A comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of pan-cancer BRCA mutations, homologous recombination repair gene mutations, and homologous recombination deficiencies.

There is significant improvement in the outcomes following treatment with PARP inhibitors among patients with certain tumors that have BRCA mutations (BRCAm), homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutations, or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) positivity. We performed a literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence of BRCA1/2m, HRR gene mutations, and HRD positivity across multiple cancers. There were 265 publications on BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence, 189 on HRR gene mutation prevalence, and 7 on HRD positivity prevalence. The prevalences of germline BRCA1m and BRCA2m were 7.8% and 5.7% for breast cancer, 13.5% and 6.6% for ovarian cancer, 0.5% and 3.5% for prostate cancer, and 1.1% and 4.1% for pancreatic cancer, respectively. The prevalences of somatic BRCA1m and BRCA2m were 3.4% and 2.7% for breast cancer, 4.7% and 2.9% for ovarian cancer, 5.7% and 3.2% for prostate cancer, and 1.2% and 2.9% for pancreatic cancer, respectively. We identified 189 studies with over 418,649 samples across 25 tumor types that examined mutations in one or more HRR genes other than BRCA1/2. The prevalence of mutations among HRR genes remained low (less than 1%), with ATM (5.2%), CHEK2 (1.6%), and PALB2 (0.9%) exhibiting the highest prevalence. Seven studies evaluated HRD positivity in breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer patients. The prevalence of HRD positivity was 56% overall (95% CI = 48%-64%). The understanding of biomarker prevalence across tumor types and standardization of biomarker assays could have important clinical implications.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Prognostic Value of BRCA Mutations, Homologous Recombination Gene Mutations, and Homologous Recombination Deficiencies in Cancer.

Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations (BRCAm), loss-of-function mutations in other homologous recombination repair (HRRm) genes, or tumors that are homologous recombination deficiency positivity (HRD+) demonstrate a robust response to PARPi therapy. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic value of BRCAm, HRRm, and HRD+ on overall survival (OS) among those treated by chemotherapy or targeted therapy other than PARPi across tumor types. A total of 135 eligible studies were included. Breast cancer (BC) patients with BRCA1/2m had a similar overall survival (OS) to those with wild-type BRCA1/2 (BRCA1/2 wt) across 18 studies. Ovarian cancer (OC) patients with BRCA1/2m had a significantly longer OS than those with BRCA1/2 wt across 24 studies reporting BRCA1m and BRCA2m, with an HR of 0.7 (0.6-0.8). Less OS data were reported for other tumors: 6 studies for BRCA2m compared with BRCA2 wt in prostate cancer with an HR of 1.9 (1.1-3.2) and 2 studies for BRCA1/2m compared with BRCA1/2 wt in pancreatic cancer with an HR of 1.5 (0.8-3.1). Only 4 studies reported HRD+ by either BRCA m or genomic instability score (GIS) ≥ 42 and OS by HRD status. The HR was 0.67 (0.43-1.02) for OS with HRD+ vs. HRD-. A total of 15 studies reported the association between HRRm and OS of cancers in which one or more HRR genes were examined. The HR was 1.0 (0.7-1.4) comparing patients with HRRm to those with HRR wild-type across tumors. Our findings are useful in improving the precision and efficacy of treatment selection in clinical oncology.

Clinical effectiveness outcomes and healthcare resource utilization of patients diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer.

Background: Real-world data are lacking on patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) with extensive-stage SCLC (eSCLC) and poor performance status (PS). Patients & methods: Eligible patients diagnosed with eSCLC between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2017 were included in this retrospective, observational study. Results: The study included 406 patients, with 14.3% impaired PS. Progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between impaired (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≥2) and not impaired patients (median, 4.5 vs 5.3 months, and 7.2 vs 8.4 months, respectively). Impaired patients used more supportive care drugs (mean, 3.0 vs 2.0; p = 0.033). Conclusion: Effectiveness outcomes among patients with and without impaired PS did not differ in the real-world setting. Progression-free survival and overall survival were similar to data from clinical trials.

Length of hospitalization and mortality for bleeding during treatment with warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.

BACKGROUND: Different outcomes among patients hospitalized for bleeding after starting anticoagulation could influence choice of anticoagulant. We compared length of hospitalization, proportion of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admissions, ICU length of stay, and 30- and 90-day mortality for adults with atrial fibrillation hospitalized for bleeding after starting warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban. METHODS: An US commercial database of 38 million members from 1 November 2010 to 31 March 2014 was used to examine adults with atrial fibrillation hospitalized for bleeding after starting warfarin (2,446), dabigatran (442), or rivaroxaban (256). Outcomes included difference in mean total length of hospitalization, proportion of ICU admissions, mean length of ICU stay, and all-cause 30- and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Warfarin users were older and had more comorbidities. Multivariable regression modeling with propensity score weighting showed warfarin users were hospitalized 2.0 days longer (95% CI 1.8-2.3; p < 0.001) than dabigatran users and 2.6 days longer (95% CI 2.4-2.9; p < 0.001) than rivaroxaban users. Dabigatran users were hospitalized 0.6 days longer (95% CI 0.2-1.0; p = 0.001) than rivaroxaban users. There were no differences in the proportion of ICU admissions. Among ICU admissions, warfarin users stayed 3.0 days (95% CI 1.9-3.9; p < 0.001) longer than dabigatran users and 2.4 days longer (95% CI 0.9-3.7; p = 0.003) than rivaroxaban users. There was no difference in ICU stay between dabigatran and rivaroxaban users. There were no differences in 30- and 90-day all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban and dabigatran were associated with shorter hospitalizations; however, there were no differences in 30- and 90-day mortality. These findings suggest bleeding associated with the newer agents is not more dangerous than bleeding associated with warfarin.

Major Bleeding Risk During Anticoagulation with Warfarin, Dabigatran, Apixaban, or Rivaroxaban in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) has increased steadily following marketing approval; however, their relative safety in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in real-world clinical practice remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of major bleeding during anticoagulation therapy between warfarin and NOACs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed administrative claims data on new NVAF users of warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, or rivaroxaban in routine clinical care from November 2010 to February 2015 in a commercially insured population in the United States. The primary outcome was time to first major bleeding event requiring hospitalization. Patients were followed until discontinuation or switch of anticoagulants, health plan disenrollment, death, or end of study. All patient characteristics were balanced after propensity score inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting. Event rates by type of anticoagulant exposure were compared using IPT-weighted Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 44,057 patients who used warfarin (n = 23,431), dabigatran (n = 8,539), apixaban (n = 3,689), and rivaroxaban (n = 8,398). Overall mean (SD) age was 70 (12) years, and 41% of the patients were women. A total of 2,337 major bleeding events occurred during 36,636.2 person-years of follow-up. The unadjusted rate of major bleeding with warfarin was 6.0 per 100 person-years versus 2.8 with dabigatran, 3.3 with apixban, and 5.0 with rivaroxaban. Relative to warfarin, major bleeding risk was lower with dabigatran (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.60-0.76) and apixaban (HR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.41-0.67). Compared with rivaroxaban, major bleeding risk was also lower with dabigatran (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.58-0.78) and apixaban (HR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.40-0.68). Major bleeding risk was similar for rivaroxaban and warfarin. Relative to apixaban, dabigatran was associated with a significantly higher risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.09-1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Study results were consistent with safety findings from pivotal clinical trials comparing NOACs with warfarin and added the perspective of a large real-world observational study that compared bleeding risks associated with NOACs during anticoagulation therapy. Apixaban and dabigatran were associated with lower major bleeding risk compared with warfarin or rivaroxaban; however, apixaban had a lower risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding than dabigatran. These findings can help inform the choice of an optimal agent, which must balance effectiveness and bleeding risk in complex patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Anthem. Adeboyeje, Sylwestrzak, and Barron are employees of HealthCore, a wholly owned and independently operated subsidiary of Anthem. White, Rosenberg, Abarca, and Crawford are employees of Anthem. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Adeboyeje and Sylwestrzak, along with the other authors. Adeboyeje took the lead in data collection, along with Sylwestrzak and Barron. Data interpretation was performed primarily by Rosenberg, Crawford, and Redberg, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by all the authors and revised primarily by White, Abarca, and Redberg, along with the other authors.

Reducing Overuse of Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Lung Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy: Evidence From a Decision Support-Enabled Program.

PURPOSE: Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are frequently overused for the primary prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design was used to analyze commercial claims data in adults with lung cancer initiated on chemotherapy from April 1, 2013, to March 30, 2015. The tool was implemented at oncology practices in phases across 14 US states. Patients were assigned to intervention and nonintervention states according to whether they resided in service areas where the tool had been implemented. Patients were followed up to 6 months after initiating chemotherapy. Difference in pre- and postimplementation CSF use and FN incidence rates were compared with the use of difference-in-differences (DID) models that were adjusted for baseline FN risk factors. RESULTS: The study population of 3,467 patients (intervention states: pre, 707; post, 1,150; nonintervention states: pre, 636; post, 974) showed no significant differences in FN risk factors at baseline. In adjusted results before and after implementation, CSF use decreased from 48.4% to 35.6% in the intervention states versus 43.2% to 44.4% in the nonintervention states (DID, -8.7%; 95% CI, -14.65% to -2.67%; P ≤ .001). The rates of FN were consistent for both groups in both periods, with no statistical difference in trend for the intervention (2.8% to 4.3%) versus the nonintervention (3.1% to 5.1%) states (DID, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.10; P = .927). CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that a decision support-enabled utilization management tool can improve risk-appropriate, guideline-adherent CSF use in patients with lung cancer.