Treatment Patterns and Differences in Survival of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Between Academic and Non-Academic Hospitals in the Netherlands

What have we learnt from the past - would treatment decisions for GEP-NET patients differ between 2012 to 2016 by the new recommendations in 2022?

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a heterogeneous group of tumors with a broad range of local and systemic treatment options. Still a lack of data regarding treatment sequences exists. The aim of this study was to analyse outcomes in GEP-NETs depending on stage and treatment steps and compare our treatment decisions to the latest treatment recommendations of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2020 for GEP-NETs.

METHODS

Patients were included in this retrospective single-center analysis from 2012-2016. All patients suffering from a GEP-NET, who were screened, treated or evaluated at ENETS Center in Zurich, Switzerland were included in analysis. Patients with any other diagnosis of NET were not included. We used Kaplan Meier estimator as well as Cox regression to compare survival rates between different sites of localization, grades or stages and treatment sequences.

RESULTS

Overall, we identified 256 GEP-NETs, most in advanced stage (62%) and located in small intestine tract or pancreatic gland. Survival depended on stage, grade, primary site and duration of response for the early systemic treatment. On average patients underwent 2.6 different treatment modalities, mostly depending on stage and higher tumor grade. Surgery was performed early but also in advanced stages, usually followed by Somatostatine-Agonist modalities. In distant disease (Stage IV), we investigated a positive effect of PFS after treatment with Somatostatine Analogues (SSA) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 - 0.97; p = 0.04) and systemic treatment (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26 - 0.99; p = 0.047) if patients underwent prior surgery or endoscopic resection. Kaplan Meier distributions predict shorter OS in distant disease (Stage IV), (Figure. 1; HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.46 - 2.89; log-rank test, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis presents a great overview of all patients', disease and treatment characteristics of GEP-NETs at ENETS Center in Zurich, Switzerland. We illustrated survival (PFS) depending on implemented therapies. According to these findings, we formed a suggested treatment algorithm for advanced GEP-NETs, which does not differ from the latest treatment recommendation by ESMO guidelines for GEP-NETs. The results of this project may define GEP-NET patients' selection for upcoming clinical prospective studies.

Prognostic factors and patients' profile in treated stage I and II lung adenocarcinoma: a Hospital's Cancer Registry-based analysis

Background

It is known that survival from lung cancer can differ between countries and even between different regions of the same country. The variability between hospitals, the age and social profile, and the time when this patient was treated, can influence survival, and these factors are intrinsic to each region. Knowing the profile of patients, hospitals, and other factors associated with the treatment of stage I and II lung cancer in a given region is important to understand outcomes and propose improvements that can be replicated in any region of the world that presents the same profile of patients and care structure. This study evaluates survival and possible predictors in all patients with stage I and II lung cancer adenocarcinoma through the Hospital’s Cancer Registry (HCR), responsible for the State of Sao Paulo’s cancer registry, a geographical area with 40 million inhabitants.

Methods

Based on the HCR, an observational study was conducted, including 1,278 patients diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma at clinical stages (CS) I and II. Sex, age at diagnosis, education, neighbourhood, CS at diagnosis, the time between diagnosis and treatment, 5-year periods in which patients were treated, treatment modality and hospitals where patients were treated were analysed. Cox univariate and multiple regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR).

Results

A total of 1,278 lung cancer patients with clinical lung cancer adenocarcinoma stages I and II were included. About 40.06% of patients did not receive surgery, and only 55.8% started the treatment within 2 months. The majority of the patients were treated in high complexity hospitals, 69%. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 45.6% in CS I and 27.5% in CS II. Patients treated in high complexity centres have lower mortality rates than those treated in Partial Hospital Complexity Centers in Oncology (PHCCO) (adjHR 1.18; 95% CI: 1.00–1.40; P=0.047). Patients diagnosed between 2010–2014 had a protective factor against the risk of death concerning patients diagnosed between 2000–2004.

Conclusions

The 5-year OS has significantly improved as long as the 5-year group analysed. Also, the 5-year OS of the patients treated in high complexity hospitals is higher than those treated in PHCCO.

Real-Life Long-Term Cohort of Patients With Stage IIIA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Overall Survival Related to Patients' Characteristics and Multiple Treatment Models

PURPOSE

This real-life cohort of patients describes the treatment patterns and compares the overall survival (OS) and hazard risk of utilization of multiple therapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic medical registries of patients with stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) regularly attended in 72 hospitals were included. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to evaluate the primary patients' characteristics leading to better OS and cancer-specific survival.

RESULTS

A total of 3,363 patients with stage III NSCLC followed over 19 years were included in this study. The median age was 66.00 (58.00-72.00) years, 65% male, and 41.2% with squamous cell carcinoma followed by adenocarcinoma (34.6%) and undifferentiated carcinoma (13.1%) in clinical stage T3 (50.3%), T2 (29.3%), and T4 (12.3%). The median survival (in months) was 18.4 (95% CI, 16.9 to 19.5) in patients submitted to radiotherapy plus chemotherapy, 11.2 (95% CI, 10.5 to 12.1) to chemotherapy, 31.5 (95% CI, 25.9 to 37.7) to surgery plus chemotherapy, and 33.8 (95% CI, 28.3 to 47.8) to chemotherapy plus radiotherapy plus surgery. The median cancer-specific survival (in months) was 19.3 (95% CI, 17.9 to 20.9) in patients submitted to radiotherapy plus chemotherapy, 12.1 (95% CI, 11.1 to 12.9) to chemotherapy, 36.9 (95% CI, 29.6 to 43.2) to surgery plus chemotherapy, and 41.3 (95% CI, 32.1 to 61.3) to chemotherapy plus radiotherapy plus surgery. The patients treated with multiple chemotherapy plus radiotherapy followed by surgery had significantly better OS and lower mortality rates than those treated with other treatments (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.66; P < .001). At the end of the study, 11.2% and 10.7% of the patients were living with and without cancer, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our real-life 19-year cohort study has shown that only 30.3% of the total patients with stage III NSCLC have been submitted to standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment. This may show a substantial difference between the recruited clinical trials' patients and the real-life patients' characteristics in daily routine treatment.

Real-world time on treatment with immuno-oncology therapy in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Aim: We report real-world time on treatment (rwToT) with immuno-oncology (I-O) and other systemic therapies in second-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) previously treated with platinum therapies. Materials & methods: Adult patients receiving first-line platinum therapy for R/M HNSCC between January 2017 and December 2018 and a second-line therapy were selected from a US electronic medical record database. Results: In our study sample of 619 R/M HNSCC patients, second-line treatments primarily included I-O therapies (71%) and resulted in median rwToT of 2.8 months and 12-month on-treatment rate of 19.3%. For other second-line therapies, median rwToT and 12-month on-treatment rate was 1.9 months and 1.3%, respectively. Conclusion: Use of second-line I-O therapies was common and resulted in rwToT consistent with R/M HNSCC clinical trials.

Breast-conserving surgery with or without irradiation in women with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast receiving preoperative systemic therapy: A cohort study

Purpose

To investigate the outcomes of adjuvant whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast (breast IDC) receiving preoperative systemic therapy (PST) and breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and their prognostic factors, considering overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), and disease-free survival.

Patients and methods

Patients diagnosed as having breast IDC and receiving PST followed by BCS were recruited and categorized by treatment into non-breast radiation therapy [BRT] (control) and WBRT (case) groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Multivariate Cox regression analyses indicated that non-BRT, cN3, and pathologic residual tumor (ypT2–4) or nodal (ypN2–3) stages were poor prognostic factors for OS. The adjusted HRs (aHRs; 95% CIs) of the WBRT group to non-BRT group for all-cause mortality were 0.14 (0.03–0.81), 0.32 (0.16–0.64), 0.43 (0.23–0.79), 0.23 (0.13–0.42), 0.52 (0.20–1.33), and 0.34 (0.13–0.87) in the ypT0, ypT1, ypT2–4, ypN0, ypN1, and ypN2–3 stages, respectively. The aHRs (95% CIs) of the WBRT group to non-BRT group for all-cause mortality were 0.09 (0.00–4.07), 0.46 (0.26–0.83), 0.18 (0.06–0.51), 0.28 (0.06–1.34), 0.25 (0.10–0.63), 0.47 (0.23–0.88), and 0.32 in the cT0–1, cT2, cT3, cT4, cN0, cN1, and cN2–3 stages, respectively. The WBRT group exhibited significantly better LRR-free and DM-free survival than the non-BRT group, regardless of the clinical T or N stage or pathologic response after PST.

Conclusion

WBRT might lead to superior OS and LRR-free and DM-free survival compared with the non-BRT group, regardless of the initial clinical TN stage or pathologic response.

•

Outcome patterns of adjuvant RT for patients with breast cancer receiving preoperative systemic therapy and breast-conserving surgery.

•

Non-breast radiation therapy, cN3, pathologic residual tumor (ypT2–4), or nodal (ypN2–3) stages are poor prognostic factors for survival.

•

The beneficial effects of RT are superior OS and LRR-free and DM-free survival compared with the non-RT group.

First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy for metastatic PD-L1-positive NSCLC: real-world analysis of time on treatment

Aim: To determine real-world time on treatment (rwToT) with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50%. Methods: The Kaplan-Meier rwToT was estimated from electronic health record data for adults who initiated first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy for stage IV, PD-L1 TPS ≥50% NSCLC, with negative/unknown EGFR/ALK aberrations, and ≥6 months' follow-up until database cutoff. Results: A total of 386 patients with ECOG 0-1 had a median rwToT of 6.9 months (95% CI: 5.6-8.3) and 12-month on-treatment rate of 36.4% (31.2-41.6) versus 40.3% (32.5-47.9) and 37.6% (31.9-43.4) in KEYNOTE-024 (KN024) and KN042 (stage IV/TPS ≥50% subpopulation), respectively. The 24-month restricted-mean rwTOT (extrapolated) was 10.5 months (9.4-11.7), versus 11.0 (9.5-12.5) and 10.4 (9.3-11.5) in KN024 and KN042, respectively. Conclusion: First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy rwToT in metastatic PD-L1 TPS ≥50% NSCLC for trial-matched patients is similar to treatment duration in KN024 and KN042.

Variation in the time to treatment for stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer patients for hospitals in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Increased emphasis on molecular diagnostics can lead to increased variation in time to treatment (TTT) for patients with stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer. This article presents the variation in TTT for advanced NSCLC patients observed in Dutch hospitals before the widespread use of immunotherapy. The aim of this article was to explore the variation in TTT between patients, as well as between hospitals.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Based on the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we used patient-level data (n = 4096) from all 78 hospitals that diagnosed stage III or IV NSCLC in the Netherlands in 2016. To investigate how patient characteristics and hospital-level effects are associated with TTT (from diagnosis until start treatment), we interpreted regression model results for five common patient profiles to analyze the influence of age, gender, tumor stage, performance status, histology, and referral status as well as hospital-level characteristics on the TTT.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

TTT varies substantially between and within hospitals. The median TTT was 28 days with an inter-quartile range of 22 days. The hospital-level median TTT ranges from 17 to 68 days. TTT correlates significantly with tumor stage, performance status, and histology. The hospital-level effect, unrelated to hospital volume and type, affected TTT by several weeks at most. For most patients, TTT is within range as recommended in current guidelines. Variation in TTT seems higher for patients receiving either radiotherapy or targeted therapy, or for patients referred to another hospital and we hypothesize this is related to the complexity of the diagnostic pathway. With further advances in molecular diagnostics and precision oncology we expect variation in TTT to increase and this needs to be considered in designing optimal cancer care delivery.

Determining the Comparative Value of Pharmaceutical Risk-Sharing Policies in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Real-World Data

BACKGROUND

Risk-sharing arrangements (RSAs) can be used to mitigate uncertainty about the value of a drug by sharing the financial risk between payer and pharmaceutical company. We evaluated the projected impact of alternative RSAs for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapies based on real-world data.

METHODS

Data on treatment patterns of Dutch NSCLC patients from four different hospitals were used to perform "what-if" analyses, evaluating the costs and benefits likely associated with various RSAs. In the scenarios, drug costs or refunds were based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) response, survival compared to the pivotal trial, treatment duration, or a fixed cost per patient. Analyses were done for erlotinib, gemcitabine/cisplatin, and pemetrexed/platinum for metastatic NSCLC, and gemcitabine/cisplatin, pemetrexed/cisplatin, and vinorelbine/cisplatin for nonmetastatic NSCLC.

RESULTS

Money-back guarantees led to moderate cost reductions to the payer. For conditional treatment continuation schemes, costs and outcomes associated with the different treatments were dispersed. When price was linked to the outcome, the payer's drug costs reduced by 2.5% to 26.7%. Discounted treatment initiation schemes yielded large cost reductions. Utilization caps mainly reduced the costs of erlotinib treatment (by 16%). Given a fixed cost per patient based on projected average use of the drug, risk sharing was unfavorable to the payer because of the lower than projected use. The impact of RSAs on a national scale was dispersed.

CONCLUSIONS

For erlotinib and pemetrexed/platinum, large cost reductions were observed with risk sharing. RSAs can mitigate uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness or budget impact of drugs, but only when the type of arrangement matches the setting and type of uncertainty.

Health care resource use among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the PIvOTAL retrospective observational study

Background

Data are scarce regarding real-world health care resource use (HCRU) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An understanding of current clinical practices and HCRU is needed to provide a benchmark for rapidly evolving NSCLC management recommendations and therapeutic options. The objective of this study was to describe real-world HCRU for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Methods

This multinational, retrospective chart review study was conducted at academic and community oncology sites in Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil. Deidentified data were drawn from medical records of 1440 adults (≥18 years old) who initiated systemic therapy (2011 to mid-2013) for a new, confirmed diagnosis of advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) NSCLC. We summarized HCRU associated with first and subsequent lines of systemic therapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC.

Results

The proportion of patients who were hospitalized at least once varied by country from 24% in Italy to 81% in Japan during first-line therapy and from 22% in Italy to 84% in Japan during second-line therapy; overall hospitalization frequency was 2.5–11.1 per 100 patient-weeks, depending on country. Emergency visit frequency also varied among countries (overall from 0.3–5.9 per 100 patient-weeks), increasing consistently from first- through third-line therapy in each country. The outpatient setting was the most common setting of resource use. Most patients in the study had multiple outpatient visits in association with each line of therapy (overall from 21.1 to 59.0 outpatient visits per 100 patient-weeks, depending on country). The use of health care resources showed no regular pattern associated with results of tests for activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements.

Conclusions

HCRU varied across countries. These findings suggest differing approaches to the clinical management of advanced NSCLC among the eight countries. Comparative findings and an understanding of country-specific clinical practices can help to identify areas of need and guide future resource allocation for patients with advanced NSCLC. Further studies evaluating the costs associated with resource use are warranted.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2946-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systemic therapy treatment patterns in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): PIvOTAL study

The aim of this multinational retrospective cohort study, conducted at academic and community oncology centres, was to describe real‐world treatment patterns for patients with a confirmed diagnosis of advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who initiated first‐line systemic therapy from January 2011 through June 2014. The study included 1265 patients in Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia, Korea, Taiwan and Brazil. The proportion of patients with squamous versus non‐squamous NSCLC was approximately 20% versus 75%, and associated patient demographic characteristics were similar in all countries, excepting race. Patients with squamous NSCLC were predominantly male and current/ex‐smokers. Biomarker tests were performed for the majority of patients with non‐squamous NSCLC, ranging from 54% (Brazil) to 91% in Taiwan, where, of those tested, 68% with non‐squamous NSCLC had positive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)‐mutation status; in other countries the EGFR‐positive percentages ranged from 17% (Spain/Brazil) to 40% (Korea). Platinum‐based regimens were the most common first‐line therapy in all countries except Taiwan, where gefitinib was the most common first‐line agent. Median overall survival ranged from 9.3 months (Brazil) to 25.5 months (Taiwan). The diagnostic and treatment patterns recorded in this study were heterogeneous but largely in line with NSCLC guidelines during the study period.