Treatment patterns and health outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with targeted systemic therapies in the UK

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with targeted systemic therapies have demonstrated favourable outcomes in randomised controlled trials, however real-world evidence is limited. Thus, this study aimed to determine the effectiveness of targeted systemic therapies for patients with mRCC in routine clinical practice in the UK.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, longitudinal study based on chart review of newly diagnosed adult mRCC patients treated at two UK hospitals from 2008 to 2015 was conducted. Targeted systemic therapies recommended for use in mRCC patients were evaluated across first to third lines of therapy (1LOT-3LOT). Important exclusions were treatment with cytokine therapy and within non-standard of care clinical trials. Primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS); data were analysed descriptively and using Kaplan-Meyer analysis.

RESULTS

652 patients (65.3% male, 35.0% ≥70 years) were included. In 1LOT, 98.5% of patients received sunitinib or pazopanib. In 2LOT and 3LOT, 99.0 and 94.4% received axitinib or everolimus. Median OS was 12.9, 6.5 and 5.9 months at 1LOT, 2LOT and 3LOT respectively. Estimated OS at 1-year was 52.4% (95% CI: 48.6-56.4%) in 1LOT, 31.5% (25.2-39.5%) in 2LOT and 23.8% (10.1-55.9%) in 3LOT. Median OS from 1LOT in favourable, intermediate and poor MSKCC were 39.7, 15.8 and 6.1 months respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, treatment was consistent with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for mRCC patients. Although the study population favoured poorer prognosis patients, outcomes were more favourable than those for England at the same time. However, overall survival in this 'real-world' population remains poor and indicates significant unmet need for effective and safe treatment options to improve survival among mRCC patients.

Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery

BACKGROUND

Care closer to home is being explored as a means of improving patient experience as well as efficiency in terms of cost savings. Evidence that community cancer services improve care quality and/or generate cost savings is currently limited. A randomised study was undertaken to compare delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital with two different community settings.

METHODS

Ninety-seven patients being offered outpatient-based cancer treatment were randomised to treatment delivered in a hospital day unit, at the patient's home or in local general practice (GP) surgeries. The primary outcome was patient-perceived benefits, using the emotional function domain of the EORTC quality of life (QOL) QLQC30 questionnaire evaluated after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional QOL measures, patient satisfaction, safety and health economics.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant QOL difference between treatment in the combined community locations relative to hospital (difference of -7.2, 95% confidence interval: -19·5 to +5·2, P=0.25). There was a significant difference between the two community locations in favour of home (+15·2, 1·3 to 29·1, P=0.033). Hospital anxiety and depression scale scores were consistent with the primary outcome measure. There was no evidence that community treatment compromised patient safety and no significant difference between treatment arms in terms of overall costs or Quality Adjusted Life Year. Seventy-eight percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their treatment whatever their location, whereas 57% of patients preferred future treatment to continue at the hospital, 81% at GP surgeries and 90% at home. Although initial pre-trial interviews revealed concerns among health-care professionals and some patients regarding community treatment, opinions were largely more favourable in post-trial interviews.

INTERPRETATION

Patient QOL favours delivering cancer treatment in the home rather than GP surgeries. Nevertheless, both community settings were acceptable to and preferred by patients compared with hospital, were safe, with no detrimental impact on overall health-care costs.