Treatment patterns, duration and outcomes of pemetrexed maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC in a real-world setting

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 817-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine B. Winfree ◽  
Aracelis Z. Torres ◽  
Yajun Emily Zhu ◽  
Catherine Muehlenbein ◽  
Himani Aggarwal ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A660-A660
Author(s):  
Petros Grivas ◽  
Phani Veeranki ◽  
Kevin Chiu ◽  
Vivek Pawar ◽  
Jane Chang ◽  
...  

BackgroundAvelumab, a PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), was recently approved as first-line (1L) maintenance therapy for locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) after disease control with platinum-based chemotherapy.1 Given the evolving treatment landscape, the study aim was to gain real-world insights into clinical decision-making among oncologists for patients with aUC.MethodsIn March 2021, a cross-sectional web-based survey was administered to a sample of US oncologists treating patients with aUC. Oncologists' demographics, practice characteristics, and treatment patterns were obtained; descriptive statistics were used.ResultsThe study included 151 medical oncologists, who reported that 54% and 31% of their patients, on average, would be classified as cisplatin or carboplatin eligible for their 1L treatment, respectively. Approximately 78% of oncologists (n=118) considered using ICI maintenance in ≥40% of their patients following disease control with platinum chemotherapy and were categorized as the “high-consideration” group, for further exploratory analysis; the rest (22%) were in the low-consideration group (See table 1). Approximately, 31% and 27% of oncologists in the high- and low-consideration groups reported administering ICI maintenance with a 2–3-week gap after chemotherapy, while 45% and 46% reported administering it with a 4–6-week gap after chemotherapy, respectively.ConclusionsSurveyed oncologists reported that 85% of patients with aUC in US may be eligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. Further, 78% of the surveyed oncologists would consider 1L ICI maintenance therapy after disease control with platinum-based chemotherapy for over 40% of their patients. Future studies are warranted to evaluate real-world treatment patterns, barriers, and utilization of ICI maintenance therapy as the new 1L standard of care.AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge all physicians at who participated and completed the survey for the study.ReferencePowles T, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383(13):1218–1230.Ethics ApprovalThe study was reviewed and determined to be exempt by Advarra IRB.ConsentAll survey participated signed a consent form.Abstract 630 Table 1Oncologists characteristics and considerations for 1L ICI maintenance therapy


CHEST Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. A1840
Author(s):  
Swetha Palli ◽  
Siting Zhou ◽  
Asif Shaikh ◽  
Vince Willey

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. S459-S460 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Barlesi ◽  
L. Paz-Ares ◽  
D. Page ◽  
A. Shewade ◽  
P. Lambert ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18042-e18042
Author(s):  
Haley Moss ◽  
Angeles Alvarez Secord ◽  
Jessica Perhanidis ◽  
Carol Hawkes

e18042 Background: The clinical utility of maintenance therapy (MT) for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) has been validated in several clinical trials. We assessed real world treatment patterns using a US nationwide electronic health record database. Methods: A retrospective study of patients with PSROC between March 2017 and July 2019 was conducted using the Flatiron Health database. This longitudinal, demographically and geographically diverse de-identified database covers > 2.2 million oncology patients in > 280 cancer clinics. Patients were excluded if second or third line (2L or 3L) platinum-based chemotherapy (PBT) regimens included less than four or more than eight cycles of platinum. Information regarding somatic or germline BRCA mutations and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) were obtained. Results: 2292 patients with PSROC were identified (had 2L or 3L treatment); 1214 of these received PBT at recurrence; 610 completed the PBT for recurrence on or after March 2017; 351 received 4–8 cycles of PBT; 225 patients had ≥2 months of active surveillance or were receiving MT of PARPi or bevacizumab (B) and were included in this analysis. 183 patients (80%) had BRCA testing and 14 patients (6%) had HRD testing. 46 (20%) had a germline or somatic BRCA mutations (t BRCA), 134 (59%) had a wildtype wt BRCA gene, and 48 (21%) were unknown. Of patients with tBRCA, 63% received a PARP inhibitor (PARPi), 17% received B, 20% received active surveillance. Of patients with wt BRCA, 40% received a PARPi, 24% received B, and 37% received active surveillance. Olaparib was the most commonly used PARPi among tBRCA patients (26%), while niraparib was most commonly used among wt BRCA patients (21%). MT was more common in younger patients, those with a better performance status and with a BRCA mutation. MT use trend increased by 21% during the study period. As PARPi use increased, the use of active surveillance as a post-platinum regimen decreased during the later time periods (Table). Conclusions: In this real world population, the majority of patients with PSROC are receiving maintenance therapy. While genetic testing is improving, universal testing of all patients with ovarian cancer remains the goal. The results provide insight into the shifting treatment patterns for patients with ovarian cancer. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document