e16286 Background: GEP-NET is a rare disease with variable tumor biology. An indolent disease course with subtle symptoms renders timely diagnosis difficult; 2/3 of patients (pts) are diagnosed at locally advanced or metastasized stage. In clinical decision-making, disease-specific factors, patient (pt) age and long-term disease control must be balanced against the aggressiveness of therapies. NCCN, NANETS and ENETS guidelines recognize the diversity of mGEP-NET by recommending individualized treatment approaches. We aimed to describe treatment (Tx) utilization patterns in mGEP-NET. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Databases spanning 07/01/2017-01/31/2023. Eligible were GEP-NET pts with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient claims, a subsequent new diagnosis of metastatic disease (index), no secondary malignancy, and follow-up time of ≥12 months (m) after index. Results: Of 16218 GEP-NET pts, 2002 (mean age 60y; 50% female) met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up time after index was 17m, with 49%, 27% and 15% followed up for ≥12, 24 and 36m, resp. Medical history (12m baseline before index) included mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2.62, with hypertension (HTN), type 2 diabetes (T2DM), chronic liver disease (CLD), asthma/COPD, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) present in 56, 26, 22, 18, 17 and 10% of pts, resp.; 5% had carcinoid syndrome. In total, 949 pts (47.4%) received first-line (1L) systemic Tx: somatostatin analogs (SSA; 61.6%) of either very short or long duration (median 116d vs 775d), chemotherapy (38.8%), targeted therapies (3.4%) and PRRT (0.5%). Relative to NCCN cancer surveillance guidelines, 49.5% received more and 36.8% received fewer than 4 scans in the first year of treatment. Conversely, 1053 (52.6%) did not receive any 1L systemic Tx. With the exception of CLD, pts with vs without 1L Tx had similar proportions of medical conditions during the 12m baseline and during follow-up (HTN 72.4 vs 66.5%; T2DM 34.0 vs 30.3%; asthma/COPD 16.5 vs 19.3%; CVD 27.3 vs 36.9%; CKD 18.9 vs 17.9%; however, CLD 54.0 vs 36.7%). See Table comparing both cohorts on insurance, treatments, and health care utilization during follow-up. Conclusions: This claims analysis reveals treatment differences among mGEP-NET pts that cannot be explained by the parameters assessed herein. Further research should investigate factors influencing diagnosis and treatment decision-making, applying also pt-level health record data; and analyze economic barriers to diagnosis and treatment. [Table: see text]
Read full abstract