BACKGROUND: Advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Novel second-line treatments for advanced CCA underscore the need to understand treatment patterns and economic burden of illness in clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective, claims-based study using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database [2007-2019] selected patients with CCA who experienced failure of a line of therapy containing either gemcitabine or fluorouracil. The index date was defined based on evidence of treatment failure: date of last administration of the gemcitabine- or fluorouracil-based regimen plus 28 days, or initiation date of the next-line systemic therapy. Treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HRU), costs, and survival were assessed during the follow-up period (index until death or end of eligibility). RESULTS: A total of 1,298 patients met inclusion criteria and had a mean age of 69.1 years. There were 958 patients (73.8%) with intrahepatic and 275 patients (21.2%) with extrahepatic CCA. Average follow-up was 7.5 months. Almost 40% of patients did not receive another line of therapy after the index date. Among the 784 patients who received another line of therapy, 40.3% used fluorouracil-based therapy, 30.7% used gemcitabine-based therapy, and 29.3% used capecitabine-based therapy. Total mean per patient per month CCA-related healthcare costs were $7,743, with medical services ($6,685) a larger driver of monthly costs relative to treatment costs ($1,058). Median overall survival (OS) was 5.3 months among all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with advanced CCA do not initiate additional therapy after failure of gemcitabine or fluorouracil treatment, and there is considerable variation in treatments among those who do. This study highlights the high costs and unmet need for a standard of care in this patient population. 2021 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Novel second-line treatments for advanced CCA underscore the need to understand treatment patterns and economic burden of illness in clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective, claims-based study using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database [2007-2019] selected patients with CCA who experienced failure of a line of therapy containing either gemcitabine or fluorouracil. The index date was defined based on evidence of treatment failure: date of last administration of the gemcitabine- or fluorouracil-based regimen plus 28 days, or initiation date of the next-line systemic therapy. Treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HRU), costs, and survival were assessed during the follow-up period (index until death or end of eligibility). RESULTS: A total of 1,298 patients met inclusion criteria and had a mean age of 69.1 years. There were 958 patients (73.8%) with intrahepatic and 275 patients (21.2%) with extrahepatic CCA. Average follow-up was 7.5 months. Almost 40% of patients did not receive another line of therapy after the index date. Among the 784 patients who received another line of therapy, 40.3% used fluorouracil-based therapy, 30.7% used gemcitabine-based therapy, and 29.3% used capecitabine-based therapy. Total mean per patient per month CCA-related healthcare costs were $7,743, with medical services ($6,685) a larger driver of monthly costs relative to treatment costs ($1,058). Median overall survival (OS) was 5.3 months among all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with advanced CCA do not initiate additional therapy after failure of gemcitabine or fluorouracil treatment, and there is considerable variation in treatments among those who do. This study highlights the high costs and unmet need for a standard of care in this patient population. 2021 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA); burden of illness; economic burden; treatment patterns
Authors: Juan Valle; Harpreet Wasan; Daniel H Palmer; David Cunningham; Alan Anthoney; Anthony Maraveyas; Srinivasan Madhusudan; Tim Iveson; Sharon Hughes; Stephen P Pereira; Michael Roughton; John Bridgewater Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Farshad Farshidfar; Siyuan Zheng; Marie-Claude Gingras; Yulia Newton; Juliann Shih; A Gordon Robertson; Toshinori Hinoue; Katherine A Hoadley; Ewan A Gibb; Jason Roszik; Kyle R Covington; Chia-Chin Wu; Eve Shinbrot; Nicolas Stransky; Apurva Hegde; Ju Dong Yang; Ed Reznik; Sara Sadeghi; Chandra Sekhar Pedamallu; Akinyemi I Ojesina; Julian M Hess; J Todd Auman; Suhn K Rhie; Reanne Bowlby; Mitesh J Borad; Andrew X Zhu; Josh M Stuart; Chris Sander; Rehan Akbani; Andrew D Cherniack; Vikram Deshpande; Taofic Mounajjed; Wai Chin Foo; Michael S Torbenson; David E Kleiner; Peter W Laird; David A Wheeler; Autumn J McRee; Oliver F Bathe; Jesper B Andersen; Nabeel Bardeesy; Lewis R Roberts; Lawrence N Kwong Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Vaibhav Sahai; Antoine Hollebecque; Gina Vaccaro; Davide Melisi; Raed Al-Rajabi; Andrew S Paulson; Mitesh J Borad; David Gallinson; Adrian G Murphy; Do-Youn Oh; Efrat Dotan; Daniel V Catenacci; Eric Van Cutsem; Tao Ji; Christine F Lihou; Huiling Zhen; Luis Féliz; Arndt Vogel Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Teresa Macarulla; Milind M Javle; Robin K Kelley; Sam J Lubner; Jorge Adeva; James M Cleary; Daniel V Catenacci; Mitesh J Borad; John Bridgewater; William P Harris; Adrian G Murphy; Do-Youn Oh; Jonathan Whisenant; Maeve A Lowery; Lipika Goyal; Rachna T Shroff; Anthony B El-Khoueiry; Bin Fan; Bin Wu; Christina X Chamberlain; Liewen Jiang; Camelia Gliser; Shuchi S Pandya; Juan W Valle; Andrew X Zhu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 41.316