AIM: To assess advanced neuroendocrine tumor (NET) treatment patterns and resource utilization by tumor progression stage and tumor site in the United States. METHODS: United States Physicians meeting eligibility criteria were provided with online data extraction forms to collect patient chart data on recent NET patients. Resource utilization and treatment pattern data were collected over a baseline period (after diagnosis and before tumor progression), as well as initial and secondary progression periods, with progression defined according to measureable radiographic evidence of tumor progression. Resource categories used in the analysis include: Treatments (e.g., surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapies), hospitalizations and physician visits, diagnostic tests (biomarkers, imaging, laboratory tests). Comparisons between categories of resource utilization and tumor progression status were examined using univariate (by tumor site) and multivariate analyses (across all tumor sites). RESULTS: Fifty-five physicians were included in the study and completed online data extraction forms using the charts of 110 patients. The physician sample showed a relatively even distribution for those affiliated with academic versus community hospitals (46% vs 55%). Forty (36.3%) patients were reported to have pancreatic NET (pNET), while 70 (63.6%) patients had gastrointestinal tract (GI)/Lung as the primary NET site. Univariate analysis showed the proportion of patients hospitalized increased from 32.7% during baseline to 42.1% in the progression stages. While surgeries were performed at similar proportions overall at baseline and progression, pNET patients, were more likely than GI/Lung NET patients to have undergone surgery during the baseline (33.3% vs 25.0%) and any progression periods (26.7% vs 23.4%). While peptide-receptor radionuclide and targeted therapy utilization was low across NET types and tumor stages, GI/Lung types exhibited greater utilization of these technologies compared to pNET. Chemotherapy utilization was also greater among GI/Lung types. Multivariate analysis results demonstrated that patients in first progression period were over 3 times more likely to receive chemotherapy when compared to baseline (odds ratio: 3.31; 95%CI: 1.46-7.48, P = 0.0041). Further, progression was associated with a greater likelihood of having a study physician visit [relative risk (RR): 1.54; 95%CI: 1.10-2.17, P = 0.0117], and an increased frequency of other physician visits (RR: 1.84; 95%CI: 1.10-3.10, P = 0.0211). CONCLUSION: Resource utilization in advanced NET in the United States is significant overall and data suggests progression has an impact on resource utilization regardless of NET tumor site.
AIM: To assess advanced neuroendocrine tumor (NET) treatment patterns and resource utilization by tumor progression stage and tumor site in the United States. METHODS: United States Physicians meeting eligibility criteria were provided with online data extraction forms to collect patient chart data on recent NET patients. Resource utilization and treatment pattern data were collected over a baseline period (after diagnosis and before tumor progression), as well as initial and secondary progression periods, with progression defined according to measureable radiographic evidence of tumor progression. Resource categories used in the analysis include: Treatments (e.g., surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapies), hospitalizations and physician visits, diagnostic tests (biomarkers, imaging, laboratory tests). Comparisons between categories of resource utilization and tumor progression status were examined using univariate (by tumor site) and multivariate analyses (across all tumor sites). RESULTS: Fifty-five physicians were included in the study and completed online data extraction forms using the charts of 110 patients. The physician sample showed a relatively even distribution for those affiliated with academic versus community hospitals (46% vs 55%). Forty (36.3%) patients were reported to have pancreatic NET (pNET), while 70 (63.6%) patients had gastrointestinal tract (GI)/Lung as the primary NET site. Univariate analysis showed the proportion of patients hospitalized increased from 32.7% during baseline to 42.1% in the progression stages. While surgeries were performed at similar proportions overall at baseline and progression, pNET patients, were more likely than GI/Lung NET patients to have undergone surgery during the baseline (33.3% vs 25.0%) and any progression periods (26.7% vs 23.4%). While peptide-receptor radionuclide and targeted therapy utilization was low across NET types and tumor stages, GI/Lung types exhibited greater utilization of these technologies compared to pNET. Chemotherapy utilization was also greater among GI/Lung types. Multivariate analysis results demonstrated that patients in first progression period were over 3 times more likely to receive chemotherapy when compared to baseline (odds ratio: 3.31; 95%CI: 1.46-7.48, P = 0.0041). Further, progression was associated with a greater likelihood of having a study physician visit [relative risk (RR): 1.54; 95%CI: 1.10-2.17, P = 0.0117], and an increased frequency of other physician visits (RR: 1.84; 95%CI: 1.10-3.10, P = 0.0211). CONCLUSION: Resource utilization in advanced NET in the United States is significant overall and data suggests progression has an impact on resource utilization regardless of NET tumor site.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical practice patterns; Gastrointestinal cancers; Health economics; Neuroendocrine tumors; Resource utilization
Authors: Matthew H Kulke; Lowell B Anthony; David L Bushnell; Wouter W de Herder; Stanley J Goldsmith; David S Klimstra; Stephen J Marx; Janice L Pasieka; Rodney F Pommier; James C Yao; Robert T Jensen Journal: Pancreas Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Eric Raymond; Laetitia Dahan; Jean-Luc Raoul; Yung-Jue Bang; Ivan Borbath; Catherine Lombard-Bohas; Juan Valle; Peter Metrakos; Denis Smith; Aaron Vinik; Jen-Shi Chen; Dieter Hörsch; Pascal Hammel; Bertram Wiedenmann; Eric Van Cutsem; Shem Patyna; Dongrui Ray Lu; Carolyn Blanckmeister; Richard Chao; Philippe Ruszniewski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James C Yao; Manisha H Shah; Tetsuhide Ito; Catherine Lombard Bohas; Edward M Wolin; Eric Van Cutsem; Timothy J Hobday; Takuji Okusaka; Jaume Capdevila; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Paola Tomassetti; Marianne E Pavel; Sakina Hoosen; Tomas Haas; Jeremie Lincy; David Lebwohl; Kjell Öberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anja Rinke; Hans-Helge Müller; Carmen Schade-Brittinger; Klaus-Jochen Klose; Peter Barth; Matthias Wied; Christina Mayer; Behnaz Aminossadati; Ulrich-Frank Pape; Michael Bläker; Jan Harder; Christian Arnold; Thomas Gress; Rudolf Arnold Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew H Kulke; Johanna Bendell; Larry Kvols; Joel Picus; Rodney Pommier; James Yao Journal: J Hematol Oncol Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 17.388
Authors: Eric Liu; Scott Paulson; Anthony Gulati; Jon Freudman; William Grosh; Sheldon Kafer; Prasanna C Wickremesinghe; Ronald R Salem; Lisa Bodei Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-29
Authors: Arvind Dasari; Emily K Bergsland; Al B Benson; Beilei Cai; Lynn Huynh; Todor Totev; Jerome Shea; Mei Sheng Duh; Maureen P Neary; Cecile G Dagohoy; Brandon E Shih; Victoria E Maurer; Jennifer Chan; Matthew H Kulke Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-01-04
Authors: Irvin M Modlin; Mark Kidd; Kjell Oberg; Massimo Falconi; Pier Luigi Filosso; Andrea Frilling; Anna Malczewska; Ronald Salem; Christos Toumpanakis; Faidon-Marios Laskaratos; Stefano Partelli; Matteo Roffinella; Claudia von Arx; Beata Kos Kudla; Lisa Bodei; Ignat A Drozdov; Alexandra Kitz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: I M Modlin; M Kidd; M Falconi; P L Filosso; A Frilling; A Malczewska; C Toumpanakis; G Valk; K Pacak; L Bodei; K E Öberg Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 51.769
Authors: Matthew H Kulke; Al B Benson; Arvind Dasari; Lynn Huynh; Beilei Cai; Todor Totev; Nina Roesner; Mei Sheng Duh; Maureen P Neary; Victoria E Maurer; Brandon E Shih; Cecile G Dagohoy; Jennifer Chan; Emily K Bergsland Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-01-03
Authors: Muhammad Wasif Saif; Rohan Parikh; David Ray; James A Kaye; Samantha K Kurosky; Katharine Thomas; Robert A Ramirez; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Thomas J R Beveridge; Beloo Mirakhur; Saurabh P Nagar; Heloisa P Soares Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2019-08
Authors: Edward M Wolin; John Leyden; Grace Goldstein; Teodora Kolarova; Ron Hollander; Richard R P Warner Journal: Pancreas Date: 2017 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.327