Clinical and economic burden of medicare beneficiaries with multiple myeloma and renal impairment: An observational study.

Evidence on real-world clinical and economic outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and renal impairment (RI) is limited in the United States. This retrospective study aimed to generate an updated comprehensive assessment of the clinical and economic outcomes of MM patients with RI using the Medicare research identifiable files data with Part D linkage, which might assist in assessing the total clinical and socioeconomic burden of these high-risk and challenging-to-treat patients. Treatment patterns and clinical and economic outcomes in first line (1L) to fourth line (4L) therapy were described in Medicare beneficiaries (2012 to 2018) for MM patients with RI (RI MM cohort). For reference purposes, information on a general cohort of MM patients was generated and reported to highlight the clinical and economic burden of RI. Since the goal was to describe the burden of these patients, this study was not designed as a comparison between the 2 cohorts. Compared with the general MM cohort (n = 13,573), RI MM patients (24.9%) presented high MM-associated comorbidities. In the RI MM cohort, bortezomib-dexamethasone (45.7%), bortezomib-lenalidomide (18.6%), lenalidomide (12.3%), and bortezomib-cyclophosphamide (12.1%) were the most prevalent regimens in 1L; carfilzomib and pomalidomide were mostly received in 3L to 4L; and daratumumab in 4L. Across 1L to 4L, the RI MM cohort presented shorter median real-world progression-free survival (1L: 12.9 and 16.4 months) and overall survival (1L: 31.1 and 46.8 months) and higher all-cause healthcare resource utilization (1L incidence rate of inpatient days: 12.1 and 7.8 per person per year) than the general MM cohort. In the RI MM cohort, the mean all-cause total cost increased from 1L to 4L ($14,549-$18,667 per person per month) and was higher than that of the general MM cohort. RI MM patients presented higher clinical and economic burdens across 1L to 4L than the general MM patients in real-world clinical practice.

Critical Comments by Food and Drug Administration Reviewers on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Food and Drug Administration Regulatory Submissions (2018-2021).

OBJECTIVES: This article examined the inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in new drug applications (NDAs) submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approved from 2018 to 2021. The importance of assessing PROs, which capture patients' perspectives on the disease and treatment experience, has been underscored by many stakeholders, including regulatory authorities. Despite the increasing inclusion of PRO assessments in registration trials, inclusion of language related to PRO results in approved product labeling varies widely. METHODS: This study examined FDA submission packages for NDAs approved by the FDA from 2018 to 2021 to identify critical reviewer comments related to PROs. Comments were identified and categorized by the type of criticism. Reviewers considered both oncology and nononcology indications. RESULTS: Assessment of PROs was included in 66.2% of the 210 submissions reviewed. Critical comments were identified in 45.3% of these applications; comments most commonly related to statistical analysis considerations, fit for purpose, and study design. Other categories of critical comment included data quality, lack of treatment benefit, administrative considerations, and miscellaneous issues. Differences were observed between oncology and nononcology NDAs with regard to the number and type of comments included in each of these categories. The findings highlight the importance of planning statistical analyses, establishing content validity, carefully considering study design, maximizing data quality, and demonstrating treatment benefit, among other issues. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study offers insight into the landscape of PRO data included in recently approved NDAs, along with recommendations for improving the quality and reporting of PROs in clinical trials.

Treatment patterns of patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer receiving CDK4/6 inhibitor-based regimens: a cohort study in the French nationwide healthcare database.

PURPOSE: To assess real-world treatment patterns in patients diagnosed with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who received cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or fulvestrant at first line. METHODS: Patient characteristics, treatment history, and outcomes data were extracted from the French 'Système National des Données de Santé' (SNDS) database for patients diagnosed with HR+/HER2- mBC between January 2014 and June 2019 and who received combination therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor and endocrine therapy. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to assess time to next treatment (TTNT) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTTD). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 6061 patients including 4032 patients who received CDK4/6 inhibitors + AIs and 2029 patients who received CDK4/6 inhibitors + fulvestrant. Median follow-up was 13.5 months (IQR 9.5-18.1). The median TTTD of first line treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors + AIs and CDK4/6 inhibitors + fulvestrant was 17.3 months (95% CI 16.8-17.9) and 9.7 months (95% CI 9.0-10.2), respectively. Chemotherapy was the most common second line therapy. Median TTTD of subsequent treatment lines was progressively shorter following first line treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors + AIs (2nd line: 4.6 months (95% CI 4.4-4.9) and with CDK4/6 inhibitors + fulvestrant (2nd line: 4.7 months (95% CI 4.3-5.1). TTNT was longer than TTTD across lines of therapy. CONCLUSION: This real-world analysis confirms the effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitor-based regimens in French patients and highlights the frequent use of chemotherapy as second line therapy.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy uptake, toxicity, quality of life, and prediction of early discontinuation.

BACKGROUND: Many patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for breast cancer experience side effects and reduced quality of life (QoL) and discontinue ET. We sought to describe these issues and develop a prediction model of early discontinuation of ET. METHODS: Among patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer of the Cancer Toxicities cohort (NCT01993498) who were prescribed adjuvant ET between 2012 and 2017, upon stratification by menopausal status, we evaluated adjuvant ET patterns including treatment change and patient-reported discontinuation and ET-associated toxicities and impact on QoL. Independent variables included clinical and demographic features, toxicities, and patient-reported outcomes. A machine-learning model to predict time to early discontinuation was trained and evaluated on a held-out validation set. RESULTS: Patient-reported discontinuation rate of the first prescribed ET at 4 years was 30% and 35% in 4122 postmenopausal and 2087 premenopausal patients, respectively. Switching to a new ET was associated with higher symptom burden, poorer QoL, and higher discontinuation rate. Early discontinuation rate of adjuvant ET before treatment completion was 13% in postmenopausal and 15% in premenopausal patients. The early discontinuation model obtained a C index of 0.62 in the held-out validation set. Many aspects of QoL, most importantly fatigue and insomnia (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire 30), were associated with early discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Tolerability and adherence to ET remains a challenge for patients who switch to a second ET. An early discontinuation model using patient-reported outcomes identifies patients likely to discontinue their adjuvant ET. Improved management of toxicities and novel more tolerable adjuvant ETs are needed for maintaining patients on treatment.

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.

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.

Progression-free survival and quality of life in metastatic breast cancer: The patient perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment advances for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) have improved overall survival (OS) in some mBC subtypes; however, there remains no cure for mBC. Considering the use of progression-free survival (PFS) and other surrogate endpoints in clinical trials, we must understand patient perspectives on measures used to assess treatment efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To explore global patient perceptions of the concept of PFS and its potential relation to quality of life (QoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual roundtables in Europe and the United States and interviews in Japan with breast cancer patients, patient advocates, and thought leaders. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Lengthened OS combined with no worsening or improvement in QoL remain the most important endpoints for mBC patients. Time when the disease is not progressing is meaningful to patients when coupled with improvements in QoL and no added treatment toxicity. Clinical terminology such as "PFS" is not well understood, and participants underscored the need for patient-friendly terminology to better illustrate the concept. Facets of care that patients with mBC value and that may be related to PFS include relief from cancer-related symptoms and treatment-related toxicities as well as the ability to pursue personal goals. Improved communication between patients and providers on managing treatment-related toxicities and addressing psychosocial challenges to maintain desired QoL is needed. CONCLUSION: While OS and QoL are considered the most relevant endpoints, patients also value periods of time without disease progression. Incorporation of these considerations into the design and conduct of future clinical trials in mBC, as well as HTA and reimbursement decision-making, is needed to better capture the potential value of a therapeutic innovation.

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.

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.

Real-world treatment patterns and survival of patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical outcomes data on BRAF-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated in routine practice is limited. To address this gap, we described treatment patterns and survival in a cohort of these patients evaluated/treated at 7 US academic cancer centers during 2009-2016. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review. Patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic NSCLC were selected. Current/previous participants in BRAF-related trials were excluded. Onset of metastatic NSCLC defined a patient's index date, which had to occur ≥6 months before the chart review date. Analyses were descriptive, including Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study included 72 patients. At index, median age (range) was 65 (44-90) years; 61.1% were female. Fifty-two patients received ≥1 line of systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy was the most common first-line (1 L) regimen (76.9% of 1 l recipients); no patient received 1 l targeted therapy (TT) with a BRAF/MEK inhibitor. In total, 20 patients received TT in any treatment line (2 l or later). At time of review, 38 patients were deceased. Median (95%CI) OS from index for all patients was 31.0 (14.5, 63.8) months. Median (95%CI) OS was 56.5 (13.4, 89.1) months from index for TT recipients and 27.2 (10.6, 64.6) months in patients not treated with TT. CONCLUSION: Survival time in BRAF V600-mutated metastatic NSCLC patients studied here was higher than expected based on indirect comparisons with historical NSCLC cohorts for whom no oncogenic driver (BRAF or otherwise) was present. TT recipients had a numerically longer OS from metastatic onset than patients receiving usual care, further highlighting the importance of TT in BRAF V600-mutant NSCLC.

Economic Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Single-Gene Testing to Detect Genomic Alterations in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Using a Decision Analytic Model.

PURPOSE: The aim of the current study was to assess the economic impact of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing strategies among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and US commercial payers. METHODS: A decision analytic model considered patients who were newly diagnosed with mNSCLC who received programmed death ligand 1 and genomic alteration tests-EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, MET, HER2, RET, and NTRK1-using upfront NGS (all alterations tested simultaneously plus KRAS), sequential testing (sequence of single-gene tests), exclusionary testing (KRAS plus sequential testing), and hotspot panels (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF tested simultaneously plus single-gene tests or NGS for MET, HER2, RET, and NTRK1). Model outcomes for each strategy were time-to-test results, the proportion of patients identified harboring alterations with or without US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies, and total testing costs. A budget impact analysis assessed the economic effects of increasing the proportion of NGS-tested patients. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 1,000,000-member health plan, 2,066 Medicare-insured patients and 156 commercially insured patients were estimated to have mNSCLC and to be eligible for testing. Time-to-test results were 2.0 weeks for NGS and the hotspot panel, faster than exclusionary and sequential testing by 2.7 and 2.8 weeks, respectively. NGS was associated with cost savings for both CMS ($1,393,678; $1,530,869; and $2,140,795 less than exclusionary, sequential testing, and hotspot panels, respectively) and commercial payers ($3,809; $127,402; and $250,842 less than exclusionary, sequential testing, and hotspot panels, respectively). Increasing the proportion of NGS-tested patients translated into substantial cost savings for both CMS and commercial payers. CONCLUSION: Use of upfront NGS testing in patients with mNSCLC was associated with substantial cost savings and shorter time-to-test results for both CMS and commercial payers.

Is time to progression associated with post-progression survival in previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with BRAF V600E mutation? A secondary analysis of phase II clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE: Longer time to progression (TTP) is associated with prolonged post-progression survival (PPS) in anaplastic lymphoma kinase+non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study evaluated whether TTP is associated with PPS among previously treated patients with metastatic v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B V600E NSCLC receiving dabrafenib as monotherapy or in combination with trametinib. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of phase II clinical trial data. SETTING: Patients who experienced disease progression treated with dabrafenib monotherapy or in combination with trametinib as second line or later in an open-label, non-randomised, phase II study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the TTP-PPS association. PPS was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis among patients with shorter versus longer TTP (< or ≥6 months). The TTP-PPS association was quantified in the Cox models adjusting for clinical covariates. RESULTS: Of the 84 included patients who progressed on dabrafenib monotherapy (n=57) or combination therapy (n=27), 60 (71%) died during post-progression follow-up. Patients with TTP ≥6 months experienced significantly longer PPS compared with those with TTP <6 months (median PPS: 9.5 vs 2.7 months, log-rank p<0.001). Each 3 months of longer TTP was associated with a 32% lower hazard of death following progression (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88) in the multivariable Cox model. Similar associations were seen in each treatment arm. CONCLUSION: A longer TTP duration after treatment with dabrafenib monotherapy or combination therapy was associated with significantly longer PPS duration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01336634; Post-results.

Comparative Efficacy of Treatments for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the rarity of BRAF V600E mutation, no randomized study has compared the combination targeted therapy dabrafenib + trametinib with other second-line treatments for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy of treatments among patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: Randomized trials of dabrafenib + trametinib, docetaxel, erlotinib, nintedanib + docetaxel, nivolumab, pemetrexed, pembrolizumab, and best supportive care as second-line or above treatments for advanced or metastatic NSCLC identified in a systematic literature review were included in the NMA. Overall response rates (ORRs) and disease control rates (DCRs) were compared using logit models; progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared using fractional polynomial hazards models. Dabrafenib + trametinib was linked into the evidence network through a matching-adjusted indirect comparison versus nivolumab. RESULTS: Ten trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the NMA. Dabrafenib + trametinib, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab were associated with the highest odds of achieving overall response (12.2, 1.2, and 0.7 times higher, respectively, compared with docetaxel). Estimated DCR was higher for dabrafenib + trametinib, nintedanib + docetaxel, and pemetrexed compared with other treatments. Patients treated with dabrafenib + trametinib, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab had the lowest hazards of disease progression or death during follow-up (72, 61, and 29% lower hazard of progression at 6 months; 61, 48, and 46% lower hazard of death at 1 year, respectively, compared with docetaxel). CONCLUSION: Dabrafenib + trametinib, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab were associated with higher ORR and prolonged PFS and OS compared with chemotherapy in previously treated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of nontransfusion-dependent thalassemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Nontransfusion-dependent thalassemia (NTDT) refers to a diverse group of thalassemia mutations and clinical phenotypes that do not require chronic transfusions. It is increasingly prevalent in the United States. PROCEDURE: This study reviews the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of 138 patients with NTDT treated at four US thalassemia centers from 1997 to 2014. Data on laboratory results, transfusions, and clinical complications were collected from patient charts. RESULTS: Overall, 84 patients with α-thalassemia (62 deletional hemoglobin H; 22 nondeletional hemoglobin H), 39 with ß-thalassemia (26 with homozygous or double heterozygous ß mutations; 13 with single ß mutations with or without α triplication), and 15 with E/ß-thalassemia (12 E/ß0 ; three E/ß+ ) were identified. At study entry, the median age for patients with α-thalassemia was 2.3 years; 9.2 years for patients with ß-thalassemia and 2.2 years for patients with E/ß-thalassemia. Most patients with α-thalassemia were Asian. Patients with ß-thalassemia were predominantly Caucasian (46%) or of African descent (36%). Twenty percent of patients were born outside the United States and 5% were transfused before immigration. Complications varied by genotype and age. Individuals with nondeletional hemoglobin H were severely affected and, despite their young age, had many complications. Iron overload increased with age and was more common in patients who received transfusions. CONCLUSIONS: NTDT in the United States is a multi-ethnic disease with different genotypic mutations and phenotypic manifestations. A higher than expected proportion of patients was Black/African American. NTDT-related complications are common and increase with age, supporting a need for early diagnosis.

Monitoring for and Characterizing Crizotinib Progression: A Chart Review of ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Crizotinib is recommended as first-line therapy for ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but within a year of treatment initiation many patients develop resistance. With the recent approval of second-generation ALK inhibitors, this study assessed how physicians monitor for and diagnose progression and how they alter treatment following progression on crizotinib. METHODS: A panel of oncologists from the United States were surveyed regarding their monitoring practices and criteria for diagnosing progression on crizotinib. The physicians also retrospectively provided data (March-June 2016) from the medical charts of their adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on crizotinib after the approval (April 2014) of the first second-generation ALK inhibitor, ceritinib. RESULTS: A total of 28 physicians responded to the survey. Data was abstracted on 74 patients. In the physician survey, most physicians (71%) reported monitoring for radiographic progression every 3-4 months. When new lesions were detected, physician response varied. Following a symptomatic isolated lesion, most physicians (75%) would add local therapy and resume crizotinib. Following multiple symptomatic lesions, 96% and 64% of physicians would switch to a new therapy depending on whether the lesions were extracranial or isolated to the brain, respectively. For the patient cohort, physician-defined progression on crizotinib was diagnosed after a median of 10 months, and within 30 days of diagnosis, 86% of patients discontinued crizotinib. Among all patients who discontinued crizotinib, 77% switched to ceritinib, 14% to chemotherapy, and 1% to alectinib. The remaining 7% did not receive additional systemic antineoplastic therapy. CONCLUSION: The findings from this physician survey and retrospective chart review study suggest that physician response to the development of new lesions in crizotinib-treated ALK-positive NSCLC patients varies with location and extent of the lesions. Once patients were considered to have progressed, most of them were immediately switched to ceritinib. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Treatment Patterns and Early Outcomes of ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Ceritinib: A Chart Review Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to provide the first real-world description of the characteristics, treatments, dosing patterns, and early outcomes of patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received ceritinib in US clinical practice. METHODS: US oncologists provided data from medical charts of adult patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC who received ceritinib following crizotinib. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, ceritinib dosing, early outcomes, and occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) by dose and instructions on food intake were assessed, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to describe clinician-defined progression-free survival (PFS) on ceritinib. RESULTS: Medical charts of 58 ALK-positive NSCLC patients treated with ceritinib were reviewed (median age 63 years; 41% male; 21% with prior chemotherapy experience). At ceritinib initiation, 44 patients had multiple distant metastases, most commonly in the liver (60%), bone (53%), and brain (38%). Initial ceritinib dose varied: 71% received 750 mg, 19% 600 mg, and 10% 450 mg. Although median follow-up after ceritinib initiation was short (3.8 months), most patients achieved either a complete or partial response (69%) on ceritinib, regardless of metastatic sites present at initiation or initial dose. Median PFS on ceritinib was 12.9 months. 17% of patients had a gastrointestinal AE reported during follow-up. The majority of events occurred in patients instructed to fast; no patients instructed to take a lower dose of ceritinib with food reported gastrointestinal AEs. CONCLUSION: These early findings of ceritinib use in clinical practice suggest that ceritinib is effective at treating crizotinib-experienced ALK-positive NSCLC patients, regardless of metastatic sites or initial dose, and dosing ceritinib with food may lead to fewer gastrointestinal AEs. Future studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are warranted, including an ongoing randomized trial to assess the gastrointestinal tolerability of ceritinib 450 and 600 mg with low-fat meals. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation.

Characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival among ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with crizotinib: A chart review study.

OBJECTIVES: Second-generation ALK inhibitors are recently available for ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients previously treated with crizotinib. This study described characteristics, treatment sequencing, and outcomes among locally advanced/metastatic crizotinib-experienced ALK+ NSCLC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2014 to June 2015, a retrospective patient chart review was conducted among physicians from the US, EU, Korea, and Latin America. Participating clinicians identified their ALK+ NSCLC patients who received crizotinib and reported on their clinical characteristics, treatments, and survival using a pre-defined case report form. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to describe overall survival (OS) and clinician-defined progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Participating clinicians reviewed charts of 158 ALK+ NSCLC patients treated with crizotinib during the study period. Crizotinib was most commonly received in the second-line setting (41% of patients), though this varied across geographical regions. Roughly half (53%) of the patients who discontinued crizotinib received further antineoplastic therapy; second-generation ALK inhibitors (44%) and chemotherapy (42%) regimens were used most frequently. Following crizotinib discontinuation, median OS was 8.2 months. Among patients who did not initiate a second-generation ALK inhibitor following crizotinib, median OS was 4.9 months; among those who did, median OS was not reached. Among patients who received chemotherapy immediately following crizotinib discontinuation, time to clinician-defined PFS from post-crizotinib chemotherapy initiation was 3.6 months. CONCLUSION: Following crizotinib discontinuation, many patients received no further antineoplastic therapy, and OS was poor among patients who did not receive a second-generation ALK inhibitor. Recently available second-generation ALK inhibitors may provide important treatment options for ALK+ NSCLC patients.