Evolving oncology care management trends in the United States: A survey among health care decision makers.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge of how US managed care professionals view and prioritize quality metrics/performance measures, care models, alternative payment models, and clinical pathways in oncology settings. OBJECTIVE: To characterize payor perspectives on, and the use of, oncology clinical pathways and performance measures in their reimbursement/access decision-making process. METHODS: A survey was implemented via SurveyMonkey software and distributed electronically to a national sample of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights Panel members from July 11 through August 5, 2022. The survey was created by a steering committee based on literature reviews of the current and future oncology care landscapes. The survey consisted of 47 questions, including those to establish respondents' position, responsibilities, and demographics. The results are presented as descriptive statistics for 7 key questions that covered the perceptions and use of quality metrics/performance measures, alternative payment models, and oncology care pathways as prioritized by the steering committee. RESULTS: Among the 695 AMCP panel members who were sent the survey, 73 responded (response rate 10.5%), 54 were eligible to continue, and 31 completed the entire questionnaire; the low response rate may limit generalizability of the survey results. Specific oncology clinical and economic measures of performance were currently used (70%-88%) but generally received less endorsement for future use (39%-49%) except for chemotherapy during end of life, which was considered for future use by 80% of respondents but was only currently used by 31%. Benchmarking was the primary reason for the use of performance measures; only 27% used these to inform value-based agreements. Real-world data tracked by respondents' institutions primarily focused on managed care and pharmacy utilization (39%-85%), with patient-reported and clinical outcomes tracked by only 17%-34%. Almost one-third (31%) did not use clinical oncology pathways, and among those who did, fewer than half (48%) reported that their organization tracks whether treatment decisions agree with the oncology care pathways, and only 26% reported feedback to oncology providers on how often their treatment decisions agree with the pathways. When considering alternative payment models, patient-related components received lower rankings in importance than clinical relevance, actionability, and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Variation among payors regarding current trends in oncology care management, including on the importance of patient-centric outcomes and the use of oncology clinical pathways, suggests the need to focus on value-based health care and greater uptake of oncology clinical pathways.

Health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic basal cell carcinoma treated with cemiplimab: Analysis of a phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 cemiplimab study (NCT03132636) demonstrated a 24.1% objective response rate in patients diagnosed with metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) who were not candidates for continued hedgehog inhibitor (HHI) therapy due to intolerance to previous HHI therapy, disease progression while receiving HHI therapy, or having not better than stable disease on HHI therapy after 9 months. Here, health-related quality of life (QoL) for this patient population is reported. METHODS: Adult patients with mBCC were treated with intravenous cemiplimab at a dose of 350 mg every 3 weeks for 5 treatment cycles of 9 weeks/cycle then 4 treatment cycles of 12 weeks/cycle. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Skindex-16 questionnaires at baseline and Day 1 of each cycle. Across Cycles 2 to 9, the overall change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures. Responder analyses determined clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration (changes ≥10 points) or maintenance across all scales. RESULTS: Patients reported low symptom burden and moderate-to-high functioning at baseline. Maintenance for QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL and across all functioning and symptom scales was indicated by overall mean changes from baseline. Clinically meaningful improvement or maintenance was reported at Cycle 2 for GHS/QoL (77%), functioning scales (77% to 86%), and symptom scales (70% to 93%), with similar proportions of improvement or maintenance at Cycles 6 and 9, excluding fatigue. On the Skindex-16, clinically meaningful improvement or maintenance was reported across the emotional, symptom, and functional subscales, in 76%-88% of patients at Cycle 2, which were generally maintained at Cycles 6 and 9. Overall mean changes from baseline showed maintenance across these subscales. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients treated with cemiplimab reported improvement or maintenance in GHS/QoL and functioning while maintaining a low symptom burden.

Real-world evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma based on a multinational survey.

Background: Real-world health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are scarce. This study is to compare patient-reported outcomes in patients with DLBCL across therapy lines and countries. Methods: Data were derived from the Adelphi DLBCL Disease Specific Programme™ from January 2021 to May 2021, a survey of physicians and their DLBCL patients in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US). Results: Overall, analysis was conducted on 441 patients with DLBCL across Europe and the US (mean age 64.6 years, 64% male); 68% had an Ann Arbor stage III and 69% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 to 1. The mean overall GHS/QoL was 54.1; patients on their 3L+ therapy had a lower mean GHS/QoL compared with patients on 1L/2L (P = 0.0033). Further to this, mean EQ-5D-5L utility score was reduced from 0.73 for patients on 1L therapy to 0.66 for patients on 3L+ therapies (P = 0.0149). Mean percentages of impairment while working and overall work impairment were lower for patients receiving 3L+ therapy (12.5% and 17.7%; respectively) than those on 1L therapy (35.6% and 33.8%; respectively). When comparing region, patients in the US had significantly better scores for all functioning and symptomatic scales (per EORTC QLQ-C30) and work impairment (per WPAI) vs. patients with DLBCL in Europe. WPAI scores indicate that the overall activity impairment in the US was 36.6% and in Europe ranged from 42.4% in the UK to 54.9% in Germany. Mean EQ-5D-5L utility score for the US was 0.80, compared to 0.60 - 0.80 across the countries in Europe. Regression analysis showed patients who relapsed after more than one year of treatment were associated with better patient reported outcomes than those who relapse after less than one year. Conclusion: Patient-reported outcomes of DLBCL patients remain poor and patients continue to experience considerable morbidity.

Quality of Life Evaluation in Patients with Follicular Cell Lymphoma: A Real-World Study in Europe and the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent subtype of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), characterized by a long natural course of remissions/relapses. We aimed to evaluate real-world quality of life (QoL) in patients with FL, by line of therapy (LOT), and across countries. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi FL Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients in Europe [France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom (UK)], and the United States (US) from June 2021 to January 2022. Patients provided demographics and patient-reported outcomes via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Bivariate analysis assessed QoL versus NHL, across LOT [first line (1L), second line (2L), third line or later (3L+)] and country. RESULTS: Patients (n = 401) had a mean [standard deviation (SD)] age of 66.0 (9.24) years, 58.1% were male, and 41.9%/22.9% were Ann Arbor stage III/IV. Patients with FL mean EORTC global health status (GHS)/QoL, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, appetite loss, and diarrhea scores were statistically significantly worse (p < 0.05) versus the NHL reference values. Mean (SD) GHS/QoL worsened from 1L [56.5 (22.21)] to 3L+ [50.4 (20.11)]. Physical and role functioning, fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and diarrhea scores also significantly worsened across later LOTs (p < 0.05). Across all functional domains, mean scores were significantly lower (p < 0.05) and almost all symptom scores (excluding diarrhea) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) for European versus US patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FL at later LOTs had significantly worse scores in most QoL aspects than earlier LOTs. European patients had significantly lower functioning and higher symptom burden than in the US. These real-world findings highlight the need for novel FL therapies that alleviate patient burden, positively impacting QoL.

There is little information about the effects of follicular lymphoma and treatments on quality of life as assessed by patients. We surveyed doctors and their patients with follicular lymphoma across France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US), and asked patients to complete a form reporting their quality of life. A total of 401 patients were included.In general, patients with follicular lymphoma treated across all lines of treatment had worse quality of life and symptoms of nausea and vomiting, pain, shortness of breath, appetite loss, and diarrhea compared to a reference group of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Overall quality of life and physical, role, and social functioning of patients with follicular lymphoma worsened from the first to the third line of treatment. Fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and diarrhea symptom scores also worsened across the lines of therapies. European patients had worse quality of life, functioning, and symptoms compared to US patients. Better treatments are needed to improve symptoms, functions, and quality of life for patients with follicular lymphoma.

Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 ≥ 1 %: A subgroup analysis from the EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 (NCT03409614), a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, assessed cemiplimab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1) plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression levels. We report results from subgroup analysis of patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 1 %. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive cemiplimab 350 mg or placebo with chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rates (ORRs), patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 327 patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1 % (466 in the overall study), 217 received cemiplimab plus chemotherapy and 110 received chemotherapy alone. After median follow-up of 28.0 months, median OS for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy was 23.5 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 20.9-27.2) vs. 12.1 months (95 % CI: 10.1-15.7) for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.38-0.69, P < 0.0001); median PFS was 8.3 months (95 % CI: 6.7-10.8) versus 5.5 months (95 % CI: 4.3-6.2; HR = 0.48; 95 % CI: 0.37-0.62, P < 0.0001), and ORR was 47.9 % versus 22.7 %, respectively. PRO results favored cemiplimab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone. Improved efficacy over chemotherapy alone was observed in both squamous and non-squamous histology. Safety was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: In this subgroup analysis from EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2, cemiplimab plus chemotherapy demonstrated clinical benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous or non-squamous NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥ 1 %.

Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement.

Master protocols (MPs) are an important addition to the clinical trial repertoire. As defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this term means "a protocol designed with multiple sub-studies, which may have different objectives (goals) and involve coordinated efforts to evaluate one or more investigational drugs in one or more disease subtypes within the overall trial structure." This means we now have a unique, scientifically based MP that describes how a clinical trial will be conducted using one or more potential candidate therapies to treat patients in one or more diseases. Patient engagement (PE) is also a critical factor that has been recognized by FDA through its Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, and by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which states on its website that it has been actively interacting with patients since the creation of the Agency in 1995. We propose that utilizing these PE principles in MPs can make them more successful for sponsors, providers, and patients. Potential benefits of MPs for patients awaiting treatment can include treatments that better fit a patient's needs; availability of more treatments; and faster access to treatments. These make it possible to develop innovative therapies (especially for rare diseases and/or unique subpopulations, e.g., pediatrics), to minimize untoward side effects through careful dose escalation practices and, by sharing a control arm, to lower the probability of being assigned to a placebo arm for clinical trial participants. This paper is authored by select members of the American Statistical Association (ASA)/DahShu Master Protocol Working Group (MPWG) People and Patient Engagement (PE) Subteam. DahShu is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded to promote research and education in data science. This manuscript does not include direct feedback from US or non-US regulators, though multiple regulatory-related references are cited to confirm our observation that improving patient engagement is supported by regulators. This manuscript represents the authors' independent perspective on the Master Protocol; it does not represent the official policy or viewpoint of FDA or any other regulatory organization or the views of the authors' employers. The objective of this manuscript is to provide drug developers, contract research organizations (CROs), third party capital investors, patient advocacy groups (PAGs), and biopharmaceutical executives with a better understanding of how including the patient voice throughout MP development and conduct creates more efficient clinical trials. The PE Subteam also plans to publish a Plain Language Summary (PLS) of this publication for clinical trial participants, patients, caregivers, and the public as they seek to understand the risks and benefits of MP clinical trial participation.

Quality of life with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Patient-reported outcomes from phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3.

BACKGROUND: EMPOWER-Lung 3, a randomized 2:1 phase 3 trial, showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant overall survival improvement with cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This study evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks) for the first six doses, and then at start of every three cycles, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life-Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13) questionnaires. Prespecified analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis performed for global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) and all scales from the questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients were assigned to receive cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy and 154 to receive placebo plus chemotherapy; 391 (83.9%) were male and the median age was 63.0 years (range, 25-84). For pain symptoms (EORTC QLQ-C30), a statistically significant overall improvement from baseline (-4.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.36 to -1.60, p = .004) and a statistically significant delay in TTD (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60, p < .0001) favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy were observed. Statistically significant delays in TTD, all favoring cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, were also observed in functioning and symptom scales. A significant overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared with nonsignificant overall change from baseline for placebo plus chemotherapy (1.69, 95% CI, 0.20-3.19 vs. 1.08, 95% CI, -1.34 to 3.51; between arms, p = .673). No analyses yielded statistically significant PRO results favoring placebo plus chemotherapy for any QLQ-C30 or QLQ-LC13 scale. CONCLUSION: Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy resulted in significant overall improvement in pain symptoms and delayed TTD in cancer-related and lung cancer-specific symptoms and functions.

Regulatory and HTA Considerations for Development of Real-World Data Derived External Controls.

Regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are increasingly familiar with, and publishing guidance on, external controls derived from real-world data (RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE). We recently conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) evaluating publicly available information on the use of RWD-derived external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and/or select HTA bodies. The review identified several key operational and methodological aspects for which more detailed guidance and alignment within and between regulatory agencies and HTA bodies is necessary. This paper builds on the SLR findings by delineating a set of key takeaways for the responsible generation of fit-for-purpose RWE. Practical methodological and operational guidelines for designing, conducting, and reporting RWD-derived external control studies are explored and discussed. These considerations include: (i) early engagement with regulators and HTA bodies during the study planning phase; (ii) consideration of the appropriateness and comparability of external controls across multiple dimensions, including eligibility criteria, temporality, population representation, and clinical evaluation; (iii) ensuring adequate sample sizes, including hypothesis testing considerations; (iv) implementation of a clear and transparent strategy for assessing and addressing data quality, including data missingness across trials and RWD; (v) selection of comparable and meaningful endpoints that are operationalized and analyzed using appropriate analytic methods; and (vi) conduct of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of findings in the context of uncertainty and sources of potential bias.

Effectively Leveraging RWD for External Controls: A Systematic Literature Review of Regulatory and HTA Decisions.

Real-world data (RWD)-derived external controls can be used to contextualize efficacy findings for investigational therapies evaluated in uncontrolled trials. As the number of submissions to regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies using external controls rises, and in light of recent regulatory and HTA guidance on the appropriate use of RWD, there is a need to address the operational and methodological challenges impeding the quality of real-world evidence (RWE) generation and the consistency in evaluation of RWE across agencies. This systematic review summarizes publicly available information on the use of external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials for all indications from January 1, 2015, through August 20, 2021, that were submitted to the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and/or select major HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA)). By systematically reviewing submissions to regulatory and HTA bodies in the context of recent guidance, this study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into how external control design and analytic choices may be viewed by different agencies in practice. The primary operational and methodological aspects identified for discussion include, but are not limited to, engagement of regulators and HTA bodies, approaches to handling missing data (a component of data quality), and selection of real-world endpoints. Continued collaboration and guidance to address these and other aspects will inform and assist stakeholders attempting to generate evidence using external controls.

Cemiplimab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Advanced NSCLC: 2-Year Follow-Up From the Phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3 Part 2 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 (NCT03409614), a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, investigated cemiplimab (antiprogrammed cell death protein 1) plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC without EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations, with either squamous or nonsquamous histology, irrespective of programmed death-ligand 1 levels. At primary analysis, after 16.4 months of follow-up, cemiplimab plus chemotherapy improved median overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy alone (21.9 versus 13.0 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.93, p = 0.014). Here, we report protocol-specified final OS and 2-year follow-up results. METHODS: Patients (N = 466) were randomized 2:1 to receive histology-specific platinum-doublet chemotherapy, with 350 mg cemiplimab (n = 312) or placebo (n = 154) every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks. Primary end point was OS; secondary end points included progression-free survival and objective response rates. RESULTS: After 28.4 months of median follow-up, median OS was 21.1 months (95% CI: 15.9-23.5) for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus 12.9 months (95% CI: 10.6-15.7) for chemotherapy alone (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, p = 0.0003); median progression-free survival was 8.2 months (95% CI: 6.4-9.0) versus 5.5 months (95% CI: 4.3-6.2) (HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.44-0.68, p < 0.0001), and objective response rates were 43.6% versus 22.1%, respectively. Safety was generally consistent with previously reported data. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 48.7% with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy and 32.7% with chemotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: At protocol-specified final OS analysis with 28.4 months of follow-up, the EMPOWER-Lung 3 study continued to reveal benefit of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC, across programmed death-ligand 1 levels.

Real-World Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Among Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and High PD-L1 Expression Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as First-Line Therapy.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the US de-identified electronic health record-derived Flatiron Health aNSCLC database (January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2021) among patients with PD-L1 ≥50% initiating first-line ICIs with or without chemotherapy. A clinical trial-like sub-cohort was also identified with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, adequate organ function, and no brain metastases or other primary cancers. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) by ICI regimen (ICI+chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy) and PD-L1 expression (50-69%, 70-89%, 90-100%). Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between ICI regimen, PD-L1 level, and OS, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical variables. Results: A total of 2631 patients with aNSCLC initiating ICI+chemotherapy (n = 992) or ICI monotherapy (n = 1639) were included; median (Q1, Q3) age was 71 (63-78) years and 51.6% were male. The trial-like sub-cohort (n = 1029) generally had better outcomes vs. the overall cohort. Patients receiving ICI+chemotherapy generally had longer median OS vs. ICI monotherapy. Multivariable analyses showed no association between ICI regimen and OS among patients with PD-L1 70-89% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.09) or 90-100% (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77-1.08), but patients with PD-L1 50-69% receiving ICI+chemotherapy had longer OS (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99). Conclusion: Outcomes in real-world clinical trial-like patients with aNSCLC approached those reported in pivotal ICI trials in high PD-L1 expressers. ICI monotherapy offers a potential alternative in patients with PD-L1 ≥70% while avoiding potential chemotherapy toxicity exposure; the benefits are less clear in patients with PD-L1 50-69%. Future studies should confirm these findings.

Patient-reported outcomes labeling for oncology drugs: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current status and future directions.

Introduction: Regulatory agencies encourage the incorporation of the patient voices throughout clinical drug development. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) offer one way of doing this and their use has markedly increased in many therapeutic areas, particularly oncology, in recent years. However, few oncology drug labels include PRO data and those which do, offer little consistency. Objective: To provide multidisciplinary perspectives (patient, pharmaceutical industry, PRO researcher, regulatory expert) on PRO data in oncology drug labels. Methods: PRO data in the labels of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for oncology indications between 2010 and 2020 were critically reviewed by authors who provided their insights on the advantages and disadvantages/gaps. Results: Forty-six oncology drugs included PRO data in their labels. Differences were observed between FDA and EMA PRO labeling (e.g., PRO concept, use of tables and graphs to display PROs or reference to clinical meaningfulness). In providing their perspectives on the number and nature of PROs in labels, authors noted limitations including: the low proportion of oncology drugs with PRO labeling, limited PRO information in labels, lack of patient-friendly language, and potential bias towards positive outcomes. Lack of consistency within- and between-agencies was noted. Conclusion: Despite regulatory agencies' commitment to incorporate patient voices in regulatory decisions, availability of PRO information is limited in oncology drug labels. While several PRO guidance documents are available from regulatory and Health Technology Assessment agencies, harmonization of PRO guidance for labeling inclusion around the world is needed to better inform prescribers and consequently their patients in the process of shared medical decisions.

Machine learning models for identifying predictors of clinical outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care as first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) without actionable oncogenic driver mutations. While clinical trials demonstrated benefits of ICIs over chemotherapy, variation in outcomes across patients has been observed and trial populations may not be representative of clinical practice. Predictive models can help understand heterogeneity of treatment effects, identify predictors of meaningful clinical outcomes, and may inform treatment decisions. We applied machine learning (ML)-based survival models to a real-world cohort of patients with aNSCLC who received 1L ICI therapy extracted from a US-based electronic health record database. Model performance was evaluated using metrics including concordance index (c-index), and we used explainability techniques to identify significant predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The ML model achieved c-indices of 0.672 and 0.612 for OS and PFS, respectively, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed significant differences between low- and high-risk groups for OS and PFS (both log-rank test p < 0.0001). Identified predictors were mostly consistent with the published literature and/or clinical expectations and largely overlapped for OS and PFS; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression levels, and serum albumin were among the top 5 predictors for both outcomes. Prospective and independent data set evaluation is required to confirm these results.

A call to action to harmonize patient-reported outcomes evidence requirements across key European HTA bodies in oncology.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are increasingly being included in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) submissions for oncology drugs. This study aims to provide differences in PRO evidence requirements in oncology across key HTA bodies and calls for its harmonization. Method guidance provided by HTA bodies in Germany, France and the UK, and analysis of HTA reports of 20 oncology case studies were evaluated in this review. Differences exist between HTA bodies regarding guidance on how PRO data should be collected, reported and analyzed as well as how the data are reviewed and considered in oncology HTAs. HTA bodies can play a key role to harmonize PRO method guidance in collaboration with regulators and sponsors.

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are information provided directly by the person who is experiencing a disease or undergoing a treatment, without additional interpretation by a clinician or caregiver. Along with other outcome measures, PROs may be included in the body of evidence used by health technology assessment bodies in their review. In this article, the authors summarize the guidance documents published by key health technology assessment agencies and reviewed 20 past cancer drug case studies to understand how different agencies use PROs when deciding on recommendations for new cancer treatments.

Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial.

First-line cemiplimab (anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)) monotherapy has previously shown significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%. EMPOWER-Lung 3 ( NCT03409614 ), a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, examined cemiplimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for aNSCLC, irrespective of PD-L1 expression or histology. In this study, 466 patients with stage III/IV aNSCLC without EGFR, ALK or ROS1 genomic tumor aberrations were randomized (2:1) to receive cemiplimab 350 mg (n = 312) or placebo (n = 154) every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks in combination with four cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (followed by pemetrexed maintenance as indicated). In total, 57.1% (266/466 patients) had non-squamous NSCLC, and 85.2% (397/466 patients) had stage IV disease. The primary endpoint was OS. The trial was stopped early per recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee, based on meeting preset OS efficacy criteria: median OS was 21.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 15.5-not evaluable) with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus 13.0 months (95% CI, 11.9-16.1) with placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93; P = 0.014). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy (43.6%, 136/312 patients) and placebo plus chemotherapy (31.4%, 48/153 patients). Cemiplimab is only the second anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent to show efficacy in aNSCLC as both monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy for both squamous and non-squamous histologies.

Characterizing the Shifting Real-World Treatment Landscape by PD-L1 Testing Status and Expression Level in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary real-world data on advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment patterns across programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels and testing status are limited. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was selected of adults newly diagnosed with aNSCLC between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2021, who initiated first-line treatments, which were described by PD-L1 status and expression levels (≥ 50%, 1-49%, < 1%). Treatment received before and after PD-L1 test results were described for patients initiating first-line treatment before PD-L1 results. For patients who initiated chemotherapy alone before PD-L1 results, the probability of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) after PD-L1 results was estimated by PD-L1 level and associated factors were explored. RESULTS: Among 12,202 patients with aNSCLC initiating first-line treatment [54.7% male, mean (standard deviation) age 69.2 (9.4) years], the most common therapies were ICI-based regimens across PD-L1 levels, and chemotherapy alone among PD-L1-untested patients. Use of chemotherapy alone decreased between 2018 and 2019 and stabilized thereafter, accounting for 21-29% of first-line treatments across PD-L1 levels and 48% of untested patients in 2021. Of 1468 patients initiating first-line treatment before PD-L1 results, treatments remained unchanged in most patients after PD-L1 results. Among patients initiating chemotherapy alone before PD-L1 results, the probability of receiving ICIs within 45 days after test results was 40.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.6-48.3%], 28.6% (95% CI 20.3-36.0%), and 22.9% (95% CI 16.9-28.4%) at PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 1-49%, and < 1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: While ICI-based regimens accounted for most first-line treatments across PD-L1 levels, chemotherapy alone was initiated in > 20% of patients tested for PD-L1 and 48% of untested patients in 2021. Patients who initiated chemotherapy alone had a low probability of receiving ICIs after PD-L1 test results. These results highlight the need for understanding the role and timing of PD-L1 test results for informing treatment decisions for patients with aNSCLC.

Awareness and Availability of Routine Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation Testing in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer in Germany.

Introduction: Diagnostic testing of germline mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes 1 or 2 (gBRCA1/2) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC; locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer) is necessary to assess eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). We investigated awareness, clinical practice, and the availability of gBRCA1/2 mutation testing in the German outpatient oncology setting. Methods: Office-based oncologists completed a 23-item online survey. Responses were evaluated collectively and by center type. Results: Of 50 oncologists, 33 and 17 were medical and gynecological oncologists, respectively. Oncologists treated a median of 65 (range 14-350) patients with ABC per year. The strongest decision factors to initiate gBRCA1/2 mutation testing were: patient's known family history of gBRCA1/2 mutation-related cancer(s), guideline recommendations, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In routine practice, 86% of oncologists tested for gBRCA1/2 mutations. Most oncologists (76-98%) reported testing patients with a known family history of gBRCA1/2 mutation-related cancer(s) irrespective of receptor status. For unknown family history, 92% of oncologists reported testing patients with advanced TNBC versus 30% for HR+/HER2- ABC. Oncologists (66%) rated the awareness of therapeutic relevance of gBRCA1/2 mutation testing for targeted treatment selection as good to satisfactory; 22% rated awareness as poor to in-sufficient. Conclusion: Diagnostic gBRCA1/2 mutation testing in patients with HER2- ABC is available and routinely performed in Germany's outpatient oncology setting. However, specific patient subgroups were not routinely tested despite therapeutic indications. Given PARPi availability, opportunities exist to improve testing rates especially for patients with HR+/HER2- ABC without a known family history of gBRCA1/2 mutation-related cancer(s).

Epidemiology of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) in the United States and Western Europe: population-level projections for 2020-2025.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) treatments have been rapidly evolving for patients treated in later lines of therapy (LoT). Country-specific cancer registry data for the US and Western Europe (WE) were combined with physician survey results to project the incidence, prevalence, and number of DLBCL and FL patients eligible for and treated by LoT between 2020 and 2025. The total number of incidents and prevalent cases of DLBCL and FL is expected to increase between 2020 and 2025 in the US and WE. 56% and 53% of the third line plus (3L+) eligible DLBCL patients and 60% and 55% of eligible FL patients initiated treatment in the US and WE, respectively. Further research is warranted to understand the reasons behind the high proportion of treatment eligible patients who do not initiate treatment, and potential differences between countries, especially in the 3L + settings.

Impact of the treatment crossover design on comparative efficacy in EMPOWER-Lung 1: Cemiplimab monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Objectives: In randomized-controlled crossover design trials, overall survival (OS) treatment effect estimates are often confounded by the control group benefiting from treatment received post-progression. We estimated the adjusted OS treatment effect in EMPOWER-Lung 1 (NCT03088540) by accounting for the potential impact of crossover to cemiplimab among controls and continued cemiplimab treatment post-progression. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients with disease progression while on or after chemotherapy could receive cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 weeks. Those who experienced progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab at 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 additional weeks with four chemotherapy cycles added. Three adjustment methods accounted for crossover and/or continued treatment: simplified two-stage correction (with or without recensoring), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFT; with or without recensoring). Results: In the programmed cell death-ligand 1 ≥50% population (N=563; median 10.8-month follow-up), 38.2% (n=107/280) crossed over from chemotherapy to cemiplimab (71.3%, n=107/150, among those with confirmed progression) and 16.3% (n=46/283) received cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy (38.7%, n=46/119, among those with confirmed progression). The unadjusted OS hazard ratio (HR) with cemiplimab versus chemotherapy was 0.566 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.418, 0.767). Simplified two-stage correction-the most suitable method based on published guidelines and trial characteristics-produced an OS HR of 0.490 (95% CI: 0.365, 0.654) without recensoring and 0.493 (95% CI: 0.361, 0.674) with recensoring. The IPCW and RPSFT methods produced estimates generally consistent with simplified two-stage correction. Conclusions: After adjusting for treatment crossover and continued cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy observed in EMPOWER-Lung 1, cemiplimab continued to demonstrate a clinically important and statistically significant OS benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with the primary analysis.