Best Supportive Care In Patients Research Articles

Best supportive care for patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) in Germany prior to ocrelizumab treatment: Final results from the RETRO PPMS study.

Best supportive care (BSC) measures are an essential component for the management of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). RETRO PPMS (ML39631) is the first study to systematically analyze the therapeutic journey and standard of BSC of patients with PPMS in Germany. This multicenter, non-interventional study retrospectively analyzed patient charts. Methods: Data were recorded up until the first infusion of ocrelizumab (July 2018 to October 2021). Medical history, disease status, disease activity and treatments were assessed from 12 months before PPMS diagnosis until study start. Acute interventions, BSC parameters and rehabilitation measures from the past 27 months were assessed. The core analysis population (N = 462) had a mean age (range) of 57.4 (27-85) years and mean disease duration of 13.7 (0.3-55.2) years. The most frequently reported symptoms were muscle spasticity, bladder disorder, ataxia, gait disturbance and fatigue. The most commonly used treatment was physical/occupational therapy (66.5% of patients); 47.2% received off-label treatment with corticosteroids/disease-modifying therapies. BSC measures for many symptoms were strikingly rare - especially for fatigue and cognitive impairment. This analysis uncovers severe BSC deficits for many debilitating PPMS symptoms. There is still a large unmet need for innovative multidisciplinary care concepts and improvements in neurological primary and secondary care.

Palliative radiotherapy versus best supportive care in patients with painful hepatic cancer (CCTG HE1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study

Palliative treatment options for painful hepatic cancer can be restricted due to patients eventually becoming refractory to standard treatment. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiotherapy improves hepatic pain from cancer. In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (CCTG HE1) done in nine cancer centres across Canada, we included patients aged 18 years or older with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases, who were refractory to standard treatment, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-3, with life expectancy of more than 3 months, and pain or discomfort at its worst in the past 24 hours on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) of at least 4 out of 10, which was stable for up to 7 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via a minimisation method after stratification by centre and type of cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma vs liver metastases), to single-fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy) to the liver with 8 mg ondansetron (or equivalent) orally and 4 mg dexamethasone orally given 1-2 h before radiotherapy plus best supportive care (including non-opioid or opioid analgesia, or dexamethasone, or a combination of these) or best supportive care alone. The primary endpoint was improvement in patient-reported liver cancer pain or discomfort of at least 2 points on worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month after randomisation. All patients with both baseline and 1-month assessments were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02511522, and is complete. Between July 25, 2015, and June 2, 2022, 66 patients were screened and randomly assigned to radiotherapy plus best supportive care (n=33) or best supportive care (n=33). Median age was 65 years (IQR 57-72), 37 (56%) of 66 patients were male, 29 (44%) were female, 43 (65%) had liver metastases, and 23 (35%) had hepatocellular carcinoma (data on race and ethnicity were not collected). As of data cutoff (Sept 8, 2022), median follow-up was 3·2 months (95% CI 3·0-3·4). 24 (73%) of 33 in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group and 18 (55%) of 33 in the best supportive care only group completed baseline and 1-month assessments. An improvement in hepatic pain of at least 2 points in worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month was seen in 16 (67%) of 24 patients in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group versus four (22%) of 18 patients in the best supportive care group (p=0·0042). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events within 1 month after randomisation were abdominal pain (three [9%] of 33 in the radiotherapy group vs one [3%] of 33 in best supportive care group) and ascites (two [6%] vs one [3%]). No serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths were observed. Single-fraction radiotherapy plus best supportive care improved pain compared with best supportive care alone in patients with liver cancer, and could be considered a standard palliative treatment. Canadian Cancer Society.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Unfit AML Patients: Results of Current Retrospective Study in Romania

Aim: The incidence of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) increases along with the aging population and its prognosis worsens with increasing age. Limited data is available on the real-world survival, clinical outcomes, and treatment patterns in Romanian AML patients unfit for intensive chemotherapy. Given the rapidly changing AML treatment landscape, this retrospective chart review aimed to understand historical AML treatment pathways, their associated outcomes, and the economic impact. Material and methods. Adult patients across Romania with primary or secondary AML, ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy, for whom the first-line systemic therapy (FLST) or best supportive care (BSC) was initiated between January 2015 and December 2018 were evaluated. The outcomes assessed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates and healthcare resource utilization (HRU). Results. Of the 98 patients included, 85.7% received FLST and 14.3% received BSC as first-line therapy. The median OS was 10.0 months in those who received a hypomethylating agent as FLST and 3.4 months in the BSC group. Median PFS was 8.0, 6.4, and 3.4 for hypomethylating agents and low-dose cytarabine as FLST, and BSC, respectively. During the first line therapy the best response was stable disease and was achieved in 20.2% of the FLST patients and 14.3% of the BSC patients. HRU was generally numerically higher in patients with FLST as compared to the ones who received BSC as first-line therapy. Conclusion. The survival and outcomes of unfit AML patients in Romania remain poor highlighting the unmet need for effective treatment options in this population.

A Dutch cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab versus best supportive care in patients with chronic migraine and inadequate response to prior preventive therapy

BackgroundChronic migraine (CM) is the most severe and burdensome subtype of migraine. Fremanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway as a migraine preventive therapy. This study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab from a societal perspective in the Netherlands, using a Markov cohort simulation model.MethodsThe base-case cost-effectiveness analysis adhered to the Netherlands Authority guidelines. Fremanezumab was compared with best supportive care (BSC; acute migraine treatment only) in patients with CM and an inadequate response to topiramate or valproate and onabotulinumtoxinA (Dutch patient group [DPG]). A supportive analysis was conducted in the broader group of CM patients with prior inadequate response to 2–4 different classes of migraine preventive treatments. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted.ResultsOver a lifetime horizon, fremanezumab is cost saving compared with BSC in the DPG (saving of €2514 per patient) and led to an increase of 1.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In the broader supportive analysis, fremanezumab was cost effective compared with BSC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2547/QALY gained. Fremanezumab remained cost effective in all sensitivity and scenario analyses.ConclusionIn comparison to BSC, fremanezumab is cost saving in the DPG and cost effective in the broader population.

Impact of Adjuvant Atezolizumab on Recurrences Avoided and Treatment Cost Savings for Patients with Stage II-IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Canada.

This epidemiological model forecasted reductions in recurrences and recurrence treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care among Canadians with stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at national and provincial levels. The population had resected, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high (≥50%), EGFR-, ALK-, stage II-IIIA NSCLC eligible for adjuvant treatment. Patients with recurrence or death and the costs of treating recurrences were estimated for those receiving adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care each year (2024-2034). Proportions of patients expected to be event free up to 10 years after treatment initiation were extrapolated with parametric survival analyses. In the base case analysis, 240 fewer recurrences were estimated to occur over 10 years (2024-2034) with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care across Canada, with 136 (57%) and 104 (43%) fewer locoregional and metastatic recurrences, respectively. Projected costs of treated recurrences were CAD 33.2 million less over 10 years with adjuvant atezolizumab at a national level (adjuvant atezolizumab, CAD 135.8 million; best supportive care, CAD 169.0 million). This model predicts a considerable long-term reduction in recurrences and substantial treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care for patients with PD-L1-high early-stage NSCLC in Canada.

Anti-cancer drugs versus supportive care for advanced biliary tract cancers: a systematic review

Introduction Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) have low survival rates in advanced stages. Anticancer drugs (ACDs) are usually recommended, but may be associated with important toxicity and lower quality of life (QoL). Best supportive care (BSC) could represent a valid alternative of treatment. We aim to synthesise evidence regarding the effects of ACDs versus BSC in patients with advanced BTCs. Methods We conducted a systematic review including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of ACD versus BSC, placebo or no active treatment. We searched in five databases. Two reviewers performed selection, risk of bias and data extraction processes. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. Results We included eight RCTs. Biological/targeted therapies may result in little to no difference in overall survival (OS) (Mean difference (MD): 1.66 months higher; 95%CI, -0.65 to 3.96; low certainty) and toxicity (Relative risk (RR): 1.38; 95%CI, 0.99 to 1.93; low certainty), with uncertain effects on QoL. Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of chemotherapy on OS (MD: 3.28 months higher; 95%CI, 0.16 to 6.39; very low certainty), and may increase toxicity (RR: 1.33; 95%CI, 1.03 to 1.72; low certainty). We identified insufficient evidence for other prespecified outcomes. Conclusions Compared to BSC, ACDs have poor OS benefit and higher toxicity. Due to overall very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ACDs on critical outcomes are still unclear. Our findings should be used to better inform decision-making processes and future research.

Best supportive care in advanced pancreas cancer: a systematic review to define a patient-care bundle.

The majority of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have advanced disease at presentation, preventing treatment with curative intent. Management of these patients is often provided by surgical teams for whom there are a lack of widely accepted strategies for care. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to identify key issues in patients with advanced PDAC and integrate the evidence to form a care bundle checklist for use in surgical clinics. A systematic review of the literature was performed regarding best supportive care for advanced PDAC according to the PRISMA guidelines. Interventions pertaining to supportive care were included whilst preventative and curative treatments were excluded. A narrative review was planned. Forty-four studies were assessed and four themes were developed: (i) Pain is an undertreated symptom, requiring escalating analgesics and sometimes invasive modalities. (ii) Health-related quality of life necessitates optimisation by involving family, carers and multi-disciplinary teams. (iii) Malnutrition and weight loss can be mitigated with early assessment, replacement therapies and resistance exercise. (iv) Biliary and duodenal obstruction can often be relieved by endoscopic/radiological interventions with surgery rarely required. This is the first systematic review to evaluate the different types of interventions utilized during best supportive care in patients with advanced PDAC. It provides a comprehensive care bundle for surgeons that informs management of the common issues experienced by patients within a multidisciplinary environment.

A cautionary tale: an evaluation of the performance of treatment switching adjustment methods in a real world case study

BackgroundTreatment switching in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a problem for health technology assessment when substantial proportions of patients switch onto effective treatments that would not be available in standard clinical practice. Often statistical methods are used to adjust for switching: these can be applied in different ways, and performance has been assessed in simulation studies, but not in real-world case studies. We assessed the performance of adjustment methods described in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit Technical Support Document 16, applying them to an RCT comparing panitumumab to best supportive care (BSC) in colorectal cancer, in which 76% of patients randomised to BSC switched onto panitumumab. The RCT resulted in intention-to-treat hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–1.22) for all patients, and 0.99 (95% CI 0.75–1.29) for patients with wild-type KRAS (Kirsten rat sarcoma virus).MethodsWe tested several applications of inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW), rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM) and simple and complex two-stage estimation (TSE) to estimate treatment effects that would have been observed if BSC patients had not switched onto panitumumab. To assess the performance of these analyses we ascertained the true effectiveness of panitumumab based on: (i) subsequent RCTs of panitumumab that disallowed treatment switching; (ii) studies of cetuximab that disallowed treatment switching, (iii) analyses demonstrating that only patients with wild-type KRAS benefit from panitumumab. These sources suggest the true OS HR for panitumumab is 0.76–0.77 (95% CI 0.60–0.98) for all patients, and 0.55–0.73 (95% CI 0.41–0.93) for patients with wild-type KRAS.ResultsSome applications of IPCW and TSE provided treatment effect estimates that closely matched the point-estimates and CIs of the expected truths. However, other applications produced estimates towards the boundaries of the expected truths, with some TSE applications producing estimates that lay outside the expected true confidence intervals. The RPSFTM performed relatively poorly, with all applications providing treatment effect estimates close to 1, often with extremely wide confidence intervals.ConclusionsAdjustment analyses may provide unreliable results. How each method is applied must be scrutinised to assess reliability.

Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Patients at High Risk for Progression to Severe COVID-19 in the United States

ObjectivesNirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an orally administered antiviral indicated for the outpatient treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression to severe illness. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r versus best supportive care for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe illness from a US health sector perspective. MethodsA cost-effectiveness model was developed using a short-term decision-tree (1 year) followed by a lifetime 2-state Markov model (alive and dead). The short-term decision-tree captured costs and outcomes associated with the primary infection and healthcare utilization; survivors of the short-term decision-tree were followed until death assuming US quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), adjusted in the short-term for survivors of mechanical ventilation. Baseline rate of hospitalization and NMV/r effectiveness were taken from an Omicron-era US real-world study. Remaining inputs were informed by previous COVID-19 studies and publicly available US sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for all model inputs to test the robustness of model results. ResultsNMV/r was found to decrease COVID-19 related hospitalizations (−0.027 per infected case) increase QALYs (+0.030), decrease hospitalization costs (−$1110), and increase total treatment cost (+$271), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8931/QALY. Results were most sensitive to baseline risk of hospitalization and NMV/r treatment effectiveness parameters. The probabilistic analysis indicated that NMV/r has a >99% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. ConclusionsNMV/r is cost-effective vs best supportive care for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 from a US health sector perspective.

Treatment Outcomes in Unfit Patients with Newly Acute Myeloid Leukemia According to IDH1 Mutational Status: Real World Evidence from the Pethema Epidemiologic Registry

Background: Current treatment of unfit acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients include hypomethylating agents (HMA) with or without venetoclax, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), and supportive care only. Recently, the combination of azacytidine with ivosidenib, an IDH1 inhibitor, has showed a significant improvement in survival in unfit patients with IDH1 mutated (IDH1mut) AML compared to azacytidine plus placebo. Real world studies analyzing outcomes of IDH1mut AML patients are scarce. Aims: This study aims to assess retrospectively the characteristics, therapeutic approaches, and outcomes of unfit patients with AML in an unselected population reported to the multicentric PETHEMA registry according to IDH mutational status. We present here a first interim analysis, as the study is aimed to enroll 3500 patients. Methods: AML unfit patients reported to PETHEMA registry between January 2015 and June 2022 were included in the study, regardless of their therapeutic approach. IDH1 mutational status was analyzed with next generation sequencing (NGS) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technics performed in central labs from PETHEMA group, as well as locally as per standard practice. All clinical records were reviewed from diagnosis to death/last follow-up and data were analyzed with R statistical software. Results: From 9398 patients reported to the PETHEMA registry between 2015 and 2022, 4533 patients had information on IDH1 mutational status. Of them, 2096 patients were unfit for intensive chemotherapy, and therapeutic approach was available in 1255 patients who were evaluable for this interim report. Median age was 75 years, 716 (57%) were male, 312 (35%) had adverse cytogenetic-risk. Overall, 141 (11%) had IDH1mut [106 (12.4%) by NGS and 77 (9.9%) by PCR only] and 1114 (89%) had no IDH1 mutation (IDH1wt). There were differences between IDH1mut vs IDH1wt cohorts regarding white blood cells (WBC) count (P=0.003), platelets count (P=0.002), bone marrow blasts percentage (P<0.001), MRC cytogenetic risk (P=0.02) and NPM1 mutational status (P<0.001). More detailed information is shown in Table 1. Regarding treatments, 176 (15%) patients received only best supportive care (BSC), 293 (23%) were included in non-intensive clinical trials, 433 (34%) received HMAs, 281 (22%) LDAC schedules and 62 (5%) venetoclax plus HMA or LDAC (VEN). From 818 patients with available response, 261 (32%) achieved complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery (CRi), 105 (13%) partial remission, 305 (37%) were resistant and 147 (18%) died before being assessed. No statistical differences were observed between IDH1mut and IDH1wt groups (P=0.18). Median overall survival (OS) was 5.9 months (CI95, 5.3-6.7), with no differences in IDH1mut and IDH1wt cohorts [median 7.7 months (CI95, 5.9-11.2) vs 5.6 (CI95, 5-6.4)], with a 2y-OS of 15% (9.7-24.5) vs 15% (12.9-18.2), respectively (P=0.24). Median OS was 7.9 (CI95, 6.8-9.3) in patients receiving active treatment. Patients receiving VEN schedules had a median OS of 11.1 months (CI95, 9.4-14.1) vs 10.5 (CI95, 8.2-13.0) in patients included in clinical trials vs 8.3 (CI95, 6.7-10.0) in those receiving HMA vs 5.5 (CI95, 4.5-6.8) treated with LDAC-based schemes vs 0.4 (CI95, 0.3-0.7) in BSC patients (P<0.001). Figure 1 shows OS according to therapeutic approach in all patients. According to the therapeutic approach, IDH1mut patients included in clinical trials had a median OS of 16.8 (CI95, 6.0-NA) vs 10.6 months (CI95, 9.9-NA) in patients receiving VEN schedules vs 9.0 (CI95, 6.5-14.5) in those receiving HMA vs 7.0 (CI95, 5.5-12.7) with LDAC-based vs 0.6 (CI95, 0.2-3.7) in BSC patients (P<0.001). Conclusion: We show a prevalence of 11% of IDH1 mutation among patients considered unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy. Although there were differences between IHD1mut and IDH1wt subgroups in some variables with demonstrated prognostic impact, no significant differences were observed in response to treatment or OS. This study was partially supported by Servier.

Survival after living donor liver transplantation versus best supportive care in patients with end-stage liver disease with various MELD-Na scores: retrospective cohort study.

Survival after living donor liver transplantation versus best supportive care in patients with end-stage liver disease with various MELD-Na scores: retrospective cohort study.

THU-134 - Feasibility of systemic anti-cancer therapy as an alternative to best supportive care in patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh B liver dysfunction

THU-134 - Feasibility of systemic anti-cancer therapy as an alternative to best supportive care in patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh B liver dysfunction

Prospective Randomized Trial of Docetaxel Versus Best Supportive Care in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

To evaluate whether treatment with single-agent docetaxel would result in longer survival than would best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Secondary end points included assessment of response (docetaxel arm only), toxicity, and quality of life. One hundred four patients (103 of whom were eligible for entry onto the study) were well balanced for prognostic factors. Of 84 patients with measurable lesions, six (7.1%) achieved partial responses (three patients at each dose level). Time to progression was longer for docetaxel patients than for best supportive care patients (10.6 v 6.7 weeks, respectively; P < .001), as was median survival (7.0 v 4.6 months; log-rank test, P = .047). The difference was more significant for docetaxel 75 mg/m2 patients, compared with corresponding best supportive care patients (7.5 v 4.6 months; log-rank test, P = .010; 1-year survival, 37% v 11%; χ2 test, P = .003). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 11 patients treated with docetaxel 100 mg/m2, three of whom died, and in one patient treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m2. Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity, with the exception of diarrhea, occurred at a similar rate in both the docetaxel and best supportive care groups. Treatment with docetaxel is associated with significant prolongation of survival, and at a dose of 75 mg/m2, the benefits of docetaxel therapy outweigh the risks.

Efficacy of avelumab in the treatment of oncourological malignances. Results of registration studies and own experience

Background. In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, 1st line maintenance with avelumab in combination with best supportive care significantly increased (9.2 months) overall survival compared to best supportive care in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer without progression after 1st line platinum-based chemotherapy: 29.7 months versus 20.5 months, respectively. Trial results led to inclusion of avelumab into the international guidelines as a standard of care with the highest level of evidence. Combined therapy with avelumab + axitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma showed higher progression-free survival and objective response rate compared to sunitinib in all IMDC (International Metastatic Renal Cancer Database Consortium) groups. Avelumab + axitinib is one of the immuno-oncology combinations with proven effectiveness for progression-free survival and objective response rate.Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of avelumab in treatment of oncological urological diseases in routine clinical practice. Materials and methods. At the N.A. Lopatkin Scientific Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology - branch of the National Medical Research Radiology Center, 12 patients with locally advanced inoperable and metastatic urothelial cancer without progression after 1st line platinum-based chemotherapy in combination with gemcitabine received maintenance avelumab therapy. Median follow-up was 10 months. Primary endpoints were overall survival from the start of avelumab maintenance therapy and safety.Combined therapy with avelumab + axitinib was administered in 18 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Median follow-up was 9 (3-16) months. Overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate and safety in the overall population and according to IMDC groups were evaluated.Results. At data cut-off (March 2023) with median follow-up of 10 months, overall survival was 100 %, progression-free survival was 66.7 % (among patients who received more than 3 infusions - 100 %). Progression-free survival was higher in patients with tumors of the lower urinary tract compared to upper (72.5 % versus 60 %), complete response to induction platinum-based chemotherapy compared to partial response and stable disease (100 % versus 66.7 %) and presence of metastases in the lymph nodes only compared to visceral and bone metastases (100 % versus 66.7 %). Adverse events were observed in 4 (66.7 %) patients.Among 18 patients who received avelumab + axitinib, complete response was observed in 2 (11.1 %) patients, partial response in 6 (33.3 %) patients, stable disease in 9 (50 %) patients, disease progression in 1 (5.6 %) patient. Response to therapy was observed in patients of all prognosis groups; for large (&gt;5 cm) metastases in the lungs, soft tissues, lymph nodes and bones response was observed 3 months after treatment start. Overall survival for this follow-up duration was 100 %, progression-free survival was 96.4 ± 11.2 %. Adverse events were observed in 8 (44.4 %) patients, and in 6 (75 %) of them they were grade I—II and did not require infusion regimen correction or axitinib dose reduction.Conclusion. Avelumab maintenance therapy in the 1st line is the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer without disease progression during 1st line platinum-based chemotherapy. Maintenance therapy allows to achieve better overall survival and progression-free survival irrespective of the choice of platinum regimen (cisplatin or carboplatin), response to platinum-based chemotherapy, number of chemotherapy cycles, tumor localization and advancement.Experience of the N.A. Lopatkin Scientific Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology confirms results of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial on the effectiveness of avelumab maintenance therapy in routine clinical practice. Combination drug therapy with avelumab and axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma is an effective and safe treatment method which allows to achieve fast objective response and has good tolerability in patients irrespective of IMDC group or metastasis location. Effectiveness and favorable safety profile of avelumab + axitinib combination were proven in the context of routine clinical practice.

Epidemiological and Therapeutic Analyses in Lung Cancer Patients Over 80 Years Old in the Hokushin Region: A Retrospective Hospital Administrative Database Study

ObjectiveThis study was performed to validate the epidemiology, initial treatment, and clinical practice in lung cancer patients < 80 and ≥ 80 years in Hokushin region, Japan. MethodsWe retrospectively surveyed data of 5481 newly diagnosed and registered lung cancer patients (4311 [78.7%] < 80 years; 1170 [21.3%] ≥ 80 years ) in 22 principal hospitals in Hokushin region linked with health insurance claims data between 2016 and 2017. Stage, initial treatment, and clinical practice were compared between the 2 groups. ResultsThe distributions of clinical stage I/II/III/IV/unknown were 2535/387/654/1371/111 in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 37/32/114/237/3 in SCLC. Initial surgery for stage I NSCLC was performed in 90.0% and 60.2% of cases in the < 80 and ≥ 80 years groups, respectively. Rates of treatment with best supportive care (BSC) for stage IV disease were significantly higher in the ≥ 80 than the < 80 years group (NSCLC:58.9% vs. 18.7%; SCLC: 42.3% vs. 6.8%, respectively), regardless of the presence/absence of comorbidities. Propensity score matching showed that age ≥ 80 years itself was significantly related to choice of BSC in patients with lung cancer. The ratio of initial cytotoxic chemotherapy for NSCLC was low (49.9%) but that of biomarker-based therapy including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (50.0%) was significantly higher in the ≥ 80 than < 80 years group (70.2% vs. 29.8%, respectively). ConclusionThere are several differences in treatment pattern between patients < 80 and ≥ 80 years. Age ≥ 80 years may be related to BSC choice in patients with lung cancer.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy or best supportive care in patients with localized pancreatic cancer not receiving chemotherapy and surgery (PANCOSAR): a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial according to a TwiCs design

BackgroundSignificant comorbidities, advanced age, and a poor performance status prevent surgery and systemic treatment for many patients with localized (non-metastatic) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). These patients are currently treated with ‘best supportive care’. Therefore, it is desirable to find a treatment option which could improve both disease control and quality of life in these patients. A brief course of high-dose high-precision radiotherapy i.e. stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) may be feasible.MethodsA nationwide multicenter trial performed within a previously established large prospective cohort (the Dutch Pancreatic cancer project; PACAP) according to the ‘Trial within cohorts’ (TwiCs) design. Patients enrolled in the PACAP cohort routinely provide informed consent to answer quality of life questionnaires and to be randomized according to the TwiCs design when eligible for a study. Patients with localized PDAC who are unfit for chemotherapy and surgery or those who refrain from these treatments are eligible. Patients will be randomized between SABR (5 fractions of 8 Gy) with ‘best supportive care’ and ‘best supportive care’ only. The primary endpoint is overall survival from randomization. Secondary endpoints include preservation of quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30 and -PAN26), NRS pain score response and WHO performance scores at baseline, and, 3, 6 and 12 months. Acute and late toxicity will be scored using CTCAE criteria version 5.0: assessed at baseline, day of last fraction, at 3 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6 and 12 months following SABR.DiscussionThe PANCOSAR trial studies the added value of SBRT as compared to ‘best supportive care’ in patients with localized PDAC who are medically unfit to receive chemotherapy and surgery, or refrain from these treatments. This study will assess whether SABR, in comparison to best supportive care, can relieve or delay tumor-related symptoms, enhance quality of life, and extend survival in these patients.Trial registrationClinical trials, NCT05265663, Registered March 3 2022, Retrospectively registered.

Serum SALL4 as a predictive biomarker for the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent nonsurgical treatment.

To investigate the role of serum spalt like transcription factor 4 (SALL4) in the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with nonsurgical treatment. Serum samples were collected from 101 patients with HCC without surgical treatment, then the SALL4 was detected by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. According to subsequent treatment, patients were divided into 2 groups, best supportive care (BSC) (58 cases) and nonsurgical anticancer treatment (NSAT) (48 cases). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox multivariate regression analysis were applied to evaluate the relationship between SALL4 and survival time of 2 groups. In BSC group, there was no significant difference of the survival time between 2 groups (SALL4 < 800 ng/mL or SALL4 ≥ 800 ng/mL) (P = .339). In NSAT group, the survival time of patients with low SALL4 concentration was significantly longer than patients with high SALL4 concentration (P = .005). SALL4 have no predictive effect in BSC patients with HCC. But for patients received NSAT, low SALL4 concentration in serum may indicate longer survival.

Suprachoroidal Injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide Injectable Suspension for the Treatment of Macular Edema Associated With Uveitis in the United States: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesSuprachoroidal injection of triamcinolone acetonide is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for macular edema associated with uveitis. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing this treatment with best supportive care (BSC) for the management of this indication from US Medicare and commercial payer perspectives. MethodsA patient-level simulation was developed per the patient characteristics and changes in best-corrected visual acuity letter scores observed in a phase III study of triamcinolone acetonide (PEACHTREE). The wholesale acquisition cost of triamcinolone acetonide was $1650/injection; suprachoroidal injection cost was assumed at $200/injection. Healthcare costs were informed by a US claims–based analysis. Mortality risk associated with severe vision loss and blindness was modeled by applying a hazard ratio to all-cause mortality rates of the US general population. Health-related quality of life weights, obtained from a regression model fitted to the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 data from PEACHTREE, were applied based on the best-corrected visual acuity scores of both eyes. Costs (2020 US dollar) and benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated over a 10-year horizon. ResultsIn the base-case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing triamcinolone acetonide with BSC was $28 479 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The wholesale acquisition cost for triamcinolone acetonide for suprachoroidal use was ∼68%, ∼56%, and ∼27% below the willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150 000, $100 000, and $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Results were robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses. ConclusionsTriamcinolone acetonide for suprachoroidal use is cost-effective compared with BSC for patients with macular edema associated with uveitis.

The Cost Effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Versus Best Supportive Care in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy in Canada.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) received marketing authorisation in Canada for the treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy, and the clinical and economic value of axi-cel to patients and the healthcare system should be examined. The objective of this analysis is to determine, from societal and public healthcare payer perspectives, the cost effectiveness of axi-cel versus best supportive care for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in Canada. A pharmacoeconomic model was developed and populated with clinical data derived from the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies using a propensity score-matched comparison. A partitioned survival mixture-cure modelling approach was taken to characterise the potential curative effect of axi-cel therapy in large B-cell lymphoma. Healthcare resource utilisation and adverse event data were based on results from ZUMA-1, and utility values were derived from ZUMA-1 data supplemented with published literature. Costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) were taken from publicly available Canadian cost databases and published literature. Benefits and costs were discounted at 1.5% per year, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. In the base case, axi-cel generated an incremental 6.2 life-years compared to best supportive care, corresponding to 4.6 additional quality-adjusted life-years, and was associated with $606,010 in additional costs. The incremental cost-utility ratio was $132,747 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with best supportive care from a societal perspective ($106,392 per quality-adjusted life-year gained from a public healthcare payer perspective). Key drivers of the analysis included progression-free survival and overall survival values for axi-cel. The results of this analysis suggest that axi-cel may be considered a cost-effective allocation of resources compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in Canada.

Patient-reported Outcomes from JAVELIN Bladder 100: Avelumab First-line Maintenance Plus Best Supportive Care Versus Best Supportive Care Alone for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

BackgroundIn JAVELIN Bladder 100, avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) without disease progression with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. ObjectiveTo evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Design, setting, and participantsA randomized phase 3 trial (NCT02603432) was conducted in 700 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that had not progressed with first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin. PROs were a secondary endpoint. InterventionAvelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). Outcome measurements and statistical analysisNational Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Bladder Symptom Index-18 (FBlSI-18) and EuroQol five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed-effect models. Time to deterioration (TTD; prespecified definition: a ≥3-point decrease from baseline in the FBlSI-18 disease-related symptoms–physical subscale for two consecutive assessments) was evaluated via Kaplan-Meier analyses. Results and limitationsCompletion rates for scheduled on-treatment PRO assessments were >90% (overall and average per assessment). Results from descriptive analyses and mixed-effect or repeated-measures models of FBlSI-18 and EQ-5D-5L were similar between arms. TTD was also similar, both in the prespecified analysis (hazard ratio 1.26 [95% confidence interval: 0.90, 1.77]) and in the post hoc analyses including off-treatment assessments and different event definitions. Limitations included the open-label design and limited numbers of evaluable patients at later time points. ConclusionsAddition of avelumab first-line maintenance to BSC in patients with aUC that had not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy prolonged OS, with a relatively minimal effect on quality of life. Patient summaryIn this trial of people with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had benefited from first-line chemotherapy (ie, had stable disease or reduced tumor size), treatment with avelumab maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone improved survival significantly, without compromising quality of life, as reported by the patients themselves.