Real-world treatment patterns of previously treated advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC) in the United Kingdom (UK)
Liepa, A. M., Brown, J., Bapat, B., & Kaye, J. A. (2015). Real-world treatment patterns of previously treated advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GC) in the United Kingdom (UK). In , p. 184. San Francisco, CA: .
Background: With no licensed therapies for previously treated advanced GC, little is known on how patients (pts) are managed after 1st-line chemotherapy (CTx) has failed. We present real-world data on characteristics, treatments, and resource utilization (RU) for such pts in the UK. Methods: Physicians who treat pts with advanced GC completed a web-based chart review detailing clinical and RU data for 3-4 de-identified pts each. Eligible pts were ?18 years old, diagnosed Jan 2007-Mar 2012 with advanced GC, received 1st-line fluoropyrimidine+platinum, and had ?3 months of follow-up after 1st-line discontinuation (DC). Data were summarized descriptively. Results: From Jun to Jul 2013, 58 physicians provided data for 200 pts. Pts’ mean age was 61 years; 69.5% were male. At advanced stage diagnosis, ECOG performance status (PS) was 21% 0, 72.5% 1, and 6.5% 2. The most common 1st-line regimens were capecitabine (cape)+oxaliplatin+epirubicin (epi) (34%), cape+cisplatin+epi (20.5%) and 5-FU+cisplatin+epi (13%). The most common reasons for 1st-line DC were completion of planned regimen (63%) and disease progression (24%). ECOG PS at 1st-line DC was 5% 0, 57.5% 1, 32% 2, 5.5% 3. 28.5% received 2nd-line, and 79% of these had PS 0/1 at start of 2nd-line. 21 unique 2nd-line regimens were reported; most common were docetaxel (28%), paclitaxel (11%), trastuzumab (9%), cape (7%) and irinotecan (7%). Among pts who received 2nd-line, 5% received 3rd-line. (See table.) The most common contributing reasons for hospitalization were palliative care and disease progression. Conclusions: In our study sample of advanced GC, the minority of pts received subsequent CTx after 1st-line CTx. There was considerable variation in 2nd-line regimens, although primarily monotherapy. Pts who received 2nd-line CTx had numerically similar or lower rates of supportive care.