Biosimilar Use Among 38 ASCO PracticeNET Practices, 2019-2021.

PURPOSE: Biosimilars offer increased patient choice and potential cost-savings, compared with originator biologics. We studied 3 years of prescribed biologics among US physician practices to determine the relationship of practice type and payment source to oncology biosimilar use. METHODS: We acquired biologic utilization data from 38 practices participating in PracticeNET. We focused on six biologics (bevacizumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab) for the period from 2019 to 2021. We complemented our quantitative analysis with a survey of PracticeNET participants (prescribers and practice leaders) to reveal potential motivators and barriers to biosimilar use. We implemented logistic regression to evaluate the biosimilar use for each biologic, with covariates including time, practice type, and payment source, and accounted for clusters of practices. RESULTS: Use of biosimilars increased over the 3-year period, reaching between 51% and 80% of administered doses by the fourth quarter of 2021, depending on the biologic. Biosimilar use varied by practice, with independent physician practices having higher use of biosimilars for epoetin alfa, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Compared with commercial health plans, Medicaid plans had lower biosimilar use for four biologics; traditional Medicare had lower use for five biologics. The average cost per dose decreased between 24% and 41%, dependent on the biologic. CONCLUSION: Biosimilars have, through increased use, lowered the average cost per dose of the studied biologics. Biosimilar use differed by originator biologic, practice type, and payment source. There remains further opportunity for increases in biosimilar use among certain practices and payers.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Are We on the Same Page? Patient and Provider Perceptions About Exercise in Cancer Care: A Focus Group Study.

Background: Physical activity (PA) during and after cancer treatment can help with symptom management and reduce the risk of cancer recurrence. However, it is unclear what constitutes an optimal exercise program. In addition, provider and patient barriers exist to the recommendation and adoption of exercise as part of a cancer treatment plan. The goal of this study was to determine how providers and patients feel about exercise during cancer treatment and explore what the barriers to implementing such a program might be. Patients and Methods: Focus groups and interviews were held with patients with malignancy, both metastatic and nonmetastatic, and oncology providers. In total, 20 patients participated in either a focus group or an individual interview and 9 providers contributed to the focus group. An equal number of patients (n=10) were interviewed as attended a focus group. Audiotaped sessions were transcribed verbatim. Theme identification was independently coded by 4 coders and synthesized as a group. Results: Neither patient group recalled PA instruction from oncology providers during their cancer treatment. Most participants (95%) felt exercise is important during cancer treatment, citing overall well-being benefits versus improved disease outcome. Most patients (80%) preferred a home-based exercise program provided by the oncologist. Fatigue was the most cited barrier to regular exercise during treatment (50%). All providers acknowledged benefits of PA to patients, but not universally for all. More than half of providers (55%) preferred a referral system for exercise programs. Clinic visit time constraints and a perceived lack of expertise in the area of PA were common barriers to making exercise recommendations a routine part of the treatment plan. Conclusions: Patients with cancer and oncologists recognize the benefits of PA during treatment. Disagreement exists between to whom, how, and where exercise plans should be disseminated and implemented.

Vorinostat and bortezomib as third-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a Wisconsin Oncology Network Phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of this phase II trial was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of vorinostat and bortezomib as third-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included recurrent/metastatic NSCLC, having received 2 prior systemic regimens, and performance status 0-2. Patients took vorinostat 400 mg PO daily days 1-14 and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV day 1, 4, 8 and 11 in a 21-day cycle. Primary endpoint was 3-month progression free survival (3m-PFS), with a goal of at least 40 % of patients being free of progression at that time point. This study followed a two-stage minimax design. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled in the first stage. All patients had two prior lines of treatment. Patients received a median of two treatment cycles (range: 1-6) on study. There were no anti-tumor responses; stable disease was observed in 5 patients (27.8 %). Median PFS was 1.5 months, 3m-PFS rate 11.1 %, and median overall survival 4.7 months. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia and fatigue. Two patients who had baseline taxane-related grade 1 peripheral neuropathy developed grade 3 neuropathy. The study was closed at its first interim analysis for lack of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Bortezomib and vorinostat displayed minimal anti-tumor activity as third-line therapy in NSCLC. We do not recommend this regimen for further investigation in unselected patients.

Nuclear EGFR protein expression predicts poor survival in early stage non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Nuclear EGFR (nEGFR) has been identified in various human tumor tissues, including cancers of the breast, ovary, oropharynx, and esophagus, and has predicted poor patient outcomes. We sought to determine if protein expression of nEGFR is prognostic in early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Resected stages I and II NSCLC specimens were evaluated for nEGFR protein expression using immunohistochemistry (IHC). Cases with at least one replicate core containing ≥5% of tumor cells demonstrating strong dot-like nucleolar EGFR expression were scored as nEGFR positive. RESULTS: Twenty-three (26.1% of the population) of 88 resected specimens stained positively for nEGFR. Nuclear EGFR protein expression was associated with higher disease stage (45.5% of stage II vs. 14.5% of stage I; p = 0.023), histology (41.7% in squamous cell carcinoma vs. 17.1% in adenocarcinoma; p = 0.028), shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS 8.7 months [95% CI 5.1-10.7 mo] for nEGFR positive vs. 14.5 months [95% CI 9.5-17.4 mo] for nEGFR negative; hazard ratio (HR) of 1.89 [95% CI 1.15-3.10]; p = 0.011), and shorter overall survival (OS) (median OS 14.1 months [95% CI 10.3-22.7 mo] for nEGFR positive vs. 23.4 months [95% CI 20.1-29.4 mo] for nEGFR negative; HR of 1.83 [95% CI 1.12-2.99]; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Expression of nEGFR protein was associated with higher stage and squamous cell histology, and predicted shorter PFS and OS, in this patient cohort. Nuclear EGFR serves as a useful independent prognostic variable and as a potential therapeutic target in NSCLC.

Phase I/II study of vinorelbine and exisulind as first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in patients at least 70 years old: a wisconsin oncology network study.

INTRODUCTION: Exisulind is an apoptotic agent with preclinical activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Vinorelbine is safe and effective in older patients with advanced NSCLC. We assessed these agents together as palliative treatment for older patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients >/=70-years-old with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC and a performance status (PS) /=3 neutropenia occurred in 14/30 patients. Two patients experienced neutropenic fever. There were no complete responses, one partial response and 12 patients with stable disease as their best response. The objective response rate was 4.0% (95% CI: 0.1-20.4%). Phase II median time-to-progression was 4.7 months (95% CI: 3.1-9.3 months) and median OS was 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.6-19.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: This combination is safe, seems to have activity in the elderly with advanced NSCLC and a PS

Phase I/II study of gemcitabine and exisulind as second-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of exisulind, a selective apoptotic antineoplastic drug, in combination with gemcitabine as second-line therapy in patients with progressing advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients whose disease progressed more than 3 months from completion of first-line chemotherapy were eligible for this phase I/II trial. Primary end points were maximally tolerated dose and time to progression. Patients in the phase I portion of the study were treated with gemcitabine (1250 mg/m) in combination with three escalated dose levels of exisulind. Treatment involved six cycles of gemcitabine and exisulind followed by exisulind maintenance. The study was subsequently expanded to phase II. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (15 in phase I and 24 in phase II) were treated. The regimen was well tolerated with grade 3 fatigue and grade 3 constipation being dose-limiting toxicities. The maximally tolerated dose was not reached. Dose level 3 of exisulind (250 mg twice daily) in combination with gemcitabine was used for phase II. The overall response rates were 7% (phase I), 17% (phase II), and 13% (all). Median time to progression and median and 1-year survival, respectively, were 3.7 and 9.7 months and 33% (phase I); 4.3 and 9.4 months and 41% (phase II); and 4.1 and 9.4 months and 39% (all). CONCLUSION: Although the study met its primary end point of improving time to progression (more than 4.1 months in phase II), we did not observe a clear survival advantage and thus do not plan to further investigate this schedule of gemcitabine and exisulind.