Background: This study was designed to investigate the impact of age on the effectiveness and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of programmed death-(ligand)1 [PD-(L)1] inhibitors in patients... Show moreBackground: This study was designed to investigate the impact of age on the effectiveness and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of programmed death-(ligand)1 [PD-(L)1] inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using a novel text-mining technique. Methods:This retrospective study included patients with stage III/IV NSCLC treated with a PD-(L)1 inhibitor (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and durvalumab) at Leiden University Medical Centre and Haga Teaching hospital, (both in The Netherlands) from September 2016 to May 2021. All the relevant data was extracted from the structured and unstructured fields of the Electronic Health Records using a novel text-mining tool. Effectiveness [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)] and safety (the incidence of nine potentially fatal irAEs and systemic corticosteroid requirement) outcomes were compared across age subgroups (young: < 65 years, Middle-aged: 65-74 years, and old: >= 75 years) after adjustment for confounding. Results: Of 689 patients, 310 patients (45.0%) were < 65 years, 275 patients (39.9%) were aged between 65 and 74 years, and 104 patients (15.1%) were >= 75 years. There was no significant difference between younger and older patients regarding PFS (median PFS 12, 8, 13 months respectively; Hazard ratio (HR)(middle-aged) = 1.14, 95% CI 0.92-1.41; HRold = 1.10, 95% CI 0.78-1.42). This was also the case for OS (median OS 19, 14, 18 months respectively; HRmiddle-aged = 1.22, 95% CI 0.96-1.53; HRold = 1.10, 95% CI 0.79-1.52). Safety analysis demonstrated a higher incidence of pneumonitis among patients aged 65-74. When all the investigated irAEs were pooled, there was no statistically significant difference found between age and the incidence of potentially fatal irAEs. Conclusions: The use of PD-(L)1 inhibitors is not associated with age related decrease of PFS and OS, nor with increased incidence of serious irAEs compared to younger patients receiving these treatments. Chronological age must therefore not be used as a predictor for the effectiveness or safety of ICIs. Show less
Objective Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if... Show moreObjective Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations.Design We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members.Setting Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent.Participants 14 CPG panel members.Main outcomes For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel's benefits-harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making.Results We identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel's preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time.Conclusions The motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making. Show less
