Dataset Information

Complex decisions for first-line and maintenance treatment of advanced wild-type non-small cell lung cancer.

ABSTRACT: Until recently, the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) required minimal clinical decision making. Patients who were eligible for chemotherapy received a platinum-based doublet, and 5-year survival rates were poor. With the advent of molecularly targeted agents and better tolerated chemotherapies--namely, bevacizumab, erlotinib, and pemetrexed--new therapeutic opportunities have emerged. Some of the strategies that have proven to be successful for the treatment of patients with NSCLC are targeting of the vascular endothelial growth factor, use of maintenance chemotherapy for patients without progression of disease after initial therapy, and tailoring of cytotoxic agents specific to the histology of an individual patient's cancer. Each approach has been independently shown to improve overall survival, but integrating the data from a number of complicated trials into the "best" approach for patients remains challenging. This review attempts to address three fundamental questions clinicians face in choosing first-line and maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC, particularly nonsquamous histology: Is pemetrexed or a taxane agent better for combination with platinum therapy? Should bevacizumab be used, and is it beneficial when added to pemetrexed chemotherapy? When is maintenance therapy indicated, and which agent is best?

SUBMITTER: Gentzler RD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4350796 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Complex decisions for first-line and maintenance treatment of advanced wild-type non-small cell lung cancer.

Gentzler Ryan D RD Johnson Melissa L ML

The oncologist 20150206 3

Until recently, the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) required minimal clinical decision making. Patients who were eligible for chemotherapy received a platinum-based doublet, and 5-year survival rates were poor. With the advent of molecularly targeted agents and better tolerated chemotherapies--namely, bevacizumab, erlotinib, and pemetrexed--new therapeutic opportunities have emerged. Some of the strategies that have proven to be successful for the treatment of ...[more]

PMID: 25660158

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a severe disease with burdensome symptoms and traditionally poor outcomes. The treatment of advance disease is based on chemotherapy, with the recent addition of immunotherapy. Patients who respond to initial treatment can opt to receive maintenance therapy (MT). It is important to understand why patients with advanced NSCLC choose to accept or refuse therapy, and how physician recommendations play into this decision-making process. This study characterized patient and physician decision-making regarding treatment for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC in the USA using the example of MT. METHODS AND MATERIALS:This study employed multiple approaches: patient interviews, a patient survey, and a physician survey. Qualitative interviews were conducted among patients who had been offered MT to identify factors influencing treatment decision-making. The patient survey explored the decision-making process and quantified challenges and motivators for receiving MT. The physician survey included a discrete choice experiment to understand the relationship between physician treatment recommendations and patient characteristics. RESULTS:Interviewed patients (n?=?10) were motivated to receive MT in the hope of extending their lives and being proactive against their cancer, and they anticipated reduced adverse effects compared with first-line therapy. Surveyed patients (n?=?77) described several deterrents to receiving therapy; the most prominent was severity of adverse effects, which was an influencing factor for 34% of patients. The major motivator for receiving therapy was the potential to extend life, which influenced 97% of patients. A total of 100 oncologists participated in the physician survey. Patients' lack of treatment motivation/inconvenience, disease progression, presence of severe renal co-morbidities, and older age decreased the likelihood of physicians recommending the use of MT. CONCLUSION:This study identified challenges and motivators influencing advanced NSCLC patients' decisions to accept or refuse therapy, as well as patient and disease characteristics associated with physician's treatment recommendations for MT.

Project description:Evidence has suggested survival benefits of maintenance for advanced NSCLC patients not progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Additionally, particular first-line targeted therapies have shown survival improvements in selected populations. Optimal first-line and maintenance therapies remain unclear. Here, currently available evidence was synthesized to elucidate optimal first-line and maintenance therapy within patient groups. Literature was searched for randomized trials evaluating first-line and maintenance regimens in advanced NSCLC patients. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed within molecularly and clinically selected groups. The primary outcome was combined clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits. A total of 87 records on 56 trials evaluating first-line treatments with maintenance were included. Results showed combined clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits with particular first-line with maintenance treatments, (1) first-line intercalated chemotherapy+erlotinib, maintenance erlotinib in patients with EGFR mutations, (2) first-line afatinib, maintenance afatinib in patients with EGFR deletion 19, (3) first-line chemotherapy + bevacizumab, maintenance bevacizumab in EGFR wild-type patients, (4) chemotherapy+conatumumab, maintenance conatumumab in patients with squamous histology, (5) chemotherapy+cetuximab, maintenance cetuximab or chemotherapy + necitumumab, maintenance necitumumab in EGFR FISH-positive patients with squamous histology, and (6) first-line chemotherapy+bevacizumab, maintenance bevacizumab or first-line sequential chemotherapy+gefitinib, maintenance gefitinib in patients clinically enriched for EGFR mutations with nonsquamous histology. No treatment showed combined clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits in patients with EGFR L858R or nonsquamous histology. Particular first-line with maintenance treatments show meaningful OS and PFS benefits in patients selected by EGFR mutation or histology. Further research is needed to achieve effective therapy for patients with EGFR mutation L858R or nonsquamous histology.

Project description:Background: As the first domestic PD-1 antibody approved for lung cancer in China, camrelizumab has exhibited proven effectiveness for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, the cost-effectiveness of this new regimen remains to be investigated. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab combination therapy vs. chemotherapy for previously untreated patients with advanced, non-squamous NSCLC without Alk or Egfr genomic aberrations from the perspective of China's healthcare system. Methods: Based on the CameL trial, the study developed a three-health state Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding camrelizumab to chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone in NSCLC patients. The analysis models were conducted for patients unselected by PD-L1 tumor expression (the base case) and the patient subgroup with PD-L1-expressing tumors (≥1%). Primary model outcomes included the costs in US dollars and health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $31,500 per QALY. Additionally, a scenario analysis that adjusted within-trial crossover was employed to evaluate camrelizumab combination therapy compared to chemotherapy without subsequent use of PD1/PD-L1 antibodies. Results: Camrelizumab combination therapy was more costly and provided additional 0.11 QALYs over chemotherapy in the base case analysis (0.86 vs. 0.75 QALYs), 0.12 QALYs over chemotherapy in the subgroup analysis (0.99 vs. 0.88 QALYs), and 0.34 QALYs over chemotherapy in the scenario analysis (0.86 vs. 0.52 QALYs). Correspondingly, the ICER was $63,080 per QALY, $46,311 per QALY, and $30,591 per QALY, in the base case, the subgroup, and the scenario analysis, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that ICERs of the base case and the subgroup analysis were most sensitive to the cost of camrelizumab, the cost of pemetrexed. Besides, the base case and subgroup analysis were more sensitive to the risk of neutrophil count decreased in the camrelizumab and the utility of stable disease, respectively. Conclusion: Although camrelizumab combination therapy is not cost-effective as first-line therapy for NSCLC patients in China in the base case, adjusting within-trial crossover would move the treatment regimen toward cost-effectiveness in the scenario analysis.

Dataset Information

Complex decisions for first-line and maintenance treatment of advanced wild-type non-small cell lung cancer.

Publications

Complex decisions for first-line and maintenance treatment of advanced wild-type non-small cell lung cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets