Real-world patterns and predictors of first-line maintenance use among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: Is there an opportunity for change?

Authors

null

Jinan Liu

GlaxoSmithKline, Navy Yard, PA

Jinan Liu, Premal H. Thaker, Janvi Sah, Eric M Maiese, Oscar Bee, Jean Hurteau, John Chan

Organizations

GlaxoSmithKline, Navy Yard, PA, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, STATinMED Research, Ann Arbor, MI, STATinMED, Ann Arbor, MI, GlaxoSmithKline, Waltham, MA, California Pacific/Palo Alto Medical Foundation/Sutter Health, San Francisco, CA

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
GlaxoSmithKline

Background: With the advent of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), options for first-line (1L) maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer (OC) have evolved in the US. This study described the use of 1L maintenance and assessed predictors of 1L maintenance use among PARPi-eligible patients (pts) with OC in a real-world setting. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included pts with newly diagnosed stage III/IV epithelial OC who received 6–9 cycles of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) and primary or interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy between Jan 1, 2016, and Feb 29, 2020, from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record–derived deidentified database. The end of the last cycle of 1L PBC was defined as the index date. Those pts who started second-line chemotherapy within 2 months of the index date were excluded. Logistic regression was used to analyze variables with regard to 1L maintenance use. Results: In total, 463 pts were included; 21% received maintenance therapy, 79% received active surveillance. Baseline characteristics are shown in the table. Overall maintenance therapy use increased over the study period, from 7.7% to 37.7%. Pts with BRCA wild type were significantly less likely to receive maintenance therapy (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16–0.59) than pts with BRCA mutation. Pts treated in 2018 (OR: 2.73; 95% CI, 1.25–5.98) and 2019 (OR: 8.78; 95% CI, 4.15–18.55) were significantly more likely to receive maintenance therapy than pts treated in 2017. Age, race, practice type, ECOG score, and residual disease status were not significant predictors of 1L maintenance use. Conclusions: Nearly 40% of pts with advanced stage OC received upfront maintenance therapy with an increasing trend over time, particularly in those with biomarker guidance. Research is warranted toward addressing barriers to the appropriate use of maintenance therapy.

Characteristic, n (%)
Pts receiving 1L maintenance therapy
Pts not receiving 1L maintenance therapy
Overall
97 (21.0)
366 (79.0)
Age, mean, years

 Race

 Asian

 Black

 White

 Other race/missing
63.8

1 (20.0)

4 (13.8)

68 (20.1)

24 (26.7)
66.2

4 (80.0)

25 (86.2)

271 (79.9)

66 (73.3)
Practice type

 Community

 Academic institution


90 (22.2)

7 (12.3)


316 (77.8)

50 (87.7)
ECOG score

 0–1

 2–4

 Missing


82 (22.8)

7(23.3)

8 (10.8)


277 (77.2)

23 (76.7)

66 (89.2)
Residual disease status

 Residual disease

 No residual disease

 Missing


37 (17.8)

35 (23.0)

25 (24.3)


171 (82.2)

117 (77.0)

78 (75.7)
BRCA status

BRCAm

BRCAwt

 Other/missinga


28 (37.8)

64 (20.4)

6 (12.2)


46 (62.2)

249 (79.6)

43 (87.8)
Homologous recombination test status

 HRd

 HRp

 Unknown/missing


4 (22.2)

7 (38.9)

86 (20.1)


14 (77.8)

11 (61.1)

341 (79.9)

aIncludes genetic variant of unknown significance, BRCA mutation NOS, other, and missing. HRd, homologous recombination deficient; HRp, homologous recombination proficient.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2021 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B: Patient Experience; Quality, Safety, and Implementation Science; Technology and Innovation in Quality of Care

Track

Technology and Innovation in Quality of Care,Patient Experience,Quality, Safety, and Implementation Science,Cost, Value, and Policy,Health Care Access, Equity, and Disparities

Sub Track

Real-World Evidence

Citation

J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 28; abstr 294)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2020.39.28_suppl.294

Abstract #

294

Poster Bd #

Online Only

Abstract Disclosures