Re-challenge of Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Platinum-refractory Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer: Claims Data Analysis in Japan.

chemotherapy claims data head and neck cancer platinum-refractory re-challenge

Journal

Journal of health economics and outcomes research
ISSN: 2327-2236
Titre abrégé: J Health Econ Outcomes Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101648581

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 27 01 2020
revised: 13 04 2020
accepted: 20 04 2020
entrez: 21 7 2020
pubmed: 21 7 2020
medline: 21 7 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The role of platinum rechallenge in head and neck cancer (HNC) has not yet been fully evaluated. It is our goal to assess the real-world treatment patterns and usefulness of platinum rechallenge in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic HNC receiving platinum rechallenge. This is a retrospective study using data from a Japanese hospital claims database stored in electronic hospital information systems. Patients with HNC or undefined histology with an HNC diagnosis using the disease code, between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2016, were included. Patients diagnosed with other malignancies on or before the initial diagnosis of HNC and those without cancer stage information in the database were excluded from the study. A total of 43 994 patients were identified from the database as HNC patients. Of those, in patients who had cancer progression within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy administered for primary or recurrent disease (N=842), the median treatment duration of platinum rechallenge for platinum refractory patients was only 1 cycle. The second-line treatment continuation rate at 6 months was 20.1% for patients who received platinum rechallenges and 32.8% for those who received non-platinum-based regimens. The findings from this study of data from routine clinical practice suggest that the benefit of platinum rechallenge in a platinum-refractory setting would be limited.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The role of platinum rechallenge in head and neck cancer (HNC) has not yet been fully evaluated.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
It is our goal to assess the real-world treatment patterns and usefulness of platinum rechallenge in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic HNC receiving platinum rechallenge.
METHODS METHODS
This is a retrospective study using data from a Japanese hospital claims database stored in electronic hospital information systems. Patients with HNC or undefined histology with an HNC diagnosis using the disease code, between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2016, were included. Patients diagnosed with other malignancies on or before the initial diagnosis of HNC and those without cancer stage information in the database were excluded from the study.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 43 994 patients were identified from the database as HNC patients. Of those, in patients who had cancer progression within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy administered for primary or recurrent disease (N=842), the median treatment duration of platinum rechallenge for platinum refractory patients was only 1 cycle. The second-line treatment continuation rate at 6 months was 20.1% for patients who received platinum rechallenges and 32.8% for those who received non-platinum-based regimens.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this study of data from routine clinical practice suggest that the benefit of platinum rechallenge in a platinum-refractory setting would be limited.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32685597
doi: 10.36469/jheor.2020.12853
pii: jheor-7-1-12853
pmc: PMC7299445
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

43-51

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of interest M. Tahara received grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K. for the submitted work and grants and personal fees from Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Eisai, and Ono Pharmaceutical, personal fees from Otsuka, and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and NanoCarrier for non-related work. I. Doi and S. Takai are employees of Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. T. Murata is an employee of CRECON Medical Assessment Inc. and received a payment from Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K. and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. in connection with the analysis. S. Mishina and H. Kaneko are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K.

Références

J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jun 1;25(16):2171-7
pubmed: 17538161
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Apr;12(4):333-43
pubmed: 21377930
Lancet Oncol. 2015 May;16(5):583-94
pubmed: 25892145
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec;41(12):1351-7
pubmed: 21980053
J Clin Oncol. 1991 Mar;9(3):389-93
pubmed: 1999708
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011 Sep;68(3):769-76
pubmed: 21181475
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Dec 1;32(34):3858-66
pubmed: 25366680
Curr Opin Oncol. 2012 May;24(3):211-7
pubmed: 22498572
Int J Cancer. 2010 Dec 15;127(12):2893-917
pubmed: 21351269
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul;37(7):477-81
pubmed: 17720737
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014 Jun;73(6):1227-39
pubmed: 24714973

Auteurs

Makoto Tahara (M)

National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan.

Issei Doi (I)

Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan.

Tatsunori Murata (T)

CRECON Medical Assessment Inc., Tokyo, Japan.

Sari Mishina (S)

Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K., Tokyo, Japan.

Shinji Takai (S)

Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan.

Hirokazu Kaneko (H)

Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K., Tokyo, Japan.

Classifications MeSH