Presence of Breast Cancer Information Recorded in United Kingdom Primary Care Databases: Comparison of CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD (Companion Paper 1)

Purpose

To evaluate the presence of data elements related to diagnosis and treatment of malignant breast cancer in CPRD Aurum compared to those in the previously validated CPRD GOLD.

Methods

Females in CPRD Aurum or GOLD with a first-time code for malignant breast cancer, mastectomy, or ≥1 prescription for tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors (2004-2019) were selected. We compared the presence of the codes for breast cancer diagnosis, surgeries (mastectomy, lumpectomy), tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor prescriptions, radiation, chemotherapy, and supporting clinical codes (suspected breast cancer, lump symptoms, biopsy, lumpectomy, cancer care, referral/visit to specialist, palliative care). Age standardized incidence rates of breast cancer diagnosis in CPRD Aurum and GOLD were calculated.

Results

There were 131,936 eligible patients in CPRD Aurum and 69,102 patients in GOLD. A similar proportion of patients in CPRD Aurum and GOLD had codes for breast cancer diagnosis, mastectomy, drug prescriptions, lump, biopsy, lumpectomy, chemotherapy, and cancer and palliative care coded in their electronic record during follow-up. However, suspected breast cancer, radiation, and referral/visits to specialists were coded more frequently in patients in CPRD Aurum compared to GOLD. Age-standardized incidence rates were similar for CPRD Aurum and GOLD.

Conclusion

Overall, there was consistency between data elements related to malignant breast cancer recorded in CPRD Aurum and GOLD, particularly for the most informative clinical details. These findings provide reassurance that breast cancer information recorded in CPRD Aurum is generally comparable to that recorded in the previously validated CPRD GOLD and support the use of CPRD Aurum for breast cancer research.

Correctness and Completeness of Breast Cancer Diagnoses Recorded in UK CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD Databases: Comparison to Hospital Episode Statistics and Cancer Registry (Companion Paper 2)

Purpose

To evaluate the new Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database, we estimated 'correctness' (ie accuracy, validity) and 'completeness' (ie presence, missingness) of malignant breast cancer diagnoses recorded in CPRD Aurum compared to external linked data sources: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Admitted Patient Care (APC), HES Outpatient (OP), and Cancer Registry (CR), and to the previously validated CPRD GOLD.

Methods

Linkage-eligible, female patients with incident malignant breast cancer diagnosis recorded in at least one study data source were selected. Correctness was the proportion of malignant breast cancer cases recorded in CPRD Aurum or GOLD who also had a diagnosis recorded in HES APC/OP (2004-2019) or CR (2004-2016). Completeness was estimated by identifying all malignant breast cancer diagnoses in HES APC/OP or CR and calculating the proportion with a concordant diagnosis in CPRD Aurum or GOLD.

Results

Compared to HES APC/OP, there were 85,659 and 31,452 eligible patients in CPRD Aurum and GOLD, respectively. Correctness estimates were high (CPRD Aurum 83.5%, GOLD 81.7%). Compared to CR, there were 70,190 and 29,597 eligible patients in CPRD Aurum and GOLD, respectively: correctness was 89.1% for CPRD Aurum and 88.2% for GOLD. Completeness estimates for CPRD Aurum and GOLD were high (>90%). Diagnoses were recorded in CPRD Aurum within -7 to 74 days of those in the linked sources. Reasons for discordant diagnostic coding included presence of treatment or other clinical codes only, diagnosis coded after end of follow-up, non-malignant breast cancer in linked data, and administrative codes in lieu of diagnostic codes.

Conclusion

These results indicate that correctness and completeness of malignant breast cancer diagnoses in CPRD Aurum were high and similar to CPRD GOLD. This provides confidence in use of CPRD Aurum for research purposes. Where complete case capture is important, researchers should consider linkage to HES APC or CR.

Use of the CPRD Aurum Database: Insights Gained from New Data Quality Assessments

Ongoing evaluation of any electronic health data source is critical to assess suitability for its use in medical research. In addition, familiarity with a data source's history and recording practices is important for making informed data source selection, study design choices, and interpretation of results. In this commentary, the authors discuss three studies that assessed different aspects of the quality and completeness of information contained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum compared to the well-established CPRD GOLD and to other linked data sources, with the aim to describe insights gained through these data quality assessments. Our findings support the view that CPRD Aurum and GOLD are both valuable tools for studies based on information recorded in primary care but should not be used without critical consideration of strengths and limitations. Further, use of linked data should be considered for some studies, after taking into account all relevant factors.

Comparison of Rheumatoid Arthritis Information Recorded in UK CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD Databases (Companion Paper 3)

Purpose

To report distribution of codes associated with a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosis recorded in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum compared to the previously validated CPRD GOLD database as a critical step toward making decisions about CPRD Aurum's suitability for medical research.

Patients and Methods

We analyzed the distribution of codes for RA diagnoses, labs, and treatments in the new CPRD Aurum database, compared to the CPRD GOLD database by selecting relevant indicators of RA diagnosis, treatment, and clinical care. We included all patients in England in CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD with an incident diagnosis code for RA on or after 1 January 2005 and at least two years recorded data before first RA diagnosis.

Results

We found 53,083 and 18,167 patients with a new diagnosis code for RA in CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD, respectively. In both databases approximately 67% were female with similar mean ages at first diagnosis. There were few differences in RA-related recording patterns between the two data sources. Before first RA diagnosis, CPRD Aurum patients had more RA-specific labs and other supporting clinical codes. After diagnosis, CPRD Aurum patients had more RA diagnoses coded and more often had 10+ general RA labs than patients in CPRD GOLD. More CPRD GOLD patients had 10+ prescriptions for conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD) compared to CPRD Aurum. Otherwise, the distribution of drugs used to treat RA was similar between databases. The standardized incidence of RA was similar between databases.

Conclusion

Overall, among patients with a diagnosis code for RA, recording of diagnoses, prescription drugs, and labs were similar between CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD. Slight differences were found for a few variables, but overall, we found consistency between the databases. In addition, standardized incidence of RA was similar between databases.

Utilization patterns and factors associated with persistence of new users of anti-osteoporosis treatment in Denmark: a population-based cohort study

Persistence with initial treatment was highest after 1 year, decreasing afterwards. Persistence was highest for denosumab followed by alendronate. We identified several factors associated with treatment persistence, some of which were the same irrespective of OTx agent, which could help target subgroups of patients in terms of social and healthcare support.

PURPOSE

To describe patient characteristics, persistence, and factors associated with the persistence of new users of the bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate) and the RANKL inhibitor denosumab in Denmark.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study using health registries (2010-2018). We included alendronate (n = 128,590), risedronate (n = 892), ibandronate (n = 5,855), and denosumab (n = 16,469) users, aged ≥ 50 years.

RESULTS

The 1-year persistence was 68.2% in the alendronate cohort; 39.3% in the risedronate cohort; 56.3% in the ibandronate cohort; and 84.0% in the denosumab cohort. The 2-year persistence was 58.7% in the alendronate cohort; 28.0% in the risedronate cohort; 42.9% in the ibandronate cohort; and 71.9% in the denosumab cohort. The 4-year persistence was 46.3%, 15.4%, 29.6%, and 56.9%, respectively. Later years of treatment initiation were associated with lower persistence for alendronate (adjusted odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was 0.86 (0.81-0.91) in 2016 compared to 2010), but not for risedronate (OR was 1.56 (0.60-4.06), ibandronate (OR was 0.92 (0.71-1.19) or denosumab (OR was 1.11 (0.87-1.43). Older age was associated with higher persistence for all medications and the same goes for the female sex except for ibandronate. Dementia was associated with higher persistence for alendronate but not denosumab, whereas prior osteoporosis treatment (OT) was the opposite. Several comorbidities were associated with lower persistence for alendronate, but not denosumab.

CONCLUSION

Persistence was highest for denosumab followed by alendronate. We identified several factors associated with treatment persistence, some of which were the same irrespective of OTx agent, which could help target subgroups of patients in terms of social and healthcare support.

The Alignment of Real-World Evidence and Digital Health: Realising the Opportunity

In the new era of healthcare digitalization, there is a golden opportunity in the overlap between digital health and Real-World Evidence (RWE). In this commentary, we define RWE and digital health and investigate their intersection. We describe the stages in the RWE value chain critical to the evidence generation process, how these stages change with new digital technologies and the opportunities and challenges that arise from how these stages evolve—including their application for stakeholders such as patients, physicians and regulators. We also discuss the current published guidelines and frameworks regarding digital health. We categorise these publications in terms of their clarity as “Extensive”, “Intermediate” or “Basic” and according to whether they encompass all levels of digital health or are more focussed in their guidance. Finally, we provide recommendations to increase synergy between RWE and digital health.

Impact of biomarkers and primary tumor location on the metastatic colorectal cancer first-line treatment landscape in five European countries

Background: Advances in therapies for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and improved understanding of prognostic and predictive factors have impacted treatment decisions. Materials & methods: This study used a large oncology database to investigate patterns of monoclonal antibody (mAb) plus chemotherapy treatment in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK in mCRC patients treated in first line in 2018. Results: Anti-EGFR mAbs were most often administered to patients with RAS wild-type mCRC and those with left-sided tumors, while anti-VEGF mAbs were preferred in RAS mutant and right-sided tumors. Adopted treatment strategies differed between countries, largely due to reimbursement. Conclusion: Biomarker status and primary tumor location steered treatment decisions in first line. Adopted treatment strategies differed between participating countries.

Biomarker testing and mutation prevalence in metastatic colorectal cancer patients in five European countries using a large oncology database

Background: The literature on biomarker testing for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Europe is scarce. This study aimed to estimate the percentage of mCRC patients from five European countries tested for biomarkers over time. Materials & methods: An oncology database was retrospectively analyzed; evaluated biomarkers were RAS, BRAF and microsatellite instability (MSI). The patients were drug treated during 2018 and tested for relevant biomarkers in 2013-2018. Results: RAS testing was conducted in >90% of mCRC patients from 2014 onwards. BRAF testing increased from 31% of mCRC patients in 2013 to 67% in 2018. MSI testing increased from 10 to 41%. There was no notable trend over time for RAS and BRAF mutation or MSI-high prevalence. Conclusion: Biomarker testing among patients diagnosed with mCRC was increased over time. This study demonstrates the quick uptake of biomarker testing in clinical practice. These findings are significant as biomarker-based drugs are becoming more common.

Real-world reproducibility study characterizing patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma using Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a UK-based electronic health records database

Purpose

We evaluated the reproducibility of a study characterizing newly‐diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients within an electronic health records (EHR) database using different analytic tools.

Methods

We reproduced the findings of a descriptive cohort study using an iterative two‐phase approach. In Phase I, a common protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP) were implemented by independent investigators using the Aetion Evidence Platform® (AEP), a rapid‐cycle analytics tool, and SAS statistical software as a gold standard for statistical analyses. Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) dataset, the study included patients newly diagnosed with MM within primary care setting and assessed baseline demographics, conditions, drug exposure, and laboratory procedures. Phase II incorporated analysis revisions based on our initial comparison of the Phase I findings. Reproducibility of findings was evaluate by calculating the match rate and absolute difference in prevalence between the SAS and AEP study results.

Results

Phase I yielded slightly discrepant results, prompting amendments to SAP to add more clarity to operational decisions. After detailed specification of data and operational choices, exact concordance was achieved for the number of eligible patients (N = 2646), demographics, comorbidities (i.e., osteopenia, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease [CVD], and hypertension), bone pain, skeletal‐related events, drug exposure, and laboratory investigations in the Phase II analyses.

Conclusions

In this reproducibility study, a rapid‐cycle analytics tool and traditional statistical software achieved near‐exact findings after detailed specification of data and operational choices. Transparency and communication of the study design, operational and analytical choices between independent investigators were critical to achieve this reproducibility.

Dermatologic Toxicities: A Chart Review of Clinical Management Among Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Panitumumab

BACKGROUND

At least 90% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are treated with an anti-EGFR will develop a dermatologic toxicity. Preemptive management strategies have been shown to reduce the severity of rash.

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to describe treatment modalities used for the management of dermatologic toxicity among patients with mCRC who were treated with panitumumab and to assess the proportion of patients who were recommended preemptive versus reactive management strategies.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review evaluated different treatment modalities and routes of administration. The modalities were categorized as prescription or over-the-counter. The timing in relation to the first dose of panitumumab was used to define preemptive versus reactive treatments.

FINDINGS

In a sample of 330 patients, only 10% of patients were recommended to begin treatment for rash preemptively. The two most common treatment modalities for preemptively and reactively treated patients were prescription oral antibiotics and prescription topical antibiotics.

Management of EGFR Inhibitor-induced Skin Toxicity and Factors Impacting Patients' Adherence to Skin Toxicity Treatment: Health Care Provider and Patient Surveys in European Oncology Centers

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to provide a description of existing measures for the prevention and management of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor monoclonal antibody-induced skin toxicities and factors impacting patients' adherence to those measures in France, Germany, and Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study consisted of 2 separate surveys. Health care professionals (HCPs; oncologists and nurses) in France, Germany, and Spain were interviewed, and patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and head-and-neck cancer in France and Germany self-completed questionnaires. The study was conducted between February and July 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 53 oncologists, 44 nurses, and 143 patients participated in the study. HCPs stated that skin toxicities moderately (52%) or severely (28%) impacted patient care. Ninety percent of HCPs reported routine provision of prophylactic measures. The great majority of patients self-reported adherence with the prophylactic (80% to 88% depending on the type of measures) and reactive (93% to drug prescription) skin toxicity recommendations. HCPs estimated patient adherence to be 45% for full adherence and 40% for partial adherence. Most HCPs reported a positive or very positive impact of preventive measures and recommendations on skin toxicity incidence and severity, patients' quality of life, and various aspects of quality of anti-cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin toxicities are an important adversity negatively impacting on patient care. However, despite the positive perception of the effectiveness of skin toxicity prophylaxis, almost one-third of oncology centers did not provide formal guidelines, and 10% of HCPs did not provide routine prophylactic measures. Patient adherence appears to be high for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor monoclonal antibody-induced skin toxicity prevention measures.

Evolution of RAS testing over time: factors influencing mutation rates in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

Aim: Correct identification of RAS gene variants is key for targeted treatment decisions in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Published RAS mutation rates differ and could be influenced by several factors including testing methods. This study aimed to describe the performance of laboratories to correctly identify RAS variants over time and to understand how RAS testing has evolved in Europe. Materials & methods: Misclassification and test failure rates were calculated and related to the used test methodology for 239 unique laboratories participating in external quality assessment for metastatic colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2018. In addition, 33 laboratories completed a survey aiming to obtain more details on their routine testing strategies, number of samples analyzed and RAS mutation rates between 2013 and 2017. Results: The mutation status was correctly analyzed in 96.1% (N = 5471) RAS and BRAF tests. A total of 4.6% (N = 2860) RAS tests included false-negative results. In 1.6% (N = 5562) RAS and BRAF tests, an analysis failure occurred. Misclassifications and technical failures both decreased between 2013 and 2018. The number of next-generation sequencing users increased from 6.9% (N = 130) in 2013 to 44.6% (N = 112) in 2018. Over time, more codons were included in the methodologies, yet 23.2% (N = 112) did not offer full RAS testing (exon 2, 3, 4) in 2018. Based on the survey the overall RAS mutation rate was estimated as 45.2% (N = 27,325). Conclusion: This is the largest observational study reporting RAS mutation rates to-date. There was no trend of RAS mutation rates over time despite having a clear shift to more sensitive tests and increased quality of testing.

Prospective Observational Cohort Study to Describe the Use of Panitumumab in Combination with Chemotherapy in Real-World Clinical Practice for Patients with Wild-Type RAS mCRC

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to better understand panitumumab use in real-life clinical practice in first- and second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in five European countries.

METHODS

This is a combined analysis of two observational, non-interventional prospective cohort studies, one of which was conducted in Germany and France, the other in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Hungary. The studies observed patients with wild-type [Kirsten] rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog ([K]RAS/RAS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), who had been treated with panitumumab in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in the first line or with panitumumab combined with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in the second line following fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. The planned duration of observation was 12 months from the first dose of panitumumab.

RESULTS

A total of 332 patients treated with panitumumab + FOLFOX in the first line and 94 patients treated with panitumumab + FOLFIRI in the second line were analyzed. The median number of panitumumab infusions was 10.0 in first-line FOLFOX patients and 11.5 in second-line FOLFIRI patients; the median duration of panitumumab exposure was 5.7 and 6.9 months, respectively. The unadjusted overall response rate (complete or partial response) in patients with available post-baseline response assessment (n = 290) was 51.7% in first-line FOLFOX and 44.9% in second-line FOLFIRI patients. In the first-line setting, resectability was achieved in 9.3%. Reported hospitalizations were mostly cancer-related visits such as scheduled anticancer treatment administrations, tumor assessment visits, or interventions. The majority of adverse drug reactions were skin disorders, with 75.3% in first-line FOLFOX patients and 72.3% in second-line FOLFIRI patients.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the study results show that treatment patterns, clinical efficacy, and the safety profile of panitumumab in routine clinical practice were comparable to those in randomized controlled trials. The relatively low skin toxicity rate could be attributed to increasing experience in managing panitumumab-associated rash and some degree of underreporting.

FUNDING

Amgen.

European follow-up of incorrect biomarker results for colorectal cancer demonstrates the importance of quality improvement projects

Biomarker analysis for colorectal cancer has been shown to be reliable in Europe with 97% of samples tested by EQA participants to be correctly classified. This study focuses on errors during the annual EQA assessment. The aim was to explore the causes and actions related to the observed errors and to provide feedback and assess any improvement between 2016 and 2017. An electronic survey was sent to all laboratories with minimum one genotyping error or technical failure on ten tumor samples. A workshop was organized based on 2016 survey responses. Improvement of performance in 2017 was assessed for returning participants (n = 76), survey respondents (n = 13) and workshop participants (n = 4). Survey respondents and workshop participants improved in terms of (maximum) analysis score, successful participation, and genotyping errors compared to all returning participants. In 2016, mostly pre- and post-analytical errors (both 25%) were observed caused by unsuitability of the tumor tissue for molecular analysis. In 2017, most errors were due to analytical problems (50.0%) caused by methodological problems. The most common actions taken (n = 58) were protocol revisions (34.5%) and staff training (15.5%). In 24.1% of issues identified no action was performed. Corrective actions were linked to an improved performance, especially if performed by the pathologist. Although biomarker testing has improved over time, error occurrence at different phases stresses the need for quality improvement throughout the test process. Participation to quality improvement projects and a close collaboration with the pathologist can have a positive influence on performance.

Clinical practice use of panitumumab combined with chemotherapy in patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

852

Background: This study aimed to understand panitumumab (pmab) use in clinical practice for patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), in first-line (1L) with FOLFOX or second-line (2L) with FOLFIRI following fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (excl. irinotecan). Methods: This is a combined analysis of two observational, non-interventional prospective cohort studies conducted in Germany/France (2012-2016) and Bulgaria/Czech Republic/Hungary (2013-2016). Results: Results are presented in the order of 1L FOLFOX (n = 332) followed by 2L FOLFIRI (n = 94). Patients received a median of 10 and 11.5 pmab infusions. The median duration of pmab exposure was 5.7 and 6.9 months (note that 53 and 10 patients continued pmab use after study end). The unadjusted overall response rate (complete or partial response) was 42% and 29%, based on 45% and 44% of patients with available response data post-baseline. In the 1L setting, resectability was achieved in 9%, not achieved in 42%, and unknown in 48%. Hospitalizations were reported for 100% and 99%, mostly cancer-related visits such as scheduled anticancer treatment (e.g. chemotherapy/pmab administrations), tumor assessment visits, or interventions; 93% in both groups reported outpatient, 66% and 60% inpatient visits. Conclusions: Overall, the study results show that treatment patterns and clinical efficacy of pmab in routine clinical practice were comparable to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The ADR/SADR skin toxicity events are lower than expected based on findings from RCTs, however, similar findings have been shown in a previous observational study. More investigation is required to understand the reason for this.[Table: see text]

Panitumumab use in metastatic colorectal cancer and patterns of RAS testing: results from a Europe-wide physician survey and medical records review

Background

In Europe, treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with panitumumab requires prior confirmation of RAS wild-type mutation status. Two studies – a physician survey and a medical records review (MRR) – were conducted to evaluate the use of panitumumab and awareness among prescribing oncologists of the associated RAS testing requirements in clinical practice.

Methods

Both studies enrolled participants from nine European countries and were carried out in three consecutive rounds. Rounds 1 and 2 (2012–2013) examined KRAS (exon 2) testing only; the results have been published in full previously. Round 3 (2014–2015) examined full RAS testing (exons 2, 3, 4 of KRAS and NRAS) and was initiated following a change in prescribing guidelines, from requiring KRAS alone to requiring full RAS testing. For the physician survey, telephone interviews were conducted with oncologists who had prescribed panitumumab to patients with mCRC in the previous 6 months. For the MRR, oncologists were asked to provide anonymised clinical information, extracted from their patients’ records.

Results

In Round 3, 152 oncologists and 131 patients’ records were included in the physician survey and MRR, respectively. In Round 3 of the physician survey, 95.4% (n = 145) of participants correctly identified that panitumumab should only be prescribed in RAS wild-type mCRC compared with 99.0% (n = 298) of 301 participants in Rounds 1 and 2, responding to the same question about KRAS testing. In Round 3 of the MRR, 100% (n = 131) of patients included in the study had confirmed KRAS or RAS wild-type status prior to initiation of panitumumab compared with 97.7% (n = 299) of 306 patients in Rounds 1 and 2 (KRAS only). Of those patients in Round 3, 83.2% (n = 109) had been tested for RAS status and 16.8% (n = 22) had been tested for KRAS status only.

Conclusions

Physicians’ adherence to prescribing guidelines has remained high over time in Europe, despite the change in indication for panitumumab treatment, from KRAS to RAS wild-type mCRC. Additionally, this study demonstrates the uptake of full RAS testing among the majority of oncologists and pathologists.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3740-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of real-world data

AIM

A confirmed wild-type RAS tumor status is commonly required for prescribing anti-EGFR treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. This noninterventional, observational research project estimated RAS mutation prevalence from real-world sources.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Aggregate RAS mutation data were collected from 12 sources in three regions. Each source was analyzed separately; pooled prevalence estimates were then derived from meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The pooled RAS mutation prevalence from 4431 tumor samples tested for RAS mutation status was estimated to be 43.6% (95% CI: 38.8-48.5%); ranging from 33.7% (95% CI: 28.4-39.3%) to 54.1% (95% CI: 51.7-56.5%) between sources.

CONCLUSION

The RAS mutation prevalence estimates varied among sources. The reasons for this are not clear and highlight the need for further research.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 8. Data collection and management

Pragmatic trials can improve our understanding of how treatments will perform in routine practice. In a series of eight papers, the GetReal Consortium has evaluated the challenges in designing and conducting pragmatic trials and their specific methodological, operational, regulatory, and ethical implications. The present final paper of the series discusses the operational and methodological challenges of data collection in pragmatic trials. A more pragmatic data collection needs to balance the delivery of highly accurate and complete data with minimizing the level of interference that data entry and verification induce with clinical practice. Furthermore, it should allow for the involvement of a representative sample of practices, physicians, and patients who prescribe/receive treatment in routine care. This paper discusses challenges that are related to the different methods of data collection and presents potential solutions where possible. No one-size-fits-all recommendation can be given for the collection of data in pragmatic trials, although in general the application of existing routinely used data-collection systems and processes seems to best suit the pragmatic approach. However, data access and privacy, the time points of data collection, the level of detail in the data, and the lack of a clear understanding of the data-collection process were identified as main challenges for the usage of routinely collected data in pragmatic trials. A first step should be to determine to what extent existing health care databases provide the necessary study data and can accommodate data collection and management. When more elaborate or detailed data collection or more structured follow-up is required, data collection in a pragmatic trial will have to be tailor-made, often using a hybrid approach using a dedicated electronic case report form (eCRF). In this case, the eCRF should be kept as simple as possible to reduce the burden for practitioners and minimize influence on routine clinical practice.

Regional and practice setting differences in the management of EGFR rash among mCRC patients treated with panitumumab: Results of a national survey in the United States

e15170

Background: Skin toxicity can be a limiting factor for the use of anti-EGFR therapies, such as panitumumab, and there are currently no standard practice guidelines for rash management in the United States (U.S.). This study aimed to evaluate if there were regional or practice setting differences in strategies used among oncologists to manage EGFR rash, including utilization of dermatologic and nursing support. Methods: 250 practicing oncologists who had treated at least three mCRC patients with panitumumab in the last year completed an online survey to report their opinions and perceptions regarding skin toxicity management strategies. Participants reported if they were affiliated with an academic/university or a community-based practice. Participants were stratified into years of practice post-fellowship ( < 10 and > 10 years) and geographic region of primary practice (West, Midwest, Northeast, Southern U.S.). Results: Oncologists surveyed did not consistently utilize dermatology support. 40% (n = 99) of practicing oncologists surveyed reported consulting a dermatologist “occasionally.” Less than 5% reported “always” consulting dermatology and 6% reported “never” utilizing dermatology support. Utilization of dermatology support varied significantly by region. In the Southern US more oncologists reported “never” consulting dermatology while in the Midwest more oncologists reported “always” utilizing dermatology support (p = 0.05). While dermatology was inconsistently utilized, oncologists frequently utilized nursing support to minimize and manage anti-EGFR skin toxicity. 73% (n = 182) of oncologists engaged nursing support to “monitor skin toxicity during treatment” and 70% (n = 175) of oncologists had nursing support to “educate on skin toxicity prior to starting treatment.” Conclusions: While nursing support is consistently utilized by oncologists in the management of EGFR rash in mCRC patients treated with panitumumab, use of dermatology support was inconsistent and varied significantly by region. This lack of consistency in toxicity management strategies highlights the need for increased physician education.

Trends in biomarker testing among metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A temporal description of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF testing in the EU5

e15136

Background: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) changed its indication language from wild-type KRAS to wild-type RAS ( KRAS and NRAS) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with panitumumab in July 2013. The objective of this study was to describe patterns of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF testing among mCRC patients in the EU5 (United Kingdom (U.K.), Germany, France, Italy and Spain) and to evaluate if there were demographic or clinical differences in the patients who were/were not tested. Methods: This descriptive study utilized a serial physician survey from Oncology Analyzer data (IMS Health Oncology, Fairfield, CT, USA), which provides real-world epidemiologic and clinical data. Trends in biomarker testing were evaluated by calculating the proportion of patients who were /were not tested for combinations of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF within each of the five countries. KRAS and BRAF data were available in all countries from quarter three (Q3) 2012 to quarter two (Q2) 2015. NRAS was available in all countries from quarter 1 (Q1) 2014 to Q2 2015. Frequencies and proportions were also calculated to summarize patient demographic and clinical characteristics between groups with different testing choices. Results: The study included 32,961 mCRC patients. Prior to July 2013, most patients were tested for only KRAS. The proportions of patients tested for both KRAS and NRAS increased substantially during the period of data availability for NRAS, including < 1% to 19.1% in the U.K., 8.8% to 31.9% in France, 13.1% to 43.2% in Germany, 5.9% to 24.6% in Italy, and 8.7% to 31.4% in Spain. The proportions of patients tested for all three biomarkers also increased during the period of data availability for all three biomarkers (Q1 2014 to Q2 2015), including 2.3% to 16.4% in the U.K., 4.8% to 26.6% in France, < 1% to 2.4% in Germany, 4.2% to 22.3% in Italy, and 1.5% to 9.3% in Spain. There were few differences in patient demographic or clinical characteristics between those with different testing choices. Conclusions: This analysis provides a description of the patterns of biomarker testing using read-world data and suggests a consistent increase in testing among mCRC patients in the EU5.

Preemptive versus reactive management of EGFR rash among mCRC patients treated with panitumumab: Results of a national survey of treating oncologists in the United States

e15169

Background: The Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol with Panitumumab (STEPP) and the Japan Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol with Panitumumab (J-STEPP) were open-label, randomized trials that were designed to evaluate differences in preemptive versus reactive management of dermatologic toxicities associated with panitumumab among patients with mCRC. The objective of this study was to evaluate if there were differences in the knowledge and application of STEPP and J-STEPP among oncologists who self-identified as primarily managing EGFR rash preemptively or reactively. Methods: A total of 250 practicing oncologists who had treated at least three new or continuing mCRC patients with panitumumab in the last year completed an online survey to report their opinions and perceptions regarding the management strategies for mCRC patients who are treated with panitumumab. Preemptive treatment was described in the survey as beginning treatment “prior to the appearance of rash” and reactive treatment was defined as beginning treatment “after signs of rash.” Results: Of the 250 oncologists who participated in this study, n = 58 (23%) reported treating 100% of their patients preemptively and n = 38 (15%) reported treating 100% of their patients reactively. A significantly higher proportion of preemptive treaters than reactive treaters reported following the skin management strategies from STEPP or J-STEPP when managing panitumumab-related skin toxicity (31% vs 13%, p = 0.02). When asked if skin moisturizer, sunscreen, over-the-counter topical steroids, prescription topical steroids, oral antibiotics, topical antibiotics, or UV protective garments were most critical in the preemptive management of panitumumab-related skin toxicity, preemptive treaters more likely to report using oral antibiotics and reactive treaters more like to report using sunscreen (p = 0.05). Conclusions: The results of this survey highlight the wide variability in the management of EGFR-related rash among mCRC patients who are treated with panitumumab and they highlight the need for heighted education among oncologists who treat mCRC patients with panitumumab.

The treatment continuum of panitumumab, cetuximab, and bevacizumab in 1st through 3rd line by KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutation status among mCRC patients treated at community cancer centers in the United States

638

Background: Our objective was to use real world data to evaluate of the treatment continuum of bevacizumab (Bmab), cetuximab (Cmab), panitumumab (Pmab) or no biologics across 1st, 2nd, and 3rd lines among metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who were treated at community cancer centers in the United States. This objective was applied separately to patients with confirmed KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF wild-type (WT) or mutation (MUT) status, as well as patient who did not receive biomarker testing (UNK). Methods: This descriptive study utilized data from the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records (OSCER) database. It included 5,446 (2,064 WT, 1,807 MUT, and 1,575 UNK) patients diagnosed with mCRC between 1/1/2011 and 8/31/2015. Patients were stratified into the following mutually-exclusive categories in 1st, 2nd line, and 3rd line: Pmab only, Cmab only, Bmab only, or no biologic. Patients who survived and continued therapy were followed through the lines of therapy. Results: 23.8% of WT, 36.3% of MUT and 49.5% of UNK patients did not receive a biologic in 1st line. There were 1,003 WT patients who were treated with Bmab in 1st. Of those, n=587 (58.5%) survived and elected to continue treatment in 2nd line as follows: n=221 (37.6%) continued with Bmab, n=216 (36.8%) initiated Cmab, n=65 (11.1%) initiated Pmab, and n=85 (14.5%) received no biologic in 2nd line. Of the 221 WT patients who received Bmab in 1st and 2nd line, n=129 (58.4%) survived and initiated 3rd line treatment, of which n=20 (15.5%) received Bmab in 3rd line. There were 127/2,604 (4.9%) WT patients who were treated with Pmab in 1st line. Of those 127 patients, n=46 (36.2%) survived and elected to continue treatment in 2nd line as follows: n=11 (29.3%) continued treatment with Pmab in 2nd line, while n=14 (30.4%) initiated treatment with Bmab, n=4 (8.7%) initiated treatment with Cmab, and n=16 (36.4%) did not receive a biologic in 2nd line. Conclusions: A small proportion of patients continued treatment with the same biologic throughout subsequent lines of therapy. Many patients were not treated with a biologic in any line, even if they were confirmed WT.

A survey of medical oncologist’s opinions and perceptions regarding the management of dermatologic toxicities among mCRC patients treated with panitumumab in the United States

639

Background: Dermatologic toxicity can be a limiting factor for the use of anti-EGFR therapy such as panitumumab. There is a paucity of real world data regarding the management of dermatologic toxicity among metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with panitumumab in the United States (U.S.). The objective of this study is to describe oncologist's opinions regarding timing of skin rash management in relation to the initiation of treatment and perceptions regarding rash management strategies. Methods: A total of 125 oncologists were recruited from a national database via a third independent party. Eligible oncologists (i.e.: licensed and practicing oncologist who had treated at least three new or continuing mCRC patients with panitumumab in the last year) completed an online survey to report their opinions regarding the grade and type of dermatologic toxicities seen and their perceptions about management strategies for mCRC patients who are treated with panitumumab. The timing of rash management initiation was defined as pre-emptive (prior to the appearance of the rash) or reactive (after any signs of skin rash). Results: Based upon their collective experience, oncologists expect that 44% of patients will develop acneiform rash while on treatment. More than half (58%) of the oncologists reported they did not follow any practice guidelines regarding the management of dermatologic toxicities. The oncologists reported that they pre-emptively initiated the management of dermatologic toxicities in 53% of their patients. Skin moisturizer and sunscreen were reported to be the most critical preemptive management approach, while skin moisturizer, over-the-counter topical steroids, and oral antibiotics were reported to be the most critical reactive management tools for Grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Conclusions: Despite evidence from randomized controlled trials, a majority of oncologists do not follow guidelines for dermatologic management of EGFR-I rash. There is a clear need for better physician education and awareness of mitigation strategies for skin toxicity management in mCRC patients treated with panitumumab.

Patterns of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF testing among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the EU5

637

Background: In mid-2013, the requirement for mCRC patients treated with panitumumab changed from wild-type KRAS to wild-type RAS ( KRAS and NRAS). The objective of this study was to describe patterns of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF testing among mCRC patients in the EU5 (United Kingdom (U.K.), Germany, France, Italy and Spain). Methods: This descriptive study utilized Oncology Analyzer data (IMS Health Oncology, Fairfield, CT, USA), which provides real-world quarterly cross-sectional, epidemiologic and clinical data for mCRC patients. Trends in biomarker testing during the study period were evaluated by calculating the frequencies and proportions of patients who were /were not tested for combinations of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF within each of the five countries. KRAS and BRAF data were available in all countries from quarter three (Q3) 2012 to quarter two (Q2) 2015. NRAS was available in all countries from quarter 1 (Q1) 2014 to Q2 2015. Frequencies and proportions were also calculated to summarize patient demographic and clinical characteristics between groups with different testing choices. Results: A total of 32,961 patients with mCRC were included in the analyses. Prior to 2013, the majority of patients in each country were tested for only KRAS. The proportion of patients tested for both KRAS and NRAS increased substantially during the period of data availability for NRAS (Q1 2014 to Q2 2015), including <1% to 19.1% in the U.K., 8.8% to 31.9% in France, 13.1% to 43.2% in Germany, 5.9% to 24.6% in Italy, and 8.7% to 31.4% in Spain. The proportion of patients who were tested for all three biomarkers also increased during the period of data availability for all three biomarkers (Q1 2014 to Q2 2015), including 2.3% to 16.4% in the U.K., 4.8% to 26.6% in France, <1% to 2.4% in Germany, 4.2% to 22.3% in Italy, and 1.5% to 9.3% in Spain. There were few differences in patient demographic or clinical characteristics between those with different testing groups. Conclusions: This analysis provides a description of biomarker testing using read-world data and suggests an overall increase in testing among mCRC patients in the EU5. Although there was a trend towards increased testing, many mCRC patients are still not tested for these important biomarkers.

RAS testing practices and RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a Europe-wide survey of pathology centres

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include anti-epithelial growth factor therapies, which, in Europe, are indicated in patients with RAS wild-type tumours only and require prior mutation testing of "hot-spot" codons in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of RAS testing methods and estimate the RAS mutation prevalence in mCRC patients.

METHODS

Overall, 194 pathology laboratories were invited to complete an online survey. Participating laboratories were asked to provide information on their testing practices and aggregated RAS mutation data from 20 to 30 recently tested patients with mCRC.

RESULTS

A total of 96 (49.5 %) laboratories across 24 European countries completed the survey. All participants tested KRAS exon 2, codons 12 and 13. Seventy (72.9 %) laboratories reported complete testing of all RAS hot-spot codons, and three (3.1 %) reported only testing KRAS exon 2. Sixty-nine (71.9 %) laboratories reported testing >80 patients yearly for RAS mutation status. Testing was typically performed within the reporting institution (93.8 %, n = 90), at the request of a treating oncologist (89.5 %, n = 85); testing methodology varied by laboratory and by individual codon tested. For laboratory RAS testing, turnaround times were ≤10 working days for the majority of institutions (90.6 %, n = 87). The overall crude RAS mutation prevalence was 48.5 % (95 % confidence interval: 46.4-50.6) for laboratories testing all RAS hot-spot codons. Prevalence estimates varied significantly by primary tumour location, approximate number of patients tested yearly and indication given for RAS testing.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate a rapid uptake of RAS testing in the majority of European pathology laboratories.

RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of real-world data

513

Background: Guidelines for prescribing anti-EGFR therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) require prior testing to confirm RAS (exons 2, 3, 4 of KRAS and NRAS) wild-type status in Europe and the USA. There is limited published evidence reporting the prevalence of RAS mutations in patients with mCRC in a real-world setting. The aim of this study was to use data from a range of real-world sources to obtain RAS mutation prevalence estimates for different geographic regions. Methods: Aggregated RAS mutation prevalence data were collected from 13 sources, including individual pathology centers (n = 7), mCRC registries (n = 3), and Amgen-sponsored studies (n = 3). Data sources included in this study originated in Europe (n = 10), the Middle East (n = 2), and South America (n = 1). A meta-analysis of all collected data was carried out to investigate the effect of heterogeneity amongst the data sources and obtain pooled RAS prevalence estimates for each, using a mixed regression model. Results: Aggregate data from 4322 patients with mCRC were included in the pooled meta-analysis. The overall RAS mutation prevalence across all data sources was estimated to be 43.5% (95% CI: 41.5–45.5%). RAS mutation prevalence varied between data sources, ranging from low estimates of 33.7% (95% CI: 28.4–39.3%) for a Middle Eastern pathology dataset, and 34.6% (95% CI: 27.7–42.1%) for a Middle Eastern mCRC registry, to the highest estimates of 53.6% (95% CI: 43.2–63.8%) and 54.1% (95% CI: 51.7–56.5%) in two European pathology centers, in the Czech Republic and Poland, respectively. Conclusions: This is one of the first studies to carry out a large pooled analysis of RAS mutation prevalence, based on real-world data. There was a high degree of heterogeneity between the sources included, possibly due to the types of data source, patient selection criteria, geographic location, or differences in laboratory testing methods. The estimated RAS mutation prevalence reported here is lower than that in a recent pooled analysis of past clinical trials, which reported an overall prevalence of 55.5% (95% CI: 53.9–57.9%) (Peeters M, et al. Eur J Cancer 2015;51:1704–13). Further investigations are required to explain the disparity in these findings.

The prevalence RAS and BRAF mutations among patients in the Middle East and Northern Africa with metastatic colorectal cancer

598

Background: Anti-EGFR therapies are recommended for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with confirmed wild-type RAS (exons 2, 3, 4 of KRAS and NRAS) status. There is limited published information on the prevalence of RAS mutations using real world data. The objective of this study was estimate the prevalence of RAS and BRAF mutations among patients with mCRC in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) in an effort to inform the rationale for biomarker testing and treatment choice. Methods: The study included 1,669 patients from August 2013 to July 2015 with mCRC from Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emeritus. Information on RAS mutation status was obtained from one pathology lab using High Resolution Melting Analysis. Extended RAS analysis was conducted in a subset of patients, including: overall RAS (exon 2, 3, 4 of KRAS and NRAS; n = 750), KRAS exon 2 (n = 750), KRAS exon 3 and 4 (n = 507), NRAS exon 2, 3, and 4 (n = 507), and BRAF exon 15 (n = 78). The proportion of patients with each mutation was summarized. Results: The overall RAS mutation in the full sample was 35.3% (n = 589/1669). The observed mutation for KRAS exon 2 in a subset of patients with extended RAS analysis (n = 750) was 32.4% (243/750). Out of the subjects with wild-type exon 2 (n = 507), the observed mutations rates were as follows: KRAS exon 4 (20/507 = 3.9%), KRAS exon 3 (13/507 = 2.6%), NRAS exon 2 (7/507 = 1.4%), NRAS exon 3 (6/507 = 1.2%), and NRAS exon 4 (0%). The prevalence of BRAF exon 15 was 3.8% (3/78). The most robust data on specific RAS mutations was obtained from Algeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. The prevalence of KRAS exon 2 mutations in these countries was as follows: Algeria (n = 33/86 = 38.4%), Egypt (n = 83/303 = 27.4%), Saudi Arabia (n = 85/245 = 34.7%). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the prevalence of RAS and BRAF mutations in the Middle East using real world data. The results of this descriptive study illustrate that there is variation in the prevalence of RAS and BRAF mutations in MENA.

RAS testing awareness amongst oncologists and panitumumab prescription for metastatic colorectal cancer: A European physician survey and medical records review

530

Background: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) must have a confirmed RAS wild-type status before starting panitumumab (pmab). Two studies, a physician survey and a medical records review (MRR), were carried out to evaluate physician awareness of the need for biomarker testing in mCRC. Methods: Both studies were carried out in three rounds. Rounds 1 and 2 (2012–14) examined KRAS testing only as they were completed before guidelines changed, and have been published previously. Round 3 (2014–15), reported here, was performed after guidelines changed and covered full RAS testing. Participants were from nine European countries:France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden. For the survey, oncologists who had prescribed pmab to mCRC patients in the previous 6 months were interviewed by telephone using a standard questionnaire.For the MRR,oncologists were asked to provide clinical information extracted from their patients’ medical records. Results: 152 oncologists and 131 patients’ records were included in Round 3 of the physician survey and the MMR, respectively, compared with 301 oncologists and 306 records in Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3 of the physician survey, 95.4% (n = 145) of participants correctly reported that pmab should be prescribed in RAS wild-type mCRC only, compared with 99.0% (n = 298) in Rounds 1 and 2, responding to the same question about KRAS testing. In Round 3 of the MRR, 100% (n = 131) of patients had a confirmed RAS or KRAS wild-type status prior to initiation of pmab. Of those patients, 83.2% (n = 109) were tested for RAS status and 16.8% (n = 22) were tested for KRAS status only. Conclusions: Round 3 of the survey demonstrated a high level of knowledge amongst oncologists about the need for RAS testing in mCRC. The MRR supported these findings, showing that this knowledge is being applied to clinical practice. Comparisons between Round 3 and Rounds 1 and 2 show that physician awareness and adherence to prescribing guidelines remained high over time, despite recommendations changing with RAS testing replacing KRAS testing.

Panitumumab Use in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Patterns of KRAS Testing: Results from a Europe-Wide Physician Survey and Medical Records Review

Background

From 2008–2013, the European indication for panitumumab required that patients’ tumor KRAS exon 2 mutation status was known prior to starting treatment. To evaluate physician awareness of panitumumab prescribing information and how physicians prescribe panitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), two European multi-country, cross-sectional, observational studies were initiated in 2012: a physician survey and a medical records review. The first two out of three planned rounds for each study are reported.

Methods

The primary objective in the physician survey was to estimate the prevalence of KRAS testing, and in the medical records review, it was to evaluate the effect of test results on patterns of panitumumab use. The medical records review study also included a pathologists’ survey.

Results

In the physician survey, nearly all oncologists (299/301) were aware of the correct panitumumab indication and the need to test patients’ tumor KRAS status before treatment with panitumumab. Nearly all oncologists (283/301) had in the past 6 months of clinical practice administered panitumumab correctly to mCRC patients with wild-type KRAS status. In the medical records review, 97.5% of participating oncologists (77/79) conducted a KRAS test for all of their patients prior to prescribing panitumumab. Four patients (1.3%) did not have tumor KRAS mutation status tested prior to starting panitumumab treatment. Approximately one-quarter of patients (85/306) were treated with panitumumab and concurrent oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy; of these, 83/85 had confirmed wild-type KRAS status prior to starting panitumumab treatment. All 56 referred laboratories that participated used a Conformité Européenne-marked or otherwise validated KRAS detection method, and nearly all (55/56) participated in a quality assurance scheme.

Conclusions

There was a high level of knowledge amongst oncologists around panitumumab prescribing information and the need to test and confirm patients’ tumors as being wild-type KRAS prior to treatment with panitumumab, with or without concurrent oxaliplatin-containing therapy.

Prevalence of RAS mutations and individual variation patterns among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A pooled analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The use of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors to treat metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients requires prior confirmation of tumour wild type (WT) RAS mutation status (exons 2/3/4 for KRAS or NRAS). This retrospective pooled analysis aims to robustly estimate RAS mutation prevalence and individual variation patterns in mCRC patients.

METHOD

Individual patient data from five randomised, controlled panitumumab studies (three phase III, one phase II and one phase Ib/II) were pooled for this analysis. The phase III studies included mCRC patients independent of RAS mutation status; the phase II and Ib/II studies included mCRC patients with confirmed WT KRAS exon 2 status. Four studies conducted RAS testing using Sanger sequencing; one study used a combination of next-generation sequencing and Sanger sequencing. In order to assign overall RAS status, the mutation status of all exons 2/3/4 KRAS or NRAS was required to be known.

RESULTS

Data from 3196 mCRC patients from 36 countries were included in the analysis. The overall unadjusted RAS mutation prevalence in mCRC patients was 55.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): [53.9-57.9%]), with the following distribution observed: KRAS exon 2 (prevalence 42.6% [40.7-44.5%]); KRAS exon 3 (3.8% [2.9-4.9%]); KRAS exon 4 (6.2% [5.0-7.6%]); NRAS exon 2 (2.9% [2.1-3.9%]); NRAS exon 3 (4.2% [3.2-5.4%]); NRAS exon 4 (0.3% [0.1-0.7%]). Differences in RAS mutation prevalence estimates were observed by study (p=0.001), gender (p=0.030), and by country (p=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides robust estimates of overall RAS mutation prevalence and individual variation patterns in mCRC patients.

An Outbreak of Cryptosporidium parvum across England & Scotland Associated with Consumption of Fresh Pre-Cut Salad Leaves, May 2012

BACKGROUND

We report a widespread foodborne outbreak of Cryptosporidium parvum in England and Scotland in May 2012. Cases were more common in female adults, and had no history of foreign travel. Over 300 excess cases were identified during the period of the outbreak. Speciation and microbiological typing revealed the outbreak strain to be C. parvum gp60 subtype IIaA15G2R1.

METHODS

Hypothesis generation questionnaires were administered and an unmatched case control study was undertaken to test the hypotheses raised. Cases and controls were interviewed by telephone. Controls were selected using sequential digit dialling. Information was gathered on demographics, foods consumed and retailers where foods were purchased.

RESULTS

Seventy-four laboratory confirmed cases and 74 controls were included in analyses. Infection was found to be strongly associated with the consumption of pre-cut mixed salad leaves sold by a single retailer. This is the largest documented outbreak of cryptosporidiosis attributed to a food vehicle.

Prevalence of RAS mutations among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer by country and region in randomized clinical trials: A pooled analysis

520

Background: Global mCRC treatment guidelines for EGFR inhibitors require prior confirmation of wild-type RAS status (KRAS exons 2, 3, 4 and NRAS 2, 3, 4). The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of RAS mutations among mCRC patients by country, demographic characteristics, and clinical risk factors. A secondary aim was to estimate BRAF and KRASexon 2 mutation prevalence. Methods: Data from 5 published Amgen-sponsored randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were merged in a retrospective pooled analysis. There were 3 phase III, 1 phase II, and 1 phase Ib/II studies. For 4 out of 5 RCTs, RAStesting was conducted in a U.S. laboratory (Transgenomic Inc.) using Sanger sequencing on DNA extracted from tumor samples. For the remaining trial, a combination of next-generation sequencing and Sanger sequencing was used. Results: A total of 3,196 patients from 36 countries were included. The overall unadjusted prevalence of RAS mutations among mCRC subjects was 55.9% (95% CI, 53.9%, 57.9%); KRAS exon 2 mutation prevalence was 42.6% (40.7%, 44.5%). The prevalence by exon is given in the table below. BRAFmutation prevalence was 8.1% (6.7%, 9.6%). There were no statistically significant differences in RAS mutation prevalence by gender, age, or clinical factors such as performance status, tumour site, biopsy origin, or metastasis characteristics. Statistically significant differences in RAS mutation prevalence estimates were observed by country and by region with rates for Central West Europe being significantly lower than Eastern Europe (49.4% [44.4%, 54.3%] and 61.5%; [55.3%; 67.4%] respectively). Statistically significant RASmutation prevalence differences were observed between studies which could be due to varying patient characteristics. Conclusions: By merging data from RCTs, the analysis provides robust estimates of RASmutation prevalence. Studies using observational data are needed to confirm these findings. [Table: see text]

Awareness of KRAS testing by oncologists and panitumumab use in colorectal cancer patients: A European survey

547

Background: Panitumumab (Pmab) is licensed for treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with wild type KRAS mutation status (US) and wild type RAS (KRAS and NRAS) mutation status (most other countries). To resolve uncertainties about KRAS testing, a survey and medical records review (MRR) are being carried out in Europe in three rounds: the first two rounds (2012-2013) evaluated KRAS testing and round 3 is evaluating RAS testing. These studies are specific obligations in Europe for the conditional marketing authorization for Pmab. Here we present results of rounds 1 and 2. Methods: Eligible oncologists were contacted by telephone in nine European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden). To be eligible, the physician was required to be a practicing oncologist and have prescribed Pmab to mCRC patients. Results: 299 of 301 (99.3%) oncologists participating in the survey were aware of the need to perform KRAS testing prior to first dose of Pmab and 294 (97.7%) were aware of patients’ KRAS mutation status prior to first dose. 283 of 301 (94.0%) did not prescribe Pmab to mCRC patients with mutant or unknown KRAS status. 164 physicians administered Pmab simultaneously with oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy to patients and 10 (6.1%) to patients with mutant or unknown KRAS status. 306 patients from 79 participating oncologists were included in the MRR. 302 of 306 mCRC patients (98.7%) were tested for KRAS tumor status, known by the oncologist before first dose of Pmab. 299 of 302 patients (99.0%) had wild-type KRAS tumor status. 83 of 85 patients (97.6%) treated with Pmab and oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy had wild-type KRAS tumor status. 55 of 56 linked pathology laboratories (98.2%) participated in a Quality Assurance scheme; all used a CE marked or otherwise validated KRAS detection method. Conclusions: Results from both studies show a high level of knowledge among oncologists of the need for KRAS testing in mCRC patients prior to treatment with Pmab and the contraindication with oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy with mutant or unknown KRAS tumour status. The final round of this study evaluating RAS testing in Europe is currently underway.

Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine in preventing medically attended influenza infection in England and Wales during the 2010/2011 season: a primary care-based cohort study

Background

Estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) are affected by factors such as the strain of the current circulating influenza virus and characteristics of the host.

Objective

The objective of this study was to provide VE estimates for the 2010/2011 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) in preventing medically attended influenza in England and Wales for the season 2010/2011.

Methods

A cohort study design was employed using electronic health records extracted from 104 GP practices in the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) primary care sentinel network. Endpoints included influenza‐like illness (ILI), lower respiratory tract infection (LTRI) as well as PCR‐confirmed influenza from patients swabbed from practices participating in a swabbing scheme. Adjustment was made for age, month, underlying chronic condition, region and number of consultations in the 12 months prior to the study period. In addition to the cohort analysis, a nested test‐negative case–control analysis (TNCC) was carried out using the swab‐negative results as controls.

Results

In the cohort analysis, VE against LRTI was −0·5% [95% CI: (−7·0%, 7·5%)], against ILI was 37·8% [95% CI: (32·3%, 43·0%)] and against PCR‐confirmed influenza was 50·0% [95% CI:(25·9%, 65·6%)] for type A and 44·4% [95% CI: (10·1%, 65·6%)] for type B. Using the TNCC design, the type A VE was 56·5% [95% CI: (30·4%, 72·7%)] and for type B was 54·0% [95% CI: (21·0%, 73·3%)].

Conclusions

This study shows that the 2010/2011 TIV provided moderate protection against the circulating influenza strains for the 2010/2011 season. It also suggests that VE against the less specific diagnosis of ILI can be found, but less specific endpoints such as LRTI are not useful.

Development and assessment of national performance indicators for infection prevention and control and antimicrobial stewardship in European long-term care facilities

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infections in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are of increasing importance.

AIM

To develop consensus national performance indicators (NPIs) for infection control (ICPI) and antimicrobial stewardship (ASPI) in LTCFs, and assess the performance of 32 European countries against these NPIs.

METHODS

Previously established European standards were the basis for consensus and the same iterative approach with national representatives from the 32 countries. A World Health Organization scoring system recorded how close each country was to implementing each standard.

FINDINGS

The 42 agreed component indicators were grouped into six NPI categories: 'national programme', 'guidelines', 'expert advice', 'IC structure' (not present in the ASPI), 'surveillance' and 'composite'. 'Guidelines' scored the highest mean total possible score (60%, range 20-100%), followed by 'composite' (53%, range 30-100%), 'expert advice' (48%, range 20-100%), 'surveillance' (47%, range 20-83%), 'national programme' (42%, range 20-100%) and 'IC structure' (39%, range 20-100%). Although several scores were low, some countries were able to implement all NPIs, indicating that this was feasible. Most NPIs were very significantly related, indicating that they were considered to be important by the countries. 'Guidelines' and 'IC structure' were significantly related to European region (P ≤ 0.05). Accreditation/inspection was not evident in seven (22%) countries, nine (28%) countries had accreditation/inspection that included IC assessments, and seven (22%) countries had accreditation/inspection that included IC and antimicrobial stewardship assessments. Multi-variable analysis found that only the NPI and the ICPI 'expert advice' were associated with accreditation/inspection which included IC and antimicrobial stewardship.

CONCLUSION

The identified gaps represent significant potential patient safety issues. The NPIs should serve as a basis for monitoring improvements over the coming years.

Regression models for censored serological data

The impact was assessed of censored serological measurements on regression equations fitted to data from panels of sera tested by different laboratories, for the purpose of standardizing serosurvey results to common units. Several methods that adjust for censoring were compared, such as deletion, simple substitution, multiple imputation and censored regression. Simulations were generated from different scenarios for varying proportions of data censored. The scenarios were based on serological panel comparisons tested by different national laboratories and assays as part of the European Sero-Epidemiology Network 2 project. The results showed that the simple substitution and deletion methods worked reasonably well for low proportions of data censored (<20 %). However, in general, the censored regression method gave estimates closer to the truth than the other methods examined under different scenarios, such as types of equations used and violation of regression assumptions. Interval-censored regression produced the least biased estimates for assay data resulting from dilution series. Censored regression produced the least biased estimates in comparison with the other methods examined. Moreover, the results suggest using interval-censored regression methods for assay data resulting from dilution series.

Comparison of a commercial Varicella Zoster glycoprotein IgG enzyme immunoassay with a reference time resolved fluorescence immunoassay (VZV TRFIA) for measuring VZV IgG in sera from pregnant women, sera sent for confirmatory testing and pre and post vOka vaccination sera from healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Recently, a commercial, standardised VZV IgG glycoprotein EIA, Binding Site VaccZyme™VZV glycoprotein IgG low level EIA (VaccZyme™EIA) has become available. The VaccZyme™EIA is more robust and user friendly than the reference VZV time-resolved fluorescence immunoassay (VZV TRFIA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the usefulness of the VaccZyme™EIA in the diagnostic laboratory by comparing VZV IgG levels generated by both assays on serum panels representing, non-vaccinated, and vOka vaccinated populations.

STUDY DESIGN

Sera from non-vaccinated individuals were tested; 248 from pregnant women, 117 from various patient groups referred to the Virus Reference Department for confirmatory VZV IgG testing and 102 from healthcare workers enrolled in a study (ROVE) of antibody/IgG response to vOka. From the ROVE study, 282 post vaccination sera were tested; 108 and 101 collected at six weeks post first and second doses of vOka, respectively, and 73 collected at 18 month follow-up.

RESULTS

Sensitivities and specificities (equivocals treated as negatives) of the VaccZyme™EIA for sera from pregnant women were 97.8% (95% CI: [94.6%, 99.4%]) and 96.8% (95% CI: [89.0%, 99.6%]), respectively, and for sera referred for confirmatory testing were 81.2% (95% CI: [71.2%, 88.8%]) and 96.9% (95% CI: [83.8%, 99.9%]), respectively, and for ROVE baseline sera were 54.2% (95% CI: [32.8%, 74.4%]) and 100% (95% CI: [95.4%, 100.0%]), respectively. For the post vOka serum panels sensitivities of the VaccZyme™EIA ranged from 65.3% (95% CI: [50.4%, 78.3%]) to 80.4% (95% CI: [71.1%, 87.8%]). Specificities were all 100%. Correlation with VZV TRFIA was high and agreement varied between the serum panels tested.

CONCLUSIONS

VaccZyme™EIA is recommended for detecting VZV IgG in sera from non-vaccinated populations; however, caution is advised when measuring post vOka VZV IgG levels.

Screening for carbon monoxide exposure in selected patient groups attending rural and urban emergency departments in England: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

Carbon monoxide (CO) exposure does not produce a classical toxidrome and so it is thought that it may easily be missed, allowing patients to continue to be exposed to CO. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of raised carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) levels in a targeted population of patients presenting to four emergency departments (EDs) in England.

DESIGN

A prospective observational study undertaken over a 9-month period.

SETTING

Four EDs; one in a rural/suburban area and three serving urban populations.

PARTICIPANTS

1758 patients presenting to the EDs with chest pain, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), non-traumatic headache, seizures or flu-like symptoms.

MAIN OUTCOME

Measures COHb levels measured using a pulse CO-oximeter or venous sample. Patients with COHb levels ≥2.5% (non-smokers) or ≥5% (smokers) completed a questionnaire assessing potential sources. Patients were defined to be positive for CO exposure if they had a positive COHb and either an identified source or no other reason for their raised level.

RESULTS

Proportion of positive patients was: overall-4.3%; COPD-7.5%; headache-6.3%; flu-like-4.3%; chest pain-3.3%; seizures-2.1%. A variety of gas and solid (predominantly charcoal) fossil fuel sources were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that 4.3% of patients presenting to EDs with non-specific symptoms had unexpectedly raised COHb levels 1.4% of patients had a source of CO identified. Study limitations included non-consecutive recruitment, delays in COHb measurements and a lack of ambient CO measurements, which precludes precise determination of incidence. However, this study should alert clinicians to consider CO exposure in patients presenting with non-specific symptoms, in particular headache and exacerbation of COPD, and if necessary refer patients for suitable public-health follow-up, even in the presence of low COHb readings. Further research should include standardised scene assessments.

National outbreak of Salmonella Java phage type 3b variant 9 infection using parallel case-control and case-case study designs, United Kingdom, July to October 2010

Between July and October 2010, a national outbreak comprising 136 cases of Salmonella Java phage type 3b variant 9 was identified by the Health Protection Agency. Most cases were female. Cases had a median age of 39.5 years and lived in London, the South East and East of England. Parallel case–control and case–case study designs were undertaken to test the generated hypotheses. The case–case study aimed to examine if the infection was associated with eating food items purchased from commercial catering settings, and the reference group comprised non-travel related cases of S. Enteritidis infected during the same time period as the cases. The case–control study was designed to examine if the infection was associated with specific food items purchased from commercial catering settings, and recruited case-nominated controls. However, in response to poor recruitment we adapted our methods to investigate food exposures in the same way. Results of epidemiological investigations are compatible with salad vegetables as the potential source, but no common suppliers of salad were identified and no organisms were isolated from environmental and food samples. Limitations in the case–control study highlight the potential value of using a combination of epidemiological methods to investigate outbreaks.

National outbreak of Salmonella Java phage type 3b variant 9 infection using parallel case–control and case–case study designs, United Kingdom, July to October 2010

Binary file ES_Abstracts_Final_ECDC.txt matches

Use of antiviral drugs to reduce household transmission of pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United Kingdom

TOC Summary: Early treatment of primary case-patients and prophylaxis of household contacts provides effective protection.

The United Kingdom implemented a containment strategy for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 through administering antiviral agents (AVs) to patients and their close contacts. This observational household cohort study describes the effect of AVs on household transmission. We followed 285 confirmed primary cases in 259 households with 761 contacts. At 2 weeks, the confirmed secondary attack rate (SAR) was 8.1% (62/761) and significantly higher in persons <16 years of age than in those >50 years of age (18.9% vs. 1.2%, p<0.001). Early (<48 hours) treatment of primary case-patients reduced SAR (4.5% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.003). The SAR in child contacts was 33.3% (10/30) when the primary contact was a woman and 2.9% (1/34) when the primary contact was a man (p = 0.010). Of 53 confirmed secondary case-patients, 45 had not received AV prophylaxis. The effectiveness of AV prophylaxis in preventing infection was 92%.

Emergence of pregnancy-related listeriosis amongst ethnic minorities in England and Wales

Listeriosis is a rare but severe food-borne disease that predominantly affects pregnant women, the unborn, newborns, the elderly and immunocompromised people. Following a large outbreak in the 1980s, specific food safety advice was provided to pregnant women and the immunocompromised in the United Kingdom. Following two coincident yet unconnected cases of pregnancy-related listeriosis in eastern European women in 2008, a review of the role of ethnicity in pregnancy-related listeriosis in England and Wales was undertaken in 2009. Cases reported to the national listeriosis surveillance scheme were classified as 'ethnic', belonging to an ethnic minority, or 'non-ethnic' based on their name, and trends were examined. Between 2001 and 2008, 1,510 cases of listeriosis were reported in England and Wales and, of these, 12% were pregnancy-related cases. The proportion of pregnancy-related cases classified as ethnic increased significantly from 16.7% to 57.9% (chi-square test for trend p=0.002). The reported incidence among the ethnic population was higher than that among the non-ethnic population in 2006, 2007 and 2008 (Relative Risk: 2.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.07 to 5.29; 3.82, 1.82 to 8.03; 4.33, 1.74 to 10.77, respectively). This effect was also shown when analysing data from January to September 2009, using extrapolated live births as denominator. Increased immigration and/or economic migration in recent years appear to have altered the population at risk of pregnancy-related listeriosis in England and Wales. These changes need to be taken into account in order to target risk communication strategies appropriately.