Impact of Adjuvant Atezolizumab on Recurrences Avoided and Treatment Cost Savings for Patients with Stage II-IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Canada.

This epidemiological model forecasted reductions in recurrences and recurrence treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care among Canadians with stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at national and provincial levels. The population had resected, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high (≥50%), EGFR-, ALK-, stage II-IIIA NSCLC eligible for adjuvant treatment. Patients with recurrence or death and the costs of treating recurrences were estimated for those receiving adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care each year (2024-2034). Proportions of patients expected to be event free up to 10 years after treatment initiation were extrapolated with parametric survival analyses. In the base case analysis, 240 fewer recurrences were estimated to occur over 10 years (2024-2034) with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care across Canada, with 136 (57%) and 104 (43%) fewer locoregional and metastatic recurrences, respectively. Projected costs of treated recurrences were CAD 33.2 million less over 10 years with adjuvant atezolizumab at a national level (adjuvant atezolizumab, CAD 135.8 million; best supportive care, CAD 169.0 million). This model predicts a considerable long-term reduction in recurrences and substantial treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care for patients with PD-L1-high early-stage NSCLC in Canada.

Real-World Treatment Patterns, Clinical Outcomes, and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

The prognosis of early non-small-cell lung cancer (eNSCLC) remains poor. An understanding of current therapies and outcomes can provide insights into how novel therapies can be integrated into clinics. We conducted a large, retrospective, population-based cohort study of patients with de novo eNSCLC (stages IB, IIA, IIB, and IIIA) diagnosed in Alberta, Canada, between 2010 and 2019. The primary objectives were to describe treatment patterns and survival outcomes among patients with eNSCLC. A total of 5126 patients with eNSCLC were included. A total of 45.3% of patients were referred to a medical oncologist, ranging from 23.7% in stage IB to 58.3% in IIIA. A total of 23.6% of patients initiated systemic therapy (ST), ranging from 3.5% in stage IB to 38.5% in IIIA. For stage IIB and IIIA individuals who received surgery, adjuvant ST was associated with a decreased likelihood of death (hazard ratios (HR) of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.56-1.07) and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54-0.89), respectively). In a Canadian real-world setting, stage IIB and IIIA patients who received adjuvant ST tended to have better survival than patients who did not, but future studies that provide adjustment of additional confounders are warranted. Examining referral pathways that account for disparities based on age, sex, and comorbidities in the real world would also provide further insights.

A scorecard for osteoporosis in four Latin American countries: Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina.

The state of osteoporosis care in Latin America is not well known. The results of our scorecard indicate an urgent need to improve policy frameworks, service provision, and service uptake for osteoporosis in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina. The scorecard serves as an important marker to measure future progress. PURPOSE: We developed a scorecard to summarize key indicators of the burden of osteoporosis and its management in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina. The goal of the scorecard is to reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures by promoting healthcare policies that will improve patient access to timely diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of osteoporosis. We also interviewed several key opinion leaders to gather information on government policy, access to fracture risk assessments, and access to medications. We then leveraged a peer-reviewed template, initially applied to 27 European countries, to synthesize the information into a scorecard for Latin America. We presented information according to four main categories: burden of disease, policy framework, service provision, and service uptake and used a traffic light color coding system to indicate high, intermediate, and low risk. RESULTS: The systematic review included 108 references, of which 49 were specific to Brazil. The number of osteoporotic fractures in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina was forecasted to increase substantially (34% to 76% in each country) from 2015 to 2030. In general, policy frameworks, service provision, and service uptake were not structured to support current patients with osteoporosis and did not account for the future increases in fracture burden. Across all four countries, there was inadequate access to programs for secondary fracture prevention and only a small minority of patients received treatment for osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis management, including the rate of post-fracture care, is very poor in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina and needs to be strengthened. Improvements in the rates of care are necessary to curb the debilitating impact of osteoporotic fractures on patients and health systems.