Treatment Patterns by EGFR Mutation Status in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients in the USA: A Retrospective Database Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted therapies, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that target the sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are recommended for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Most patients with NSCLC who test positive for the EGFR mutation and receive TKIs develop resistance to these drugs. Questions remain regarding which treatment sequence is optimal for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, and few studies have evaluated patterns of TKI treatment use in NSCLC, irrespective of EGFR mutation status, in a real-world setting. This population-based study aimed to evaluate treatment patterns at a national level in the USA. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data from the US Oncology Network's iKnowMed database. Patients with advanced NSCLC who initiated first-line therapy with erlotinib and/or intravenous chemotherapy between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2015 and met all other study criteria were included. Descriptive analyses assessed demographic and clinical characteristics and treatment patterns among the overall study cohort, as well as for specific erlotinib treatment subgroups, stratified by EGFR status. RESULTS: Among the 3108 patients identified, 18.5% were EGFR positive, 49.8% were EGFR negative, and 31.7% were EGFR documented unknown. For the overall cohort, 18.4% received first-line erlotinib monotherapy, fewer than 1% received first-line combination therapy (erlotinib plus chemotherapy), 4.7% received second-line erlotinib monotherapy, and 3.3% received second-line combination therapy. First-line erlotinib monotherapy was used in 77.8% of all EGFR positive patients. Almost two-thirds of the overall cohort were not observed to have advanced to second-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: As treatment options evolve, this study provides real-world treatment patterns that suggest concordance with NCCN guidelines and confirm the remaining need to understand sequencing of therapies and related outcomes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Does framing of cancer survival affect perceived value of care? A willingness-to-pay survey of US residents.

AIMS: To investigate the relationship between the framing of survival gains and the perceived value of cancer care. METHODS: Through a population-based survey of 2040 US adults, respondents were randomized to one of the two sets of hypothetical scenarios, each of which described the survival benefit for a new treatment as either an increase in median survival time (median survival), or an increase in the probability of survival for a given length of time (landmark survival). Each respondent was presented with two randomly selected scenarios with different prognosis and survival improvements, and asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for the new treatments. RESULTS: Predicted WTP increased with survival benefits and respondents' income, regardless of how survival benefits were described. Framing therapeutic benefits as improvements in landmark rather than median time survival increased the proportion of the population willing to pay for that gain by 11-35%, and the mean WTP amount by 42-72% in the scenarios we compared. CONCLUSION: How survival benefits are described may influence the value people place on cancer care.

How long and how well: oncologists' attitudes toward the relative value of life-prolonging v. quality of life-enhancing treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how oncologists value quality-enhancing v. life-prolonging outcomes attributable to chemotherapy. METHODS: The authors surveyed a random sample of 1379 US medical oncologists (members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology), presenting them with 2 scenarios involving a hypothetical new chemotherapy drug. Given their responses, the authors derived the implicit cost-effectiveness ratios each physician attributed to quality-enhancing and life-prolonging chemotherapies. RESULTS: The authors received responses from 58% of the oncologists surveyed. On average, the responses implied that oncologists were willing to prescribe treatments that cost $245,972 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY; SD $243,663 per QALY) in life-prolonging situations v. only $119,082 per QALY (SD $197,048 per QALY) for treatments that improve quality of life but do not prolong survival (P < 0.001). This difference did not depend on age, gender, percentage of time in clinical work, or self-reported preparedness to use and interpret cost-effectiveness information (P > 0.05 for all specifications). Differences across these situations persisted even among those who considered themselves to be "well-prepared" to make cost-effectiveness decisions. CONCLUSION: Cost-effectiveness thresholds for oncologists vary widely for life-prolonging chemotherapy compared to treatments that only enhance quality of life. This difference suggests that oncologists value length of survival more highly than quality of life when making chemotherapy decisions.