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

Nationwide Outcomes of Advanced Melanoma According to BRAF(V600) Status

Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) of patients with BRAFV600wild-type and BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma in the Netherlands.Methods:We selected patients of 18 years and over, diagnosed between 2016 and 2017 with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. To assess the association of BRAFV600-mutation status with OS we used the Cox proportional-hazards model.Results:A total of 642 BRAFV600wild-type and 853 mutant patients were included in the analysis. Median OS did not differ significantly between both groups, 15.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.2-19.2) versus 20.6 months (95% CI: 18.3-25.0). Survival rates at 6 and 12 months were significantly lower for BRAFV600wild-type patients compared with BRAFV600-mutant patients, 72.0% (95% CI: 68.6-75.6) and 56.0% (95% CI: 52.2-60.0) versus 83.4% (95% CI: 80.9-85.9) and 65.7% (95% CI: 62.6-69.0). Two-year survival was not significantly different between both groups, 41.1% (95% CI: 37.2-45.3) versus 47.0% (95% CI: 43.6-60.6). Between 0 and 10 months, BRAFV600wild-type patients had a decreased survival with a hazard ratio for OS of 2.00 (95% CI: 1.62-2.46) but this effect disappeared after 10 months. At 12 months, BRAFV600-mutant patients had started with second-line systemic treatment more often compared with BRAFV600wild-type patients (50% vs. 19%).Conclusion:These results suggest that advanced BRAFV600wild-type melanoma patients have worse survival than BRAFV600-mutated patients during the first 10 months after diagnosis because of less available treatment options

The Prospective Dutch Colorectal Cancer (PLCRC) cohort: real-world data facilitating research and clinical care

Real-world data (RWD) sources are important to advance clinical oncology research and evaluate treatments in daily practice. Since 2013, the Prospective Dutch Colorectal Cancer (PLCRC) cohort, linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry, serves as an infrastructure for scientific research collecting additional patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and biospecimens. Here we report on cohort developments and investigate to what extent PLCRC reflects the “real-world”. Clinical and demographic characteristics of PLCRC participants were compared with the general Dutch CRC population (n = 74,692, Dutch-ref). To study representativeness, standardized differences between PLCRC and Dutch-ref were calculated, and logistic regression models were evaluated on their ability to distinguish cohort participants from the Dutch-ref (AU-ROC 0.5 = preferred, implying participation independent of patient characteristics). Stratified analyses by stage and time-period (2013–2016 and 2017–Aug 2019) were performed to study the evolution towards RWD. In August 2019, 5744 patients were enrolled. Enrollment increased steeply, from 129 participants (1 hospital) in 2013 to 2136 (50 of 75 Dutch hospitals) in 2018. Low AU-ROC (0.65, 95% CI: 0.64–0.65) indicates limited ability to distinguish cohort participants from the Dutch-ref. Characteristics that remained imbalanced in the period 2017–Aug’19 compared with the Dutch-ref were age (65.0 years in PLCRC, 69.3 in the Dutch-ref) and tumor stage (40% stage-III in PLCRC, 30% in the Dutch-ref). PLCRC approaches to represent the Dutch CRC population and will ultimately meet the current demand for high-quality RWD. Efforts are ongoing to improve multidisciplinary recruitment which will further enhance PLCRC’s representativeness and its contribution to a learning healthcare system