Postapproval trials versus patient registries:comparability of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases

Postapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for advanced melanoma patients. We aimed to investigate whether a patient registry can complement or even replace postapproval trials. Postapproval single-arm clinical trial data from the Medicines Evaluation Board and real-world data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were used. The study population consisted of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with targeted therapies (BRAF- or BRAF-MEK inhibitors) in the first line. A Cox hazard regression model and a propensity score matching (PSM) model were used to compare the two patient populations. Compared to patients treated in postapproval trials (n = 467), real-world patients (n = 602) had significantly higher age, higher ECOG performance status, more often ≥3 organ involvement and more symptomatic brain metastases. Lactate dehydrogenase levels were similar between both groups. The unadjusted median overall survival (mOS) in postapproval clinical trial patients was 8.7 (95% CI, 8.1-10.4) months compared to 7.2 (95% CI, 6.5-7.7) months (P < 0.01) in real-world patients. With the Cox hazard regression model, survival was adjusted for prognostic factors, which led to a statistically insignificant difference in mOS for trial and real-world patients of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.9-10.4) months compared to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.3-7.9) months, respectively. The PSM model resulted in 310 matched patients with similar survival (P = 0.9). Clinical outcomes of both data sources were similar. Registries could be a complementary data source to postapproval clinical trials to establish information on clinical outcomes in specific subpopulations

First-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients: a propensity-matched survival analysis

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. Until now, data are inconclusive on which therapy to use as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy vs. BRAF/MEK inhibitors in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma patients. Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with advanced melanoma and a known BRAFV600-mutation treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD-1 antibodies, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were matched based on their propensity scores using the nearest neighbour and the optimal matching method. Results: Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 330 and 254 advanced melanoma patients received BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as first-line systemic therapy. In the matched cohort, patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies as a first-line treatment had a higher median and 2-year overall survival compared to patients treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 42.3 months (95% CI: 37.3-NE) vs. 19.8 months (95% CI: 16.7–24.3) and 85.4% (95% CI: 58.1–73.6) vs. 41.7% (95% CI: 34.2–51.0). Conclusions: Our data suggest that in the matched BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the preferred first-line treatment in patients with relatively favourable patient and tumour characteristics

Postapproval trials versus patient registries: comparability of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases

Postapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for advanced melanoma patients. We aimed to investigate whether a patient registry can complement or even replace postapproval trials. Postapproval single-arm clinical trial data from the Medicines Evaluation Board and real-world data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were used. The study population consisted of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with targeted therapies (BRAF- or BRAF-MEK inhibitors) in the first line. A Cox hazard regression model and a propensity score matching (PSM) model were used to compare the two patient populations. Compared to patients treated in postapproval trials (n = 467), real-world patients (n = 602) had significantly higher age, higher ECOG performance status, more often ≥3 organ involvement and more symptomatic brain metastases. Lactate dehydrogenase levels were similar between both groups. The unadjusted median overall survival (mOS) in postapproval clinical trial patients was 8.7 (95% CI, 8.1-10.4) months compared to 7.2 (95% CI, 6.5-7.7) months (P < 0.01) in real-world patients. With the Cox hazard regression model, survival was adjusted for prognostic factors, which led to a statistically insignificant difference in mOS for trial and real-world patients of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.9-10.4) months compared to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.3-7.9) months, respectively. The PSM model resulted in 310 matched patients with similar survival (P = 0.9). Clinical outcomes of both data sources were similar. Registries could be a complem

Impact of nationwide enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care (PACAP-1): A multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life. Methods/design: PACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide. Discussion: The PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018

Correction: First-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients: a propensity-matched survival analysis (British Journal of Cancer, (2021), 10.1038/s41416-020-01229-1): First-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients: a propensity-matched survival analysis (British Journal of Cancer, (2021), 124, 7, (1222-1230), 10.1038/s41416-020-01229-1)

Since the publication of this paper, the authors have noticed an error in the Abstract where the value for the 2-year overall surviva

First-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients: a propensity-matched survival analysis

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma. Until now, data are inconclusive on which therapy to use as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy vs. BRAF/MEK inhibitors in advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma patients. Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with advanced melanoma and a known BRAF V600-mutation treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD-1 antibodies, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were matched based on their propensity scores using the nearest neighbour and the optimal matching method. Results: Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 330 and 254 advanced melanoma patients received BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as first-line systemic therapy. In the matched cohort, patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies as a first-line treatment had a higher median and 2-year overall survival compared to patients treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 42.3 months (95% CI: 37.3-NE) vs. 19.8 months (95% CI: 16.7–24.3) and 65.4% (95% CI: 58.1–73.6) vs. 41.7% (95% CI: 34.2–51.0). Conclusions: Our data suggest that in the matched BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma patients, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the preferred first-line treatment in patients with relatively favourable patient and tumour characteristics

Correction: First-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients: a propensity-matched survival analysis

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01312-

Postapproval trials versus patient registries: comparability of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases

Postapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for advanced melanoma patients. We aimed to investigate whether a patient registry can complement or even replace postapproval trials. Postapproval single-arm clinical trial data from the Medicines Evaluation Board and real-world data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were used. The study population consisted of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with targeted therapies (BRAF- or BRAF-MEK inhibitors) in the first line. A Cox hazard regression model and a propensity score matching (PSM) model were used to compare the two patient populations. Compared to patients treated in postapproval trials (n = 467), real-world patients (n = 602) had significantly higher age, higher ECOG performance status, more often ≥3 organ involvement and more symptomatic brain metastases. Lactate dehydrogenase levels were similar between both groups. The unadjusted median overall survival (mOS) in postapproval clinical trial patients was 8.7 (95% CI, 8.1-10.4) months compared to 7.2 (95% CI, 6.5-7.7) months (P < 0.01) in real-world patients. With the Cox hazard regression model, survival was adjusted for prognostic factors, which led to a statistically insignificant difference in mOS for trial and real-world patients of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.9-10.4) months compared to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.3-7.9) months, respectively. The PSM model resulted in 310 matched patients with similar survival (P = 0.9). Clinical outcomes of both data sources were similar. Registries could be a complementary data source to postapproval clinical trials to establish information on clinical outcomes in specific subpopulations

The risk of not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a nationwide analysis

Background: The relation between type of postoperative complication and not receiving chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is unclear. The aim was to investigate which patient factors and postoperative complications were associated with not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: Patients who underwent resection (2014–2017) for PDAC were identified from the nationwide mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The association between patient-, tumor-, center-, treatment characteristics, and the risk of not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Results: Overall, of 1306 patients, 24% (n = 312) developed postoperative Clavien Dindo ≥3 complications. In-hospital mortality was 3.5% (n = 46). Some 433 patients (33%) did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Independent predictors (all p < 0.050) for not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were older age (odds ratio (OR) 0.96), higher ECOG performance status (OR 0.57), postoperative complications (OR 0.32), especially grade B/C pancreatic fistula (OR 0.51) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (OR 0.36), poor tumor differentiation grade (OR 0.62), and annual center volume of <40 pancreatoduodenectomies (OR 0.51). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that a third of patients do not receive chemotherapy after resection of PDAC. Next to higher age, worse performance status and lower annual surgical volume, this is mostly related to surgical complications, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage