Real-world uptake and effectiveness of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States

{"title":"Real-world uptake and effectiveness of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the United States","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.esmogo.2024.100087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Triplet chemotherapy + bevacizumab (TripletBev) demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer in randomized trials. We aimed to evaluate the uptake and estimate the effectiveness of TripletBev versus doublet chemotherapy + bevacizumab (DoubletBev) in a real-world population in the United States.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We carried out a retrospective cohort study of patients initiating first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer between 23 October 2014 and 31 October 2022 using the Flatiron Health nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. The data originated from ∼280 cancer clinics (∼800 sites of care) in the USA. The primary analysis compared OS between patients receiving TripletBev or DoubletBev using a Cox proportional hazards model with adjustment for pre-specified covariates using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting. This analysis was also carried out within pre-specified and <em>post hoc</em> subgroups. A secondary analysis used Stürmer-trimming of the propensity score distribution to include patients most likely to be eligible to receive either treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Some 391 patients received TripletBev and 9625 received DoubletBev. There was no association between TripletBev and OS in the primary analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.13]. TripletBev was associated with lower hazard of death in patients with synchronous metastases (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.98; statistically significant) and in the secondary analysis of patients most likely to be eligible to receive either treatment (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.63-1.02; non-statistically significant).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Uptake of TripletBev remains low and the primary analysis did not demonstrate effectiveness in a real-world population in the United States. Patients with synchronous metastases and those most likely to be eligible to receive either treatment may be most likely to benefit from TripletBev.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100490,"journal":{"name":"ESMO Gastrointestinal Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949819824000487/pdfft?md5=401a17b322bd7cb0a0afa3d07ee7fcc1&pid=1-s2.0-S2949819824000487-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ESMO Gastrointestinal Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949819824000487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Triplet chemotherapy + bevacizumab (TripletBev) demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer in randomized trials. We aimed to evaluate the uptake and estimate the effectiveness of TripletBev versus doublet chemotherapy + bevacizumab (DoubletBev) in a real-world population in the United States.

Methods

We carried out a retrospective cohort study of patients initiating first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer between 23 October 2014 and 31 October 2022 using the Flatiron Health nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. The data originated from ∼280 cancer clinics (∼800 sites of care) in the USA. The primary analysis compared OS between patients receiving TripletBev or DoubletBev using a Cox proportional hazards model with adjustment for pre-specified covariates using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting. This analysis was also carried out within pre-specified and post hoc subgroups. A secondary analysis used Stürmer-trimming of the propensity score distribution to include patients most likely to be eligible to receive either treatment.

Results

Some 391 patients received TripletBev and 9625 received DoubletBev. There was no association between TripletBev and OS in the primary analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.13]. TripletBev was associated with lower hazard of death in patients with synchronous metastases (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.98; statistically significant) and in the secondary analysis of patients most likely to be eligible to receive either treatment (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.63-1.02; non-statistically significant).

Conclusion

Uptake of TripletBev remains low and the primary analysis did not demonstrate effectiveness in a real-world population in the United States. Patients with synchronous metastases and those most likely to be eligible to receive either treatment may be most likely to benefit from TripletBev.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国转移性结直肠癌患者接受三联化疗和贝伐单抗双联化疗的实际情况和效果
导言在随机试验中,三联化疗+贝伐单抗(TripletBev)为新诊断的转移性结直肠癌患者带来了总生存期(OS)的益处。我们的目的是评估美国真实世界人群中三联化疗+贝伐单抗(DoubletBev)与双联化疗+贝伐单抗(DoubletBev)的使用率,并估算其有效性。方法我们利用Flatiron Health全国电子健康记录(EHR)衍生的去身份化数据库,对2014年10月23日至2022年10月31日期间开始一线治疗的转移性结直肠癌患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。数据来自美国 280 家癌症诊所(800 个医疗点)。主要分析采用 Cox 比例危险模型,使用稳定的逆概率治疗加权法对预先指定的协变量进行调整,比较了接受 TripletBev 或 DoubletBev 治疗的患者的 OS。该分析还在预先指定的亚组和事后亚组中进行。二次分析使用了倾向得分分布的Stürmer-trimming方法,以纳入最有可能接受两种治疗方法的患者。结果约有391名患者接受了TripletBev治疗,9625名患者接受了DoubletBev治疗。在主要分析中,TripletBev 和 OS 之间没有关联[危险比 (HR) 0.92; 95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.75-1.13]。TripletBev与同步转移患者较低的死亡风险有关(HR 0.79;95% CI 0.64-0.98;有统计学意义),在最有可能接受两种治疗的患者的二次分析中也是如此(HR 0.80;95% CI 0.63-1.02;无统计学意义)。同步转移患者和最有可能接受两种治疗的患者可能最有可能从 TripletBev 中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Gastric cancer hospital-based registry: real-world gastric cancer data from Latin America and Europe Geriatric Assessment-guided therapy modification and outcomes in patients with non-metastatic gastroesophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study☆ Table of Contents Editorial Board PRABITAS study design: a pragmatic, randomized phase III trial of bi-weekly versus conventional trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1