Patterns of care and health care resource use among Medicaid-enrolled women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a public health challenge and remains a disease with high unmet need. Previous real-world studies demonstrated significant variability in treatments for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC). A large proportion of patients with cervical cancer are insured through Medicaid; however, previous studies examining treatment patterns for r/mCC have not included Medicaid patients. As the r/mCC treatment landscape continues to evolve, there is a need to understand current real-world unmet need among patients with r/mCC enrolled in Medicaid. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment patterns and health care resource utilization (HCRU) among Medicaid-enrolled women with r/mCC. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of nationwide Medicaid claims to assess patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and HCRU among patients with r/mCC between 2016 and 2019. First-line treatment (1L) for r/mCC was defined by the first administration of systemic therapy without concomitant radiation or surgery. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and HCRU were characterized by line of therapy. RESULTS: A total of 3,375 eligible adult female patients initiated systemic treatment for r/mCC between 2016 and 2019. Mean age at treatment initiation was 52.9 (SD ± 12.8) years. Nearly 1,300 (1,294, 38.3%) women had evidence of receiving second-line treatment (2L), with nearly one-third (N = 420) of those also having evidence of third-line treatment. The majority (60.5%) of 1L regimens were doublet chemotherapy ± bevacizumab, consistent with treatment guidelines. In contrast, no clear preferred treatment choice was observed among patients receiving 2L or later (2L+) therapy. Notably, immunotherapy accounted for 21.6% of treatment regimens in 2L/3L overall, with its use increasing substantially over time (<6% in 2016 to 40.8% in 2019). Despite increased use of immunotherapy, however, most patients did not remain on treatment for prolonged durations (immunotherapy median duration 2.2 months vs 2.4 months for nonimmunotherapy; P = 0.5). Across most HCRU measures (inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims), 2L+ patients had significantly less utilization per patient compared with 1L patients in unadjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis found that the majority of Medicaid patients with r/mCC received guideline-recommended standard of care in 1L between 2016 and 2019. However, there was no clear standard of care for patients with 2L+ r/mCC enrolled in Medicaid over this time period. Although immunotherapy use is increasing, short durations of treatment suggest a potential unmet medical need among this population. New therapies should provide meaningful clinical benefit without significant increase in HCRU for Medicaid enrollees needing treatment for r/mCC. DISCLOSURES: Dr Leath has received consulting fees from Seagen Inc. for service on Scientific Advisory Boards, cervical cancer research funding from Agenus, Rubius Therapeutics, and Seagen Inc., and funding from the NCI UG1 CA23330 and P50 CA098252. Dr Ting and Dr Zhang are employees and stock owners of Seagen Inc. Mr Fiori and Dr Pauly are current employees and Ms Nysenbaum is a former employee of Manatt Health Strategies, which received funding from Seagen Inc. to conduct the study described here. Manatt Health Strategies has also previously received consulting fees from other pharmaceutical companies that they are not permitted to publicly disclose. This research was funded by Seagen Inc. Seagen Inc. conceptualized the study approach, methodology, and contributed to article writing and review but was not involved in data acquisition, manipulation, or analysis.