Efrat Dotan1, Tianyu Li2, Michael J Hall2, Neal J Meropol2, J Robert Beck2, Yu-Ning Wong2. 1. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH efrat.dotan@fccc.edu. 2. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although initially approved for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression, the use of anti-EGFR antibodies is now restricted to wild-type KRAS tumors. Little is known about prescribers' response to new clinical data, practice guidelines, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label change with regard to the use of anti-EGFR antibodies in clinical practice. METHODS: Commercially insured patients with mCRC who received second-line therapy between 2004 and 2010 were identified by dusing the LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database. We calculated the fraction of patients receiving anti-EGFR antibody in 2-month intervals. χ(2) tests were used to compare treatment rates at four time points: time 1: June 2008, ASCO presentation of clinical data; time 2: February 2009, ASCO guidelines publication; time 3: August 2009, FDA label change; time 4: April 2010 to 8 months after FDA label change. RESULTS: Five thousand eighty-nine patients received second-line therapy; of these, 2,599 patients received an anti-EGFR antibody. Median age was 60 years (range, 20 to 97), with 57% male sex. The majority of patients (59.4%) received an anti-EGFR antibody at time 1, with significant decrease at each of the subsequent time points (time 2: 46.2% [P = .019]; time 3: 35.2% [P < .001]; Time 4: 16.2% [P < .001]). Multivariable logistic regression did not show any affect of age, sex, comorbidities, or region of the country on this pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The use of anti-EGFR antibodies for mCRC decreased after the presentation of clinical trial data, ASCO guidelines publication, and FDA label change. These data suggest that oncologists respond rapidly to new evidence and professional guidelines, and readily incorporate predictive biomarkers into clinical practice.
PURPOSE: Although initially approved for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression, the use of anti-EGFR antibodies is now restricted to wild-type KRAS tumors. Little is known about prescribers' response to new clinical data, practice guidelines, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label change with regard to the use of anti-EGFR antibodies in clinical practice. METHODS: Commercially insured patients with mCRC who received second-line therapy between 2004 and 2010 were identified by dusing the LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database. We calculated the fraction of patients receiving anti-EGFR antibody in 2-month intervals. χ(2) tests were used to compare treatment rates at four time points: time 1: June 2008, ASCO presentation of clinical data; time 2: February 2009, ASCO guidelines publication; time 3: August 2009, FDA label change; time 4: April 2010 to 8 months after FDA label change. RESULTS: Five thousand eighty-nine patients received second-line therapy; of these, 2,599 patients received an anti-EGFR antibody. Median age was 60 years (range, 20 to 97), with 57% male sex. The majority of patients (59.4%) received an anti-EGFR antibody at time 1, with significant decrease at each of the subsequent time points (time 2: 46.2% [P = .019]; time 3: 35.2% [P < .001]; Time 4: 16.2% [P < .001]). Multivariable logistic regression did not show any affect of age, sex, comorbidities, or region of the country on this pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The use of anti-EGFR antibodies for mCRC decreased after the presentation of clinical trial data, ASCO guidelines publication, and FDA label change. These data suggest that oncologists respond rapidly to new evidence and professional guidelines, and readily incorporate predictive biomarkers into clinical practice.
Authors: C Bokemeyer; I Bondarenko; J T Hartmann; F de Braud; G Schuch; A Zubel; I Celik; M Schlichting; P Koralewski Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Shervin M Shirvani; I-Wen Pan; Thomas A Buchholz; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Karen E Hoffman; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Astrid Lièvre; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Delphine Le Corre; Valérie Boige; Bruno Landi; Jean-François Emile; Jean-François Côté; Gorana Tomasic; Christophe Penna; Michel Ducreux; Philippe Rougier; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Pierre Laurent-Puig Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Shirin Khambata-Ford; Christopher R Garrett; Neal J Meropol; Mark Basik; Christopher T Harbison; Shujian Wu; Tai W Wong; Xin Huang; Chris H Takimoto; Andrew K Godwin; Benjamin R Tan; Smitha S Krishnamurthi; Howard A Burris; Elizabeth A Poplin; Manuel Hidalgo; Jose Baselga; Edwin A Clark; David J Mauro Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Samuel M Silver; Melissa E Hughes; Douglas W Blayney; Stephen B Edge; James G Herman; Clifford A Hudis; P Kelly Marcom; Jane E Pettinga; David Share; Richard Theriault; Yu-Ning Wong; Jonathan L Vandergrift; Joyce C Niland; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 44.544