Characteristics and survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use-a cohort study.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and the survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use (OLU) cancer treatment and reimbursement request. DESIGN: Cohort study using medical record data. SETTING: Three major cancer centres in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: 519 patients with cancer and a reimbursement request for OLU between January 2015 and July 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES: Characteristics of patients with cancer with and without access to intended OLU. Characteristics included the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) which includes C reactive protein and albumin and discriminates prognostic groups. RESULTS: OLU was intended for 519 (17%) of 3046 patients with cancer, as first-line treatment in 51% (n=264) and second-line in 31% (n=162). Of the 519 patients, 63% (n=328) were male, 63% (n=329) had solid cancer and 21% (n=111) had a haematological malignancy. Their median overall survival was 23.6 months (95% CI 19.0 to 32.5). Access to OLU had 389 (75%) patients who were compared with patients without access on average 4.9 years younger (mean; 95% CI 1.9 to 7.9 years), had a better overall prognosis according to the GPS (51% with GPS of 0 vs 39%; OR 1.62 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.59)), had less frequently solid cancer (62% vs 71%; OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.05)) and advanced stage cancer (53% vs 70%; OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.75)), were more frequently treatment-naive (53% vs 43%; OR 1.55 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.39)) and were more frequently in an adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment setting (14% vs 5%; OR 3.39 (95% CI 1.45 to 9.93)). Patients with access to OLU had a median OS of 31.1 months versus 8.7 months for patients without access (unadjusted HR 0.54; (95% CI 0.41 to 0.70)). CONCLUSION: Contrary to the common assumption, OLU in oncology is typically not primarily intended for patients with exhausted treatment options. Patient characteristics largely differ between patients with and without access to intended OLU. More systematic evaluations of the benefits and harms of OLU in cancer care and the regulation of its access is warranted.