Gupta Arjun, Nguyen Paul, Wilson Brooke E, Booth Christopher M, Hanna Timothy P
Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Transplantation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
ICES Queen's, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Apr 1;8(4):e255033. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.5033.
Although patients enrolled in trials have superior survival outcomes compared with those in routine practice, it is unknown whether such differences extend to contact days, a measure of time toxicity.
To evaluate differences in contact days for patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving care in trials or routine practice.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This population-based, retrospective, matched cohort study assessed adults from Ontario, Canada, who were diagnosed with advanced-stage NSCLC between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, and who died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. The maximum follow-up time from diagnosis was 2 years. Data analysis was performed from May 5, 2024, to October 22, 2024.
Patients receiving specific, systemic, palliative-intent, cancer-directed drug(s) as part of a trial were matched 1:1 with patients who received the same drug(s) after approval in routine practice in the same line of treatment.
Contact days (days with in-person health care contact) were identified through administrative claims data. Models were fitted with cubic splines to describe trajectories of weekly percentage of contact days.
Of the 250 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [9.2] years; 140 [56.0%] male), 125 were trial participants and 125 were receiving care in routine practice. Trial participants were younger (median [IQR] age, 63 [56-69] years vs 64 [58-70] years in routine care patients; standardized difference, 0.21) and had fewer comorbidities (eg, hypertension [45 (36.0%) vs 59 (47.2%); standardized difference, 0.23]). Median (IQR) contact days from diagnosis to death were higher for trial participants compared with those in routine practice (79 [62-104] vs 68 [46-98] days; standardized difference, 0.26). However, trial participants had a longer median (IQR) overall survival (eg, 12.8 [8.7-18.0] vs 10.5 [5.2-14.7] months; standardized difference, 0.46) and a slightly lower median percentage of contact days after adjusting for survival (20.3% [95% CI, 18.1%-21.7%] vs 21.2% [95% CI, 19.3%-25.7%]). During treatment, trial participants experienced a lower median percentage of contact days (18.4% [95% CI, 16.3%-20.8%] vs 25.5% [95% CI, 20.7%-30.3%]); inpatient care accounted for 18.5% (95% CI, 11.1%-29.6%) of on-treatment contact days for trial participants vs 40.0% (95% CI, 30.0%-47.6%) in routine practice. Normalized contact-day trajectories were U-shaped for all groups, with lower peaks and troughs among trial participants.
In this population-based cohort study, patients receiving systemic therapy as part of trials experienced a lower percentage of contact days, accounted for by greater hospitalization rates in routine practice. Addressing the predominantly outpatient, protocol-mandated visits may represent opportunities to decrease trial-related time toxicity.
尽管参与试验的患者与接受常规治疗的患者相比有更好的生存结果,但尚不清楚这种差异是否延伸至接触天数,这是一种时间毒性的衡量指标。
评估晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者在试验或常规治疗中接受治疗时接触天数的差异。
设计、设置和参与者:这项基于人群的回顾性匹配队列研究评估了来自加拿大安大略省的成年人,他们在2010年1月1日至2017年12月31日期间被诊断为晚期NSCLC,并在2010年1月1日至2019年12月31日期间死亡。从诊断开始的最长随访时间为2年。数据分析于2024年5月5日至2024年10月22日进行。
作为试验一部分接受特定的、全身性的、姑息性的、针对癌症的药物治疗的患者与在常规治疗中同一治疗线获批后接受相同药物治疗的患者按1:1匹配。
通过行政索赔数据确定接触天数(有面对面医疗接触的天数)。使用三次样条拟合模型来描述每周接触天数百分比的轨迹。
在250名患者(平均[标准差]年龄,63.6[9.2]岁;140[56.0%]为男性)中,125名是试验参与者,125名接受常规治疗。试验参与者更年轻(中位[四分位间距]年龄,63[56 - 69]岁 vs 常规治疗患者的64[58 - 70]岁;标准化差异,0.21)且合并症较少(例如,高血压[45(36.0%)vs 59(47.2%);标准化差异,0.23])。与常规治疗患者相比,试验参与者从诊断到死亡的中位(四分位间距)接触天数更高(79[62 - 104]天 vs 68[46 - 98]天;标准化差异,0.26)。然而,试验参与者的中位(四分位间距)总生存期更长(例如,12.8[8.7 - 18.0]个月 vs 10.5[5.2 - 14.7]个月;标准化差异,0.46),并且在调整生存期后接触天数的中位百分比略低(20.3%[95%置信区间,18.1% - 21.7%] vs 21.2%[95%置信区间,19.3% - 25.7%])。在治疗期间,试验参与者经历的接触天数中位百分比更低(18.4%[95%置信区间,16.3% - 20.8%] vs 25.5%[95%置信区间,20.7% - 30.3%]);住院护理占试验参与者治疗期间接触天数的18.5%(95%置信区间,11.1% - 29.6%),而在常规治疗中为40.0%(95%置信区间,30.0% - 47.6%)。所有组的标准化接触天数轨迹均为U形,试验参与者的峰值和谷值较低。
在这项基于人群的队列研究中,作为试验一部分接受全身治疗的患者接触天数百分比更低,这是由常规治疗中更高的住院率所致。解决主要为门诊的、方案规定的就诊可能代表了减少试验相关时间毒性的机会。