Treatment Patterns and Use of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Among Patients with Metastatic Bladder Cancer in a Dutch Nationwide Cohort

Since 2017, two immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the standard of care for the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Europe: pembrolizumab as second-line therapy and avelumab as maintenance therapy. Our aim was to describe the use of ICIs as first and later lines of treatment in patients with metastatic bladder cancer (mBC) in the Netherlands. We identified all patients diagnosed with primary mBC between 2018 and 2021 in the Netherlands from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). NCR data were supplemented with data from the Dutch nationwide Prospective Bladder Cancer Infrastructure (ProBCI) collected from medical files, with follow-up until death or end of data collection on January 1, 2023. A total of 1525 patients were diagnosed with primary mBC between 2018 and 2021 in the Netherlands. Of these, 34.7% received at least one line of systemic treatment with chemotherapy or ICI. After first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, 34.1% received second-line ICI and 3.9% received maintenance ICI. Among patients who completed or discontinued first-line cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy after approval of maintenance ICI in the Netherlands, 40.7% and 19.7% received second-line ICI, and 9.3% and 14.1% received maintenance ICI, respectively. ICI use for mBC treatment has not increased considerably since their introduction in 2017. Future research should assess whether the introduction of maintenance avelumab (available since April 2021 in the Netherlands) has led to increases in the proportion of patients with mBC patients receiving systemic treatment and the proportion receiving ICI. Patient summary: We assessed the rate of immunotherapy use for patients with metastatic bladder cancer in the Netherlands. Since its introduction, immunotherapy has been used in a minority of patients, mostly as second-line treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy.</p

Comparison between de novo and metachronous metastatic breast cancer: the presence of a primary tumour is not the only difference—a Dutch population-based study from 2008 to 2018

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare characteristics and survival of patients with de novo and metachronous metastatic breast cancer. Methods: Data of patients with metastatic breast cancer were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were categorized as having de novo metastatic breast cancer (n = 8656) if they had distant metastases at initial presentation, or metachronous metastatic disease (n = 2374) in case they developed metastases within 5 or 10 years after initial breast cancer diagnosis. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatments of these two groups were compared, after which multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data. Overall survival was compared for patients treated with systemic therapy in the metastatic setting, using Kaplan Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. The hazard ratio for overall survival of de novo versus metachronous metastases was assessed accounting for time-varying effects. Results: Compared to metachronous patients, patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer were more likely to be ≥ 70 years, to have invasive lobular carcinoma, clinical T3 or T4 tumours, loco-regional lymph node metastases, HER2 positivity, bone only disease and to have received systemic therapy in the metastatic setting. They were less likely to have triple negative tumours and liver or brain metastases. Patients with de novo metastases survived longer (median 34.7 months) than patients with metachronous metastases (median 24.3 months) and the hazard ratio (0.75) varied over time. Conclusions: Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and survival between de novo and metachronous metastatic breast cancer highlight that these are distinct patients groups

Comparison between de novo and metachronous metastatic breast cancer: the presence of a primary tumour is not the only difference—a Dutch population-based study from 2008 to 2018

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare characteristics and survival of patients with de novo and metachronous metastatic breast cancer. Methods: Data of patients with metastatic breast cancer were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were categorized as having de novo metastatic breast cancer (n = 8656) if they had distant metastases at initial presentation, or metachronous metastatic disease (n = 2374) in case they developed metastases within 5 or 10 years after initial breast cancer diagnosis. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatments of these two groups were compared, after which multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data. Overall survival was compared for patients treated with systemic therapy in the metastatic setting, using Kaplan Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. The hazard ratio for overall survival of de novo versus metachronous metastases was assessed accounting for time-varying effects. Results: Compared to metachronous patients, patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer were more likely to be ≥ 70 years, to have invasive lobular carcinoma, clinical T3 or T4 tumours, loco-regional lymph node metastases, HER2 positivity, bone only disease and to have received systemic therapy in the metastatic setting. They were less likely to have triple negative tumours and liver or brain metastases. Patients with de novo metastases survived longer (median 34.7 months) than patients with metachronous metastases (median 24.3 months) and the hazard ratio (0.75) varied over time. Conclusions: Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and survival between de novo and metachronous metastatic breast cancer highlight that these are distinct patients groups