No abstract

No abstract

lated outcomes. Clinical data was collected from EURTAC and JMDB clinical trials, which compared erlotinib and pemetrexed/ cisplatin, respectively, with different doublet chemotherapy regimens. Assumptions were used to allow this indirect comparison, namely, pemetrexed/ cisplatin relative efficacy observed in JMDB adenocarcinoma patients also applies to patients with EGFRϩ mutations and that different doublet chemotherapy regimens used in the mentioned trials are of equivalent efficacy. RESULTS: The HR for disease progression of erlotinib versus pemetrexed/ cisplatin, in patients with mNSCLC and EGFRϩ mutations was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.27-0.62, pϽ 0.001). This is equivalent to a 59% reduction in the risk of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations and uncertainties associated with indirect comparisons, erlotinib presents itself as a significantly more effective first-line treatment for mNSCLC patients with EGFRϩ mutations, showing a significant disease progression risk reduction when compared to pemetrexed/ cisplatin. OBJECTIVES:This study explores and describes real therapeutic features (prevalence, incidence, length of therapy, prescriptions, etc.), treatment effectiveness in therapy groups and management costs of MRCC patients treated with M-TOR kinase inhibitors. METHODS: The analysis used patients' data from the National Health Insurance Fund Administration (NHIFA). Subjects were patients with a diagnosis of MRCC (with ICD-10 code C64) (14.794 such patients exist), who filled a renal cancer drug prescription between Jan 2008 and July 2011 (1.648 patients). Descriptive methods and Kaplan-Meier analysis for survival and progression free survival were applied. An assumption was made that progression free survival can be described by therapy persistence due to the features of treatment lines. RESULTS: Patients usually filled for first line therapy (mainly sunitinib) with a dose for a two-month long and second line therapy (mainly sorafenib) with a dose for one-month long period at one time. Number of sunitinib patients grew significantly during the analysis period mainly due to new patients. A huge proportion of patients discontinued the therapy within three months, which shows a high ratio of non-responsive patients. Comparison of different therapies, examination of progression free survival curves, showed that first line therapies (sunitinib) have longer persistence than second line therapies (sorafenib). Therapy persistence was generally shorter than the period in which patients were on therapy based on filling of therapies. Progression free survival was longer in case of patients who were on a therapy for at least 11 months. Difference between therapies in ordinary survival couldn't be showed due to the short period of analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Main part of patients is non-responsive to MRCC therapies in Hungary. We found that there is a difference between MRCC therapies in progression free survival of MRCC patients.

self-examination (50%) the chance of longer delay was higher (OR= 3.2, 95%CI:1.6-6.1). ConClusions: GPs play an important role in the early detection of melanoma lesions, propagation of self-examination, awareness raising in the recognition of signs. The vigilance of GPs is especially important in case of patients with higherrisk and disorders in less visible places.