Outcomes of metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC): A 16-year single institutional experience.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16088-e16088
Author(s):  
Dwight Hall Owen ◽  
Sandipkumar Patel ◽  
John E Phay ◽  
Lawrence Andrew Shirley ◽  
Lawrence S Kirschner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Lung Metastases ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

e16088 Background: ACC is a rare malignancy with limited data to guide management of metastatic disease. Prior research regarding survival has focused on pts with locoregional disease, but has not offered insight into the management and outcomes of pts with metastatic disease. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients (pts) with metastatic ACC who were treated with systemic therapy between January 2000 and October 2016 at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for survival analysis. Results: A total of 18 pts received systemic therapy for distant metastatic disease. Median age at diagnosis was 51 (range 31 – 72). Median overall survival (OS) from time of diagnosis of ACC was 15.5 months (95% CI 4.8 – 28.2), and from time of systemic treatment (ST) was 7.1 months (95% CI 3.3 – 26). A germline variant of uncertain significance in MSH2 (c.138C > G) was identified in one patient. Baseline FDG-PET scans were obtained in 11/18 pts, and demonstrated avidity in all patients. Maximum SUV ranged from 4.1 to 47.6, with a median of 15. First line therapy was etoposide, doxorubicin, cisplatin, and mitotane (EDPM) in 13/18 pts and clinical trial with IMC-A12 (IGF-1 receptor antibody) in four pts. Median duration of first line therapy was 1.8 months (95% CI 0.9 – 2.8). Survival was not statistically different for patients receiving EDPM as first or second line therapy (median OS 23.3 vs 12.0 months, p = 0.96). Additional lines of therapy included EDPM, IMC-A12, AT-101, mifepristone, OSI-906 (IGF-1R inhibitor), and nivolumab. Median lines of therapy given were 2. The presence of bone metastases (p = 0.69) or lung metastases (p = 0.21) at the time of initiation of ST was not associated with OS from ST. Conclusions: In our experience, the prognosis of pts with metastatic ACC receiving systemic therapy is poor with most pts receiving ≤ 2 lines of therapy. Patients receiving first or second line EDPM seemed to have worse outcomes than noted in previously published trials, possibly due to our patients being sicker at baseline. Metastasis to the lung or bone at initiation of ST did not impact OS.

Progression-free survival in patients with cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: An exploration of response to systemic therapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 588-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Bibeau ◽  
Luis Féliz ◽  
Scott Barrett ◽  
Ling Na ◽  
Christine Francis Lihou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

588 Background: Most cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts) are diagnosed with advanced disease and are ineligible for surgery. FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements are present in 10–16% of pts with intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) and are reported to be oncogenic drivers. However, little data are available on the role of FGFR2 genetic alterations in the response to systemic cancer therapy. FIGHT-202 is a phase 2 study of pemigatinib (a selective, potent, oral FGFR1–3 inhibitor) in pts with previously treated advanced/metastatic CCA (NCT02924376); primary results were reported at ESMO 2019. FIGHT-202 enrolled pts who progressed on ≥1 prior therapy, allowing the examination of the role of FGFR2 alterations on the response to prior therapy. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate progression free survival (PFS) on standard systemic therapy received prior to study enrollment among pts with CCA harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements ( FGFR2+). Methods: Case report forms were reviewed to determine disease history and exposure to prior lines of systemic cancer therapies (LOSCT) in the advanced setting before receiving pemigatinib. Only pts with sufficient data on prior LOSCT were included in this analysis. Median PFS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 102 pts were included in this analysis (median age 54.5, 61.8% female). Median PFS on first-line therapy was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.0, 8.0) months. Among the 38 pts (37.3%) with ≥2 prior LOSCT, median PFS on second-line therapy was 4.4 (95% CI: 3.0, 5.3) months. Conclusions: This analysis provides data about PFS on standard systemic therapies for pts with FGFR2+ CCA. Median PFS on first-line therapy was lower than historical published data, and median PFS on second-line therapy was slightly longer than previously reported, in unselected CCA populations. Limitations of this analysis include retrospective examination of investigator reported data, and that clinical trial participants may not truly reflect a general CCA patient population. The short PFS on standard therapies in pts with FGFR2+ CCA highlights the need for development of other options including targeted therapies to improve outcomes.

Prescribing preferences (PPrefs) of U.S.-based medical oncologists (MOs) for choice of therapy after failure of first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab (FFB) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 533-533
Author(s):  
Johanna C. Bendell ◽  
Susan L. Britton ◽  
Maria Lankford ◽  
Arden Buettner ◽  
Mark R. Green ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Metastases ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Audience Response ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

533 Background: Phase III trials have tested biologic (bio) agents (bevacizumab [bev], anti-EGFR antibodies, ziv aflibercept [ziv]) plus chemotherapy (CT) vs. CT alone after failure of first-line therapy in patients given CT + bev first line. Several have shown improvements in progression-free and overall survival (OS) with the CT + bio approach, but it is not clear how these therapies are being used in the “real life” setting. Methods: Since 3/2013 PPrefs for this setting among 276 MOs were studied using a validated, proprietary, live, case-based market research tool. A core scenario and variations based on KRAS status and first-line therapy outcome were tested (S1, S2, S3, S4). PPref data acquired using blinded audience response technology. All sources of research support were blinded. Core scenario: 49 yr old female with cecal mass, liver/lung metastases, confirmed wt KRAS for S1-3, given FFB first line. S1: FFB x 16 wks → excellent PR → 5FU bev X 16 wks → progressive disease [PD]; S2: FFB x 16 wks → excellent PR → bev alone x 16 wks → PD; S3: FFB → stable disease [SD] x 5 months as best response [BR] → PD; 4) Here changed to mutKRAS; FFB x 8 wks → PD as BR. Results: Findings shown below (Table). Conclusions: In scenarios with wt KRAS, first-line response to FFB, a majority plan bev again second line. If BR to FFB is SD in WT KRAS, anti-EGFR antibody-based therapy is used more often. In S 1-3, ziv is the PPref of 7 - 14% of MOs studied. With mutKRAS and PD as BR to FFB, use of an antiangiogenic + second-line CT is preferred by > 80%, nearly equally split between bev and ziv. Recent phase III trial data showing OS benefits are reflected in current MOs first failure PPrefs. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals 1338. Analysis of Prescription Guideline Adherence in Pediatric Outpatient Pneumonia Treatment

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S680-S681
Author(s):  
Carly Heck ◽  
Judith Martin ◽  
Marcia Kurs-Lasky
Keyword(s):  
Drug Allergy ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Comparison Results ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Recommended Therapy

Abstract Background Background: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health concern. A modifiable intervention is outpatient antibiotic stewardship. The goal of this study was to review the electronic health records (EHR) of children diagnosed with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) to compare patients who received non-guideline concordant therapy with those prescribed recommended therapy. Methods Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of 300 children (6 months to 6 years old) with an outpatient diagnosis of CAP between July 2017 and June 2019. 45 Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP) and UPMC Children’s Community Pediatrics (CCP) practices were included. CHP practices are academic-based with trainees involved in visits, while CCP practices do not include trainees. First-line recommended therapy was defined as amoxicillin, second-line therapy as azithromycin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, and all other prescriptions were defined as other. Patients prescribed first-line therapy were compared to patients with second-line therapy or other. If first-line therapy was not prescribed, the EHR was manually reviewed for justification. If drug allergy was listed, the medication allergy and type of reaction were recorded. Results Results: In this study the minority of children (43%) were prescribed first-line therapy. This group was younger (57 vs. 63 months of age), more likely to be Non-white (80%), and seen at the CHP locations than those prescribed non-guideline concordant therapy. The average symptom duration was shorter, heart rate and respiratory rate were higher and the presence of fever was more common in the first-line therapy group. Justification for non-guideline therapy was most often reported as to provide coverage for atypical organisms. The most common drug allergy recorded was amoxicillin, and urticaria with unknown timing was the most common type of reaction. Demographics Comparison Results Justification for Second-line / Other Therapy and Drug Allergy Results Conclusion This project observed a high proportion of children being prescribed non-guideline concordant therapy for a diagnosis of CAP. Age, race, practice location, and severity of illness measures showed a statistically significant difference between groups. This study highlights the importance of education which reviews the current guidelines and the most likely pathogens for children with CAP. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Survival of Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Improves With the Availability of Fluorouracil-Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin in the Course of Treatment

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 1209-1214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Daniel Sargent ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose Fluorouracil (FU)-leucovorin (LV), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin administered alone or in combination have proven effective in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Combination protocols using FU-LV with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin are currently regarded as standard first-line therapies in this disease. However, the importance of the availability of all three active cytotoxic agents, FU-LV, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, on overall survival (OS) has not yet been evaluated. Materials and Methods We analyzed data from seven recently published phase III trials in advanced CRC to correlate the percentage of patients receiving second-line therapy and the percentage of patients receiving all three agents with the reported median OS, using a weighted analysis. Results The reported median OS is significantly correlated with the percentage of patients who received all three drugs in the course of their disease (P = .0008) but not with the percentage of patients who received any second-line therapy (P = .19). In addition, the use of combination protocols as first-line therapy was associated with a significant improvement in median survival of 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.27 to 5.73 months; P = .0083). Conclusion Our results support the strategy of making these three active drugs available to all patients with advanced CRC who are candidates for such therapy to maximize OS. In addition, our findings suggest that, with the availability of effective salvage options, OS should no longer be regarded as the most appropriate end point by which to assess the efficacy of a palliative first-line treatment in CRC.

Modeling sequential systemic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of immunotherapy: What comes next?

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 324-324
Author(s):  
Ciro Celsa ◽  
Giuseppe Cabibbo ◽  
Marco Enea ◽  
Salvatore Battaglia ◽  
Giacomo Emanuele Maria Rizzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Survival Curve ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Sequential Strategy

324 Background: Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab represents the new best performing first-line approach for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC). However, the best sequential strategy after every first-line failure (for progression or intolerance) remains elusive, and options for retreating patients failing Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab with multi-kinase inhibitors (MKI) or immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) are yet undefined. Methods: We developed a Markov model to analyze simulated-Overall Survival (s-OS) of second-line ICIs or MKIs after first-line Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab over a lifetime horizon. For first-line therapy, PFS of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab was extracted from Imbrave 150 trial and it was used as endpoint since it is not influenced by post-progression survival. For second-line retreatment, pooled OS of MKIs (Regorafenib and Cabozantinib), or ICIs (Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab) were adopted. Survival estimates for sequential settings considered the proportion of patients who did not receive second-line therapy due to death during first-line therapy. Individual patient survival data were extracted from PFS and OS Kaplan-Meier curves of RESORCE trial for Regorafenib, CELESTIAL trial for Cabozantinib, CheckMate-040 for Nivolumab and Keynote-240 for Pembrolizumab. Each reconstructed survival curve was inspected for accuracy and was compared with originally published curves. Results: First-line Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab followed by second-line ICIs turned on from the model as the best sequential strategy (median s-OS 24 months; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 23-26 months) and extends survival when compared Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab followed by MKIs (median s-OS 20 months; 95% CI 19-21 months). Conclusions: To our knowledge and given the absence of adequately designed sequential RCTs, this is the first model to date which suggests, with a proper methodological approach, an accurate estimate of outcome of patients with u-HCC treated by sequential systemic therapies. In patients with u-HCC failing first-line treatment, modelling estimates of s-OS for each retreatment strategies may assist in choosing the most promising sequences in order to plan appropriate RCTs.

scholarly journals Impact of Treatment Sequencing on Outcomes and Costs in Relapsed Follicular or Other Low Grade B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma - Results of an Evidence-Based Budget Impact Model

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 14-15
Author(s):  
Ali McBride ◽  
Daniel O. Persky
Keyword(s):  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Treatment Sequence ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Budget Impact Model

Introduction: The choice of initial therapy in follicular lymphoma can be a key determinant in future therapy, as irreversible toxicities with first line regimens can impact the patient's ability to tolerate future treatment. Minimizing drug exposure will result in less frequent occurrence of significant adverse events and associated treatment costs. In the era of COVID-19 pandemic, there is additional benefit to minimizing the number of patient visits and hospital admissions. Limited information exists related to the outcomes and associated costs of existing treatment sequences. Additionally, treatment administration at different types of clinical sites results in varied reimbursement models, making informed evaluation of clinical and financial evidence challenging. Methods: The current study applies a budget impact model methodology in order to describe the associated impact of treatment selection and sequencing on outcomes and costs in the treatment of relapsed or refractory low-grade follicular lymphoma in first line therapy followed by Consolidation and also in first line therapy to second line therapy. Key model inputs included: Number of treatment cycles, number of days a treatment was received, duration of response (DOR), rate of side effects and associated costs, and total treatment costs, including drugs, medical treatment, laboratory testing and adverse event costs. Treatment outcomes were based on the published literature that summarized the overall response rate, median DOR, and toxicity. Treatment regimen costs were evaluated based on payer pricing, Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC), Average Selling Price (ASP) and Average Wholesale Price (AWP) and modified to adjust for weight-based dosing and negotiate payer reimbursement rates. Associated medical costs for medical treatment and supportive care were estimated using current Medicare fee schedule rates. Included were seven options for first line therapy of follicular lymphoma from 2020 NCCN Guidelines - (Bendamustine + rituximab (BR); Bendamustine + Obinutuzumab (OB); CHOP rituximab (RCHOP); CHOP + Obinutuzumab (OCHOP); CVP+ rituximab (RCVP); CVP + Obinutuzumab (OCVP); Lenalidomide + rituximab (R2)), followed by three for Consolidation (Rituximab maintenance (RM); Obinutuzumab maintenance (O); Radioimmunotherapy (RIT with 90 Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan (Y90-IT, Zevalin)) and three Second Line therapy options (RIT; Lenalidomide only; Lenalidomide + Obinutuzumab (LO)). Results: The treatment sequence of first line BR followed by Consolidation with RIT Y90 (Zevalin) had the longest predicted DOR (2586 days). The associated treatment sequence costs were $212,485 for BR followed by Y90-IT, compared with $233, 388 for BR followed by rituximab maintenance, which had a predicted DOR of 2478 days. The predicted DOR for treatment sequences starting with OCHOP, OCVP and RCHOP and followed by RIT with Y90-IT was approximately 1000 days less than BR followed by Y90-IT for a cost difference of $4,421, $12,914 and $25,826, respectively. The treatment sequence of first line BR followed by Second Line RIT Y90-IT had the second longest predicted DOR of 2586 days at costs of $212,485, compared to 2778 days for BR followed by LO, at a total sequence costs of $796,695. Conclusion: The use of Y90-IT in Consolidation or Second Line treatment demonstrated desired patient outcomes at one of the lowest cost profiles. Additionally, Y90-IT administration can be completed in only two clinic visits, reducing patient travel and contact, improving safety in an era of COVID-19 precautionary measures and reducing cost. Figure 1. Duration of Response and Total Sequence Costs for Twelve First Line to Consolidation and First Line to Second Line Treatment Regimens. Disclosures McBride: Merck: Speakers Bureau; Coherus BioSciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy.

The combination of thalidomide and intermediate-dose dexamethasone is an effective but toxic treatment for patients with primary amyloidosis (AL)

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 105 (7) ◽  
pp. 2949-2951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Palladini ◽  
Vittorio Perfetti ◽  
Stefano Perlini ◽  
Laura Obici ◽  
Francesca Lavatelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Plasma Cells ◽  
Primary Amyloidosis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Symptomatic Bradycardia ◽  
Intermediate Dose

AbstractBased on the efficacy of thalidomide in multiple myeloma and on its synergy with dexamethasone on myeloma plasma cells, we evaluated the combination of thalidomide (100 mg/d, with 100-mg increments every 2 weeks, up to 400 mg) and dexamethasone (20 mg on days 1-4) every 21 days in 31 patients with primary amyloidosis (AL) whose disease was refractory to or had relapsed after first-line therapy. Eleven (35%) patients tolerated the 400 mg/d thalidomide dose. Overall, 15 (48%) patients achieved hematologic response, with 6 (19%) complete remissions and 8 (26%) organ responses. Median time to response was 3.6 months (range, 2.5-8.0 months). Treatment-related toxicity was frequent (65%), and symptomatic bradycardia was a common (26%) adverse reaction. The combination of thalidomide and dexamethasone is rapidly effective and may represent a valuable second-line treatment for AL.

Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatininb in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as second-line treatment.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21104-e21104
Author(s):  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Life Years

e21104 Background: Crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib are approved as second line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor for first line therapy approved by Food and Drug Administration (2011) then ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015), and brigatinib (2017) were approved as second line drugs. Following more data, these agents were approved as the first line therapy (2017 for ceritinib and alectinib; 2020 for brigatinib). These remain as a treatment option in patients who fail the first line therapy. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted to assess clinical efficacy with varying costs of the agents. Methods: A three state Markov model were assumed (progression free, progression and death). Progression free survival (PFS) curves were digitized and fitted with exponential function. US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were Redbook wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs included were monitoring, adverse events and disease progression from published data (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported >5% in patients were included. Measured outcomes were PFS life years (PFSLY) and quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY). Crizotinib was the reference drug. Incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) and lost were estimated. Base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug for the following outcomes. For alectinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,653 (-$14,712), the incremental PFSLY of 0.16 (0.16) and PFSQALY of 0.05 (0.05) resulted in an ICER / PFSLYG of -$89,337 (-$88,604) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$269,835 (-$266,510). For brigatinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,975 (-$14,954), the incremental PFSLY of 0.01 (0.01) and PFSQALY of ̃0.01 (0.02) yielded an ICER / PFSLYG of -$1,982,962 (-$1,431,631) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$2,140,534 (-$570,538). For ceritinib, with the incremental cost of $7,590 ($7,514), there were decremental PFSLY of -0.01 (-0.01) and PFSQALY of -0.03 (-0.03). Conclusions: As second line treatment, crizotinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib had comparable PFSLYs and PFSQALYs while alectinib had the most PFSLY and PFSQALY and the lowest cost. Therefore, alectinib is the most cost-effective treatment for treating ALK+ NSCLC as the second line therapy.[Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document