Relative efficacy of interventions in the treatment of second-line non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Background Locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has progressed after first-line treatment has a poor prognosis. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits of alternative treatments to docetaxel. However, information is lacking on which patients benefit the most and what drug or regimen is optimal. We report a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of second-line treatments in all subgroup combinations determined by histology, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. Methods MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Biosciences Information Service (using the Dialog Platform), Cochrane Library, and abstracts from scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published up to September 2015. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Bayesian hierarchical exchangeable NMAs were conducted to calculate mean survival times and relative differences for eight subgroups, using docetaxel as the reference comparator. For OS, the NMA was based on hazard ratios applied to a first-order fractional polynomial model fitted to the reference treatment. For PFS, a second-order fractional polynomial model was fitted to reconstructed patient-level data for the entire network of evidence. Results The search identified 30 studies containing 17 different treatment regimens. Docetaxel plus ramucirumab was associated with a significant improvement in OS and PFS, relative to docetaxel, regardless of patient type. Docetaxel plus nintedanib showed similar efficacy to docetaxel plus ramucirumab in the nonsquamous populations. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) erlotinib and gefitinib showed superior levels of efficacy in EGFR mutation-positive populations and the one PD-1 immunotherapy (nivolumab) studied showed superior efficacy in the populations exhibiting high PD-L1 expression. Conclusions In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to synthesize evidence of the efficacy of each treatment. Benefits are optimized by targeting specific treatments to individual patients guided by histology, PD-L1 expression, and EGFR mutation status. Systematic review registration This review is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42014013780 available at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO)

The budget impact of utilizing the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test from a US healthcare payer perspective

Background and objectives The Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test is used to estimate distant recurrence risk of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer and inform decisions on the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. A model-based budget impact analysis compared the Oncotype DX test in combination with clinical-pathological risk against using clinical-pathological risk alone for HR+/HER2- node-negative (N0) and node-positive (N1; 1-3 axillary lymph nodes) early-stage breast cancer patients. Materials and methods Test and medical costs associated with treatment of breast cancer were assessed through a US healthcare payer perspective. Distributions of patients by Recurrence Score result and distant recurrence probabilities with chemo-endocrine and endocrine therapy were derived from the TAILORx (N0) and RxPONDER (N1) trials. Changes in budget impact were evaluated over a five-year horizon for a 1,000,000-member hypothetical health plan. Results With the Oncotype DX test, there was an incremental budget impact of $261,067, (per member per month (PMPM):$0.004), in the N0 population, and $56,143, (PMPM:$0.001) in the N1 population over the five-year period. The largest budget impact reduction in the N0 population was attributed to reduced breast cancer recurrence costs (incremental: -$633,457, PMPM: -$0.011), whilst chemotherapy sparing reduced costs in the N1 population (incremental: -$94,884, PMPM: -$0.002). Conclusion The clinical benefit of using the Oncotype DX test to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials. This analysis demonstrated that while using the Oncotype DX test to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions may slightly increase US healthcare costs over an initial five-year time horizon (driven by a cost increase in the first year with cost savings reflected in remaining 4 years), there is significant scope for cost savings when assessing beyond this period due to avoided downstream costs of distant recurrence and long-term chemotherapy adverse events. PMPM costs also remain low across all populations examined, demonstrating a close to neutral budget impact.</p

Health-Related Quality of Life in MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer After Endocrine Therapy

BACKGROUND: In the phase III MONARCH 2 study (NCT02107703), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assessed patient-reported pain, global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Abemaciclib or placebo (150 p.o. mg twice daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per label) were randomly assigned (2:1). The modified Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form (mBPI-sf); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Core 30 (QLQ-C30); and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-BR23) assessed outcomes. Data were collected at baseline, cycle 2, every two cycles 3-13, thereafter at every three cycles, and 30 days postdiscontinuation. Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) by study arm. RESULTS: On-treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and similar between arms. Patients in the abemaciclib arm (n = 446) experienced a 4.9-month delay in pain deterioration (mBPI-sf), compared with the control arm (n = 223), and significantly greater TTSD on the mBPI-sf and analgesic use (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and QLQ-C30 pain item (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). TTSD for functioning and most symptoms significantly favored the abemaciclib arm, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and cognitive and social functioning. Only diarrhea significantly favored the control arm (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.10). CONCLUSION: HRQoL was maintained on abemaciclib plus fulvestrant. Alongside superior PFS and manageable safety profile, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in a population of patients with endocrine-resistant HR+, HER2-negative ABC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to consider, given the palliative nature of ABC treatment. In this study, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, significantly delayed sustained deterioration of pain and other patient-reported symptoms (including fatigue, nausea, vomiting), and social and cognitive functioning. Combined with demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability, the stabilization of patient-reported symptoms and HRQoL further supports abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as a desirable treatment option in endocrine resistant, HR+, HER2- ABC.status: publishe

Real-World Treatment Patterns among Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer in South Korea

Purpose The purpose of this study was to understand patient treatment patterns, outcomes, and healthcare resource use in cases of metastatic and/or locally recurrent, unresectable gastric cancer (MGC) in South Korea. Materials and Methods Thirty physicians reviewed charts of eligible patients to collect de-identified data. Patients must have received platinum/fluoropyrimidine first-line therapy followed by second-line therapy or best supportive care, had no other primary cancer, and not participated in a clinical trial following MGC diagnosis. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to describe survival. Results Of 198 patients, 73.7% were male, 78.3% were diagnosed with MGC after age 55 (mean, 61.3 years), and 47.0% were current or former smokers. The majority of tumors were located in the antrum/pylorus (51.5%). Metastatic sites most often occurred in the peritoneum (53.5%), lymph nodes (47.5%), and liver (38.9%). At diagnosis, the mean Charlson comorbidity index was 0.4 (standard deviation, 0.6). The most common comorbidities were chronic gastritis (22.7%) and cardiovascular disease (18.7%). Most patients (80.3%) received second-line treatment. Single-agent fluoropyrimidine was reported for 22.0% of patients, while 19.5% were treated with irinotecan and a fluoropyrimidine or platinum agent. The most common physician-reported symptoms during second-line treatment were nausea/vomiting (44.7%) and pain (11.3%), with antiemetics (44.7%), analgesics (36.5%), and nutritional support (11.3%) most often used as supportive care. Two-thirds of inpatient hospitalizations were for chemotherapy infusion. Outpatient hospitalization (31.6%) and visits to the oncologist (58.8%) were common among second-line patients. Conclusion Most patients received second-line treatment, although regimens varied. Understanding MGC patient characteristics and treatment patterns in South Korea will help address unmet needs