Literature DB >> 30944183

Trends in Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Cell Carcinoma at the End of Life: Insights from Real-World Practice.

Ravi B Parikh1,2, Matthew D Galsky3, Bishal Gyawali4,5, Fauzia Riaz6, Tara L Kaufmann7,2, Aaron B Cohen8, Blythe J S Adamson8, Cary P Gross6, Neal J Meropol8, Ronac Mamtani7.   

Abstract

Several immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies (CPIs) have been approved to treat metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma (mUC). Because of the favorable toxicity profile of CPI compared with chemotherapy, oncologists may have a low threshold to prescribe CPI to patients near the end of life. We evaluated trends in initiation of end-of-life systemic therapy in 1,637 individuals in the Flatiron Health Database who were diagnosed with mUC between 2015 and 2017 and who died. Rates of systemic therapy initiation in the last 30 and 60 days of life were 17.0% and 29.8%, respectively. The quarterly proportion of patients who initiated CPI within 60 days of death increased from 1.0% to 23% during the study period (p trend < .001). After CPI approval, end-of-life CPI initiation significantly increased among patients with poor performance status (p trend = .020) and did not significantly change among individuals with good performance status. The quarterly proportion of patients who initiated any systemic therapy at the end of life doubled (17.4% to 34.8%) during the study period, largely explained by increased CPI use. These findings suggest a dramatic rise in CPI use at the end of life in patients with mUC, a finding that may have important guideline and policy implications. © AlphaMed Press 2019.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30944183      PMCID: PMC6656487          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


Use of chemotherapy near the end of life subjects patients to toxicities and costs of cancer treatment without improving quality of life, and it is a well‐established metric of low‐value care [1], [2]. Because immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies (CPI) lack the classical toxicities of chemotherapy [3], oncologists may frequently prescribe CPI to patients at the end of life who would otherwise not be eligible for chemotherapy because of factors such as poor performance status (PS). End‐of‐life CPI use has been termed “desperation oncology” in the lay press [4]. CPI in metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma (mUC) was approved in the U.S. in 2016 for individuals whose cancers progressed on platinum‐based chemotherapy [5] and in 2017 as first‐line therapy in cisplatin‐ineligible individuals [6], [7]. We describe real‐world patterns of CPI initiation near the end of life among individuals with mUC who died. Given the perceived favorable toxicity profile of CPI, we hypothesized that the proportion of patients initiating CPI near the end of life has increased over time, particularly among individuals with poor PS. We performed a secular trend analysis of 1,637 individuals in the Flatiron Health Network with mUC (stage IV at diagnosis or recurrent) who were diagnosed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, and who died from any cause prior to December 31, 2017 [8]. The Flatiron Health Database is derived using technology‐enabled abstraction from electronic health records. At the time of study conduct, the database consisted of over 2 million active patients with cancer seen at 280 primarily community oncology practices, in both urban to rural areas, and is broadly representative of the U.S. population [9]. We obtained approval and waiver of informed consent from the Copernicus Group and University of Pennsylvania institutional review boards prior to study conduct. We excluded patients receiving clinical trial treatments (including CPI as part of a clinical trial) or agents not listed in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for mUC [10]. We calculated the quarterly proportions of CPI and chemotherapy initiation in any line of treatment in the last 30 and 60 days of life. We used nonparametric tests of trend to test our hypothesis of increasing CPI use at the end of life after approval of CPI [11]. We used chi‐square tests to compare demographic characteristics of patients by treatment at the end of life, with level of significance being a two‐sided p < .05. Significant chi‐square results were further analyzed with post hoc chi‐square tests of proportions with Bonferroni adjustment. All analyses were performed using STATA (version 15.1; College Station, TX). Among our decedent cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 74 years (interquartile range [IQR], 66–80), 73.1% were male, and 72.7% were white. In the last 30 and 60 days of life, 278 (17.0%) and 488 (29.8%) of decedents, respectively, initiated a new line of systemic therapy. Most patients who initiated end‐of‐life chemotherapy or CPI received salvage rather than first‐line therapy (Table 1). Proportions of CPI initiation within 60 days of death increased from 1.0% of all decedents in the final quarter of 2015 (2015q4) to 23% in the final quarter of 2017 (2017q4; Fig. 1; p < .001). CPI accounted for 66% of treatment starts within 60 days of death in 2017q4, and most CPI initiators (20/32) had a recorded Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS ≥2. Following U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of CPI (2016 quarter 3 and onward), the quarterly proportions of decedents using CPI increased; although patients with ECOG PS ≥2 who had received a CPI at the end of life significantly increased (p = .020), these proportions did not significantly change among individuals with ECOG PS 0–1. CPI initiators at the end of life had slightly worse PS than chemotherapy initiators (37.9% vs. 31.1% with ECOG PS ≥2; Table 1), although this difference was not statistically significant on post hoc testing. There were no appreciable differences in age and gender between chemotherapy and CPI initiators. Patients who did not initiate any systemic therapy near the end of life were significantly older and had worse PS than patients who initiated therapy (Table 1). The proportion of individuals with mUC initiating any systemic therapy within 60 days of death doubled from 17.4% in 2015q4 to 34.8% in 2017q4.
Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of individuals within 60 days of death since 2016, stratified by treatment type

Note: We only compare demographic characteristics for patients diagnosed in 2016 and 2017 to account for the fact that checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CPI) was approved in 2016 for metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma.

The p values are from Pearson's chi‐square tests for homogeneity comparing categorical variables between the three arms (chemotherapy, checkpoint inhibitor therapy, or no treatment start). Post hoc testing of significant results revealed significant differences in age (p = .003) and performance status (.01) between individuals receiving no treatment versus any systemic therapy. There were no significant differences in age or performance status between patients receiving chemotherapy versus CPI.

Abbreviations: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; F, female; M, male; NA, not applicable.

Figure 1.

Initiation of new therapy in the last 60 days of life in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, by treatment type.

Abbreviations: q1, first quarter; q2, second quarter; q3, third quarter; q4, fourth quarter.

Note: We only compare demographic characteristics for patients diagnosed in 2016 and 2017 to account for the fact that checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CPI) was approved in 2016 for metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma. The p values are from Pearson's chi‐square tests for homogeneity comparing categorical variables between the three arms (chemotherapy, checkpoint inhibitor therapy, or no treatment start). Post hoc testing of significant results revealed significant differences in age (p = .003) and performance status (.01) between individuals receiving no treatment versus any systemic therapy. There were no significant differences in age or performance status between patients receiving chemotherapy versus CPI. Abbreviations: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; F, female; M, male; NA, not applicable. Initiation of new therapy in the last 60 days of life in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, by treatment type. Abbreviations: q1, first quarter; q2, second quarter; q3, third quarter; q4, fourth quarter. Using a real‐world nationally representative data set, we show that since the first FDA approval of CPI in mUC, significantly increasing proportions of patients with mUC initiate CPI near the end of life. In the final quarter of 2017, approximately one‐fourth of patients who died had initiated CPI near the end of life. After CPI approval, end‐of‐life CPI use increased significantly for patients with poor PS but did not increase significantly for patients with good PS. This may be explained by the approval of CPI in mid‐2017 for cisplatin‐ineligible patients, who may have poorer PS than cisplatin‐eligible patients [12]. Importantly, clinical trials of CPI in mUC exclude patients with ECOG PS 3–4 and include only a minority of patients with ECOG PS 2. Finally, the proportions of any systemic treatment initiation within 60 days of death doubled from 2015q4 to 2017q4, largely driven by increasing CPI use. This may reflect physicians’ and patients’ perceptions of CPI's favorable risk‐benefit profile, even among individuals with limited life expectancy or PS who may not live long enough to derive a survival benefit from CPI. This study has several limitations. Because we limited our cohort to decedents, our study should not be used to make inferences about treatment strategies in mUC and should be considered hypothesis generating. To quantify the risk‐benefit ratio of CPI relative to chemotherapy or no therapy among patients with poor performance status, future studies should assess overall survival in a full cohort of poor‐prognosis patients, along with patient‐centered outcomes such as safety, quality of life, and end‐of‐life care. Such studies require data sources with detailed clinical and treatment data and methodology to reduce confounding by indication. Greater inclusion of patients with poorer performance status in randomized trials would also increase generalizability of such trials to real‐world populations. Missing PS data (25%–34%) across subgroups was a limitation of this study, although it was equally distributed between chemotherapy and CPI initiators. Also, we could not assess cause of death from this database, and patients who died of noncancer causes could be captured in this analysis. Finally, clinician experience with CPI near the end of life and the recent FDA indication changes for first‐line CPI in mUC may have an impact on future prescribing patterns at the end of life [13]. To our knowledge, this study provides the first estimate of the proportion of patients with advanced urothelial cell carcinoma who initiate CPI near the end of life. Existing clinical guidelines regarding systemic therapy initiation near the end of life should account for the increasing use of newer treatment modalities such as CPI, especially among patients with poor PS. These findings, if replicated across other malignancies, may have important policy implications given the high cost of CPI compared with chemotherapy.
  9 in total

Review 1.  American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies five key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top five list for oncology.

Authors:  Lowell E Schnipper; Thomas J Smith; Derek Raghavan; Douglas W Blayney; Patricia A Ganz; Therese Marie Mulvey; Dana S Wollins
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

Authors:  Joaquim Bellmunt; Ronald de Wit; David J Vaughn; Yves Fradet; Jae-Lyun Lee; Lawrence Fong; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Miguel A Climent; Daniel P Petrylak; Toni K Choueiri; Andrea Necchi; Winald Gerritsen; Howard Gurney; David I Quinn; Stéphane Culine; Cora N Sternberg; Yabing Mai; Christian H Poehlein; Rodolfo F Perini; Dean F Bajorin
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Immune-Related Adverse Events Associated with Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

Authors:  Michael A Postow; Robert Sidlow; Matthew D Hellmann
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  A Wilcoxon-type test for trend.

Authors:  J Cuzick
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1985 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Treatment of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer "unfit" for Cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Authors:  Matthew D Galsky; Noah M Hahn; Jonathan Rosenberg; Guru Sonpavde; Thomas Hutson; William K Oh; Robert Dreicer; Nicholas Vogelzang; Cora N Sternberg; Dean F Bajorin; Joaquim Bellmunt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Chemotherapy Use, Performance Status, and Quality of Life at the End of Life.

Authors:  Holly G Prigerson; Yuhua Bao; Manish A Shah; M Elizabeth Paulk; Thomas W LeBlanc; Bryan J Schneider; Melissa M Garrido; M Carrington Reid; David A Berlin; Kerin B Adelson; Alfred I Neugut; Paul K Maciejewski
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 31.777

7.  Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

Authors:  Arjun V Balar; Matthew D Galsky; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Thomas Powles; Daniel P Petrylak; Joaquim Bellmunt; Yohann Loriot; Andrea Necchi; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Nancy A Dawson; Michiel S van der Heijden; Robert Dreicer; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Richard W Joseph; Alexandra Drakaki; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Srikala S Sridhar; David I Quinn; Ignacio Durán; David R Shaffer; Bernhard J Eigl; Petros D Grivas; Evan Y Yu; Shi Li; Edward E Kadel; Zachary Boyd; Richard Bourgon; Priti S Hegde; Sanjeev Mariathasan; AnnChristine Thåström; Oyewale O Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Dean F Bajorin
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  First-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE-052): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study.

Authors:  Arjun V Balar; Daniel Castellano; Peter H O'Donnell; Petros Grivas; Jacqueline Vuky; Thomas Powles; Elizabeth R Plimack; Noah M Hahn; Ronald de Wit; Lei Pang; Mary J Savage; Rodolfo F Perini; Stephen M Keefe; Dean Bajorin; Joaquim Bellmunt
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Development and Validation of a High-Quality Composite Real-World Mortality Endpoint.

Authors:  Melissa D Curtis; Sandra D Griffith; Melisa Tucker; Michael D Taylor; William B Capra; Gillis Carrigan; Ben Holzman; Aracelis Z Torres; Paul You; Brandon Arnieri; Amy P Abernethy
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 3.402

  9 in total
  12 in total

1.  Uptake and Survival Outcomes Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy Among Trial-Ineligible Patients With Advanced Solid Cancers.

Authors:  Ravi B Parikh; Eun Jeong Min; E Paul Wileyto; Fauzia Riaz; Cary P Gross; Roger B Cohen; Rebecca A Hubbard; Qi Long; Ronac Mamtani
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 31.777

2.  Oncology Drug Effectiveness from Electronic Health Record Data Calibrated Against RCT Evidence: The PARSIFAL Trial Emulation.

Authors:  David Merola; Jessica Young; Deborah Schrag; Kueiyu Joshua Lin; Nicholas Robert; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 5.814

3.  Effectiveness of pembrolizumab in trial-ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Authors:  Wataru Fukuokaya; Takafumi Yanagisawa; Masaki Hashimoto; Shutaro Yamamoto; Yuhei Koike; Yu Imai; Kosuke Iwatani; Hajime Onuma; Kagenori Ito; Fumihiko Urabe; Shunsuke Tsuzuki; Shoji Kimura; Jun Miki; Yu Oyama; Hirokazu Abe; Takahiro Kimura
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 6.630

Review 4.  Management of Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in Older and Frail Patients: Have Novel Treatment Approaches Improved Their Care?

Authors:  Brian M Russell; Leora Boussi; Joaquim Bellmunt
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 4.271

5.  Adoption of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Patterns of Care at the End of Life.

Authors:  Fauzia Riaz; Geliang Gan; Fangyong Li; Amy J Davidoff; Kerin B Adelson; Carolyn J Presley; Blythe J Adamson; Pooja Shaw; Ravi B Parikh; Ronac Mamtani; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2020-07-17

6.  Utilization of Systemic Therapy in Patients With Cancer Near the End of Life in the Pre- Versus Postimmune Checkpoint Inhibitor Eras.

Authors:  Ali Raza Khaki; Shasank Chennupati; Catherine Fedorenko; Li Li; Qin Sun; Petros Grivas; Scott D Ramsey; Stephen M Schwartz; Veena Shankaran
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2021-05-19

Review 7.  Immunotherapy Versus Hospice: Treatment Decision-Making in the Modern Era of Novel Cancer Therapies.

Authors:  Amy An; David Hui
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 5.075

8.  Clinical implications of differences between real world and clinical trial usage of left ventricular assist devices for end stage heart failure.

Authors:  Catherine Mezzacappa; Neal G Ravindra; Cesar Caraballo; Fouad Chouairi; P Elliott Miller; John-Ross D Clarke; Jadry Gruen; Makoto Mori; Megan McCullough; Clancy Mullan; Arnar Geirsson; Joseph G Rogers; Mohammad Anwer; Nihar Desai; Tariq Ahmad
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Impact of performance status on treatment outcomes: A real-world study of advanced urothelial cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Authors:  Ali Raza Khaki; Ang Li; Leonidas N Diamantopoulos; Mehmet A Bilen; Victor Santos; John Esther; Rafael Morales-Barrera; Michael Devitt; Ariel Nelson; Christopher J Hoimes; Evan Shreck; Hussein Assi; Benjamin A Gartrell; Alex Sankin; Alejo Rodriguez-Vida; Mark Lythgoe; David J Pinato; Alexandra Drakaki; Monika Joshi; Pedro Isaacsson Velho; Noah Hahn; Sandy Liu; Lucia Alonso Buznego; Ignacio Duran; Marcus Moses; Jayanshu Jain; Jure Murgic; Praneeth Baratam; Pedro Barata; Abhishek Tripathi; Yousef Zakharia; Matthew D Galsky; Guru Sonpavde; Evan Y Yu; Veena Shankaran; Gary H Lyman; Petros Grivas
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 6.921

Review 10.  Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Performance Status Work Group.

Authors:  Allison Magnuson; Suanna S Bruinooge; Harpreet Singh; Keith D Wilner; Shadia Jalal; Stuart M Lichtman; Paul G Kluetz; Gary H Lyman; Heidi D Klepin; Mark E Fleury; Brad Hirsch; Allen Melemed; Fernanda I Arnaldez; Upal Basu Roy; Caroline Schenkel; Shimere Sherwood; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 13.801

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.