Impact of next-generation hormonal agents on treatment patterns among patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a real-world study from the United States, five European countries and Japan.

BACKGROUND: Until five years ago, the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treatment landscape was dominated by the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. However, novel hormonal agents (NHAs) and chemotherapy are now approved for male patients with mHSPC. This study aimed to understand the impact NHA approvals had on mHSPC real-world treatment patterns and to identify the key factors associated with NHA or chemotherapy (± ADT) usage vs ADT alone. METHODS: Data were collected from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme (DSP)™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their consulting patients conducted in the United States (US), five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom), and Japan between January and August 2020. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics for individual countries, regions, and all countries combined. Pairwise analyses were used to further investigate differences between treatment groups at global level. RESULTS: 336 physicians provided data on 1195 mHSPC patients. Globally, at data collection, the most common mHSPC regimen initiated first was ADT alone (47%), followed by NHAs (± ADT) (31%, of which 21% was abiraterone, 8% was enzalutamide, and 2% was apalutamide) and chemotherapy (± ADT) (19%). The highest rates of ADT alone usage were observed in Japan (78%) and Italy (66%), and the lowest in Spain (34%) and in the US (36%). Our results showed that clinical decision making was driven by patient fitness, compliance, tolerance of adverse events, and balance of impact on quality of life vs overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world survey offered early insights into the evolving mHSPC treatment paradigm. It showed that in 2020, ADT alone remained the most common initial mHSPC therapy, suggesting that physicians may prefer using treatments which they are familiar and have experience with, despite clinical trial evidence of improved survival with NHAs or chemotherapy (± ADT) vs ADT alone. Results also indicated that physicians prescribed specific mHSPC treatments primarily based on the following criteria: patient preference, disease burden/severity, and the performance status and comorbidities of the patient. To fully appreciate the rapidly changing mHSPC treatment landscape and monitor NHA uptake, additional real-world studies are required.

Real-World Treatment Patterns in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Across Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most common cancer, and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related mortality among male patients, worldwide. In Europe and Japan, the incidence of PC in men in 2020 exceeded that of lung cancer. Although national and regional clinical guidelines for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are available in Europe and Japan, a literature review did not identify a published comparison of differing guidelines, but identified a lack of studies reporting treatment patterns of approved mCRPC treatments in Europe and Japan in normal clinical practice. The objective of this real-world study was to compare national treatment guidelines and real-world treatment for mCRPC in Europe and Japan. METHODS: Physician-reported demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment data of patients with mCRPC were drawn from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme™, conducted in five European countries and Japan (2020) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS: All current treatment guidelines recommended the use of novel hormonal agents (NHA-abiraterone/enzalutamide) and chemotherapy (mainly docetaxel), with some intercountry differences, with NHA rechallenge accepted in Germany, Italy and Japan, but not in France, Spain or the United Kingdom. Overall, 271 physicians provided data for 1753 patients. At 1st-line (1L), the most common treatment was NHAs followed by (→) chemotherapy, in all countries. Chemotherapy was the most common 2nd-line (2L) treatment, except in Japan, where 2L NHA use was preferred, and Spain, where both were used equally. NHA â†’ chemotherapy and chemotherapy â†’ NHA were the first and second usual 1L â†’ 2L sequence in most countries, except for France, where the second most common sequence was NHA â†’ NHA, and Japan, with androgen deprivation therapy alone â†’ NHA. CONCLUSION: Real-world mCRPC treatment patterns largely reflected national guidelines. It is expected that guidelines and treatment patterns will change with the development of new treatment options.

Real-world homologous recombination repair mutation testing in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the USA, Europe and Japan.

Aim: To assess homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) testing patterns in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Methods: A point-in-time, international survey conducted January-August 2020. Results: Three-quarters of physicians (oncologists, urologists, specialist surgeons) globally reported access to genetic/genomic testing and just over half were HRRm testers. Surveyed physicians reported HRRm testing and positivity rates for 1913 patients, which were 18.1% and 33.7%, respectively. Of patients tested (n = 347), the most common HRR genes tested were BRCA (91.6%) and ATM (47.3%). Conclusion: Overall testing rates were low, with physicians mostly testing patients they considered higher risk. Increased awareness and education are needed to encourage broader testing, to understand familial risk and to identify patients with worse outcomes or those eligible for life-prolonging treatments.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is cancer that has spread beyond the prostate gland and that no longer responds to hormone therapy. Genetic testing is now recommended for patients with mCRPC to help doctors understand familial risk and identify patients who may benefit from new treatments. The authors asked doctors questions about their patients, such as their age, symptoms and genetic testing. The authors found that overall genetic testing rates were low, with doctors mostly testing patients they thought were at higher risk of developing cancer. Increased doctor awareness and education are needed to encourage more genetic testing in mCRPC patients. However, doctors claimed that the cost of these tests was a challenge to conducting genetic testing.

Exploring the Impact of Treatment Switching on Overall Survival from the PROfound Study in Homologous Recombination Repair (HRR)-Mutated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC).

BACKGROUND: In oncology trials, treatment switching from the comparator to the experimental regimen is often allowed but may lead to underestimating overall survival (OS) of an experimental therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of treatment switching from control to olaparib on OS using the final survival data from the PROfound study and compares validated adjustment methods to estimate the magnitude of OS benefit with olaparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary population from PROfound (Cohort A) was included, alongside two populations approved for treatment with olaparib by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration: BRCAm and Cohort A+B (excluding the PPP2R2A gene). Five methods were explored to adjust for switching: excluding or censoring patients in the control arm who receive subsequent olaparib, Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Model (RPSFTM), Inverse Probability of Censoring Weights, and Two-Stage Estimation. RESULTS: The RPSFTM was considered the most appropriate approach for PROfound as the results were robust to sensitivity analysis testing of the common treatment effect assumption. For Cohort A, the final OS hazard ratio reduced from 0.69 (95% CI 0.5-0.97) to between 0.42 (0.18-0.90) and 0.52 (0.31-1.00) for olaparib versus control, depending on the RPSFTM selected. Median OS reduced from 14.7 months to between 11.73 and 12.63 months for control. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the statistically significant (P < 0.05) survival benefit of olaparib versus control observed in Cohort A of PROfound is likely to be underestimated if adjustment for treatment switching from control to olaparib is not conducted. The RPSFTM was considered the most plausible method, although further development and validation of robust methods to estimate the magnitude of impact of treatment switching is needed.

Beyond Frontline Therapy with Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Real-World US Study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence suggest that next generation hormonal agents (NHAs) abiraterone and enzalutamide were preferred as first-line (1L) therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the United States (US) pre-2020, with chemotherapies, particularly docetaxel, being preferred in subsequent lines (2L+). This real-world study described patient characteristics, treatment patterns, time on treatment (ToT) and overall survival (OS) among patients with mCRPC treated with 2L and 3L docetaxel post-NHAs in the mCRPC setting. METHODS: Adults with confirmed adenocarcinoma mCRPC diagnosis and ≥1 month of follow-up post-diagnosis were selected from a US electronic health record-derived oncology de-identified database (01/2013-03/2019). Based on the observed line of therapy sequences post-mCRPC diagnosis, patients who received NHA therapy in 1L and docetaxel therapy in 2L were included in the 2L docetaxel cohort, and patients who received NHA therapy in both 1L and 2L and docetaxel therapy in 3L were included in the 3L docetaxel cohort. ToT and OS were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Among 5,213 patients with mCRPC, 278 and 166 were included in the 2L and the 3L docetaxel cohorts, respectively (median age: 73 years for both cohorts). ADT was the most used class of medication pre-mCRPC (>75%). For the 2L cohort, the most common sequence post-mCRPC was 1L abiraterone â†’ 2L docetaxel (52.5%), while the median ToT and OS post-2L start were 4.1 and 10.5 months, respectively; for the 3L cohort, the most common sequence post-mCRPC was 1L abiraterone â†’ 2L enzalutamide â†’ 3L docetaxel (67.5%), while the median ToT and OS post-3L start were 3.8 and 8.7 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study provides novel data on patients treated with docetaxel post-NHAs in a mCRPC setting and highlights the critical unmet need for developing more effective treatment options in this population.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Overall Survival of Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in the US Prior to PARP Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients are continuously advancing. We described mCRPC treatment patterns in the US from 2013 to 2019. METHODS: Patients with a confirmed mCRPC diagnosis and adenocarcinoma histology were included in the US Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record-derived de-identified database. Treatment patterns [including treatment per lines of therapies (LOTs), LOT sequences, and time on treatment] and overall survival (OS) have been described in mCRPC settings. RESULTS: Of 5213 patients (mean age: 72.6 years), 4374 (83.9%) were treated with ≥ 1 LOT post-mCRPC diagnosis (among those with ≥ 1 LOT, 55.3%, 29.5%, 14.7%, and 6.7% had ≥ 2, 3, 4, and 5 LOTs, respectively). In first line (1L), the main treatment class was next-generation hormonal agents (NHA; 62.5% of patients with ≥ 1 LOT), while the shortest and longest time on 1L were observed for chemotherapy (median 2.8 months) and NHA (median 5.1 months), respectively. The most common LOT sequences were NHA â†’ NHA (29.4% of patients with ≥ 2 LOTs) and NHA â†’ NHA â†’ chemotherapy (16.7% of patients with ≥ 3 LOTs). In Kaplan-Meier analyses, the median OS was 19.4, 14.6, and 11.1 months post-1L, 2L, and 3L start, respectively. Patients who moved rapidly through LOTs had an increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: NHA were widely used as 1L therapy in mCRPC patients from 2013 to 2019, but time on 1L NHA treatment was on average < 6 months. While NHA â†’ NHA was the most observed 1L â†’ 2L LOT sequence, a plethora of other LOT sequences were observed. OS was poor, highlighting an unmet need for life-prolonging treatments.

Real-world genetic testing patterns in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Aim: To assess the patterns of genetic testing for homologous recombination repair mutations in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) pre-PARP inhibitors approval. Patients & methods: mCRPC patients were selected in an oncology electronic medical records database. Patterns and predictors of testing for ATM, BRCA1/2, CDK12, PALB2 and FANCA gene alterations were assessed. Results: Of 5213 mCRPC patients, 674 (13%) had a documented genetic test. The number of tested patients increased from 1 in 2013 to 313 in 2018 (out of 3161 and 3010 clinically active patients, respectively). Receiving care in an academic oncology center (versus a community-based center) strongly predicted genetic testing (hazard ratio = 2.41). Conclusion: The use of and access to genetic testing pre-PARP inhibitor approval was suboptimal.

Lay abstract In 2017, US guidelines recommended the use of genetic testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). While the initial goal of genetic testing was to guide referral to genetic counselling and clinical trial enrollment, it is now also used to identify patients who could benefit from new drugs that target specific molecular defects. Using medical record data of US patients with mCRPC, we found that the rates of genetic testing and the breadth of molecular defects tested were suboptimal from 2013 to 2019. We also found lower rates of genetic testing in patients treated in community-based centers compared with those treated in academic oncology centers. These results underscore the importance of increasing the take up rate of genetic testing in patients with mCRPC to help guide treatment decisions.

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective.Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually.Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%.Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Targeted agents or immuno-oncology therapies as first-line therapy for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a real-world study.

Aim: Targeted therapy (TT) and immuno-oncology (IO) drugs are approved for patients with BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma (MM). We compared real-world outcomes for first-line (1L) TT versus 1L IO to evaluate optimal sequencing. Materials & methods: Physicians-identified BRAF mutant MM patients initiating 1L TT or IO therapies and extracted treatment, disease and clinical outcomes including disease response which were compared between TT and IO and individual regimens. Results: 440 MM patients (TT = 283, IO = 157) were identified. A higher proportion of TT patients had liver metastases (46.3 vs 35.0%) and abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (61.1 vs 42.7%). IO-treated had a RECIST-determined response rate of 45.9 versus 60.1% for TT and time on treatment of 7.2 versus 11.4 months, respectively. There was no survival difference between cohorts. Conclusion: Despite higher risk patients, 1L TT resulted in higher response rate and longer treatment duration suggesting a preferred 1L sequence.

Postsurgical treatment landscape and economic burden of locoregional and distant recurrence in patients with operable nonmetastatic melanoma.

Surgery is the mainstay treatment for operable nonmetastatic melanoma, but recurrences are common and limit patients' survival. This study aimed to describe real-world patterns of treatment and recurrence in patients with melanoma and to quantify healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with episodes of locoregional/distant recurrences. Adults with nonmetastatic melanoma who underwent melanoma lymph node surgery were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan database (1 January 2008 to 31 July 2017). Locoregional and distant recurrence(s) were identified on the basis of postsurgery recurrence indicators (i.e. initiation of new melanoma pharmacotherapy, new radiotherapy, or new surgery; secondary malignancy diagnoses). Of 6400 eligible patients, 219 (3.4%) initiated adjuvant therapy within 3 months of surgery, mostly with interferon α-2b (n=206/219, 94.1%). A total of 1191/6400 (18.6%) patients developed recurrence(s) over a median follow-up of 23.1 months (102/6400, 1.6% distant recurrences). Among the 219 patients initiated on adjuvant therapy, 73 (33.3%) experienced recurrences (distant recurrences: 13/219, 5.9%). The mean total all-cause healthcare cost was $2645 per patient per month (PPPM) during locoregional recurrence episodes and $12 940 PPPM during distant recurrence episodes. In the year after recurrence, HRU was particularly higher in patients with distant recurrence versus recurrence-free matched controls: by 9.2 inpatient admissions, 54.4 inpatient days, 8.8 emergency department admissions, and 185.9 outpatient visits (per 100 person-months), whereas all-cause healthcare costs were higher by $14 953 PPPM. It remains to be determined whether the new generation of adjuvant therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents, will increase the use of adjuvant therapies, and reduce the risk of recurrences and associated HRU/cost.

Healthcare resource utilization in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving first-line therapy with dabrafenib + trametinib versus nivolumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) between patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) initiated on first-line (1L) combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib (D + T; oral) and those initiated on 1 L monotherapy with the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies nivolumab or pembrolizumab (N/P; intravenous). METHODS: Patients with melanoma initiated on D + T or N/P from Q1/2014 to Q2/2016 (defined as 1 L treatment for MM) were identified in the Truven MarketScan database. Entropy balancing was used to reweight the N/P cohort in order to make it comparable to the D + T cohort with respect to the mean and variance of baseline covariates. HRU outcomes during 1 L therapy, reported per patient-year (PPY), were described and compared between the two cohorts post-weighting (i.e. independently of baseline covariates). RESULTS: Of the 445 patients included, 202 and 243 were initiated on D + T and N/P, respectively. After weighting, patients initiated on N/P had more outpatient visits for drug administration during 1 L therapy than those initiated on D + T (difference = 18.6 visits PPY [95% CI = 16.0-21.1]). Patients initiated on N/P also had more outpatient office visits for reasons other than drug administration (difference = 8.1 visits PPY [95% CI = 1.9-13.7]). No significant differences were observed for other HRU parameters (i.e. inpatient admissions, inpatient days, and emergency department visits during 1 L therapy). CONCLUSIONS: HRU during 1 L therapy was generally similar between patients initiated on D + T and N/P. Nonetheless, patients initiated on N/P had more outpatient visits, including more outpatient visits for reasons unrelated to drug administration.

Real-World Economic Outcomes During Time on Treatment Among Patients Who Initiated Sunitinib or Pazopanib as First Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis of Medicare Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: The median age at renal cell carcinoma (RCC) diagnosis is 64 years. However, few studies have assessed the real-world time on treatment (TOT), health resource utilization (HRU), costs, or treatment compliance associated with targeted therapy use among patients in this age group with RCC. OBJECTIVE: To assess the HRU, costs, and compliance during TOT among Medicare patients aged ≥ 65 years with advanced RCC (aRCC) who initiated first targeted therapy with pazopanib or sunitinib. METHODS: Patients with aRCC were identified in the 100% Medicare + Part D databases administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Eligible patients initiated first targeted therapy with sunitinib or pazopanib (index drug) on or after their first diagnosis of secondary neoplasm between October 19, 2009, and January 1, 2014, and were aged ≥ 65 years as of 1 year before first targeted therapy initiation (index date). Included patients were stratified into pazopanib and sunitinib cohorts based on first targeted therapy and matched 1:1 on baseline characteristics using propensity scores. TOT was defined as the time from the index date to treatment discontinuation (prescription gap > 90 days) or death. Compliance was defined as the ratio of drug supply days to TOT. Monthly all-cause costs and costs associated with RCC diagnosis (medical and pharmacy in 2015 U.S. dollars) and HRU (inpatient [admissions, readmissions, and days], outpatient, and emergency room visits) were assessed in the 1-year post-index period during TOT. Matched cohorts' TOT was compared using Kaplan-Meier analyses and univariable Cox models, and compliance, HRU, and costs were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Of 1,711 included patients, 526 initiated pazopanib and 1,185 initiated sunitinib. Before matching, more patients in the pazopanib cohort were white, diagnosed in 2010-2014 versus 2006-2009, and had lung metastases compared with the sunitinib cohort (all P < 0.05). The pazopanib cohort also had higher mean outpatient visits and costs but lower mean total all-cause pharmacy costs, than the sunitinib cohort (all P < 0.05). After matching, the pazopanib and sunitinib cohorts had similar characteristics (mean age 75 years, 58% male, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 9.2 in both cohorts) and median TOT (4.8 and 4.1 months, respectively). Among the 522 matched pairs, pazopanib was associated with significantly lower total all-cause health care costs ($8,527 vs. $10,924, respectively [mean difference = $2,397]); total medical costs ($3,991 vs. $5,881, respectively, [$1,890]); and inpatient costs ($2,040 vs. $3,731, respectively, [$1,692]; all P < 0.01) compared with sunitinib. Patients receiving pazopanib had significantly fewer inpatient admissions (0.179 vs. 0.289, respectively) and days (1.063 vs. 1.904, respectively; both P < 0.01) than patients receiving sunitinib. Mean treatment compliance was lower for the pazopanib versus sunitinib cohort (0.91 vs. 0.94, respectively; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients with aRCC from a TOT perspective, first targeted therapy with pazopanib was associated with significantly lower all-cause health care costs and HRU, but lower compliance, compared with sunitinib. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The sponsor was involved in all stages of the study's conduct and reporting. Vogelzang has been a consultant for Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Medivation, Eisai, Exelixis, and Roche; has spoken at Novartis, Astellas, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Dendreon, Bayer/Algeta, GSK, and Veridex/Janssen; and has received research support from Novartis, Bayer, Exelixis, Progenics, Bavarian Nordic, and Viamet. Pal has been a consultant for Novartis, Pfizer, Aveo, Dendreon, and Myriad and has spoken at Novartis, Pfizer and Medivation. Agarwal has been a consultant or advisor for Novartis, Pfizer, Exelixis, Cerulean Pharma, Medivation, Eisai, and Argos Therapeutics. Swallow, Peeples, Zichlin, and Meiselbach are employees of Analysis Group, which received consultancy fees from Novartis for this project. Li was an employee of Analysis Group during the conduct of this study. Ghate is an employee of Novartis and owns stock/stock options. Perez was an employee of Novartis during the conduct of this study. A synopsis of the economic outcomes was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017 in Denver, Colorado, during March 27-30, 2017. A synopsis of the clinical outcomes was presented at the 22nd ISPOR Annual International Meeting in Boston, Massachusetts, during May 20-24, 2017.

Economic Burden of Adverse Events Associated with Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Metastatic Melanoma in the Elderly.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapies and targeted therapies have drastically improved survival in metastatic melanoma, but they can cause a range of adverse events (AEs). Understanding the costs of these events would facilitate an accurate comparison of melanoma treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs and frequency of AEs associated with immunotherapy and with targeted therapy in elderly patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Medicare claims data from 2011 to 2014. Patients included had to have ≥1 diagnoses of metastatic melanoma and ≥1 claims for an immunotherapy or targeted therapy. We compared the 30-day expenditures of patients with and without each AE using a generalized linear model to determine the incremental cost per AE in patients who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy. The baseline demographic and clinical differences were adjusted for using propensity score with inverse probability of treatment. We also compared the mean costs of AEs associated with immunotherapy and targeted therapy. RESULTS: A total of 844 patients were included in the study (mean age, 75 years; standard deviation, 14 years). The mean baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 8.4, and 65% of the patients were male. The mean cost for AEs was highest for respiratory events (ie, $24,150). Gastrointestinal, respiratory, and hematologic AEs were more common in patients who received immunotherapy, whereas general and administration-site AEs and other AEs (eg, fatigue, infections, muscular weakness) were more frequent in patients who received targeted therapy. AE-related costs with immunotherapy were highest for gastrointestinal, respiratory, and pain-related AEs; AEs with targeted therapy were highest for cardiovascular and general and administration-site events. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that incremental costs associated with treatment-related AEs among elderly patients with metastatic melanoma were substantial, but the risks for and costs of the various types of AEs differed by therapy. Understanding the risks for and costs of AEs associated with the various therapeutic options can inform treatment decision-making in elderly patients with metastatic melanoma.

A retrospective cohort study of treatment patterns among patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma in the US.

BACKGROUND: Since treatment patterns in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (mSTS) have not been studied subsequent to US approval of pazopanib in 2012, this study sought to examine mSTS treatment patterns by line of therapy, including regimen and duration of therapy. METHODS: This retrospective study employed administrative claims from a large US health plan from 1/2006-9/2015. Adult mSTS patients were required to have an NCCN-recommended therapy and be continuously enrolled in the health plan during the study period. The most frequent regimens for distinct lines of therapy (LOT) were assessed. Sensitivity analyses evaluated changes to study findings using two alternate medical and pharmacy claims diagnostic algorithms to define the STS study population. RESULTS: Among 555 patients with mSTS, mean age was 59 years and 54% were male. During the study period, 41% of patients initiated ≥ 2 LOTs; 16% had ≥ 3 LOTs and 5% had ≥ 4 LOTs. Docetaxel + gemcitabine was most common in LOT1, pazopanib in LOT2 and LOT3, and doxorubicin in LOT4. The five most common LOT1 regimens represented 53% of patients; among the remaining 47%, the most common regimen represented < 6% of patients. Among patients with pazopanib in LOT2 and LOT3, the most common prior regimen was docetaxel + gemcitabine (47% and 30% respectively). Kaplan-Meier estimation of median treatment duration overall for LOT1 was 3.5 months, while for LOT2 and LOT3, median treatment duration was 2.9 and 3.3 months, respectively. For both sensitivity analyses, patient demographic and clinical characteristics were similar to the original study population, and the five most frequently used regimens in LOT1 and LOT2 were similar among the three populations regardless of the population selection criteria employed. CONCLUSION: Choice of regimen by LOT among patients with mSTS is varied; < 65% of patients in any LOT received the five most common regimens. Pazopanib, the only approved targeted therapy, is primarily used in second and later lines of therapy and is mostly given post docetaxel + gemcitabine.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Elderly Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Starting Pazopanib or Sunitinib Treatment: A Retrospective Medicare Claims Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Studies indicate similar survival and toxicity between pazopanib and sunitinib, but few have examined real-world outcomes among elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The purpose of this retrospective claims analysis was to assess real-world overall survival (OS), healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and healthcare costs (both all-cause and associated with RCC diagnosis) among elderly advanced RCC patients starting pazopanib or sunitinib treatment. METHODS: Advanced RCC patients aged 65 years or older who started first-line treatment with pazopanib or sunitinib (index drug; the initiation date was the index date) were identified from the 100% Medicare database plus Part D linkage (January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2014). Patients were stratified by index drug and matched 1:1 with use of propensity scores based on baseline characteristics. OS was assessed from the index date to death and compared by Kaplan-Meier analyses and univariable Cox models; patients were censored at the end of eligibility/data. Monthly HRU and costs from an intent-to-treat perspective were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced after matching (both N = 522). Treatment with pazopanib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared with treatment with sunitinib (18.2 months vs 14.6 months, respectively; log-rank p = 0.015). Pazopanib was associated with significantly lower monthly all-cause costs compared with sunitinib ($8845 vs $10,416, respectively), as well as lower inpatient costs associated with RCC diagnosis ($1542 vs $2522), fewer monthly inpatient admissions (0.179 vs 0.262), and shorter length of inpatient stay (1.375 days vs 1.883 days; all p ≤ 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly Medicare patients with advanced RCC, first-line pazopanib tretament was associated with significantly longer OS, as well as lower healthcare costs and HRU, compared with first-line sunitinib treatment.

Results of a Qualitative Study to Develop a Patient Reported Outcome Measure for Patients with 4 Subtypes of Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to develop a disease-specific symptom inventory for soft tissue sarcoma. METHODS: Literature review and clinical expert and patient interviews were conducted to determine disease-specific symptoms important to patients with one of the four STS subtypes. Clinical experts identified the most relevant STS symptom items from the item pool developed from literature review. Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with patients to elicit their STS symptom experiences followed by a completion of the draft symptom list via web survey. A cognitive interview was conducted on the comprehension and importance of the symptom items. RESULTS: Eighty-three symptom items were compiled and discussed with three clinical experts who identified 26 symptoms specific to the four STS subtypes. A total sample of 27 STS participants with self-reported leiomyosarcoma (74%), undifferentiated sarcoma (15%), synovial sarcoma (7%), or liposarcoma (4%) diagnosis completed the web survey and 10 were interviewed. The draft 12-item STS-specific symptom inventory includes abdominal pain, pressure in abdomen, early satiety, bloating, gastrointestinal pain, muscle pain, bone pain, heavy menstrual flow, shortness of breath, chest pain, cough, and painful menstruation. CONCLUSION: A number of symptoms are common across STS subtypes and may form a single STS symptom inventory.

Healthcare utilization and costs for patients initiating Dabigatran or Warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) such as dabigatran, when compared to warfarin, have been shown to potentially reduce the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) together with lower healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and similar total costs. This study expands on previous work by comparing HCRU and costs for patients newly diagnosed with NVAF and newly initiated on dabigatran or warfarin, and is the first study specifically in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using data from administrative health care claims during the study period 01/01/2010-12/31/2012. Cox regression analyses were used to compare all-cause risk of first hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. Medical, pharmacy, and total costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were compared between dabigatran and warfarin users. RESULTS: A total of 1110 patients initiated on dabigatran were propensity score-matched with corresponding patients initiated on warfarin. The mean number of hospitalizations (0.92 vs. 1.13, P = 0.012), ER visits (1.32 vs. 1.56, P < 0.01), office visits (21.43 vs. 29.41; P < 0.01), and outpatient visits (10.86 vs. 22.02; P < 0.01) were lower among dabigatran compared to warfarin users. Patients initiated on dabigatran had significantly lower risk of first all-cause ER visits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.98] compared to those initiated on warfarin. Adjusted mean pharmacy costs PPPM were significantly greater for dabigatran users ($510 vs. $250, P < 0.001); however, mean medical costs PPPM ($1912 vs. $1956, P = 0.55) and mean total costs PPPM ($2381 vs. $2183, P = 0.10) were not significantly different compared to warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran users had significantly lower HCRU compared to warfarin users. In addition, dabigatran users had lower risk of all-cause ER visits. Despite higher pharmacy costs, the two cohorts did not differ significantly in medical or total all-cause costs.

Patterns of care among patients receiving sequential targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective chart review in the USA.

OBJECTIVES: To assess real-world treatment patterns of targeted therapies after failure of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: A large, retrospective review of medical charts of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the USA was carried out. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize physicians' and patients' characteristics, treatment sequences, and reasons for treatment choices. P-values were calculated using χ2 -tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables. A descriptive comparison was carried out between current results and those of a previous treatment pattern study conducted in 2012 to identify changes in treatment patterns over time. RESULTS: Sunitinib and everolimus remained the most commonly-used first and second targeted therapies, respectively. Among patients who continued to a third targeted therapy, everolimus and axitinib were the most commonly-used treatments after second targeted therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, respectively. The use of pazopanib as first targeted therapy, and of axitinib and sorafenib as second targeted therapies, increased over time. Efficacy, treatment guidelines and a different mechanism of action were the main reasons given by physicians for choosing among second targeted therapies after failure of a first tyrosine kinase inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study document patterns of care during a period of rapid and ongoing therapeutic advancement in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Sequencing of therapies warrants ongoing analysis in light of new agents entering the advanced renal cell carcinoma treatment landscape.

Real-World Survival Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Among Patients Receiving First Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The real-world survival outcomes and prognostic factors among patients receiving first-line targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) are not well known. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with RCC and treated with first-line targeted therapy were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database (January 1, 1993 to December 31, 2012). The patients were grouped into early (2006-2009) or late (2010-2012) targeted therapy era cohorts by the year of the first-line targeted therapy initiation. Overall survival (OS) was measured from first-line targeted therapy initiation and compared between the 2 cohorts using Kaplan-Meier analyses. The prognostic factors for OS were assessed using a multivariable-adjusted Cox model. RESULTS: A total of 604 and 641 aRCC patients (mean age, 68 years; ∼60% male in both cohorts) initiated first-line targeted therapy during the early and late targeted therapy eras, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the late than in the early targeted therapy era. Higher tumor grades (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-2.00) and lung (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53), bone (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.66), and liver (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84) metastases were associated with significantly shorter OS. Previous nephrectomy (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.72) and pazopanib as first-line targeted therapy relative to sorafenib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.85) or sunitinib (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.95) were associated with significantly longer OS. CONCLUSION: The results of these real-world analyses suggest progress in aRCC management and identified positive (nephrectomy, pazopanib vs. sunitinib or sorafenib) and negative (higher tumor grade and lung, bone, or liver metastasis) prognostic factors among patients receiving first-line targeted therapy.