BackgroundFamily caregiving is an increasingly important component of care for patients and the elderly.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to characterize the burden of family caregiving among employed adults.MethodsEmployed adults (≥18 years) from the 2013 US National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) were classified as family caregivers if they reported currently caring for at least one adult relative. Chi-square tests and one-way analyses of variance assessed whether employed caregivers, weighted to the US population, differed from employed non-caregivers on behavioral characteristics, workplace productivity, and health care resource utilization.ResultsEight million workers were family caregivers in the United States, more often female than male (51% vs. 49%, P < 0.05), and 53% were between 40 and 64 years of age. Eighteen percent of caregivers were Hispanic compared with 15% of non-caregivers (P < 0.05). Similar behavioral characteristics between caregivers and non-caregivers included daily alcohol consumption (6% vs. 5%) and lack of vigorous exercise (25% vs. 29%), but caregivers had a higher prevalence of smoking (26% vs. 19%, P < 0.05). Caregivers reported a higher mean percentage of work time missed (8% vs. 4%, P < 0.05) and greater productivity impairment (24% vs. 14%, P < 0.05). Some form of depression was reported by 53% of caregivers compared with 32% of non-caregivers (P < 0.05), and more caregivers had self-reported insomnia than non-caregivers (46% vs. 37%, P < 0.05). The number of self-reported diagnosed comorbidities was higher among caregivers compared with that of non-caregivers (5.0 vs. 3.1, P < 0.05), as was the mean number of outpatient visits in the previous 6 months (4.1 vs. 2.7, P < 0.05).ConclusionFamily caregiving is associated with a multidimensional burden that impacts caregivers and has implications for employers and the health care system. Clinicians and employers need to recognize and understand this burden. Characterization of caregivers as reported in this study can inform development of targeted programs to help mitigate the burden.

No abstract

Background: Lorlatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and demonstrated intracranial (IC) activity in patients (pts) with untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC in the interim analysis of the randomized, Phase 3, CROWN study of lorlatinib vs crizotinib. We report updated 36-month follow-up data. Methods: 296 pts with previously untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to oral lorlatinib (100 mg QD; n=149) or crizotinib (250 mg BID; n=147), stratified by presence of CNS metastases (mets) and ethnicity. Primary endpoint: PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included overall survival, PFS by investigator, and objective response (OR), IC-OR, IC time to progression (IC-TTP), duration of response (DR), IC-DR (all by BICR), and safety. Results: At data cutoff (Sep 20, 2021), median duration of follow-up for PFS was 36.7 months for lorlatinib and 29.3 months for crizotinib. Median PFS by BICR was NR (95% CI, NR-NR) for lorlatinib and 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.1) for crizotinib (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.39). PFS by investigator results were similar (Table). For pts with brain mets at baseline (n=37 lorlatinib/n=39 crizotinib), the HR for IC-TTP for lorlatinib vs crizotinib was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.04-0.27), and for pts without brain mets (n=112/n=108) was 0.02 (95% CI, 0.002-0.14). OR, IC-OR, DR, and IC-DR were all improved with lorlatinib vs crizotinib (Table). All-cause grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were reported in 76% and 7% of pts with lorlatinib and 57% and 10% of pts with crizotinib, respectively. No new safety signals emerged. Conclusions: These updated long-term data from CROWN confirm the efficacy of lorlatinib over crizotinib in pts with treatment-naïve ALK+ NSCLC, with no new safety signals detected, and support the use of lorlatinib in pts with untreated ALK+ NSCLC with and without brain mets. Summary of other efficacy resultsa Clinical trial information: NCT03052608 Funding: Pfizer Inc. ITT population Lorlatinib(n=149) Crizotinib(n=147) % alive without progression at:12 mo (95% CI) 78 (70–84) 38 (29–47) 24 68 (60–75) 22 (14–30) 36 64 (55–71) 19 (12–27) Median PFS by investigator, mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 9.1 (7.4–10.9) HR (95% CI) 0.19 (0.13–0.27) Confirmed OR, n (%) [95% CI] 115 (77) [70–84] 86 (59) [50–67] Median DR,b mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 9.6 (9.0–12.9) Patients with measurable or nonmeasurable brain metastases at baseline (n=37) (n=39) Median PFS, mo (95% CI) NR (18.2–NR) 7.2 (3.7–9.2) HR (95% CI) 0.21 (0.10–0.44) Confirmed IC-OR, n (%) [95% CI] 24 (65) [48–80] 7 (18) [8–34] Complete response, n (%) 22 (60) 5 (13) Median IC-DR,b mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 9.4 (6.0–11.1) Patients without brain metastases at baseline (n=112) (n=108) Median PFS, mo (95% CI) NR (NR–NR) 11.0 (9.0–14.6) HR (95% CI) 0.29 (0.19–0.44) aBy blinded independent central review unless stated otherwise. bIn patients with a confirmed complete or partial response. CI, confidence interval; DR, duration of response; HR, hazard ratio; ITT, intention- to-treat; NR, not reached; IC, intracranial; OR, objective response; PFS, progression-free survival. Citation Format: Benjamin Solomon, Todd Bauer, Tony Mok, Geoffrey Liu, Julien Mazieres, Filippo de Marinis, Yasushi Goto, Dong-Wan Kim, Yi-Long Wu, Mikhail Dvorkin, Jacek Jassem, Froylán López-López, Ross Soo, Anna Polli, Elisa Dall'O, Laura Iadeluca, Francesca Toffalorio, Enriqueta Felip. Updated efficacy and safety from the phase 3 CROWN study of first-line lorlatinib vs crizotinib in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT223.

ObjectiveTo characterize the disease burden among survivors of those cancers having the highest incidence in the US.MethodsAdult (≥18 years) survivors of the 11 most frequently diagnosed cancers were identified from publically available data sources, including the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results 9 1973–2012, National Health Interview Survey 2013, and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2011. Chi-square tests and one-way analyses of variance were utilized to assess differences between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls in behavioral characteristics, symptoms and functions, preventative screenings, and health care costs.ResultsHematologic malignancies, melanoma, and breast, prostate, lung, colon/rectal, bladder, kidney/renal, uterine, thyroid, and pancreatic cancers had the highest incidence rates. Breast cancer had the highest incidence among women (156.4 per 100,000) and prostate cancer among men (167.2 per 100,000). The presence of pain (P=0.0003), fatigue (P=0.0005), and sadness (P=0.0012) was consistently higher in cancer survivors 40–64 years old vs. non-cancer controls. Cancer survivors ≥65 years old had higher rates of any functional limitations (P=0.0039) and reported a lack of exercise (P<0.0001) compared with the non-cancer controls. However, obesity rates were similar between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls. Among cancer survivors, an estimated 13.5 million spent $169.4 billion a year on treatment, with the highest direct expenditures for breast cancer ($39 billion), prostate cancer ($37 billion), and hematologic malignancies ($25 billion). Prescription medications and office-based visits contributed equally as the cost drivers of direct medical spending for breast cancer, while inpatient hospitalization was the driver for prostate (52.8%) and lung (38.6%) cancers.ConclusionUnderstanding the resource utilization implications, health, and well-being of cancer survivors can inform approaches to interventions for improving long-term care.

Background Lorlatinib is a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with a second-generation ALK inhibitor or with first-and second-generation ALK inhibitors. We examined the cost-effectiveness of second-or third-line+ (2L+ or 3L+) lorlatinib in Sweden, versus chemotherapy. Methods A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression free, progressed, or death) was used. Lorlatinib relative efficacy versus chemotherapy was derived using unanchored matching adjusted indirect treatment comparisons from a phase 2 clinical trial. Utility data were derived from the same trial and published studies. Costs (year 2019) were obtained from Swedish national data. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum using a societal perspective (base case). Model robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results For 2L+, the average discounted total quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain was 1.29 years. Total incremental costs were Swedish krona (SEK) 731,791, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 566,278 per QALY gained. Non-discounted survival gain amounted to 1.94 years. For 3L+, the average discounted total QALY gain was 1.25 years. Total incremental costs were SEK 754,801, resulting in an ICER of SEK 603,934 per QALY gained. Nondiscounted survival gain was 1.88 years. Sensitivity analyses were consistent. Conclusions ICERs ranged from SEK 421,000 to SEK 384,066 less than the boundary for a cost-effective treatment for a high-severity disease in Sweden (SEK 988,000), suggesting 2L+ or 3L+ lorlatinib is a cost-effective treatment for ALKpositive NSCLC versus chemotherapy.