified and compared. RESULTS: Six hundred forty-eight mCRC patients who were tested for KRAS were identified. Of these, 48.1% had wild type (WT), 42.3% mutant, and 9.6% unknown genotypes. Most patients (72.1%) were tested in 2009 or later, after the guideline revision. Bevacizumab-containing combinations were the most common first-line regimens in KRAS mutant and WT patients. Approximately 90% of patients received at least 1 line of therapy, however, WT patients received significantly more lines of therapy than KRAS mutant patients (2.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.1 ± 1.2; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: KRAS WT and mutant genotypes had similar first-line regimens; however, WT patients received more lines of therapy. Although there does not appear to be a lag between changes in guidelines and treatment practice, professional and government organizations must keep up with the changing science and disseminate this information to oncologists in a timely manner.