malignant melanoma: a transformation in treatment

1

Click here to load reader

Upload: imshealthrwes

Post on 14-Apr-2017

836 views

Category:

Healthcare


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Malignant melanoma: A transformation in treatment

PAGE 18 IMS HEALTH REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE SOLUTIONS

INSIGHTS A DEEP DIVE INTO MELANOMA

ACCESSPOINT • VOLUME 6 • ISSUE 12 PAGE 19

more detail

Malignant Melanoma in Europe

A Transformation in Treatment Regimens

Biomarkers Take Center Stage

In 2009, In 2015,

BRAF Inhibitors Dominate First-Line Treatment

treatments were mostly cytotoxic or interferon regimens

more than 1 in 2 treatments included BRAF or MEK inhibitors

The evolution toward more targeted treatments has been driven by a dramatic increase in biomarker testing – a valuable tool in identifying patients for certain therapies. Specifically, patients with BRAF-mutant status are now benefiting from BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

Available real-world data shows the dramatic impact of new drugs and genomic advances on current treatment practice in just six years; of the patients testing positive for BRAF mutation, the vast majority receive BRAF inhibitors as first-line treatment.

*Treatment with BRAF inhibitors is hindered only by delayed approval

Tested negative for BRAF mutation

Not TestedTested positive for BRAF mutation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

% move to 2nd line (EU5)% move to 2nd line (GR) % move to 2nd line (UK)

vs.

60% Cytotoxic

39% Interferon

8% Other3% Anti-CTLA

- top left: show more of timeline/progress

76%EU5

France81%

Germany82%

Italy*53%

Spain76%

UK85%

The landscape of melanoma treatments has shifted significantly in a relatively short period of time, evolving to embrace targeted therapies. This trend parallels the increasing use of biomarkers and targeted therapies in other cancer types (see page 4).

16.9% Cytotoxic

53.4% Anti-CTLA-4

5.1% BRAF

2.8% BRAF+MEK inhibitors

2.2% MEK

19.7% Anti-PD(L)-1

UK

6% Cytotoxic

76.6% Anti-CTLA-4

13.4% BRAF

0.5% BRAF+MEK inhibitors

0.5% Others

3% Anti-PD(L)-1

16.1% Cytotoxic

0.1% Interferons

61.8% Anti-CTLA-4

9.2% BRAF

2.2% BRAF+MEK inhibitors

0.7% MEK

0.1% Others

9.7% Anti-PD(L)-1

EU5 Patients in 2nd Line

16.1%

61.8%9.2%

9.7%

2.2%

0.1% Others0.1% Interferon0.7% MEK inhibitor

53.4%

16.9%

19.7%

16.9%

5.1%

2.2% MEK inhibitor2.8% BRAF+MEK inhibitor

GR Patients in 2nd Line

76.6%13.4%

6%

3%

0.5% Others0.5% BRAF+MEK inhibitor

Still A Striking Variation in Second-Line Choice Other, less obvious characteristics may affect treatment decisions and switching behavior. A cross-country view of pathways for patients who fail on BRAF inhibitors reveals significant differences in second-line product choice.

Anti-PDL(L)-1Cytotoxic

BRAF+MEK inhibitor

Anti-CTLA

MEK inhibitorBRAF inhibitor

Interferon

Other

9% Cytotoxic5% Interferon

31% Anti-CTLA

44% BRAF inhibitor

7% MEK inhibitor11% Anti-PD(L)-1

Tested positive for BRAF mutation and treated with BRAF inhibitors

Tested positive for BRAF mutation

- Can turn on Grid layer to view margins (updated per David’s request)

- copy/paste pie graph above, right-click “Data...” to edit stats

- break out of pie graph by “Ungroup”

original data graphs, always copy/paste to edit

scale 80% and additional 80% smaller to create shading

In 2014, 91% of patients were tested for BRAF mutation – 55% tested positive.

Germany and the UK demonstrate very different product choices for patients who fail on first-line BRAF-in-hibitors.

A high proportion of eligible patients are given BRAF-inhibitors

Dorothea Von Bredow – Engagement Manager, IMS HealthNikolas Kolb – Analyst, RWE Solutions, IMS HealthMathis Bernhardt, PHD – Analyst, RWE Solutions, IMS HealthNina Schmidt, XX, MSC – Senior Consultant, RWE Solutions, IMS Health

Dorothea Von Bredow – Engagement Manager, IMS HealthNikolas Kolb – Analyst, RWE Solutions, IMS HealthMathis Bernhardt, PHD – Analyst, RWE Solutions, IMS HealthNina Schmidt, XX, MSC – Senior Consultant, RWE Solutions, IMS Health

Dorothea von Bredow, PHD – Director, RWE Solutions, IMS [email protected] Kolb, MSC – Analyst, RWE Solutions, IMS [email protected]

Mathias Bernhardt, PHD – Analyst, RWE Solutions, IMS [email protected] Schmidt, MSC – Senior Consultant, RWE Solutions, IMS Health [email protected]

Source all data: IMS RWD Oncology Analyzer

v