Treatment patterns in patients with metastatic melanoma: a retrospective analysis.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2014-01-01 Epub Date: 2014-05-05 DOI:10.1155/2014/371326
Zhongyun Zhao, Song Wang, Beth L Barber
{"title":"Treatment patterns in patients with metastatic melanoma: a retrospective analysis.","authors":"Zhongyun Zhao,&nbsp;Song Wang,&nbsp;Beth L Barber","doi":"10.1155/2014/371326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective. To describe treatment patterns and factors influencing treatment in a real-world setting of US patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). Methods. This was a retrospective claims-based study among patients with MM diagnosed between 2005 and 2010 identified from MarketScan databases. Results. Of 2546 MM patients, 66.8% received surgery, 44.7% received radiation, 38.7% received systemic therapies, and 17.7% received all modalities. Patients with lung, brain, liver, or bone metastases were less likely to undergo surgery (all P < 0.0001); patients with lung (P = 0.04), brain (P < 0.001), or liver metastases (P = 0.03) were more likely to receive systemic therapies; patients with brain (P < 0.0001) or bone metastases (P < 0.0001) were more likely to receive radiation therapy. Oncologists were more likely to recommend systemic therapy (P < 0.0001) or radiation (P < 0.0001), while dermatologists were more likely to recommend surgery (P = 0.002). Monotherapy was the dominant systemic therapy (82.4% patients as first-line). Conclusions. Only 39% of MM patients received systemic therapies, perhaps reflecting efficacy and safety limitations of conventional systemic therapies for MM. Among those receiving systemic therapy, monotherapy was the most common approach. Sites of metastases and physician speciality influenced treatment patterns. This study serves as a baseline against which future treatment pattern studies, following approval of new agents, can be compared. </p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2014/371326","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/371326","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

Objective. To describe treatment patterns and factors influencing treatment in a real-world setting of US patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). Methods. This was a retrospective claims-based study among patients with MM diagnosed between 2005 and 2010 identified from MarketScan databases. Results. Of 2546 MM patients, 66.8% received surgery, 44.7% received radiation, 38.7% received systemic therapies, and 17.7% received all modalities. Patients with lung, brain, liver, or bone metastases were less likely to undergo surgery (all P < 0.0001); patients with lung (P = 0.04), brain (P < 0.001), or liver metastases (P = 0.03) were more likely to receive systemic therapies; patients with brain (P < 0.0001) or bone metastases (P < 0.0001) were more likely to receive radiation therapy. Oncologists were more likely to recommend systemic therapy (P < 0.0001) or radiation (P < 0.0001), while dermatologists were more likely to recommend surgery (P = 0.002). Monotherapy was the dominant systemic therapy (82.4% patients as first-line). Conclusions. Only 39% of MM patients received systemic therapies, perhaps reflecting efficacy and safety limitations of conventional systemic therapies for MM. Among those receiving systemic therapy, monotherapy was the most common approach. Sites of metastases and physician speciality influenced treatment patterns. This study serves as a baseline against which future treatment pattern studies, following approval of new agents, can be compared.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

转移性黑色素瘤患者的治疗模式:回顾性分析。
目标。描述美国转移性黑色素瘤(MM)患者的治疗模式和影响治疗的因素。方法。这是一项回顾性的基于索赔的研究,研究对象是2005年至2010年间诊断为MM的患者,这些患者来自MarketScan数据库。结果。在2546例MM患者中,66.8%接受了手术,44.7%接受了放疗,38.7%接受了全身治疗,17.7%接受了所有方式。肺、脑、肝或骨转移的患者接受手术的可能性较小(均P < 0.0001);肺(P = 0.04)、脑(P < 0.001)或肝转移(P = 0.03)的患者更有可能接受全身治疗;脑转移(P < 0.0001)或骨转移(P < 0.0001)的患者更可能接受放射治疗。肿瘤科医生更倾向于推荐全身治疗(P < 0.0001)或放疗(P < 0.0001),而皮肤科医生更倾向于推荐手术(P = 0.002)。单药治疗是主要的全身治疗(82.4%的患者为一线)。结论。只有39%的MM患者接受了全身治疗,这可能反映了常规全身治疗对MM的疗效和安全性的局限性。在接受全身治疗的患者中,单药治疗是最常见的方法。转移部位和医生专业影响治疗模式。这项研究作为一个基线,在新药批准后,未来的治疗模式研究可以进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信