Impact of Therapy Management on Axitinib-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-Line Axitinib + Checkpoint Inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited real-world data on the effectiveness of strategies used to manage adverse events (AEs) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with axitinib. This retrospective chart review examined the AE profile and effect of axitinib modifications on AE resolution/improvement and treatment discontinuation. METHODS: A retrospective physician-administered chart review was conducted. Adult patients with advanced RCC treated with first-line axitinib plus checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy (ie, avelumab or pembrolizumab) and who had documented frequently reported axitinib-related AEs of fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, hypertension, or palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia were included. Physician characteristics, patient characteristics, AE characteristics, AE management strategies used, AE resolution/improvement, and treatment duration were described. The effect of strategies used to manage AEs (axitinib dose reduction or treatment interruption) on AE resolution/improvement was evaluated by logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 219 patients (median age: 62 years, 65% male), 70 (32%) were treated with axitinib + avelumab and 149 (68%) received axitinib + pembrolizumab. Axitinib modifications increased the likelihood of AE resolution/improvement compared with no modifications (adjusted odds ratio: 6.34, P < .001). In the subset of patients who discontinued treatment among those with or without axitinib modifications, mean treatment duration was 7.0 and 1.7 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Toxicities experienced by patients with advanced RCC treated with first-line axitinib-CPI in the real world can be effectively managed by axitinib modifications, thereby prolonging treatment duration. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04682587).

Real-World Therapy Management and Outcomes of First-Line Axitinib Plus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States.

Background: Combination axitinib plus pembrolizumab is a standard of care in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This analysis describes the clinical characteristics, treatment management and outcomes of patients receiving first-line (1L) axitinib plus pembrolizumab in a real-world US setting. Methods: Electronic health record (EHR)-derived data from the Flatiron Health Database, which includes ~280 cancer clinics across 800 sites in the US, were used. Patients had confirmed Stage IV or metastatic RCC and initiated 1L axitinib plus pembrolizumab on or after 1/1/2018 to 3/31/2021. Outcomes were best overall response rate; real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) at landmark time periods (3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Therapy management (TM) included dose hold, dose change and discontinuation. Data are reported as medians (IQR) unless otherwise noted. Results: 355 patients received 1L axitinib plus pembrolizumab, with median follow-up of 9.7 (0.1-24.3) months. IMDC Risk Score was favorable, intermediate, and poor in 27 (7.6%), 126 (35.5%), and 76 (21.4%) patients, respectively (23.4% intermediate/poor, 12.1% unknown). 270 patients (76.1%) received only 1L axitinib plus pembrolizumab and 85 patients (24.3%) received ≥1 subsequent line of treatment; cabozantinib was the most frequent subsequent line of treatment (47.9%). rwPFS at 3 months and 1 year was 77.2% and 39.3%, respectively. OS ranged from 90.8% at 3 months to 73.5% at 1 year. Best overall response rate was 47.9%. Toxicity was the most common reason for first TM events of dose hold, change and discontinuation at, 58.6%, 58.5%, and 45.8%, respectively. Over 80% of patients with TM were able to continue with 1L axitinib plus pembrolizumab. Conclusions: In a real-world setting, axitinib plus pembrolizumab was effective as a 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC. Dose holds, changes and discontinuation were driven by treatment-related toxicity. Dose holds may represent an effective TM strategy to toxicity.

Referral and adjuvant treatment patterns after nephrectomy in high-risk locoregional renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are routinely assessed for recurrence risk post-nephrectomy and whether patients at high recurrence risk are seen by providers who can evaluate candidacy for adjuvant systemic therapy (AST) and clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all patients with locoregional RCC who underwent nephrectomy via an institutional database within Duke University Health System between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2019. Medical records were reviewed to identify patient characteristics, post-nephrectomy referrals, treatment, and follow-up. Patients with tumor stage ≥3 and grade ≥2, regional lymph node metastasis, or both, were classified as high recurrence risk. RESULTS: Of 618 patients with locoregional RCC who underwent nephrectomy, 136 (22%) had high recurrence risk. Of those, 25 patients with high-risk disease (18%) were referred to medical oncology for discussion of AST; 23 (92%) of these referrals took place in 2018-2019. One patient received adjuvant sunitinib and two patients participated in adjuvant immunotherapy trials. The decision not to receive AST was primarily made by the oncologist in 10 (46%), the patient in 8 (36%), and unrecorded in 4 (18%) of 22 cases, for multiple reasons. Individual surgeons referred high-risk patients for discussion of AST with varying frequency, ranging from 0% to 100% in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing number of patients with locoregional RCC at high recurrence risk referred to medical oncologists after nephrectomy, few patients received AST, including participation in clinical trials. With increasing AST options and ongoing clinical trials in this space, these findings highlight the need for continued efforts at identifying effective AST and referring patients most likely to benefit to medical oncologists. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04309617.

Real-world symptoms, disease burden, resource use and quality of life in US patients with advanced renal cell cancer.

Aim: To assess symptoms, healthcare resource utilization and health-related quality of life in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) clinical practice. Materials & methods: The USA point-in-time survey of physicians and patients was conducted between February and September 2019. Results: Data were available for 227 patients. Mean (standard deviation) number of symptoms was 3.4 (3.2); differences were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk categories (p < 0.001), with fewer symptoms in favorable-risk patients. Disease burden, measured by greater healthcare resource utilization and worse health-related quality of life, was high, particularly in International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium intermediate- or poor- versus favorable-risk patients. In total, 45 patients (21.6%) were hospitalized due to aRCC within a 6-month period, 35 (16.8%) had one hospitalization and ten (4.8%) experienced ≥2 hospitalizations due to aRCC. Mean (standard deviation) 19-Item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score was 53.6 (13.2) for this population, significantly lower than the reference value (59.8; p < 0.001). Conclusion: A clear need exists for improved disease management in patients with aRCC.

Lay abstract Late-stage/advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) is kidney cancer that has spread to other body parts. aRCC is expensive to treat and affects patients in many ways. New treatments have become available, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immuno-oncology therapies. The type of treatment recommended depends on the patient's International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk score. This is a way of classifying patients as having a good, intermediate or poor survival risk. We asked physicians questions about their patients such as their age, how long they had aRCC, their treatment and symptoms, and asked patients how aRCC affected their lives, including how often they visited doctors and hospitals. aRCC had the greatest effect on patients with poor-risk scores. Those patients had more symptoms and worse quality of life than patients with intermediate or good risk scores. Treatment also affected patients' lives, although not as much as risk score. Patients with aRCC need better treatment options to help improve their quality of life.

Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Targeted Therapy After Immuno-oncology Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies have changed the treatment standards of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of targeted therapy following discontinuation of IO therapy in real-world settings has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment sequence and assess clinical effectiveness of targeted therapy for mRCC patients who received prior IO therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study using data from eight international cancer centers was conducted. Patients with mRCC were ≥18yr old, received IO therapy in any line, and initiated targeted therapy following IO therapy discontinuation. INTERVENTION: Patients were treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORIs). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Models were adjusted for age, sex, therapy line, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 314 patients, 276 (87.9%) and 38 (12.1%) were treated with VEGFR-TKI and mTORI therapy, respectively. The most common tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments were axitinib, cabozantinib, and sunitinib following IO therapy. In adjusted models, patients treated with VEGFR-TKI versus mTORI therapy had lower hazard of TTD after IO treatment (aHR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.30-0.71; p < 0.01). One-year OS probability (65% vs 47%, p < 0.01) and proportion of ORR (29.8% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01) were significantly greater for patients treated with VEGFR-TKIs versus those treated with mTORIs. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted therapy has clinical activity following IO treatment. Patients who received VEGFR-TKIs versus mTORIs following IO therapy had improved clinical outcomes. These findings may help inform treatment guidelines and clinical practice for patients post-IO therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients may continue to experience clinical benefits from targeted therapies after progression on immuno-oncology treatment.

Improving patient-clinician communication following nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma: Development, content validation and pilot testing of a conversation aid tool.

OBJECTIVES: This study developed, and established the content validity, of a conversation aid tool (CAT) for use in clinical practice with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients who receive a curative nephrectomy and are at high-risk of recurrence. The CAT was pilot tested in a sample of RCC patients to establish whether the CAT increases knowledge of RCC, treatment options (such as adjuvant therapy), and care options. METHODS: A cross-sectional, mixed methods design was used involving initial, exploratory interviews with RCC patients, RCC specialists and a steering group. Further content validation interviews were conducted with RCC patients and specialists. A web-based survey was conducted with RCC patients (N = 60), to compare the CAT versus a standard of care (SOC) consultation comparator tool on patient knowledge. RESULTS: Findings from exploratory interviews were used to develop the CAT. Content validation interviews demonstrated that the CAT was well understood and relevant to RCC patients. The web-based survey demonstrated that viewing the CAT significantly improved participants knowledge of RCC, and care options, when compared to the SOC. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight that the CAT is a relevant, comprehensive and well-understood tool for use in the post-nephrectomy consultation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Use of the CAT may increase patient knowledge of RCC and care options.

Treatment patterns, outcomes and clinical characteristics in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a real-world US study.

Aim: Assessing treatment patterns, outcomes and clinical characteristics in advanced renal cell carcinoma clinical practice. Materials & methods: A US cross-sectional physician survey conducted February-September 2019. Results: Surveyed physicians reported first-line treatment of 445 patients involving tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (51.0%), immuno-oncology (IO/IO combination) therapy (25.8%) or other regimens (23.1%). A total of 60.9% had physician-assessed IMDC risk. Of these 61.9, 50.9 and 27.6% of patients with favorable, intermediate and poor risk, respectively, received tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy. A total of 16.7, 26.9 and 34.5% of patients with favorable, intermediate or poor risk received IO/IO combination therapy. Complete/partial responses (∼35% patients) remained comparable across first-line treatments. Conclusion: Guideline-recommended therapies are not widely prescribed. Many patients experienced poor clinical outcomes highlighting a need for more effective treatments.

Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes Among First-Line Sunitinib Patients with Clear Cell Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium Risk Group.

BACKGROUND: International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups are important when considering therapeutic options for first-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with clear cell mRCC initiating first-line sunitinib between 2010 and 2018 were included in this retrospective database study. Median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Outcomes were stratified by IMDC risk groups and evaluated for those in the combined intermediate and poor risk group and separately for those in the intermediate risk group with one versus two risk factors. RESULTS: Among 1,769 patients treated with first-line sunitinib, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate, and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the three risk groups, patients had similar age, gender, and sunitinib initiation year. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 7.1 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 23.2 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS (35.1 vs. 21.9 months) and TTD (10.3 vs. 6.6 months) were significantly different between intermediate risk patients with one versus two risk factors. CONCLUSION: This real-world study found a median OS of 52 months for patients with favorable IMDC risk treated with first-line sunitinib, setting a new benchmark on clinical outcomes of clear cell mRCC. Analysis of intermediate risk group by one or two risk factors demonstrated distinct clinical outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This analysis offers a contemporary benchmark for overall survival (median, 52.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 43.4-61.2) among patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy in a real-world setting and classified as favorable risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification. This study demonstrates that clinical outcomes differ between IMDC risk groups as well as within the intermediate risk group based on the number of risk factors, thus warranting further consideration of risk group when counseling patients about therapeutic options and designing clinical trials.

Clinical Outcomes of First-line Sunitinib Followed by Immuno-oncology Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The present retrospective, longitudinal cohort study assessed the association between the first-line sunitinib treatment duration and clinical outcomes with second-line immuno-oncology (IO) therapy among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 161 patients with mRCC who had been treated with first-line sunitinib and subsequent IO therapy from select International mRCC Database Consortium centers were included. The overall survival, time to next therapy, time to treatment discontinuation, and real-world physician-assessed best response measured from IO therapy initiation were analyzed and compared between patients treated with first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months and those treated for < 6 months. RESULTS: The 116 patients treated with sunitinib for ≥ 6 months tended to be older and to have a better International mRCC Database Consortium risk than the 45 patients treated for < 6 months (favorable, 36% vs. 8%, P = .001; intermediate, 59% vs. 70%, P = .21; poor, 5% vs. 22%, P = .007). The receipt of sunitinib for ≥ 6 months versus < 6 months was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.87; P = .02). No significant association was observed between the first-line sunitinib duration and second-line IO outcomes, including the time to next therapy (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.51; P = .66), time to treatment discontinuation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34; P = .49), and tumor response (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.22-2.49; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant association between the first-line sunitinib duration and clinical outcomes with second-line IO therapy. Patients receiving first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months compared with < 6 months was associated with better overall survival, although potential unadjusted confounders could have been present. These findings support the paradigm that previous therapy will not dictate the effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy.

Safety and effectiveness of classical and alternative sunitinib dosing schedules for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

The optimal dosing schedule to maintain the effectiveness of sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma - while reducing toxicity - remains an important clinical question. A meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies assessed the relative treatment effects of 4/2, 2/1 and transitional-2/1 schedules on outcomes and adverse events using Bayesian network meta-analysis methods. Treatment with 2/1 reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 25% and had lower odds of hand-and-foot syndrome compared with the 4/2. A numerical but not 'statistical' benefit in progression-free survival was observed with the transitional-2/1 compared with 4/2. Alternative schedules with the 2/1 and transitional-2/1 may be more clinically beneficial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma than the 4/2 schedule.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with stage IV squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

AIM: To understand the treatment patterns and outcomes for stage IV squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, patients receiving second-line or later drug therapy. MATERIALS & METHODS: Real-world data were collected from 1152 patients in the USA, France, Germany and the UK through a retrospective chart analysis and patient-reported outcomes were collected using validated questionnaires in a subgroup of patients. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of patients had stage IVA/B disease. A total of 77, 19 and 3% of patients had received two, three and four plus lines of active drug treatment. Platinum- and cetuximab-based regimens were common at early treatment lines. Time to progression was short (5.2 months post first line), survival rates low and patient-reported health status poor. CONCLUSION: Novel therapies that could improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes would address a significant unmet need.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic ER+/HER-2- Breast Cancer: A Multicountry Retrospective Medical Record Review.

PURPOSE: To describe treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among postmenopausal women with metastatic ER+/HER-2- breast cancer treated with ≥ 2 lines of endocrine therapy or chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective medical record review was conducted in Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, and France. Baseline characteristics were assessed at the date of metastatic diagnosis. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses. Multivariable models were used to evaluate factors associated with disease progression. RESULTS: Among 901 patients, the mean (standard deviation) age at metastatic diagnosis was 62.7 (9.7) years; 67.26% were initially diagnosed with metastatic disease, 66.37% had visceral disease, and 25.86% had bone metastasis only. Two-thirds of patients received endocrine therapy for first-line treatment. Fifty-nine percent received endocrine therapy, and 37.18% received chemotherapy for second-line treatment. The most common reason for stopping treatment was disease progression. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TTP on first-line endocrine treatment was 11.3 (10.7-12.2) months and 7.0 (6.3-7.9) months on chemotherapy. Median (95% CI) TTP on second-line endocrine therapy was 8.1 (7.5-9.1) months and 6.1 (5.4-6.8) months on chemotherapy. Median (95% CI) OS was 68.6 (52.2-83.7) months after first-line endocrine therapy and 39.7 (34.5-48.7) months after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Patients prescribed endocrine therapy had longer TTP and OS than patients prescribed chemotherapy in the first- and second-line settings. Disease progression was less than a year regardless of treatment type and line of therapy, indicating a need for treatments that delay progression without affecting quality of life among these patients.

Treatment patterns and real world clinical outcomes in ER+/HER2- post-menopausal metastatic breast cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: With several new therapies becoming available, treatment of metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is evolving. The objective of this study is to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and real-world clinical outcomes in post-menopausal women with ER+, HER2- mBC and to obtain insight into patient outcomes and potential unmet needs with current therapies. METHODS: The current study is a physician survey followed by a retrospective chart review of patient medical records by physicians in the US between March and April 2015. One hundred three physicians were asked to complete an online survey aiming to understand their satisfaction and expectations with current available treatments and potential areas of unmet need for mBC patients. Medical records from 178 females were extracted for the chart review. Using these data from medical records, patient characteristics and treatment patterns were analyzed descriptively. Time to progression (TTP) on first line, and progression-free survival (PFS) on second and third line of therapy were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent (n = 119) of patients had metastatic disease at initial diagnosis of breast cancer. Mean age at chart data extraction was 65.8 (SD: 9.4) years. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) were prescribed for 58% and around 13% of patients in first line and second line, respectively. Chemotherapy was prescribed to 14% in first line and 31% in second line. Median TTP on first line therapy was 12 months for patients receiving AIs as compared to 7.9 months for patients receiving chemotherapy. Across all treatment lines, bone pain and fatigue were reported as the main symptoms associated with disease progression which had an impact on patient quality of life. Physicians expressed that prolonging life was deemed the most important treatment goal, followed by preservation or improvement of quality of life. CONCLUSION: In this study the majority of patients received endocrine therapy as first line treatment and current therapies still resulted in a short time to progression in first line. Results from the chart review and the physician survey highlight a quantitative unmet need for more effective treatments which delay disease progression and improve survival outcomes while maintaining quality of life.

A Retrospective Study of the Clinical Burden of Hospitalized All-Cause and Pneumococcal Pneumonia in Canada.

Background. Routine vaccination against Streptococcus pneumoniae is recommended in Canada for infants, the elderly, and individuals with chronic comorbidity. National incidence and burden of all-cause and pneumococcal pneumonia in Canada (excluding Quebec) were assessed. Methods. Incidence, length of stay, and case-fatality rates of hospitalized all-cause and pneumococcal pneumonia were determined for 2004-2010 using ICD-10 discharge data from the Canadian Institutes for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database. Population-at-risk data were obtained from the Statistics Canada census. Temporal changes in pneumococcal and all-cause pneumonia rates in adults ≥65 years were analyzed by logistic regression. Results. Hospitalization for all-cause pneumonia was highest in children <5 years and in adults >70 years and declined significantly from 1766/100,000 to 1537/100,000 per year in individuals aged ≥65 years (P < 0.001). Overall hospitalization for pneumococcal pneumonia also declined from 6.40/100,000 to 5.08/100,000 per year. Case-fatality rates were stable (11.6% to 12.3%). Elderly individuals had longer length of stay and higher case-fatality rates than younger groups. Conclusions. All-cause and pneumococcal pneumonia hospitalization rates declined between 2004 and 2010 in Canada (excluding Quebec). Direct and indirect effects from pediatric pneumococcal immunization may partly explain some of this decline. Nevertheless, the burden of disease from pneumonia remains high.

Clinical and economic outcomes by first-line treatment among women with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in a large US health plan database.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that women with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) initiate hormonal therapy before chemotherapy. This study compared outcomes of women with mBC who received chemotherapy first vs hormonal therapy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of women with mBC was conducted using a large US commercial health plan database between January 1, 2008-April 30, 2013. Subjects had evidence of a HR+/HER2- tumor sub-type in a cancer registry and use of chemotherapy or hormonal therapy in claims. Subjects were continuously enrolled for ≥6 months after metastasis and assigned to cohorts for receiving chemotherapy only or hormonal therapy only during first-line (CT-1L vs HT-1L). Adjusted incidence rates of clinically significant events were compared using a negative binomial model, and adjusted healthcare costs were compared using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-four women with HR+/HER2- mBC met the selection criteria; 179 (55%) received CT-1L and 145 (45%) received HT-1L. Mortality rates did not differ between cohorts (unadjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.67, 95% CI = 0.82-3.46; adjusted IRR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.32-1.27). Adjusted average total all-cause healthcare costs were $11 090 for women with CT-1L and $6743 for women with HT-1L (cost ratio =1.64, 95% CI =1.36-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: Observed use of first-line chemotherapy (>50%) was higher than expected given the HR + molecular profile of the tumors. Chemotherapy use during first-line did not appear to be associated with a survival benefit, but was associated with significantly higher costs compared with the use of hormonal therapy during first-line; however, this comparison is limited by demographic and baseline characteristic differences between the two cohorts. This study contributes to understanding real-world treatment patterns and the associated clinical and economic outcomes of using chemotherapy vs hormonal therapy as a first-line treatment option for the HR+/HER2- mBC population.

Second-line therapy for non-small cell lung cancer in clinical practice: final results and treatment pathways from the SELECTTION observational study.

OBJECTIVES: SELECTTION was a multinational, prospective observational study to assess the choice of and the time from initiation of second-line treatment to treatment discontinuation for any reason in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Treatment cohorts were constructed based on prescribed second-line treatments that were at the discretion of the treating physicians, for 1013 patients enrolled in 11 countries. Propensity score analysis was conducted to assess whether the cohorts were comparable. Time from initiation of second-line treatment to treatment discontinuation was the primary endpoint. Reasons for treatment discontinuation, overall survival, progression-free survival and choice of second-line treatment were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The treatment cohorts were pemetrexed (46.2%), docetaxel (22.9%), erlotinib (20.4%) and other treatments (10.5%). Analyses of baseline data and propensity scores showed that the erlotinib cohort comprised substantially different patients compared with the pemetrexed and docetaxel cohorts: patients in the erlotinib cohort were more likely to be women, never-smokers, have adenocarcinoma and worse performance status. Therefore, comparisons of outcomes between cohorts were not appropriate. Although disease progression was the most common reason for treatment discontinuation in all cohorts, erlotinib patients tended to continue treatment after disease progression, whereas in the docetaxel and pemetrexed cohorts, discontinuation occurred soon after disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world clinical practice the profiles of patients assigned to erlotinib were distinctly different from those assigned to pemetrexed or docetaxel. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was progressive disease, reflecting adherence to clinical recommendations. It is difficult to extrapolate these findings to the present, as both clinical practice and the approved indications for NSCLC treatments have evolved substantially.

Cost-effectiveness of 2 + 1 dosing of 13-valent and 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Thirteen-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV10) are two recently approved vaccines for the active immunization against Streptococcus pneumoniae causing invasive pneumococcal disease in infants and children. PCV13 offers broader protection against Streptococcus pneumoniae; however, PCV10 offers potential protection against non-typeable Haemophilus influenza (NTHi). We examined public health and economic impacts of a PCV10 and PCV13 pediatric national immunization programs (NIPs) in Canada. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to examine the costs and outcomes associated with PCV10 and PCV13 pediatric NIPs. The model followed individuals over the remainder of their lifetime. Recent disease incidence, serotype coverage, population data, percent vaccinated, costs, and utilities were obtained from the published literature. Direct and indirect effects were derived from 7-valent pneumococcal vaccine. Additional direct effect of 4% was attributed to PCV10 for moderate to severe acute otitis media to account for potential NTHi benefit. Annual number of disease cases and costs (2010 Canadian dollars) were presented. RESULTS: In Canada, PCV13 was estimated to prevent more cases of disease (49,340 when considering both direct and indirect effects and 7,466 when considering direct effects only) than PCV10. This translated to population gains of 258 to 13,828 more quality-adjusted life-years when vaccinating with PCV13 versus PCV10. Annual direct medical costs (including the cost of vaccination) were estimated to be reduced by $5.7 million to $132.8 million when vaccinating with PCV13. Thus, PCV13 dominated PCV10, and sensitivity analyses showed PCV13 to always be dominant or cost-effective versus PCV10. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the epidemiology of pneumococcal disease in Canada, PCV13 is shown to be a cost-saving immunization program because it provides substantial public health and economic benefits relative to PCV10.

Cost comparison of linezolid versus vancomycin for treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infection caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Quebec.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is usually treated with antibiotics in hospital, with a follow-up course at home for stable patients. The cost implications of using intravenous and oral linezolid instead of intravenous vancomycin in Canadian clinical practice have not been examined. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential treatment cost impact for the Quebec health care system of linezolid versus vancomycin for MRSA-related cSSSI therapy, using a net impact analysis approach. METHODS: Health care resource use associated with linezolid and vancomycin therapy was estimated for patients in Quebec, based on expert opinion. Costs were assigned to health care resources (antibiotics, medical supplies, laboratory testing and health care professional time) based on unit prices. The base-case analysis assumed 14 days of antibiotic treatment for both agents; five days in hospital followed by nine days at home. Therapy duration, length of inpatient treatment and discharge rates were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Antibiotic costs were higher for linezolid than for vancomycin, for both inpatient ($874 versus $144, respectively) and outpatient therapy ($1,356 versus $1,242, respectively). Compared with vancomycin, lower costs for antibiotic preparation, administration and monitoring of linezolid offset drug acquisition costs. Total treatment costs were $3,850 for linezolid versus $5,189 for vancomycin. Results were sensitive to the number of treatment days spent at home and the discharge rate. CONCLUSION: Using linezolid instead of vancomycin to treat MRSA-related cSSSI, for hospital and home courses combined, may reduce health care resource utilization and costs in Quebec.

HISTORIQUE: Au Canada, les infections complexes de la peau et des structures cutanées (IcPSC) causées par le Staphylococcus aureus résistant à la méthicilline (SARM) sont généralement traitées à l'aide d'antibiotiques pendant une hospitalisation, suivis d'un traitement à domicile chez les patients stables. Au Canada, on n'a jamais évalué les répercussions financières de l'utilisation du linézolid par voie intraveineuse et par voie orale plutôt que de la vancomycine par voie intraveineuse dans la pratique clinique canadienne. OBJECTIFS: Évaluer les répercussions financières potentielles du traitement au linézolid plutôt qu'à la vancomycine pour soigner une IcPSC liée au SARM dans le système de santé québécois, au moyen d'une analyse de l'impact net. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les chercheurs ont évalué l'utilisation des ressources de santé associée à un traitement au linézolid et à la vancomycine au Québec d'après des opinions d'experts. Les coûts étaient affectés aux ressources de santé (antibiotiques, fournitures médicales, tests de laboratoire et temps consacré par les professionnels de la santé) d'après les prix unitaires. L'analyse du cas de base supposait une antibiothérapie de 14 jours pour chacun des deux médicaments : cinq jours à l'hôpital suivis de neuf jours à domicile. La durée du traitement, la durée du traitement sous hospitalisation et le taux de congé variaient selon les analyses de sensibilité. RÉSULTATS: Le coût du linézolid était plus élevé que celui de la vancomycine, tant chez les patients hospitalisés (874 $ par rapport à 144 $, respectivement) qu'en consultations externes (1 356 $ par rapport à 1 242 $, respectivement). Comparativement à la vancomycine, des frais moins élevés de préparation, d'administration et de surveillance du linézolid en compensaient les coûts d'acquisition. Les coûts totaux du traitement au linézolid s'élevaient à 3 850 $, par rapport à 5 189 $ pour la vancomycine. Les résultats étaient sensibles au nombre de jours de traitement passés à domicile et au taux de congé. CONCLUSION: Au Québec, l'utilisation du linézolid de préférence à la vancomycine pour traiter les IcPSC liées au SARM, que ce soit chez les patients hospitalisés ou à domicile, peut limiter le recours aux ressources de santé et les coûts.