Avelumab first-line maintenance (1LM) is approved for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) who do not have disease progression after platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). This retrospective study describes real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with la/mUC who initiated first-line (1L) systemic treatments, including avelumab 1LM, within iKnowMed, the US community oncology electronic health records database, between 1 December 2019 and 30 November 2023 and followed through 28 February 2024. In total, 1658 patients with la/mUC initiated 1L treatment: immuno-oncology (IO) monotherapy (41.2%), PBC only (32.4%), PBC followed by avelumab 1LM (11.2%), and other treatments (15.1%). The median OS (95% CI) from the start of 1L treatment was 20.4 (13.8, 30.0), 11.0 (8.5, 14.5), and 14.6 (12.6, 17.3) months for cisplatin-based only, carboplatin-based only, and IO monotherapy, respectively. Among the overall population, 36.1% and 11.8% of patients received second-line (2L) and third-line treatment, respectively. The median (95% CI) OS from the start of avelumab 1LM was 18.5 (13.8, 23.8) months. After discontinuation of avelumab 1LM, 43.5% received 2L treatment, and 59.3% of those received enfortumab vedotin (EV); the median (95% CI) OS from start of 2L EV was 12.7 (7.2, 16.5) months. Survival outcomes among patients treated with avelumab 1LM and 2L EV are consistent with respective clinical trials and other real-world studies.

Background: In 2018, the treatment options for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) changed with durvalumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), which was approved for consolidation therapy following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) without disease progression. Despite durvalumab’s clinical benefit, many patients receiving this therapy developed progression. This study evaluated treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in real-world community oncology practices for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC who received cCRT. Methods: This study used The US Oncology Network’s (iKnowMed) electronic health record database supplemented by chart review and included adults diagnosed with unresectable stage III NSCLC initiating cCRT between 11/01/2017 and 10/31/2019, with follow-up through 04/30/2022. cCRT included concurrent treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy (+/-14 days). Real-world overall survival (rwOS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) were estimated from cCRT initiation using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: Among 426 patients, 61.5% received durvalumab post-cCRT (cCRT+durvalumab) and 38.5% did not (cCRT alone). Death (28.3%) and disease progression (22.2%) were the most common reasons for not initiating durvalumab. The median age for the cCRT+durvalumab and cCRT alone cohorts were 70 and 71 years, and 71.8% and 61.6% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, respectively. 51.5% of cCRT+durvalumab discontinued durvalumab, primarily due to adverse events (35.8%) and disease progression (28.4%). Median rwOS was 50.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]:41.4, not reached) and 11.6 (95% CI:6.5,15.9) months for cCRT+durvalumab and cCRT alone, respectively. Median rwPFS was 28.5 (95% CI:23.3,36.4) months for cCRT+durvalumab and 6.3 (95% CI:4.3,9.3) months for cCRT alone, respectively. 23.7% (cCRT+durvalumab) and 26.2% (cCRT alone) received subsequent treatment, of which, 59.7% (cCRT+durvalumab) and 46.5% (cCRT alone) received ICI. Conclusion: Four out of ten patients did not receive consolidation durvalumab mainly due to disease progression. Even among patients who initiated durvalumab, many patients relapsed and were retreated with ICIs. These findings underscore the need to refine treatment strategies for better outcomes in stage III unresectable NSCLC.

To assess biomarker testing utilization, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes in previously treated proficient mismatch repair deficient (pMMR) or non-microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Using the iKnowMed electronic health record database, this study included pMMR/non-MSI-H adult mCRC patients previously treated with standard-of-care (SoC) chemotherapies between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2021. Patients were censored for overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) at their last visit date or the end of study period, 31 August 2022. MSI/MMR testing was conducted in 70.9% of mCRC patients. In 292 previously treated mCRC patients, 69.5% received SACT (regorafenib:14.8%, trifluridine+tipiracil (TAS-102):12.3%, other SACT:72.9%), 28.8% received BSC and 1.7% received no BSC/SACT. The most common other SACT included irinotecan- (37.4%) and oxaliplatin-based (14.8%) therapies. The most patients were tested for KRAS (89%) and BRAF (81%). Overall, the median (95% CI) OS and rwPFS was 7.4(5.8,8.8) and 3.5(3.2,4.3) months, respectively. Only 70.9% of mCRC patients received guideline-recommended MSI/MMR testing, indicating a need for improved testing rates. Additionally, only 27.1% of previously treated mCRC patients received SoC options (regorafenib/TAS-102). The real-world variability in treatment choices and a high rate of chemotherapy rechallenge in subsequent lines highlight an unmet need in this patient population.

Background: The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved rapidly with the introduction of various immune-oncology (IO) agents and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). We aimed to describe real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of mRCC patients in post-IO and TKI settings. Methods: Using data from The US Oncology Network electronic health record database, iKnowMed, this retrospective cohort study included adult mRCC patients receiving subsequent treatments (index treatment) post-IO and TKI in combination or sequence between 1 January 2018 and 30 September 2020 and followed them until 30 April 2022. Treatment patterns were summarized descriptively. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from the index date was described using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: We identified 239 patients diagnosed with mRCC who received anticancer treatment post-IO and TKI therapies. The median age was 67 (range: 58, 73) years, 73.6% were male, and 61.5% had an intermediate/poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk score. Among these, 29 (12.1%) received subsequent therapy at the line of therapy 2 (LOT2), 167 (69.8%) at LOT3, and 43 (18.0%) at LOT4+. The most common subsequent treatments were cabozantinib (38.5%) and axitinib (10.5%). The median OS for LOT2, LOT3, and LOT4+ was 18.0, 17.0, and 26.9 months, respectively. The median PFS for LOT2, LOT3, and LOT4+ was 6.1, 5.0, and 4.0 months, respectively. Conclusions: In mRCC patients treated with IO and TKI in combination/sequence, subsequent LOT choice is diverse, with TKI-based treatments being the most preferred. There is a need for considering treatment sequencing studies and studies with a new mode of action in this population.