Diagnosis, testing, treatment, and outcomes among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Characteristics of patients in clinical trials may differ from those of real-world patients. Our objective was to describe biomarker testing and outcomes among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients ≥18 years old, diagnosed with stage IIIB/C or IV NSCLC, and in the TEMPUS oncology dataset from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2020. Patient characteristics associated with biomarker testing were evaluated in patients with positive biomarkers using univariate logistic regression models. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate median survival.

RESULTS

Of 9540 patients included, 41.7% had biomarker testing, and 2158 had a positive biomarker result. Men (vs women; odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.91), Black patients (vs White; OR, 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.97), patients with squamous (OR, 0.22; 95% CI: 0.19-0.25) or unknown histology (OR, 0.53; 95% CI: 0.45-0.61) (vs non-squamous histology), and patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 2+ (OR, 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.84) or missing (OR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.48-0.66) (vs ECOG PS of 0) were less likely to undergo biomarker testing. Patients with positive biomarkers who received NCCN-recommended treatment options (55.7%) had significantly longer median overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75-0.95) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) (HR, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.62-0.75).

CONCLUSION

More than 50% of patients were untested for biomarkers. Patients who were less likely to be tested included men, Black patients, current smokers, patients with squamous aNSCLC, and patients with an ECOG PS of 2+. Patients with positive biomarkers who received NCCN-recommended treatment options had significantly longer OS and PFS.

Fine-tuning the dose of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa to individualize treatment in ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation cycles: a real-world database analysis

Introduction

Fine-tuning of injectable gonadotropin doses during ovulation induction (OI) or ovarian stimulation (OS) treatment cycles with the aim of using doses low enough to minimize the risk of excessive ovarian response while maintaining optimal efficacy may be facilitated by using an adjustable-dose pen injector. We examined the incidence and magnitude of individualized gonadotropin dose adjustments made during cycles of OI or OS, followed by either timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination, with or without oral medications, and assessed the relationship between patient characteristics and dosing changes using real-world evidence.

Methods

This was an observational, retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records from a large US database of fertility centers. Data from patients who had undergone a first recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa/follitropin alfa) treated OI/OS cycle followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination between 2015 and 2016 were included. Percentages of OI/OS cycles involving r-hFSH-alfa dose adjustments (in increments of ±12.5 IU or greater) with or without oral medications (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) were analyzed.

Results

Of 2,832 OI/OS cycles involving r-hFSH-alfa administration, 74.6% included combination treatment with orals; 25.4% involved r-hFSH-alfa alone. As expected, the starting dose of r-hFSH-alfa was lower for cycles that used r-hFSH-alfa with orals than r-hFSH-alfa only cycles (mean [SD]: 74.2 [39.31] vs 139.3 [115.10] IU). Dose changes occurred in 13.7% of r-hFSH-alfa with orals versus 43.9% of r-hFSH-alfa only cycles. Dose adjustment magnitudes ranged from ±12.5 IU to ±450 IU. The smallest adjustment magnitudes (±12.5 IU and ±25 IU) were used frequently and more often for dose increases than for dose decreases. For r-hFSH-alfa with orals and r-hFSH-alfa only cycles, the smallest adjustments were used in 53.5% and 64.5% of cycles with dose increases and in 35.7% and 46.8% of cycles with dose decreases, respectively.

Discussion

In OI/OS cycles followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination, r-hFSH-alfa dose adjustments were frequent. In cycles that included orals, r-hFSH-alfa starting doses were lower and dose changes were fewer than with r-hFSH-alfa alone. Smaller dose adjustments facilitate individualized treatment with the goal of reducing the risks of multiple gestation, cycle cancellation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.