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.

Management of nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease (NTMLD) consists of a long-term multi-drug antibiotic regimen, yet many patients do not achieve culture conversion. We estimated the NTMLD-related direct medical costs in Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK) among refractory patients who were infected with Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), without concomitant cystic fibrosis, tuberculosis, or HIV. We conducted a retrospective observational physician survey of nationally representative samples. The survey captured anonymized information about patients’ treatment histories for NTMLD-related health care resource utilization over a 24-month period. We summarized NTMLD-related resource use and estimated the total economic burden, from each country’s health care payer perspective. In total, 59 physicians provided data on 157 patients. The average person time observed during the 24-month period was 1.7 years (SD: 0.4); 17% of patients died by the end of the study period. The major components of NTMLD-related direct medical costs among refractory patients were hospitalizations (varying from 29% of total annual costs in the UK to 69% in France), outpatient visits (8% in Canada to 51% in the UK), and outpatient testing such as post-diagnostic sputum testing, bronchial wash/lavage, spirometry, biopsies, imaging, and electrocardiograms (5% in France to 35% in Canada). In this patient cohort, the average direct medical costs per person-year, in local currencies, were approximately $16,200 (Canada), €11,600 (Germany), €17,900 (France) and £9,700 (UK). Based on this study’s findings, we conclude that managing patients with refractory NTMLD caused by MAC is associated with a substantial economic burden.

Evidence of radioiodine resensitization was reported in 4 single-arm clinical trials and 3 uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies, which included between 3 and 20 patients. Over half of patients in these 7 studies demonstrated increased radioiodine avidity after resensitization treatment. Where reported, at least half of radioiodine retreated patients remained progression free and/or had not initiated a new treatment by the end of study follow-up. Adverse events associated with radioiodine resensitization therapies were typically mild, with skin-related adverse events being most common. No studies comparing outcomes of radioiodine resensitization therapies against lenvatinib or to no treatment were identified. No evidence on the cost-effectiveness of radioiodine resensitization therapy was found.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the relative efficacy of neoadjuvant nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy (neoNIVO + CT) compared to relevant treatments amongst resectable non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (rNSCLC) patients. Methods: Treatment comparisons were based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) using randomized clinical trial data identified via systematic literature review (SLR). The outcomes of interest were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR). NeoNIVO + CT was compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neoCT), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT), adjuvant chemotherapy (adjCT), and surgery alone (S). Due to the potential for effect modification by stage, all-stage and stage-specific networks were considered. Fixed-effect (FE) and random-effects Bayesian NMA models were run (EFS = hazard ratios [HR]; pCR = odds ratios [OR]; 95% credible intervals [CrI]). Results: Sixty-one RCTs were identified (base case = 9 RCTs [n = 1978 patients]). In the all-stages FE model, neoNIVO + CT had statistically significant EFS improvements relative to neoCT (HR = 0.68 [95% CrI: 0.49, 0.94]), S (0.59 [0.42, 0.82]), adjCT (0.66 [0.45, 0.96]), but not relative to neoCRT (HR = 0.77 [0.52, 1.16]). NeoNIVO + CT (5 RCTs) had statistically significant higher odds of pCR relative to neoCT (OR = 12.53 [5.60, 33.82]) and neoCRT (7.15 [2.31, 24.34]). Stage-specific model findings were consistent. CONCLUSIONS: This NMA signals improved EFS and/or pCR of neoNIVO + CT relative to comparators among patients with rNSCLC.

Background: Head-to-head evidence comparing repotrectinib against other approved ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is not currently available. The objective of this study was to indirectly compare progression-free survival (PFS), the objective response rate (ORR), and the duration of response (DoR) for repotrectinib vs. crizotinib and vs. entrectinib in patients with TKI-naïve ROS1+ locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). Methods: Using evidence from a systematic literature review, unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to estimate population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and DoR and odds ratios (ORs) for ORR for repotrectinib vs. crizotinib and vs. entrectinib among patients with TKI-naïve aNSCLC. The MAICs were adjusted for imbalances in baseline patient characteristics that were pre-specified as being prognostic or predictive of treatment effects. Weighted Cox (for PFS and DoR) and logistic (for ORR) regression models were fit. Supplementary analyses (SAs) explored the impact of missing data and modeling assumptions on effect estimates. Results: The evidence base was formed by TRIDENT-1 EXP-1 (repotrectinib; N = 71), a pooled set of five trials involving crizotinib (N = 273), and the pooled ALKA-372–001/STARTRK-1 and -2 trials (entrectinib; N = 168). After population adjustment, repotrectinib was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS relative to crizotinib (HR = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 0.67) and entrectinib (HR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.91). Differences in ORR and DoR were not statistically significant but numerically favored repotrectinib. SAs were consistent with the main analyses across all comparisons. Conclusions: The analysis demonstrated the strong benefits of repotrectinib in PFS, which was robust across different SAs and supported by numerically favorable results for DoR (where available) and ORR. These results, alongside the published TRIDENT-1 clinical data, further support repotrectinib as a potential new standard of care for TKI-naïve patients with ROS1+ aNSCLC.