Faculty Bibliography

Aim: Standard first-line treatment of advanced urothelial cell carcinoma involves cisplatin-based chemotherapy, with carboplatin or immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (ICI) reserved for cisplatin-ineligible individuals. Methods: Using a large de-identified electronic health record-derived database of patients with advanced urothelial cell carcinoma in the USA, we examined trends in utilization of first-line systemic therapies in cisplatin-eligible patients from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2018. Results: Among 1181 cisplatin-eligible patients, the quarterly proportion who received first-line ICI increased from 1 to 42% (p_trend <0.001), while the proportion who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy decreased from 53 to 33% (p_trend = 0.018). Patients receiving ICI were older than those receiving cisplatin (median age: 75 vs 68). Conclusion: Our analysis suggests rising off-label ICI use in cisplatin-eligible individuals, potentially because of ICI's favorable toxicity profile.

BACKGROUND:Limited data compare first-line carboplatin-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade in cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients. The primary evidence guiding treatment decisions was a recent Food and Drug Administration/European Medicines Agency safety alert based on emerging data from two ongoing phase III trials, reporting shorter survival in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-negative patients receiving immunotherapy. Final results from these trials are unknown. OBJECTIVE:To compare survival in cisplatin-ineligible mUC patients receiving first-line immunotherapy versus those receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2017 mUC patients receiving first-line carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 1530) or immunotherapy (n = 487) from January 1, 2011 to May 18, 2018 using the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived database. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), comparing 12- and 36-mo OS, and hazard ratios before and after 12 mo. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to address confounding in Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression model estimates of comparative effectiveness. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:IPTW-adjusted OS rates in the immunotherapy group were lower at 12 mo (39.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} 34.0-45.3%] vs 46.1% [95% CI 43.4-48.8%]) but higher at 36 mo (28.3% [95% CI 21.8-34.7%] vs 13.3% [95% CI 11.1-15.5%]) relative to the chemotherapy group. Immunotherapy treatment demonstrated inferior OS during the first 12 mo relative to carboplatin-based chemotherapy (IPTW-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.62), but superior OS beyond 12 mo (IPTW-adjusted HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.85). Limitations include retrospective design and potential unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS:In the setting of mUC, clinicians and patients should carefully consider how to balance the short-term benefit of chemotherapy against the long-term benefit of immunotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY:To determine the optimal first-line therapy for metastatic bladder cancer patients who are unfit for cisplatin, we compared carboplatin-based chemotherapy versus immunotherapy using real-world data. Survival in the 1st year of treatment was lower with immunotherapy relative to chemotherapy, but for patients surviving beyond the 1st year, immunotherapy was superior.

Several immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies (CPIs) have been approved to treat metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma (mUC). Because of the favorable toxicity profile of CPI compared with chemotherapy, oncologists may have a low threshold to prescribe CPI to patients near the end of life. We evaluated trends in initiation of end-of-life systemic therapy in 1,637 individuals in the Flatiron Health Database who were diagnosed with mUC between 2015 and 2017 and who died. Rates of systemic therapy initiation in the last 30 and 60 days of life were 17.0% and 29.8%, respectively. The quarterly proportion of patients who initiated CPI within 60 days of death increased from 1.0% to 23% during the study period (p

BACKGROUND:There are insufficient data to make firm dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Yet patients frequently report that specific food items influence their symptoms. In this study, we describe patients' perceptions about the benefits and harms of selected foods and patients' dietary patterns. METHODS:CCFA Partners is an ongoing internet-based cohort study of patients with IBD. We used a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire to measure dietary consumption patterns and open-ended questions to elicit responses from patients about food items they believe ameliorate or exacerbate IBD. We categorized patients into four mutually exclusive disease categories: CD without an ostomy or pouch (CD), UC without an ostomy or pouch (UC), CD with an ostomy (CD-ostomy), and UC with a pouch (UC-pouch). RESULTS:Yogurt, rice, and bananas were more frequently reported to improve symptoms whereas non-leafy vegetables, spicy foods, fruit, nuts, leafy vegetables, fried foods, milk, red meat, soda, popcorn, dairy, alcohol, high-fiber foods, corn, fatty foods, seeds, coffee, and beans were more frequently reported to worsen symptoms. Compared to CD patients, CD-ostomy patients reported significantly greater consumption of cheese (odds ratio [OR] 1.56, 95 % CI 1.03-2.36), sweetened beverages (OR 2.14, 95 % CI 1.02-1.03), milk (OR 1.84, 95 % CI 1.35-2.52), pizza (OR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.12-2.20), and processed meats (OR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.04-1.89). CONCLUSIONS:Patients identified foods that they believe worsen symptoms and restricted their diet. Patients with ostomies ate a more liberal diet. Prospective studies are needed to determine whether diet influences disease course.

Meaningful real-world evidence (RWE) generation requires unstructured data found in electronic health records (EHRs) which are often missing from administrative claims; however, obtaining relevant data from unstructured EHR sources is resource-intensive. In response, researchers are using natural language processing (NLP) with machine learning (ML) techniques (i.e., ML extraction) to extract real-world data (RWD) at scale. This study assessed the quality and fitness-for-use of EHR-derived oncology data curated using NLP with ML as compared to the reference standard of expert abstraction. Using a sample of 186,313 patients with lung cancer from a nationwide EHR-derived de-identified database, we performed a series of replication analyses demonstrating some common analyses conducted in retrospective observational research with complex EHR-derived data to generate evidence. Eligible patients were selected into biomarker- and treatment-defined cohorts, first with expert-abstracted then with ML-extracted data. We utilized the biomarker- and treatment-defined cohorts to perform analyses related to biomarker-associated survival and treatment comparative effectiveness, respectively. Across all analyses, the results differed by less than 8% between the data curation methods, and similar conclusions were reached. These results highlight that high-performance ML-extracted variables trained on expert-abstracted data can achieve similar results as when using abstracted data, unlocking the ability to perform oncology research at scale.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to describe differences in telemedicine use among women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) by race, age and geographic region. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of women with recurrent or de novo mBC treated in U.S. community cancer practices that initiated a new line of therapy between March 2020 and February 2021. Multivariable modified Poisson regression models were used to calculate adjusted rate ratios (OR) and robust 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with telemedicine visits within 90 days of therapy initiation. RESULTS:Overall, among 3412 women with mBC, 751 (22%) patients had telemedicine visits following therapy initiation, with lower risks observed among older women (<50 years: 24%; 50-64 years: 22%; 65-74 years: 21%; ≥75 years: 20%). Greater telemedicine use was observed among Asian women (35%) compared to White (21%), Black (18%) and Hispanic (21%) women. Fewer telemedicine visits occurred in Southern (12%) and Midwestern (17%) states versus Northeastern (37%) or Western (36%) states. In multivariable models, women ages ≥75 years had significantly lower risks of telemedicine visits (RR=0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.95) compared to ages <50 years. Compared to patients in Northeastern states, women in Midwestern (RR=0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.57) and Southern (RR=0.31, 95% CI 0.26-0.37) states had significantly lower risks of telemedicine visits; but not women in Western states (RR=0.96, 95% CI 0.83-1.12). No statistically significant differences in telemedicine use were found between racial groups in overall multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS:In this study of community cancer practices, older mBC patients and those living in Southern and Midwestern states were less likely to have telemedicine visits. Preferences for communication and delivery of care may have implications for measurement of exposures and endpoints in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of cancer patients.