Background: The treatment (tx) landscape for patients (pts) with metastatic melanoma (MM) has changed dramatically from systemic chemotherapy (chemo) to novel therapies, including targeted therapies (TT) and immunotherapies (IO mono- and combination therapy) in recent years. Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and cost data are needed to further evaluate tx in a value-based healthcare system. The study aimed to describe HCRU and total cost of care among first line (1L) US MM pts treated with IO, TT, or chemo. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using a U.S. claims database. Adults with ≥2 claims for melanoma and ≥1 claim for metastasis between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2017 were identified. Pts had pharmacy and medical enrollment ≥6 months pre and ≥3 months post 1L tx start. Per pt per month (PPPM) HCRU and costs were calculated by 1L tx drug class: PD-1, CTLA-4, CTLA-4+PD-1, mono-TT, combo-TT, and chemo. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for HCRU were estimated by logistic regressions, and adjusted costs were estimated by generalized linear models to control for differences in pt characteristics across groups. Results: Among 1,599 MM pts (255 PD-1, 555 CTLA-4, 88 CTLA-4+PD-1, 210 mono-TT, 102 combo-TT, 389 chemo), mean age ranged from 59–68 years across tx groups, and the majority was male (62%). Any hospitalization during 1L was less frequent among PD-1 (26%) compared to 35%–46% of all other groups (all P<.05). CTLA-4, CTLA-4+PD-1, and combo-TT had increased odds of hospitalization compared to PD-1 (adjusted ORs: 2.10, 2.35, 2.15, respectively; all P<.05). Total adjusted PPPM costs were significantly lower for PD-1 compared to CTLA-4, CTLA-4+PD-1 and combo-TT and higher compared to mono-TT and chemo (). Conclusions: Hospitalizations represent an important healthcare resource for MM pts and were lowest among PD-1. Total monthly costs varied substantially across 1L regimens and were significantly lower in PD-1 compared to CTLA-4, CTLA-4+PD-1, and combo-TT. HCRU and costs differentiate 1L MM regimens.
Andrew J Klink, Bruce Feinberg, Frank Xiaoqing Liu, Sama Ahsan, Damion Nero and Bartosz Chmielowski
Danielle S. Graham, Mykola Onyshchenko, Mark A. Eckardt, Benjamin J. DiPardo, Sriram Venigalla, Scott D. Nelson, Bartosz Chmielowski, Arun S. Singh, Jacob E. Shabason, Fritz C. Eilber and Anusha Kalbasi
Background: There is conflicting evidence regarding the role of chemotherapy for high-grade soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in adults. We sought to characterize patterns of chemotherapy use, including multiagent and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in the United States. Patients and Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 19,969 adult patients who underwent surgical resection for primary high-grade STS from 2004 to 2016. Using logistic regression, we examined factors associated with overall, multiagent, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. Results: Chemotherapy was administered to 22% (n=4,377) of the study population. Among patients treated using chemotherapy, 85% received multiagent treatment and 47% received neoadjuvant treatment. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with chemotherapy use included tumor size, depth, histology, and primary site; receipt of radiation treatment; younger age; higher patient income; and academic treatment facility. Factors associated with multiagent chemotherapy use included tumor histology, tumor primary site, and younger age. Factors associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy use included tumor size, depth, margin status, and primary site; receipt of radiation treatment; higher patient income; academic treatment facility type; and distance to treatment facility. Treatment at a high-volume facility was the only factor associated with overall, multiagent, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. No significant temporal trend was seen in overall, multiagent, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. Conclusions: Overall chemotherapy use was low (22%). The variability in chemotherapy use was driven by clinical, patient, demographic, and facility factors. Among patients treated with chemotherapy, the use of multiagent chemotherapy was high (85%), and nearly half received neoadjuvant therapy. There was a discrepancy in the use of chemotherapy—including neoadjuvant and multiagent chemotherapy—between high- and low-volume treatment centers.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Susan M. Swetter, John A. Thompson, Mark R. Albertini, Christopher A. Barker, Joel Baumgartner, Genevieve Boland, Bartosz Chmielowski, Dominick DiMaio, Alison Durham, Ryan C. Fields, Martin D. Fleming, Anjela Galan, Brian Gastman, Kenneth Grossmann, Samantha Guild, Ashley Holder, Douglas Johnson, Richard W. Joseph, Giorgos Karakousis, Kari Kendra, Julie R. Lange, Ryan Lanning, Kim Margolin, Anthony J. Olszanski, Patrick A. Ott, Merrick I. Ross, April K. Salama, Rohit Sharma, Joseph Skitzki, Jeffrey Sosman, Evan Wuthrick, Nicole R. McMillian and Anita M. Engh
Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.