Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment – real-world use and outcomes in Sweden 2015–2023

Kristoffer Illergård; Pablo Soto; Johannes Arpegård; Aglaia Schiza; Simon Pahnke

doi:10.48101/ujms.v131.14245

Kristoffer Illergård Division of Research, Informatics & Visualization, Reveal AB, Stockholm, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1080-4307
Pablo Soto Division of Research, Informatics & Visualization, Reveal AB, Stockholm, Sweden https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9003-6104
Johannes Arpegård Division of Research, Informatics & Visualization, Reveal AB, Stockholm, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8105-3486
Aglaia Schiza Department of Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden; and Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5514-3637
Simon Pahnke Department of Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden; and Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3541-2027

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48101/ujms.v131.14245

Keywords: Immune checkpoint inhibitors, real-world outcomes, cancer treatment

Abstract

Background: The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment has significantly improved the treatment of several cancer diagnoses, such as non-small cell lung cancer, renal and urothelial carcinoma, melanoma. However, there is a lack of real-world data on ICI treatment and outcomes from the Swedish healthcare setting. The cost of treatment is also significant, and securing equal access to emerging drugs for all patients is challenging in an era of rapidly evolving treatment recommendations.

Methods: We conducted a population-based observational study of incident cases among ICI-treated patients, using a novel electronic healthcare record source for systemic cancer drugs linked to regional and national register data. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from start of the first ICI-treatment, using the Kaplan-Meier method. The aim was to examine treatment with ICI drugs during 2015–2023 in 10 Swedish regions (total population 4.3 million).

Results: Median real-world OS was 2.0 years (95% confidence interval: 1.8–2.2 years) from start of ICI-treatment for patients with known palliative treatment intent (n = 1,941, lung 2.2 years, melanoma 5.0 years, renal 2.3 years, urothelial 1.1 years, head/neck 1.4 years).

In 2023, 6.7% of all patients receiving systemic antineoplastic treatment for cancer were treated with ICI (74 per 100,000 inhabitants). The timing of the adoption of treatment with ICI drugs and the current patterns of use differed between Swedish regions.

Conclusion: This study provides the first Swedish real-world OS estimates after ICI-treatment across major diagnoses, documents the rapidly increasing ICI use, and describes regional variation in treatment patterns.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1.
Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, Dutriaux C, Maio M, Mortier L, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:320–30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1412082

2.
Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, Arance A, Grob JJ, Mortier L, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2521–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1412082

3.
Motzer RJ, McDermott DF, Escudier B, Burotto M, Choueiri TK, Hammers HJ, et al. Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2022;128:2085–97. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34180

4.
Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, Hui R, Csőszi T, Fülöp A, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1823–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606774

5.
Jongeneel G, Klausch T, van Erning FN, Vink GR, Koopman M, Punt CJA, et al. Estimating adjuvant treatment effects in stage II colon cancer: comparing the synthesis of randomized clinical trial data to real-world data. Int J Cancer. 2020;146:2968–78. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32629

6.
Huang Bartlett C, Mardekian J, Cotter MJ, Huang X, Zhang Z, Parrinello CM, et al. Concordance of real-world versus conventional progression-free survival from a phase 3 trial of endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0227256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227256

7.
Yoneda T, Sone T, Koba H, Shibata K, Suzuki J, Tani M, et al. Long-term survival of patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in real-world settings. Clin Lung Cancer. 2022;23:467–76. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2022.03.008

8.
Ng KYY, Wong LWJ, Ang AJS, Tan SH, Choo SP, Tai DW, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: experience of a tertiary Asian Center. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2021;17:e249–61. doi: 10.1111/ajco.13454

9.
Jönsson B, Wilking N. New cancer drugs in Sweden: assessment, implementation and access. J Cancer Policy. 2014;2:45–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2014.01.003

10.
Rice N, Smith PC. Ethics and geographical equity in health care. J Med Ethics. 2001;27:256–61. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.4.256

11.
Johansson N, Jakobsson N, Svensson M. Regional variation in health care utilization in Sweden – the importance of demand-side factors. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:403. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3210-y

12.
Johannesen KM, Janzon M, Jernberg T, Henriksson M. P3701Health implications of regional differences in the implementation of new treatments for myocardial infarction: the case of ticagrelor in Sweden. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:ehx504.P3701. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx504.P3701

13.
Wagenius CM, San Sebastián M, Gustafsson PE, Goicolea I. Access for all? Assessing vertical and horizontal inequities in healthcare utilization among young people in northern Sweden. Scand J Public Health. 2019;47:1–8. doi: 10.1177/1403494818774965

14.
Farrants K, Bambra C, Nylen L, Kasim A, Burström B, Hunter D. The recommodification of healthcare? A case study of user charges and inequalities in access to healthcare in Sweden 1980–2005. Health Policy. 2017;121:42–9. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.11.005

15.
Ludvigsson JF, Andersson E, Ekbom A, Feychting M, Kim JL, Reuterwall C, et al. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:450. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-450

16.
Wettermark B, Hammar N, Fored CM, Leimanis A, Otterblad Olausson P, Bergman U, et al. The new Swedish Prescribed Drug Register – opportunities for pharmacoepidemiological research and experience from the first six months. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:726–35. doi: 10.1002/pds.1294

17.
Brooke HL, Talbäck M, Hörnblad J, Johansson LA, Ludvigsson JF, Druid H, et al. The Swedish cause of death register. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32:765–73. doi: 10.1007/s10654-017-0316-1

18.
Barlow L, Westergren K, Holmberg L, Talbäck M. The completeness of the Swedish Cancer Register: a sample survey for year 1998. Acta Oncol. 2009;48:27–33. doi: 10.1080/02841860802247664

19.
Pukkala E, Engholm G, Højsgaard Schmidt LK, Storm H, Khan S, Lambe M, et al. Nordic Cancer Registries – an overview of their procedures and data comparability. Acta Oncol. 2018;57:440–55. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1407039

20.
Regional Cancer Centres in Sweden, cancer drugs register 2023. Available from: https://cancercentrum.se/samverkan/vara-uppdrag/kunskapsstyrning/cancerlakemedel/kvalitetsregister/ [cited 28 February 2023].

21.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.

22.
Therneau TM. A package for survival analysis in R. 3.5-3. New York, NY: Springer; 2023.

23.
Beckmann K, Garmo H, Franck Lissbrant I, Stattin P. The value of real-world data in understanding prostate cancer risk and improving clinical care: examples from Swedish Registries. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:875. doi: 10.3390/cancers13040875

24.
Weibull CE, Boman SE, Glimelius B, Syk I, Matthiessen P, Smedby KE, et al. CRCBaSe: a Swedish register-based resource for colorectal adenocarcinoma research. Acta Oncol. 2023;62:342–9. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2023.2197121

25.
Oskarsdottir GN, Lampa E, Berglund A, Rosengren L, Ulvestad M, Boros M, et al. Real-world treatment patterns and survival outcomes for patients with non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in Sweden: a nationwide registry analysis from the I-O optimise initiative. Cancers (Basel). 2024;16:1655. doi: 10.3390/cancers16091655

26.
Abalo KD, Smedby KE, Ekberg S, Eloranta S, Pahnke S, Albertsson-Lindblad A, et al. Secondary malignancies among mantle cell lymphoma patients. Eur J Cancer. 2023;195:113403. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113403

27.
Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, Crinò L, Eberhardt WE, Poddubskaya E, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:123–35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1504627

28.
Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, Hui R, Csőszi T, Fülöp A, et al. Updated analysis of KEYNOTE-024: pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:537–46. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00149

29.
Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, Rutkowski P, Grob JJ, Cowey CL, et al. Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1345–56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709684

30.
Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF, George S, Hammers HJ, Srinivas S, et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1803–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510665

31.
Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, Burotto M, Choueiri TK, Hammers HJ, et al. 661P conditional survival and 5-year follow-up in CheckMate 214: first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab (N+I) versus sunitinib (S) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Ann Oncol. 2021;32:S685–7. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.057

32.
Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M, Escudier B, Bourlon MT, Zurawski B, et al. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:829–41. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2026982

33.
Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ, Fradet Y, Lee JL, Fong L, et al. Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1015–26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613683

34.
Ferris RL, Blumenschein G, Jr., Fayette J, Guigay J, Colevas AD, Licitra L, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1856–67. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602252

35.
Glisch C, Saeidzadeh S, Snyders T, Gilbertson-White S, Hagiwara Y, Lyckholm L. Immune checkpoint inhibitor use near the end of life: a single-center retrospective study. J Palliat Med. 2020;23:977–9. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0383

36.
Lee JB, Ha SJ, Kim HR. Clinical insights into novel immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:681320. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.681320

37.
Eskander A, Li Q, Yu J, Hallet J, Coburn NG, Dare A, et al. Incident cancer detection during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20:276–84. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.7114

38.
Hofmacher T, Brådvik G, Svedman C, Lindgren P, Jönsson B, Wilking N. Comparator report on cancer in Europe 2019 – disease burden, costs and access to medicines. Lund, Sweden: IHE; 2019.