Patterns of major cutaneous surgeries and reconstructions in patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in the USA.

Aim: Since use of major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions among patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is not well described, we sought to quantify major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions among patients with CSCC who were newly diagnosed and for those treated with systemic therapy, stratified by immune status. Methods: We used the Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart database (2013-2020) and Kaplan-Meier estimators to assess risk of surgeries/reconstructions. Results: 450,803 patients were identified with an incident CSCC diagnosis, including 4111 patients with CSCC who initiated systemic therapy. The respective 7-year risks of major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions were 10.9% (95% CI: 10.7-11.0) and 21.8% (95% CI: 17.6-25.8). Overall risk of major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions was higher in patients who were immunocompromised than those who were immunocompetent. Conclusion: Approximately one in nine patients with CSCC will undergo ≥1 major cutaneous surgeries/reconstructions within 7 years of diagnosis; the risk increases in patients who initiate systemic therapy and among those who are immunocompromised.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is one of the two most common cancers, and numbers of new cases are increasing each year by 3­7%. A small number of advanced cases require systemic treatments (drugs given by mouth or injection), such as chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Patients with CSCC may require major skin surgeries and reconstructions. Little is known about how these skin procedures are used to treat patients with CSCC, particularly those with a weakened immune system. This analysis used USA insurance data of patients from 2013 to 2020 to assess how they were treated with surgeries, based on patients' immune status and whether they had started systemic treatment for CSCC. Among the 450,803 patients identified with a new CSCC diagnosis, the chances of having a procedure over a 7-year period was 10.9% (around one in nine). For 4111 patients with CSCC who started systemic therapy, this was 21.8% (around one in five). The chances of having a procedure were also significantly higher in patients with a weakened immune system (14.0%, around one in seven), compared with those without. However, this study was potentially limited by the following: the study population might not fully represent the CSCC population, the risk of surgery might be underestimated and information about patients' tumors (e.g., staging) was lacking. These results suggest there is an unmet need for systemic treatments that can reduce the burden of skin surgeries and reconstructions in CSCC.

Qualitative Patient Interviews to Characterize the Human Burden of Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma Following Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitor Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence of patients' experiences of living with advanced basal cell carcinoma (aBCC) are limited, particularly after hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) treatment. We explored the burden of aBCC on symptoms and patients' everyday lives post HHI treatment. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured, approximately 1-h qualitative interviews of US patients with aBCC and prior HHI treatment were conducted. Data were assessed using thematic analysis with NVivo 1.0 software. Saturation analysis was performed to ensure all concepts were captured. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (median age, 63 years; locally advanced BCC, n = 9; metastatic BCC, n = 6) were interviewed. A patient-led conceptual model was developed from the responses using 10 symptoms and 15 impact categories (comprising emotional/psychological, physical, and social domains) identified as most commonly discussed and important to patients. Overall, reported impacts were discussed more commonly than reported symptoms. Impacts most commonly discussed were related to emotions (e.g., anxiety, worry, fear [n = 14; 93%]; low mood, depression [n = 12; 80%]) and physical function (e.g., hobbies or leisure activities [n = 13; 87%]). Symptoms most commonly discussed were fatigue and tiredness (n = 14; 93%) and itch (n = 13; 87%). Out of all reported impacts and symptoms, fatigue and tiredness (n = 7, 47%) and anxiety, worry, and fear (n = 6; 40%) were most bothersome to patients. As a descriptive exercise, participant responses were mapped to commonly used patient-reported outcome scales in aBCC clinical trials. Most expressed concepts were captured across two common measures in oncology/skin conditions (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 [EORTC QLQ-C30] and Skindex-16 questionnaires), but sun avoidance and others' perception of skin cancer were not explicitly mentioned by these instruments. CONCLUSION: Patients with aBCC experienced a significant disease burden post first-line HHI therapy, including major emotional and lifestyle impacts. Accordingly, through this study, patients with aBCC highlighted a significant unmet need for second-line treatment options post HHI therapy.

Real-world analysis of cost, treatment patterns, and outcomes of patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in the US.

OBJECTIVES: To describe real-world characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (mCSCC). METHODS: This retrospective observational study used MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases (1/1/2013-7/31/2019). Adult patients with mCSCC who initiated non-immunotherapy systemic treatment (i.e. index event) between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 were assessed for treatment patterns, all-cause and CSCC-related healthcare resource utilization, costs, and mortality . RESULTS: Overall, 207 patients were included in the study(mean age 64.8 years, 76.3% male), 59.4% had prior radiotherapy, and 58.9% had prior CSCC-related surgery. During follow-up, 75.8%, 51.7%, and 35.7% of patients received chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy as first-line treatment, respectively. Cisplatin (32.9%) and carboplatin (22.7%) were the most common chemotherapy agents, and cetuximab (32.4%) was the most common targeted therapy during the first-line.Probability of death (95% CI) at month 6, year 1, and year 2 was 24% (16-32%), 50% (40 - 59%), and 67% (56 - 75%), respectively. Average CSCC-related healthcare costs were $5,354 per person per month (PPPM), with outpatient costs being the major cost driver at 96.4% ($5,160 PPPM). CONCLUSION: During 2014-2018, patients with mCSCC were commonly treated with cisplatin and cetuximab; prognosis was generally poor. These results indicate opportunity for new treatments to improve survival outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes with cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of ≥50%: The EMPOWER-Lung 1 study.

BACKGROUND: In the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540), cemiplimab conferred longer survival than platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50%. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated among trial participants. METHODS: Adults with NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. At baseline and day 1 of each treatment cycle, patients were administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Mixed-model repeated measures analysis estimated overall change from baseline for PD-L1 ≥50% and intention-to-treat populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated time to definitive deterioration. RESULTS: In PD-L1 ≥50% patients (cemiplimab, n = 283; chemotherapy, n = 280), baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 scores showed moderate-to-high functioning and low symptom burden. Change from baseline favored cemiplimab on global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), functioning, and most symptom scales. Risk of definitive deterioration across functioning scales was reduced versus chemotherapy; hazard ratios were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32-0.71) to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96). Cemiplimab showed lower risk of definitive deterioration for disease-related (dyspnea, cough, pain in chest, pain in other body parts, fatigue) and treatment-related symptoms (peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea) (nominal p < .05). Results were similar in the intention-to-treat population. CONCLUSIONS: Results support cemiplimab for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC from the patient's perspective. Improved survival is accompanied by improvements versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in GHS/QOL and functioning and reduction in symptom burden.

Patient-reported outcomes labeling for oncology drugs: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current status and future directions.

Introduction: Regulatory agencies encourage the incorporation of the patient voices throughout clinical drug development. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) offer one way of doing this and their use has markedly increased in many therapeutic areas, particularly oncology, in recent years. However, few oncology drug labels include PRO data and those which do, offer little consistency. Objective: To provide multidisciplinary perspectives (patient, pharmaceutical industry, PRO researcher, regulatory expert) on PRO data in oncology drug labels. Methods: PRO data in the labels of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for oncology indications between 2010 and 2020 were critically reviewed by authors who provided their insights on the advantages and disadvantages/gaps. Results: Forty-six oncology drugs included PRO data in their labels. Differences were observed between FDA and EMA PRO labeling (e.g., PRO concept, use of tables and graphs to display PROs or reference to clinical meaningfulness). In providing their perspectives on the number and nature of PROs in labels, authors noted limitations including: the low proportion of oncology drugs with PRO labeling, limited PRO information in labels, lack of patient-friendly language, and potential bias towards positive outcomes. Lack of consistency within- and between-agencies was noted. Conclusion: Despite regulatory agencies' commitment to incorporate patient voices in regulatory decisions, availability of PRO information is limited in oncology drug labels. While several PRO guidance documents are available from regulatory and Health Technology Assessment agencies, harmonization of PRO guidance for labeling inclusion around the world is needed to better inform prescribers and consequently their patients in the process of shared medical decisions.

A call to action to harmonize patient-reported outcomes evidence requirements across key European HTA bodies in oncology.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are increasingly being included in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) submissions for oncology drugs. This study aims to provide differences in PRO evidence requirements in oncology across key HTA bodies and calls for its harmonization. Method guidance provided by HTA bodies in Germany, France and the UK, and analysis of HTA reports of 20 oncology case studies were evaluated in this review. Differences exist between HTA bodies regarding guidance on how PRO data should be collected, reported and analyzed as well as how the data are reviewed and considered in oncology HTAs. HTA bodies can play a key role to harmonize PRO method guidance in collaboration with regulators and sponsors.

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are information provided directly by the person who is experiencing a disease or undergoing a treatment, without additional interpretation by a clinician or caregiver. Along with other outcome measures, PROs may be included in the body of evidence used by health technology assessment bodies in their review. In this article, the authors summarize the guidance documents published by key health technology assessment agencies and reviewed 20 past cancer drug case studies to understand how different agencies use PROs when deciding on recommendations for new cancer treatments.

EMPOWER CERVICAL-1: Effects of cemiplimab versus chemotherapy on patient-reported quality of life, functioning and symptoms among women with recurrent cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III, randomised, active-controlled study (EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9; R2810-ONC-1676; NCT03257267) and cemiplimab significantly improved survival versus investigator's choice of chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer who had progressed on platinum-based therapy. Here we report patient-reported outcomes in this pivotal study. METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to open-label cemiplimab (350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) or investigator's choice of chemotherapy in 6-week cycles. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 during cycles 1-16. Least-squares mean changes from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning (PF) were secondary end-points in the statistical hierarchy. RESULTS: Of 608 patients (304/arm), 77.8% patients had squamous cell carcinoma and 22.2% patients had adenocarcinoma. Questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% throughout. In the squamous cell carcinoma population, overall between-group differences statistically significantly favoured cemiplimab in GHS/QoL (8.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.77-13.21; P = 0.0003) and PF (8.35; 95% CI: 4.08-12.62; P < 0.0001). Treatment differences favoured cemiplimab in both histologic populations by cycle 2. Overall changes from baseline in most functioning and symptom scales favoured cemiplimab, with clinically meaningful treatment differences in role functioning, appetite loss and pain in both populations. The sensitivity analyses, responder analyses and time to definitive deterioration favoured cemiplimab in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: Cemiplimab conferred favourable differences in GHS/QoL and PF compared with chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer, with benefits in PF by cycle 2, and clinically meaningful differences favouring cemiplimab in role functioning, appetite loss, and pain.

Hedgehog pathway inhibitor real-world treatment patterns in patients with basal cell carcinoma: a claims-based analysis.

Aims: To examine real-world treatment patterns for Hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HHIs) for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: HHI initiators between January 2013 and June 2019 were identified from IBM MarketScan® claims data. Time to treatment discontinuation and reinitiation were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods using a 60-day grace period. Results: Among 526 patients with basal cell carcinoma who initiated an HHI, median time to first discontinuation was 144 days, and risk of discontinuation by 12 months was 88.0%. Probability of reinitiation within 12 months was 19.7%, and median time to second discontinuation was 118 days. Conclusion: HHI discontinuation was common and reinitiation uncommon in clinical practice. Future research should evaluate persistence with recently approved therapies.

This study examined patterns of discontinuation and reinitiation of Hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HHIs) such as vismodegib or sonidegib for patients with basal cell carcinoma, the most common form of skin cancer. Initiation of HHI treatment was identified from prescriptions filled by patients with commercial insurance or Medicare who had basal cell carcinoma. Discontinuation was defined as a gap of more than 60 days without treatment, after drug supply had run out. Among the 526 patients identified, one-half had discontinued HHI treatment within about 5 months and 88% had discontinued treatment within 1 year. Fewer than 20% of patients restarted treatment. Discontinuations are common but restarting treatment is uncommon among patients with basal cell carcinoma treated with HHIs.

Network meta-analysis of immune-oncology monotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with PD-L1 expression ⩾50.

Background: For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high (⩾50%) programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, effective first-line immune-oncology monotherapies with significant survival benefits are approved, cemiplimab being the most recent. In a phase III trial, cemiplimab demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to identify/compare the efficacy/safety of cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab or other immune-oncology monotherapies from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) published in November 2010-2020. Methods: Relevant RCTs were identified by searching databases and conference proceedings as per ISPOR, NICE, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. NMA with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) was performed for OS and PFS. Analyses were conducted for objective response rate (ORR) and safety/tolerability. Fixed-effect models were used due to limited evidence. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to validate the base case analyses. Results: The feasibility assessment determined that EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 trials were eligible. IMpower110 was excluded because an incompatible PD-L1 assay (SP142) was used for patient selection. For first-line advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS [HR (95% credible interval [CrI]): 0.65 (0.50-0.86), 1-12 months] and ORR [odds ratio (OR) (95% CrI): 1.64 (1.04-2.62)], and comparable OS [HR (95% CrI): 0.77 (0.54-1.10), 1-12 months] versus pembrolizumab. There was no evidence of differences between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab for Grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) [OR (95% CrI): 1.47 (0.83-2.60)], immune-mediated AEs [1.75 (0.33-7.49)], and all-cause discontinuation due to AEs [1.21 (0.58-2.61)]. Conclusions: Considering the limitations of indirect treatment comparisons, in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab monotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and ORR, comparable OS, and no evidence of differences in safety/tolerability versus pembrolizumab.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes Among Patients with Basal Cell Carcinoma Following First-Line Hedgehog Inhibitor Discontinuation.

INTRODUCTION: Until recently, patients discontinuing first-line (1L) hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) had few subsequent treatment options. The objective of this study was to describe the treatment journey and prognosis of patients discontinuing 1L HHI for BCC. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with BCC who discontinued 1L HHI treatment in The US Oncology Network between 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2019 (with follow-up until 1 May 2020). Two cohorts were identified: patients who initiated a second-line (2L) treatment (2L initiators), and patients with 1L progression or toxicity without pathology-confirmed complete response who did not initiate 2L treatment (2L non-initiators). Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and outcomes are reported for each cohort. RESULTS: Among 115 patients with BCC who received 1L HHI treatment, 63.5% (n = 73/115) discontinued 1L HHIs. Of those, 50.7% (n = 37/73) discontinued because of documented toxicity or progression, without evidence of a complete response. We identified 4 patients who initiated 2L systemic treatment (median age 68.7 years, 100.0% female) and 15 patients who were eligible for the 2L non-initiator cohort (median age 80.2 years, 20.0% female). Median 1L HHI duration was 6.8 months (range 1.9-20.6 months) for the 2L non-initiator cohort and 8.6 months (range 6.8-42.2 months) for 2L initiators. At the end of follow-up, among 2L non-initiators (median follow-up duration 9.7 months), 40.0% were lost to follow-up, 33.3% had died, 20.0% continued observation, and 6.7% transitioned to an academic medical center or hospital; among 2L initiators (median follow-up duration 6.3 months), 50.0% were lost to follow-up, 25.0% had died, and 25.0% continued observation. CONCLUSIONS: Following 1L HHI discontinuation, lack of standardized care and suboptimal outcomes were observed, including limited receipt of 2L treatment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of newer BCC treatment options.

Real-World Treatment Patterns After CD19-Directed CAR T Cell Therapy Among Patients with Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T) are approved for treatment of adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) following at least two lines of therapy. METHODS: This study describes real-world treatment patterns after CAR T in adults with DLBCL. It includes adults diagnosed with DLBCL in IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental healthcare claims databases administered CAR T between 2017 and 2019 (index event) and at least 6 months of continuous health plan enrollment pre-index. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate risk and time to first subsequent treatment after CAR T, as a proxy for CAR T failure. RESULTS: Among 129 patients meeting study criteria, most (123; 95.4%) were hospitalized during CAR T therapy. Median length of stay was 17 (25th-75th percentile, 13-22) days. Estimated 6-month risk of subsequent treatment was 36.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.1-45.8%). During median follow-up of 195 (25th-75th percentile, 102-362) days, median time to the first line of therapy after CAR T, accounting for censoring, was 378 days (95% CI 226, not reached). Among 48 patients who received another therapy after CAR T, 58.3% received immunotherapy, 50.0% radiation therapy, 25.0% chemotherapy, 25.0% targeted therapy, and 12.5% hematopoietic stem cell transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Among real-world patients with DLBCL treated with CAR T, the risk of not achieving a durable response is considerable; additional, effective options for DLBCL salvage treatment are needed.

Survival with Cemiplimab in Recurrent Cervical Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent cervical cancer have a poor prognosis. Cemiplimab, the fully human programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)-blocking antibody approved to treat lung and skin cancers, has been shown to have preliminary clinical activity in this population. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had disease progression after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy, regardless of their programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cemiplimab (350 mg every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival. Progression-free survival and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 608 women were enrolled (304 in each group). In the overall trial population, median overall survival was longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group (12.0 months vs. 8.5 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.84; two-sided P<0.001). The overall survival benefit was consistent in both histologic subgroups (squamous-cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma [including adenosquamous carcinoma]). Progression-free survival was also longer in the cemiplimab group than in the chemotherapy group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; two-sided P<0.001). In the overall population, an objective response occurred in 16.4% (95% CI, 12.5 to 21.1) of the patients in the cemiplimab group, as compared with 6.3% (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.6) in the chemotherapy group. An objective response occurred in 18% (95% CI, 11 to 28) of the cemiplimab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 1% and in 11% (95% CI, 4 to 25) of those with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Overall, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 45.0% of the patients who received cemiplimab and in 53.4% of those who received chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Survival was significantly longer with cemiplimab than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with recurrent cervical cancer after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; EMPOWER-Cervical 1/GOG-3016/ENGOT-cx9 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03257267.).

Cost-Effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression ≥50.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%. METHODS: A 30-year "partitioned survival" model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: Cemiplimab was associated with increased time in the "preprogression" (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and "postprogression" (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI -0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A "partitioned survival" framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Integrated analysis of a phase 2 study of cemiplimab in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of outcomes and quality of life analysis.

BACKGROUND: To provide pooled longer term data from three groups of a phase 2 study of cemiplimab in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), and to determine duration of response (DOR) and impact on quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Patients received cemiplimab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (group 1, metastatic CSCC [mCSCC], n=59; group 2, locally advanced CSCC, n=78) or cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (group 3, mCSCC, n=56). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per independent central review (ICR). QoL was repeatedly measured at day 1 of each treatment cycle (groups 1 and 2: 8 weeks; group 3: 9 weeks). RESULTS: Median duration of follow-up was 15.7 months. Overall, ORR per ICR was 46.1% (95% CI: 38.9% to 53.4%). Complete response (CR) rates were 20.3%, 12.8%, and 16.1% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median time to CR was 11.2 months. Among patients with partial response or CR, the estimated proportion of patients with ongoing response at 12 months from the first objective response was 87.8% (95% CI: 78.5% to 93.3%), with median DOR not reached. Kaplan-Meier estimated probability of overall survival (OS) was 73.3% (95% CI: 66.1% to 79.2%) at 24 months, with median OS not reached. Global Health Status (GHS)/QoL improvements were observed as early as cycle 2 and were significantly improved and durable until last assessment. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to first clinically meaningful improvement for pain was 2.1 (95% CI: 2.0 to 3.7) months and was significantly improved in responders versus non-responders (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest (n=193) clinical dataset for a programmed cell death-1 inhibitor against advanced CSCC, confirming the sustained substantial clinical activity of cemiplimab in these patients, including new findings of improved CR rates over time, increasing DOR, and durable pain control and GHS/QoL improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02760498), https://clinicaltrialsgov/ct2/show/NCT02760498.

Assessing the Value of Cemiplimab for Adults With Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) from a payer perspective in the United States. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab versus historical standard of care (SOC). All inputs were identified based on a systematic literature review, supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. Clinical inputs for cemiplimab were based on individual patient data from a cemiplimab phase 2 single-arm trial (NCT27060498). For SOC, analysis was based on a pooled analysis of single-arm clinical trials and retrospective studies evaluating chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab, erlotinib, and gefitinib) identified via a systematic literature review (6 of the 27 included studies). Overall survival and progression-free survival were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon. Costs were included for drug acquisition, drug administration, management of adverse events, subsequent therapy, disease management, and terminal care. Unit costs were based on published 2019 US list prices. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab versus SOC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $99 447 per quality adjusted-life year (QALY), where incremental costs and QALYs were $372 108 and 3.74, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests a 90% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective compared to SOC. Scenario analyses resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $90 590 to $148 738. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with historical SOC, cemiplimab is a cost-effective use of US payer resources for the treatment of advanced CSCC and is expected to provide value for money.

Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine cemiplimab, a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of at least 50%. METHODS: In EMPOWER-Lung 1, a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3 study, eligible patients recruited in 138 clinics from 24 countries (aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1; never-smokers were ineligible) were randomly assigned (1:1) to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to cemiplimab was allowed following disease progression. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per masked independent review committee. Primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in a prespecified PD-L1 of at least 50% population (per US Food and Drug Administration request to the sponsor), which consisted of patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% per 22C3 assay done according to instructions for use. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 27, 2017 and Feb 27, 2020, 710 patients were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population). In the PD-L1 of at least 50% population, which consisted of 563 patients, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17·9-not evaluable) with cemiplimab (n=283) versus 14·2 months (11·2-17·5) with chemotherapy (n=280; hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·42-0·77]; p=0·0002). Median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (6·1-8·8) with cemiplimab versus 5·7 months (4·5-6·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·54 [0·43-0·68]; p<0·0001). Significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival were also observed with cemiplimab in the intention-to-treat population despite a high crossover rate (74%). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 98 (28%) of 355 patients treated with cemiplimab and 135 (39%) of 342 patients treated with chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Cemiplimab monotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%, providing a potential new treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Comparative efficacy of cemiplimab versus other systemic treatments for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

Aim: To estimate the comparative efficacy of cemiplimab, a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor, versus EGFR inhibitors, pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. Patients & methods: We performed an indirect treatment comparison of cemiplimab and other available systemic therapies for patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Results: Cemiplimab was associated with benefits in OS (hazard ratios range: 0.07-0.52) and progression-free survival (hazard ratios range: 0.30-0.67) versus EGFR inhibitors and pembrolizumab (data from KEYNOTE-629). Cemiplimab was more efficacious versus platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of OS. Conclusion: Cemiplimab may offer improvements in survival for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients compared with existing systemic therapies.

CASE (CemiplimAb-rwlc Survivorship and Epidemiology) study in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

In 2018, cemiplimab-rwlc became the first systemic treatment approved by the US FDA for patients with metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In 2019, conditional approvals were granted by Health Canada and the European Commission for the same indications. Limited data exist pertaining to the clinical characteristics, disease progression and survivorship of patients with advanced CSCC in real-world clinical practice. CemiplimAb-rwlc Survivorship and Epidemiology (CASE) is a prospective Phase IV, noninterventional, survivorship and epidemiology study that will enroll patients with advanced CSCC who have recently initiated or who plan to receive cemiplimab in a real-world setting. Trial registration number: NCT03836105.