4.7 Article

Updated estimates of eligibility for and response to genome-targeted oncology drugs among US cancer patients, 2006-2020

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 7, Pages 926-932

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.04.003

Keywords

genome-targeted therapy; eligibility; response

Categories

Funding

  1. Laura and John Arnold Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies have evaluated the percentage of US cancer patients who are eligible for and respond to genome-targeted therapy, with an increasing trend over time.
Background: Prior studies have evaluated the percentage of cancer patients with advanced or metastatic cancer who are eligible for and respond to genome-targeted therapy, but since that publication, the number of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for drugs targeting genetic indications has grown rapidly. We sought to update the estimates of both eligibility for and response to genome-targeted and genome-informed therapies in US cancer patients for FDA-approved drugs to reflect estimates as of 2020. Materials and methods: We used mortality data from the American Cancer Society to estimate eligibility for these drugs, based on prevalence statistics from the published literature. We then multiplied eligibility by the response rate in the FDA label to generate an estimate for the percentage of US cancer patients who respond. Results: For genome-targeted therapy, we estimate that the eligibility increased from 5.13% in 2006 to 13.60% in 2020. For genome-targeted therapy, we estimate that the response increased from 2.73% in 2006 to 7.04% in 2020. Conclusions: The percentage of US cancer patients who are eligible for and respond to genome-targeted therapy has increased over time. Most of the increase in eligibility for genome-targeted therapies was seen after 2018, whereas most of the increase in response was seen before 2018.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available