A multicountry chart review of treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 184-184
Author(s):  
Prianka Singh ◽  
Joseph Gricar ◽  
deMauri S Mackie ◽  
Hong Xiao ◽  
Marc DeCongelio ◽  
...  

184 Background: Global neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment patterns among patients with resected Esophageal Cancer (EC) and Gastroesophageal Junction cancer (GEJC) remain unclear. This study describes real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for patients receiving surgery for Stage II or III EC or GEJC. Methods: Physicians in North America (US, Canada), Asia (China, Japan, Taiwan), and Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain) provided clinical and treatment data in this retrospective, non-interventional chart review conducted from April-June 2020. Included patients were adults (Japan ≥20 years; elsewhere, ≥18 years), who underwent resection of Stage II or III EC or GEJC between October 2017 and October 2018 and were followed until death, loss to follow up, or end of data collection. Results: Physicians (N = 609) provided data on 1693 patients of mean age of 62.4 years, who received surgery for Stage II or III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) (33.3%), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) (31.5%), or GEJC (35.2%) and were followed a mean (median) of 17.7 (17) months (to death or end of study period). At diagnosis, 85.6% of patients had performance status of 0/1. The majority of patients received an R0 resection (overall, 70.6%; ESCC, 76.6%, EAC, 67.4%, GEJC, 68.0%; p < 0.05); of these, 32.0% had a complete pathological response and 64.1% had a partial pathological response. Neoadjuvant therapy use differed among the treatment groups (ESCC 56.5%; EAC, 65.9%; GEJC, 62.6%, p < 0.05), as did adjuvant therapy (ESCC: 39.8%; EAC, 40.3%; GEJC, 44.5%; p = 0.023). Recurrence rate following surgery did not differ between groups for any recurrence (overall, 21.0%; ESCC 18.5%, EAC 23.6%, GEJC 21.1%); for local or regional recurrence (overall, 11.6%; ESCC, 10.3%; EAC, 12.7%; GEJC, 11.7%); or for metastatic recurrence (overall, 9.5%; ESCC, 8.2%; EAC, 10.9%; GEJC, 9.4%). The median time to local or regional recurrence (for those who progressed during the reporting period) was 8 months from date of initial surgery (overall, 8 mo; ESCC, 8 mo; EAC, 7 mo; GEJC, 8.5 mo; p > 0.05). The frequency of 1L systemic therapy for advanced disease at the time of survey completion was 16.1% overall and differed among patients with ESCC (14.6%); EAC (17.8%); and GEJC (15.9%); p > 0.05. Conclusions: This large multi-country real world data study shows that over half of all patients received neoadjuvant therapy, and over a third received adjuvant treatment. The high unmet need in this population is evident from the post-resection recurrence rate of 21.1% at median 8 months and the high proportion of patients who went on to require advanced disease treatment.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 414-414
Author(s):  
Alicia K. Morgans ◽  
Simrun Kaur Grewal ◽  
Zsolt Hepp ◽  
Rupali Fuldeore ◽  
Shardul Odak ◽  
...  

414 Background: There are a lack of published real-world data on treatment patterns for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) previously treated with programmed death 1/ligand 1 inhibitor (PD-1/L1i) therapy. The objective of this study was to characterize the clinical characteristics and treatments among patients with la/mUC following discontinuation of first-line (1L) or second-line (2L) PD-1/L1i therapy. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review at 26 geographically diverse clinical sites in the US. Patients aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed urothelial carcinoma and radiographic evidence of metastatic or locally advanced disease were identified. Included patients had initiated and subsequently discontinued PD-1/L1i therapy in the 1L or 2L setting for la/mUC between May 15, 2016-July 31, 2018. All patients had follow-up through October 31, 2019. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Among the 300 patients included in the chart review, 198 (66%) received PD-1/L1i therapy as 1L and 102 (34%) as 2L therapy. Mean (SD) age at la/mUC diagnosis was 69.4 (8.7) years, and a majority of patients were male (66.0%) and White (74.7%). Consistent with age, most patients (82.7%) had comorbidities at la/mUC diagnosis; 39.7% hypertension, 23.7% coronary artery disease, 17.7% pulmonary disease, and 9.3% renal disease. At initiation of therapy, a higher proportion of patients who received 1L PD-1/L1i therapy had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more than patients who received 2L PD-1/L1i therapy (36.8% vs 22.5%, respectively). Following discontinuation of PD-1/L1i therapy, 34% (n = 68) received subsequent therapy in 2L and 29% (n = 30) in third-line (3L). The most common subsequent therapies in 2L were gemcitabine monotherapy (24%), gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin (22%), PD-1/L1i therapy (22%), and taxane monotherapy (19%). The most common subsequent therapies received in 3L were taxane monotherapy (50%), pemetrexed (17%), and PD-1/L1i therapy (16%). Overall, switching from one PD-1/L1i therapy to another distinct PD-1/L1i therapy occurred in approximately 20% of patients, with “better efficacy/survival” noted by treatment teams as the most common reason for switching therapy among this subgroup. Conclusions: In this real-world case series, only a minority of patients with la/mUC who discontinued PD-1/L1i therapy received subsequent therapy. Among those that did, no clear standard of care was observed and approximately one-fifth of patients were treated with a second PD-1/L1i therapy after the first failed to control disease. Collectively, the data highlight significant unmet need for patients with la/mUC who discontinue PD-1/L1i therapy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-142
Author(s):  
Ian Chau ◽  
Dung T. Le ◽  
Patrick A. Ott ◽  
Beata Korytowsky ◽  
Hannah Le ◽  
...  

ping real-world comparators for


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document