Real-world ramucirumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor sequences in US patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer.

Aim: To describe real-world treatment sequences of ramucirumab relative to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Methods: Retrospective, observational study including adult patients treated with ramucirumab (April 2014-June 2020) from a nationwide health-record database. Results: In 1117 eligible patients, ramucirumab + paclitaxel was the most common ramucirumab-containing regimen (72.0%). A total of 217 patients also received an ICI. For ramucirumab then ICI (n = 148) and ICI then ramucirumab (n = 50), ramucirumab + taxane and ICI monotherapy were the most frequent approaches, most commonly observed as second- and third-line (2L and 3L). Median time on ramucirumab in 2L and 3L was similar regardless of sequence with ICI. Conclusion: Most patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer received ramucirumab before ICI, with ramucirumab + paclitaxel as the most common ramucirumab-based regimen.

What is the Order of New Treatments for Gastroesophageal Cancers in the Real World? What is this summary about? Gastroesophageal cancers (cancers of the stomach or food pipe) which cannot be cured are first treated using traditional chemotherapy. Newer anti-cancer therapies with fewer side effects, such as ramucirumab (RAM) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), are now available either alone or in combination with chemotherapy. We designed this study to describe the order of use for RAM and ICI. What were the results? The patients in this study were from Flatiron Health database, which includes electronic medical record data of US patients with gastroesophageal cancers. The included patients had been treated with RAM and were grouped based on the treatments received and in the order in which they received RAM and ICI. Of the patients who received both RAM and ICI, RAM then ICI was the most common order, followed by ICI then RAM and then RAM plus ICI at the same time. RAM in combination with paclitaxel (a chemotherapy) was the most common RAM-containing treatment. The duration of RAM therapy was the same whether patients received the treatment before or after ICI. What do results of the study mean? These findings can be used by patients with gastroesophageal cancers and oncologists when making treatment decisions, specifically if RAM might be an option when it is time to change treatments. Real-world studies like this help answer questions that were not addressed in clinical trials.

Real-World Patient Characteristics, Utilization Patterns, and Outcomes of US Patients with HR+, HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer Treated with Abemaciclib.

BACKGROUND: Abemaciclib is the most recent oral cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor (CDK4 & 6i) to receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to treat hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Administrative claims data were used to describe patient characteristics and select clinical and economic outcomes in US patients treated in routine clinical practice. Prior analyses from electronic health records data indicate approximately 25% of patients received either palbociclib or ribociclib for MBC before initiating abemaciclib treatment; this work further explored these findings and associated outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed medical and pharmacy claims from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Databases between 1 January 2007 to 31 January 2020. Patients with HR+, HER2- MBC newly initiating abemaciclib between 1 September 2017 and 31 October 2019 were included and grouped by concomitant therapy (+aromatase inhibitor (AI), +fulvestrant (F), 200 mg abemaciclib monotherapy (Mono), or +other), and outcomes were analyzed by prior CDK4 & 6i use. Patient and treatment characteristics were summarized with descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier methods assessed time-to-discontinuation (TTD; i.e., persistency) and time-to-chemotherapy (TTC). Adherence (defined by the medication possession ratio) and drug wastage were determined. RESULTS: This analysis included 454 patients (mean age 57.7 years), with 35.0% (n = 159) in the +F group, 29.3% (n = 133) in the +AI group, 10.4% (n = 47) in the 200 mg Mono group, and 25.3% (n = 115) in the +other group. Prior chemotherapy and CDK 4 & 6i use were present in 23.8% and 49.8% of all patients, respectively. Visceral metastases were present at abemaciclib initiation in 50.4% in the +AI group; 49.7% in the +F group; and 55.3% in the 200 mg Mono group. Liver metastases were present in 33.7% of the overall population. Among patients without prior CDK4 & 6i use, the median TTD for patients receiving abemaciclib + AI was not reached [95% CI 430-not reached (NR) days], abemaciclib + F [531 days (95% CI 281-NR)], and abemaciclib mono [141 days (95% CI 80-NR)]. Median TTC for abemaciclib + AI and abemaciclib + F groups were not reached and the median TTC for abemaciclib mono was 535 days (95% CI 181-NR). Medication adherence was 88.7% and medication wastage costs among those with at least one dose modification were $808.12 and $452.2 per patient per month based on amount paid and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), respectively. Mean length of follow-up for all patients was 350 days (SD 187). CONCLUSION: These real-world data complement clinical trial results by examining abemaciclib use among patients treated in routine clinical practice. The sizeable number of patients treated with prior CDK4 & 6i, chemotherapy, and/or visceral metastases at abemaciclib initiation suggest that many patients had very advanced disease and/or were in later stages of their treatment. These data confirm a higher percentage of patients treated with previous CDK4 & 6i than reported previously, reinforcing the importance of the ongoing, prospective clinical trials evaluating outcomes following progression on CDK4 & 6i.