Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® Test from a US Societal Perspective.

Background and Objectives: The 21-gene assay (the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test) estimates the 10-year risk of distant recurrence in hormone receptor positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions. The cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay compared against standard clinical-pathological risk tools alone for HR+/HER2- early-stage breast cancer was assessed using an economic model informed by evidence from randomized controlled trials. Materials and Methods: A cost-effectiveness model consisted of a decision-tree to stratify patients according to their Recurrence Score (RS) results and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, followed by a Markov component to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes of the chosen treatment. Distributions of patients and distant recurrence probabilities were derived from the TAILORx (N0) and RxPONDER (N1) trials. The model was evaluated from a healthcare payer and societal perspective. Endocrine therapy and chemotherapy use were informed using clinical expert opinion to reflect US clinical practice and were combined with Medicare drug costs (2021) to estimate the cost of treatment. Societal costs included lost productivity and patient out-of-pocket costs obtained from literature. Results: The Oncotype DX test generated more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (N0: 0.25; N1: 0.08) at a lower cost (N0: -$13,395; N1: -$2526) compared to clinical-pathological risk alone from a societal cost perspective. The overall conclusions from the model did not change when considering a payer perspective. The main cost drivers were avoidance of distant recurrence for N0 (-$12,578), and the cost of adjuvant chemotherapy for N1 (-$2133). Lost productivity had a major impact in the societal perspective analysis (N0: -$4607; N1: -$1586). Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions based on the RS result led to more life year gains and lower healthcare costs (dominant) compared to using clinical-pathological risk factors alone among patients with HR+/HER2- N0 and N1 early-stage breast cancer.

Real-world utilization, patient characteristics, and treatment patterns among men with localized prostate cancer tested with the 17-gene genomic prostate score® (GPSTM) assay.

OBJECTIVES: Descriptive study focusing on real-world utilization and characteristics of men with prostate cancer tested with the 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score® (GPS™) assay by linking administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data with GPS results. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study (January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020) included men aged 40-80 years with localized prostate cancer claims, continuous enrollment in Optum's Integrated Claims data set, ≥1 day of EHR clinical activity, and a GPS result. Men were classified as undergoing definitive therapy (DT) (prostatectomy, radiation, or focal therapy) or active surveillance (AS). AS and DT distribution were analyzed across GPS results, National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) risk, and race. Costs were assessed 6 months after the first GPS result (index); clinical outcomes and AS persistence were assessed during the variable follow-up. All variables were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 834 men, 650 (77.9%) underwent AS and 184 (22.1%) DT. Most men had Quan-Charlson comorbidity scores of 1-2 and a tumor stage of T1c (index). The most common Gleason patterns were 3 + 3 (79.6%) (AS cohort) and 3 + 4 (55.9%) (DT cohort). The mean (standard deviation) GPS results at index were 23.2 (11.3) (AS) and 30.9 (12.9) (DT). AS decreased with increasing GPS result and NCCN risk. Differences between races were minimal. Total costs were substantially higher in the DT cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Most men with GPS-tested localized prostate cancer underwent AS, indicating the GPS result can inform clinical management. Decreasing AS with increasing GPS result and NCCN risk suggests the GPS complements NCCN risk stratification.

Value of next generation sequencing (NGS) testing in advanced cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to evaluate test choice in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Treatment pathways were based on NCCN guidelines and medical expert opinion. Inputs were derived from published literature. Annual economic results and lifetime clinical results with OncoExTra testing were projected per-tested-patient and compared with single gene testing and no testing. Separately, results were estimated for a US health plan without the OncoExTra test and with its use in 5% of patients. RESULTS: Compared with no genomic testing, OncoExTra test use increased costs by $4,915 per patient; however, 82%-92% of individuals across tumour types were identified as eligible for targeted therapy or a clinical trial. Compared with single gene testing, OncoExTra test use decreased costs by $9,966 per-patient-tested while increasing use of approved or investigational targeted therapies by 20%. When considering a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 858 patients were eligible for genomic testing. Using the OncoExTra test in 5% of those eligible, per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.003, ranging from cost-savings of $0.026 in NSCLC patients to a $0.009 increase in prostate cancer patients. Cost-savings were driven by reduced treatment costs with increased clinical trial enrolment and reduced direct and indirect medical costs associated with targeted treatments. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the required simplifications in modelling complex conditions that may not fully reflect evolving real-world testing and treatment patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to single-gene testing, results indicate that using next generation sequencing test such as OncoExTra identified more actionable alterations, leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs.

Recommendations for the Equitable and Widespread Implementation of Liquid Biopsy for Cancer Care.

Liquid biopsies-tests that detect circulating tumor cellular components in the bloodstream-have the potential to transform cancer by reducing health inequities in screening, diagnostics, and monitoring. Today, liquid biopsies are being used to guide treatment choices for patients and monitor for cancer recurrence, and promising work in multi-cancer early detection is ongoing. However, without awareness of the barriers to adoption of this new technology and a willingness to build mitigation efforts into the implementation of widespread liquid biopsy testing, the communities that could most benefit may be the last to access and use them. In this work, we review the challenges likely to affect the accessibility of liquid biopsies in both the general population and underserved populations, and recommend specific actions to facilitate equitable access for all patients.

The budget impact of utilizing the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test from a US healthcare payer perspective.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score test is used to estimate distant recurrence risk of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer and inform decisions on the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. A model-based budget impact analysis compared the Oncotype DX test in combination with clinical-pathological risk against using clinical-pathological risk alone for HR+/HER2- node-negative (N0) and node-positive (N1; 1-3 axillary lymph nodes) early-stage breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Test and medical costs associated with treatment of breast cancer were assessed through a US healthcare payer perspective. Distributions of patients by Recurrence Score result and distant recurrence probabilities with chemo-endocrine and endocrine therapy were derived from the TAILORx (N0) and RxPONDER (N1) trials. Changes in budget impact were evaluated over a 5-year horizon for a 1,000,000-member hypothetical health plan. RESULTS: With the Oncotype DX test, there was an incremental budget impact of $261,067 (per member per month (PMPM): $0.004), in the N0 population, and $56,143 (PMPM: $0.001) in the N1 population over the 5-year period. The largest budget impact reduction in the N0 population was attributed to reduced breast cancer recurrence costs (incremental: -$633,457, PMPM: -$0.011), while chemotherapy sparing reduced costs in the N1 population (incremental: -$94,884, PMPM: -$0.002). CONCLUSION: The clinical benefit of using the Oncotype DX test to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials. This analysis demonstrated that while using the Oncotype DX test to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions may slightly increase US healthcare costs over an initial 5-year time horizon (driven by a cost increase in the first year with cost savings reflected in remaining 4 years), there is significant scope for cost savings when assessing beyond this period due to avoided downstream costs of distant recurrence and long-term chemotherapy adverse events. PMPM costs also remain low across all populations examined, demonstrating a close-to-neutral budget impact.

Comprehensive Review on the Clinical Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests for the Management of Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: This review summarizes the published evidence on the clinical impact of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests to guide management of patients with cancer in the United States. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature review to identify recent English language publications that presented progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced cancer receiving NGS testing. RESULTS: Among 6,475 publications identified, 31 evaluated PFS and OS among subgroups of patients who received NGS-informed cancer management. PFS and OS were significantly longer among patients who were matched to targeted treatment in 11 and 16 publications across tumor types, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our review indicates that NGS-informed treatment can have an impact on survival across tumor types.

Real world incidence and management of adverse events in patients with HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer receiving CDK4 and 6 inhibitors in a United States community setting.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the real-world incidence and management of select adverse events (AEs) among female patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), receiving a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4 and 6) inhibitor (palbociclib, abemaciclib, or ribociclib). METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database for 396 patients with an initial MBC diagnosis on/after 1 January 2014 and receipt of first CDK4 and 6 regimen between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018. In this descriptive study, the proportion of patients who experienced select AEs and associated dose modifications or discontinuations were reported. The occurrence of select healthcare resource utilization categories was also reported. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 451, 262, and 355 days for patients in the palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib cohorts, respectively. The most common AEs were neutropenia (palbociclib, 44.8%; abemaciclib, 10.6%; ribociclib, 36.3%), diarrhea (palbociclib, 8.0%; abemaciclib, 43.0%; ribociclib, 8.8%), and fatigue (palbociclib, 12.9%; abemaciclib, 17.6%; ribociclib, 16.5%). AEs resulted in a treatment hold among 91 (23.0%), a dose reduction among 86 (21.7%), and permanent discontinuation among 48 (12.1%) patients overall. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study provides insight into the occurrence of AEs which varied by CDK4 and 6 inhibitor. Compared to clinical trials, frequencies of AEs were numerically lower but dose reductions due to AEs were numerically higher. It is possible these differences reflect proactive management of AEs on the part of clinicians to help patients remain on therapy.

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4 and 6 inhibitors) have changed the landscape for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) among patients who are hormone receptor positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2−). An understanding of the real-world management of adverse events (AEs) will help optimize treatment strategies. Here, data from the US Oncology Network electronic health record database for 396 HR+, HER2−, MBC patients receiving a CDK4 and 6 inhibitor were examined to describe the proportion of patients who experienced select AEs and the associated outcomes of these AEs. Compared to clinical trials, frequencies of AEs were numerically lower but dose reductions due to AEs were numerically higher. It is possible that these differences reflect a proactive management of AEs on the part of clinicians to help patients remain on therapy.

Treatment Experiences with CDK4&6 Inhibitors Among Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: To describe patients' perspectives on the use of and potential challenges and barriers with adherence/persistence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4&6i's) to treat metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of 60-minute semi-structured telephone interviews with patients with MBC in the US who were either current or recent CDK4&6i users, identified from administrative claims of survey-eligible commercial and Medicare Advantage patients in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between November 1, 2018 and November 1, 2019. Patients were recruited by email and/or mailed letter. The 60-minute telephone interviews were conducted by a trained facilitator using a study-developed interview discussion guide that included topics impacting treatment choice and adherence/persistence. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: All 462 eligible patients were sent a recruitment email and/or letter to which 36 patients responded, consented to participate, and met study inclusion criteria; 25 patients scheduled interviews, and 24 completed them. Study participants were predominately white, non-Hispanic (96%) with a mean age of 59.5 years. Participants reported a largely positive experience and mentioned very few adherence/persistence issues. They further reported appreciating the ease and convenience of oral oncolytics, coped with side effects, had strong medical and social support, and experienced few cost issues. CONCLUSION: The few adherence/persistence issues reported by participants contrasts with other findings of suboptimal oral oncolytic use. Interview themes indicated several factors that likely contributed to the lack of adherence/persistence issues: trusted relationship with oncologist, belief in importance of medication, positive medication views, strong medical and social support, and minimal personal drug cost. Future research should focus on whether and how much these factors impact adherence/persistence in more diverse populations. If adherence/persistence issues are identified in these populations, then it would be appropriate to study the development of interventions that target factors associated with better adherence/persistence.

Prognostic Factors in Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative (HR+/HER2-) Advanced Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

PURPOSE: Advanced breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with several well-defined subtypes, among which, hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) is most prevalent. Determination of HR and HER2 status influences prognosis and, thus, disease management. Although literature on these prognostic factors exist, especially in the early breast cancer setting, it remains unclear to what extent these factors can guide clinical decision-making in the advanced disease setting. Therefore, we sought to identify the strength and consistency of evidence for prognostic factors in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) of the major electronic databases was conducted in November 2018 for primary research studies published since 2010. Endpoints of interest were tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). RESULTS: Seventy-nine studies were included wherein all patients were diagnosed with advanced breast cancer and ≥50% of the population were HR+/HER2-. OS was the most commonly assessed endpoint (n=67) followed by PFS (n=33), BCSS (n=5) and tumor response (n=3). The prognostic factors with strongest evidence of association with worse OS were negative progesterone receptor status, higher tumor grade, higher circulating tumor cell (CTC) count and higher Ki67 level, number of metastatic sites (eg multiple vs single) and sites of metastases (eg presence of liver metastases vs absence), shorter time to recurrence or progression to advanced breast cancer, poor performance status, prior therapy attributes in the early or metastatic setting (type of therapy, treatment line, response of prior therapy), and race (black vs white). The prognostic factors that had strongest evidence of association with PFS included CTC count, number and sites of metastases, and absence of prior therapy or higher lines of therapy in the early or metastatic setting. The directionality of association was consistent for all prognostic factors except between lymph node and OS, and de novo metastatic breast cancer and PFS. CONCLUSION: Multiple disease, treatment, and patient-related prognostic factors impact survival, particularly OS, in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. Treatment outcomes can vary considerably due to these factors. Understanding poorer prognostic factors for patients can result in improved clinical decision-making.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of abemaciclib for the treatment of HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational study described baseline characteristics, real-world treatment patterns, and outcomes among patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with abemaciclib in the United States. METHODS: De-identified electronic health record-derived data were used to describe patients who began abemaciclib treatment on or after 30 June 2016 and ≥4 months before data cutoff (31 December 2018). Real-world response (rwR) and real-world progression assessments were abstracted from clinical documentation. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the real-world best response. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated real-world time to first response (rwTTFR) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS). RESULTS: The median age of 118 female patients at abemaciclib initiation was 66.5 years (interquartile range, 57.0, 73.0). The breakdown of patients who received abemaciclib in first, second, third, or later lines was 28.8%, 21.2%, 20.3%, and 29.7%, respectively. Patients received abemaciclib as monotherapy (12.7%) or in combination with endocrine therapy: fulvestrant (59.3%); aromatase inhibitor (22.9%); aromatase inhibitor and fulvestrant (5.1%). There were 68 patients (57.6%) with ≥1 rwR assessment: 41.2% with a real-world complete response or real-world partial response. Median rwTTFR was 3.6 months (95% confidence interval, 3.5, 5.2). Twelve-month rwPFS probability was 61.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents utilization and outcomes associated with abemaciclib approximately 1 year following FDA approval. Treatment patterns demonstrated heterogeneity and, as in clinical trials, patients appeared to benefit from abemaciclib treatment in the real world. More research investigating outcomes associated with abemaciclib treatment is needed, with larger samples and longer follow-up to enable closer evaluation by subgroup, regimen, and line of therapy.

Predicting optimal treatment regimens for patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer using machine learning based on electronic health records.

Aim: To predict optimal treatments maximizing overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) using machine learning methods on electronic health records. Patients/methods: Adult females with HR+/HER2- MBC on first- or second-line systemic therapy were eligible. Random survival forest (RSF) models were used to predict optimal regimen classes for individual patients and each line of therapy based on baseline characteristics. Results: RSF models suggested greater use of CDK4 & 6 inhibitor-based therapies may maximize OS and TTD. RSF-predicted optimal treatments demonstrated longer OS and TTD compared with nonoptimal treatments across line of therapy (hazard ratios = 0.44∼0.79). Conclusion: RSF may help inform optimal treatment choices and improve outcomes for patients with HR+/HER2- MBC.

Data Integration to Improve Real-world Health Outcomes Research for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States: Descriptive and Qualitative Exploration.

BACKGROUND: The integration of data from disparate sources could help alleviate data insufficiency in real-world studies and compensate for the inadequacies of single data sources and short-duration, small sample size studies while improving the utility of data for research. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe and evaluate a process of integrating data from several complementary sources to conduct health outcomes research in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The integrated data set is also used to describe patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and mortality rates. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study integrated data from 4 sources: administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, clinical data from a Cancer Care Quality Program (CCQP), clinical data from abstracted medical records (MRs), and mortality data from the US Social Security Administration. Patients with lung cancer who initiated second-line (2L) therapy between November 01, 2015, and April 13, 2018, were identified in the claims and CCQP data. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and received atezolizumab, docetaxel, erlotinib, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, or ramucirumab in the 2L setting. The main analysis cohort included patients with claims data and data from at least one additional data source (CCQP or MR). Patients without integrated data (claims only) were reported separately. Descriptive and univariate statistics were reported. RESULTS: Data integration resulted in a main analysis cohort of 2195 patients with NSCLC; 2106 patients had CCQP and 407 patients had MR data. The claims-only cohort included 931 eligible patients. For the main analysis cohort, the mean age was 62.1 (SD 9.27) years, 48.56% (1066/2195) were female, the median length of follow-up was 6.8 months, and for 37.77% (829/2195), death was observed. For the claims-only cohort, the mean age was 66.6 (SD 12.69) years, 52.1% (485/931) were female, the median length of follow-up was 8.6 months, and for 29.3% (273/931), death was observed. The most frequent 2L treatment was immunotherapy (1094/2195, 49.84%), followed by platinum-based regimens (472/2195, 21.50%) and single-agent chemotherapy (441/2195, 20.09%); mean duration of 2L therapy was 5.6 (SD 4.9, median 4) months. We describe challenges and learnings from the data integration process, and the benefits of the integrated data set, which includes a richer set of clinical and outcome data to supplement the utilization metrics available in administrative claims. CONCLUSIONS: The management of patients with NSCLC requires care from a multidisciplinary team, leading to a lack of a single aggregated data source in real-world settings. The availability of integrated clinical data from MRs, health plan claims, and other sources of clinical care may improve the ability to assess emerging treatments.

Treatment patterns for patients with advanced/metastatic cancers by site of care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare treatments, overall survival (OS), and total costs among patients receiving anticancer therapy in hospital outpatient vs physician office settings. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective observational study utilized claims data from a large national health plan to identify patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated in hospital outpatient or physician office settings. METHODS: Patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug or commercial plans for at least 180 days prior to and at least 30 days after start of first-line (1L) therapy were included. Treatments by lines of therapy, OS, and total costs were evaluated by site of care. RESULTS: Eligible patients included 4618 with aNSCLC, 2304 with mCRC, and 1411 with mBC. There were no major differences in 1L, second-line, or third-line therapy by site of care. Patients with aNSCLC in physician office had longer 1L duration (hospital outpatient, 96 days vs physician office, 102 days; P < .01), but there were no differences in duration of therapy by site of care for mBC or mCRC. Costs were higher in the hospital outpatient setting for mCRC and mBC, but there were no differences in OS for any of the cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients received similar care in hospital outpatient and physician office settings, the differences in duration of treatment and costs warrant further evaluation.

Development of a Prognostic Factor Index Among Women With HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer in a Community Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: This study explored the impact of multiple prognostic factors on patient overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study used electronic health record data of patients in the United States from community oncology practices from January 1, 2008 to April 30, 2017. Eligibility included HR+/HER2- MBC diagnosis in 2008 or later and prior systemic therapy for MBC. An index variable was created to assess the effect of multiple clinical prognostic factors collectively, including liver metastases (LM), primary endocrine resistance (PER), negative progesterone receptor (PR-) status, and high tumor grade (TG). Patients were grouped based on the number of prognostic factors present at MBC diagnosis: 0, 1, and 2+. Differences in rwPFS and OS from start of first-line therapy were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Approximately 29.1% of the 378 eligible patient sample had 0, 36.0% had 1, and 34.9% had 2+ prognostic factors. For the patients with 1 of the prognostic factors, 24.3% had high TG, 14.7% were LM+, 39.7% had PER, and 21.3% were PR-. Univariate and multivariate results showed that rwPFS and OS were significantly (P < .05) shorter in patients with 1 and 2+ prognostic factors compared with patients with 0. CONCLUSIONS: The individual prognostic factors and the prognostic factor index may enable early identification of patients with a less favorable prognosis across the HR+/HER2- MBC population and help inform treatment decisions in difficult-to-treat populations.

Treatment patterns, adverse events, and direct and indirect economic burden in a privately insured population of patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence specific to HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) prior to introduction of CDK4/6 inhibitors is limited. In an effort to provide context for the introduction of new treatments, we assessed treatment patterns, adverse events, productivity loss, and direct/indirect economic burden in a privately insured population of patients with HR+/HER2- MBC. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort design, patients aged 18-64 years, selected from MarketScan databases (2007-2014), were analyzed using descriptive and multivariable methods. RESULTS: Among 5,563 eligible patients, endocrine therapy was the most common first-line (1L) therapy; its utilization trended downward from 63% (1L) to 23% (4L), with a simultaneous increase in chemotherapy use, 25% (1L) to 50% (4L). Two hundred and seventy-eight unique treatment regimens were used in the 1L setting. The average per patient monthly all-cause costs were $14,424. The 12-month indirect costs for short-term disability were substantially higher in MBC patients ($10,397) than in matched noncancer patients ($394). CONCLUSION: The increasing use of chemotherapy as patients progressed to second and later lines and the substantial direct/indirect economic burden underscore an unmet need. The high number of 1L regimens highlights significant heterogeneity and a lack of consensus related to the management of HR+/HER2- MBC in routine practice.

Real-world patient-reported outcomes of women receiving initial endocrine-based therapy for HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer in five European countries.

BACKGROUND: Endocrine therapy (ET)-based regimens are the mainstay of treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. With the introduction of new treatment classes, it is important to examine patient symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at the start of this changing therapeutic landscape. This real-world study describes the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer receiving ET-based regimens who were naïve to systemic treatment in the advanced setting across five European countries (EU5). METHODS: Data were collected between March and July 2017 from surveyed oncologists and their patients at a single time point using the multinational Adelphi Advanced Breast Cancer Disease Specific Programme™. Patients completed PRO questionnaires on HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), pain severity and interference, and work and activity impairment. A multiple linear regression model explored factors associated with HRQoL. RESULTS: Across EU5, 226 physicians provided data on 781 women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer taking their first ET-based regimen for advanced disease, of whom 252 provided PRO data. This subset had a mean age of 67.1 years, 94% were postmenopausal, 89% were diagnosed with advanced breast cancer at initial presentation, 79% had stage IV disease (66% of these patients had bone metastases and 38% had visceral metastases, including 18% with liver metastases) and 77% were on endocrine-only therapy as their initial treatment for advanced disease. The mean EORTC QLQ-C30 global health score (50.9) was worse than the reference value for patients with advanced breast cancer (60.2). Fatigue, pain, and insomnia were the most severe symptoms, and mean functioning scores were also worse than reference values. "Worst pain" and "pain interference" were moderate/severe for 42 and 80% of patients. Mean activity impairment was 44%, and greater activity impairment was associated with poorer HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite receiving first-line ET-based regimens for advanced disease, these women had a poor HRQoL and high levels of symptoms, pain, pain interference and activity impairment. New treatments that maintain a stable disease state and reduce activity impairment may have a positive effect on the HRQoL of those living with advanced breast cancer.

Real-world survival outcomes of heavily pretreated patients with refractory HR+, HER2-metastatic breast cancer receiving single-agent chemotherapy-a comparison with MONARCH 1.

PURPOSE: In MONARCH 1 (NCT02102490), single-agent abemaciclib demonstrated promising efficacy activity and tolerability in a population of heavily pretreated women with refractory HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). To help interpret these results and put in clinical context, we compared overall survival (OS) and duration of therapy (DoT) between MONARCH 1 and a real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort. METHODS: The real-world chemotherapy cohort was created from a Flatiron Health electronic health records-derived database based on key eligibility criteria from MONARCH 1. The chemotherapies included in the cohort were single-agent capecitabine, gemcitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine. Results were adjusted for baseline demographics and clinical differences using Mahalanobis distance matching (primary analysis) and entropy balancing (sensitivity analysis). OS and DoT were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort (n = 281) with eligibility criteria similar to the MONARCH 1 population (n = 132) was identified. The MONARCH 1 (n = 108) cohort was matched to the real-world chemotherapy cohort (n = 108). Median OS was 22.3 months in the abemaciclib arm versus 13.6 months in the matched real-world chemotherapy cohort with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54. The median DoT was 4.1 months in MONARCH 1 compared to 2.9 months in the real-world chemotherapy cohort with HR of 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an approach to create a real-world chemotherapy cohort suitable to serve as a comparator for trial data. These exploratory results suggest a survival advantage and place the benefit of abemaciclib monotherapy in clinical context.

KRAS mutation as a prognostic factor and predictive factor in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

KRAS (Kirsten Rat Sarcoma) is the most common oncogenic mutation detected in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the role of KRAS as either a prognostic factor or predictive factor (modifier of treatment effects) in NSCLC is not well established at this time. This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis synthesized the available evidence regarding the role of KRAS mutation as a predictive factor and/or prognostic factor of survival and response outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB-IV) NSCLC. Relevant clinical trials and observational studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Meta-analyses were performed using data extracted from multivariable and univariable analyses from clinical studies to assess the empirical evidence of KRAS mutation status as a prognostic or/and predicitive factor. 43 selected studies were identified by the SLR and included in this meta-analysis. Pairwise meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) did not demonstrate a significant prognostic effect of mutant KRAS on overall survival (OS) (HR=1.10; 95% CI [0.88, 1.38]) or progression free survival (PFS) (HR=1.03; 95% CI [0.80, 1.33]). However, when conducting meta-analyses on HRs reported in observational studies, a statistically significant negative prognostic effect of mutant KRAS was observed (OS HR=1.71; 95% CI [1.07, 2.84]; PFS HR=1.18; 95% CI [1.02, 1.36]). Meta-analyses of objective response rate (ORR) in RCTs demonstrated a negative prognostic effect of mutant KRAS (RR=0.38; 95% CI [0.16, 0.63]). Limited data were available to evaluate the role of KRAS mutation as a predictive factor. In conclusion, this research offers evidence that KRAS mutation may be a negative prognostic factor for survival and response outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, but further research is needed to address conflicting results on the importance of KRAS mutations as a predictive factor.

Quality of life analysis of patients treated with cetuximab or cisplatin for locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck in the United States.

BACKGROUND: To compare quality of life of patients treated with cetuximab with or without radiation therapy (±RT) vs. cisplatin±RT for locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in the real-world setting. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, electronic medical records and Patient Care Monitor (PCM) survey data from the Vector Oncology Data Warehouse were utilized from adult patients in the United States who received initial treatment with cetuximab±RT or cisplatin±RT for locoregionally advanced SCCHN between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2017. Quality of life was assessed using PCM index scores and individual PCM items. Cetuximab±RT and cisplatin±RT cohorts were balanced using propensity score weighting. Linear mixed models were used to assess the impact of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics on PCM endpoints. RESULTS: Of 531 patients with locoregionally advanced SCCHN, 187 received cetuximab±RT, and 344 received cisplatin±RT. Before propensity score weighting, the cetuximab±RT cohort was older (mean [SD] age of 63.9 [9.6] years vs. 57.4 [8.6] years), and more likely to be white (82.4% vs. 72.4%) compared to the cisplatin±RT cohort. After propensity score weighting, the two cohort subsamples (cetuximab±RT, N = 60; cisplatin±RT, N = 177) with PCM data showed no significant differences in General Physical Symptoms, Treatment Side Effects, Impaired Ambulation, or Impaired Performance index scores. Patients in the cetuximab±RT cohort had higher Acute Distress index (p = 0.023), Despair index (p = 0.011), and rash (p = 0.003) scores but lower numbness/tingling scores (p = 0.022) than patients in the cisplatin±RT cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Significant group differences were observed in this comparative analysis, as the cetuximab±RT cohort had significantly higher Acute Distress index, Despair index, and rash scores compared with the cisplatin±RT cohort but lower numbness/tingling scores. These patterns of symptoms appear consistent with previously reported symptoms associated with the treatment of SCCHN.

Health-Related Quality of Life in MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer After Endocrine Therapy.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III MONARCH 2 study (NCT02107703), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assessed patient-reported pain, global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Abemaciclib or placebo (150 p.o. mg twice daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per label) were randomly assigned (2:1). The modified Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form (mBPI-sf); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Core 30 (QLQ-C30); and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-BR23) assessed outcomes. Data were collected at baseline, cycle 2, every two cycles 3-13, thereafter at every three cycles, and 30 days postdiscontinuation. Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) by study arm. RESULTS: On-treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and similar between arms. Patients in the abemaciclib arm (n = 446) experienced a 4.9-month delay in pain deterioration (mBPI-sf), compared with the control arm (n = 223), and significantly greater TTSD on the mBPI-sf and analgesic use (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and QLQ-C30 pain item (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). TTSD for functioning and most symptoms significantly favored the abemaciclib arm, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and cognitive and social functioning. Only diarrhea significantly favored the control arm (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.10). CONCLUSION: HRQoL was maintained on abemaciclib plus fulvestrant. Alongside superior PFS and manageable safety profile, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in a population of patients with endocrine-resistant HR+, HER2-negative ABC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to consider, given the palliative nature of ABC treatment. In this study, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, significantly delayed sustained deterioration of pain and other patient-reported symptoms (including fatigue, nausea, vomiting), and social and cognitive functioning. Combined with demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability, the stabilization of patient-reported symptoms and HRQoL further supports abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as a desirable treatment option in endocrine resistant, HR+, HER2- ABC.