Determining Line of Therapy from Real-World Data in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer ============================================================================== * Connor B. Grady * Wei-Ting Hwang * Joshua E. Reuss * Wade Iams * Amanda Cass * Geoffrey Liu * Devalben Patel * Stephen V. Liu * Gabriela Liliana Bravo Montenegro * Tejas Patil * Jorge J. Nieva * Amanda Herrmann * Kristen A. Marrone * Vincent K. Lam * William Schwartzman * Jonathan Dowell * Liza C Villaruz * Kelsey Leigh Miller * Jared Weiss * Fangdi Sun * Vamsidhar Velcheti * D. Ross Camidge * Charu Aggarwal * Lova Sun * Melina E. Marmarelis ## Abstract **Introduction** Determining lines of therapy (LOT) using real-world data is crucial to inform clinical decisions and support clinical research. Existing rules for determining LOT in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) do not incorporate the growing number of targeted therapies used in treatment today. Therefore, we propose rules for determining LOT from real-world data of patients with mNSCLC treated with targeted therapies. **Methods** LOT rules were developed through expert consensus using a real-world cohort of 550 patients with *ALK*+ or *ROS1*+ mNSCLC in the multi-institutional, electronic medical record-based Academic Thoracic Oncology Medical Investigators Consortium’s (ATOMIC) Driver Mutation Registry. Rules were subsequently modified based on a review of appropriate LOT determination. These resulting rules were then applied to an independent cohort of patients with *EGFR*+ mNSCLC to illustrate their use. **Results** Six rules for determining LOTs were developed. Among 1133 patients with *EGFR* mutations and mNSCLC, a total of 3168 regimens were recorded with a median of 2 regimens per patient (IQR, 1-4; range, 1-13). After applying our rules, there were 2834 total LOTs with a median of 2 LOTs per patient (IQR, 1-3; range, 1-11). Rules 1-3 kept 11% of regimen changes from advancing the LOT. When compared to previously published rules, LOT assignments differed 5.7% of the time, mostly in LOTs with targeted therapy. **Conclusion** These rules provide an updated framework to evaluate current treatment patterns, accounting for the increased use of targeted therapies in patients with mNSCLC and promote standardization of methods for determining LOT from real-world data. **Key Points** * Use of targeted therapy to treat patients with mNSCLC is growing * Determining lines of therapy from real-world data is crucial for clinical research * Our rules aim to advance the line of therapy to reflect changes in clinical status * Using these rules can lead to better method harmonization in mNSCLC research Keywords * Non-small cell lung cancer * EGFR * ALK * ROS1 * real-world data ## Introduction When using real-world data to answer clinical questions in oncology, accurate determination of lines of therapy (LOT) using treatment records is crucial to conducting meaningful analyses. In the absence of detailed information on progression and toxicity, investigators rely on treatment records alone to infer changes in clinical disease status and determine LOTs. This non-uniform methodology may cause significant variation in how LOTs are defined depending on malignancy type, data source, and treatment patterns. Standardized rules and algorithms for determining LOTs are needed to improve the reproducibility and comparability of real-world data analyses. There is tremendous opportunity for impactful analysis of real-world data from patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), but standardized LOT determination has been difficult. Systemic therapies for mNSCLC now include immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies, which can be used alone or in combination. Because of this, treatment patterns and sequencing are complex and heterogeneous1. This is particularly true for the subset of patients with mNSCLC and rare molecular characteristics and patients with co-morbidities where complex treatment patterns and outcomes are only captured outside of clinical trials. Previously, others have proposed algorithms for determining LOTs for patients with solid tumors, lung cancer, and mNSCLC.2 However, these algorithms do not specifically incorporate common treatment patterns for patients with targetable alterations, such as *EGFR, ALK*, and *ROS1* alterations. In this report, we aim to propose new rules for determining LOT from real-world data of patients with mNSCLC, focusing on treatment patterns among patients receiving targeted therapies. ## Methods We defined a regimen as any systemic anticancer agent (i.e., chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or targeted therapy) or combination of systemic agents administered at the same time. First, we developed rules for determining LOT (“LOT rules”) by expert consensus and review of existing literature. Next, these rules were applied to treatment records from 550 patients with mNSCLC and sensitizing *ALK* or *ROS1* fusions in the ATOMIC Driver Mutation Registry. ATOMIC is a multi-institutional collaborative of twelve academic centers across North America. Trained data abstractors used a standardized digital form to record patients’ regimen agent(s) and start/end dates. Finally, thoracic oncologist members of ATOMIC reviewed the LOT determination and revised the rules to reflect practice patterns most indicative of changes to clinical disease status. These modified rules were then applied to a separate ATOMIC cohort of 1,133 patients with mNSCLC and *EGFR* sensitizing mutations. Rules were also developed to identify LOTs that are most likely applicable to early-stage disease (“ESD rules”) since data sources of patients with mNSCLC may inadvertently include treatments for this disease stage. In this report, we demonstrate the use of LOT and ESD rules on treatment records from the ATOMIC *EGFR* cohort. We compared our LOT determination with those of an existing algorithm for mNSCLC proposed by Hess et al using the SAS macro %mnsclc_lot2. Analyses were performed in R version 4.2.13 and SAS software version 9.4. This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (IRB #829009). ## Results We propose six rules for determining LOT in real-world data of patients with mNSCLC (**Table 1, Figure 1**). Among 1,133 patients in ATOMIC with *EGFR* alterations and mNSCLC, a total of 3168 regimens were recorded with a median of 2 regimens per patient (IQR, 1-4; range, 1-13). After applying our rules, there were 2834 total LOTs with a median of 2 LOTs per patient (IQR, 1-3; range, 1-11). Rules 1-3 prevented 334 regimen changes from advancing the LOT (**Table 1**). Thirty-seven patients switched regimens within 28 days of the start of the first LOT and had a line 0.5 recorded. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/23/2024.02.22.24302979/T1) Table 1: Proposed rules for line of therapy determination from real-world treatment regimens. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/02/23/2024.02.22.24302979/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/23/2024.02.22.24302979/F1) Figure 1: Algorithm for line of therapy determination Comparatively, after applying an algorithm proposed by Hess et al. to the same treatment records, there were 2771 total LOTs with a median of 2 per patient (IQR 1-3; range 1-9). Among our method’s 3999 agent-LOT assignments (e.g., osimertinib as 1L, carboplatin as 2L, etc.), ours differ from the Hess method in 5.7% of assignments (Table 2). View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/23/2024.02.22.24302979/T2) Table 2: Example line of therapy determination differences between the proposed rules and other (Hess et al.) rules Additionally, we developed two rules to remove systemic therapy agents likely used in the treatment of early-stage disease (ESD) from the LOT determination. (1) If a LOT was durvalumab monotherapy administered prior to November 11, 2022 (i.e., prior to Food and Drug Administration approval for durvalumab in stage IV NSCLC)4 or (2) if the LOT was chemotherapy with a cumulative cycle duration of 30-140 days and no subsequent LOT for at least four months of follow-up, the LOT should be considered as a treatment for early-stage disease and excluded from the patient’s LOT enumeration for mNSCLC. Among patients in ATOMIC with *EGFR* alterations and mNSCLC, the first LOT for 81 patients met the criteria for early-stage disease treatment (ESD Rule 1 met for two patients and ESD Rule 2 met for 79). These LOTs were removed, and the remaining LOTs were renumbered as LOTs for mNSCLC. ## Discussion We propose six simple rules to determine whether a change in treatment for mNSCLC should or should not advance the LOT in real-world data. Our LOT assignments led to different classifications from previous work in 5.7% of cases, primarily in characterizing targeted therapy-containing regimens. Since LOT assignment can affect outcome measures such as real-world progression-free survival or time to treatment discontinuation, even small differences may lead to different conclusions in an observational study. Therefore, it is critical that the LOT determination accurately reflects clinical practice. There are several ways that our proposed rules better characterize LOTs in mNSCLC populations treated with targeted therapy compared to previously reported methods (**Supplemental table 1**).2,4–7 First, we distinguish between biologics and therapies targeting oncogenic drivers in mNSCLC. This distinction is important because biologics, such as angiogenesis inhibitors, may have little anti-tumor activity alone and are often added or removed from treatment regimens without a clear change in disease status, while targeted therapies have tremendous anti-tumor activity and are used in the setting of a change in disease status. Second, there are instances where targeted therapies are added to or replace a previous regimen because of a newly identified targetable mutation and not because of a change in disease status. The rules proposed allow for this approach by allowing for 1 cycle of chemotherapy to be given while waiting for molecular testing results prior to switching to a targeted therapy without advancing the LOT. Third, we allow for a treatment pause and re-initiation within 60 days to be considered the same LOT, which may be more appropriate for targeted therapies typically taken daily by mouth that are paused and restarted for toxicity.5–7 Retrospective determination of whether a treatment was given in the setting of metastatic disease versus early-stage disease is critical to determining real-world clinical endpoints. In this historical dataset, we used rules based on the approved therapies at the time of the dataset, but even while completing the analysis for this study the indications for several systemic therapies expanded to include early-stage disease, making the agent itself an unreliable indicator of early-stage treatment. Given this complexity, extracting the date of metastatic diagnosis at the time of data abstraction will become even more important to evaluate the practice patterns contemporary to the time of the dataset. We believe wider use of this framework for LOT determination could lead to better method harmonization of observational studies in mNSCLC and allow for comparison and aggregation across datasets in the future. ## Data Availability Data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. ## Tables and figures View this table: [Supplemental table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/23/2024.02.22.24302979/T3) Supplemental table 1: Differences between proposed rules and Hess et al. rules ## Acknowledgements This work is supported in part by grants from Takeda, AstraZeneca and LUNGevity. ## Footnotes * **Conflict of Interest Statements:** CBG, WH, AC, GL, DP, GLBM, AH, WS, JD, KLM, VV, DRC: No conflicts of interest associated with current work. JER: Advisory Board / Consultant:Genentech/Roche, Sanofi/Genzyme, Personalis, Guardant, Astrazeneca, BMS, Arcus, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo. Research Funding (to institution): Genentech/Roche, Verastem, Nuvalent, Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, LUNGevity Foundation. Honoraria/Speaking Fees: Astrazeneca, Merck WI: Consultant for OncLive, Clinical Care Options, Chardan, Cello Health, Curio Science. Advisory Board/DSMC for Genentech, Mirati, Outcomes Insights, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, GI Therapeutics, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Janssen, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, NovoCure. SVL: Advisory Board / Consultant for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Catalyst, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Elevation Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Guardant Health, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Merus, Mirati, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point Therapeutics. Research grant (to institution) from Alkermes, Elevation Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Merus, Nuvalent, RAPT, Turning Point Therapeutics. Data Safety Monitoring Board for Candel Therapeutics. TP: Advisory Role (advisory boards or consultations) in last 3 years: Astrazeneca, Biocept, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bicara, Caris, Guardant Health, Guidepoint, EMD Soreno, Janssen, Jazz Pharamceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Takeda. Advisory Committees: Elevation Oncology (DSMB). Research Funding: EMD Soreno, Janssen, Gilead JN: Stock/Ownership interests in Epic Sciences, Cansera, Quantagene, Indee P/L. Consulting for AstraZeneca, Naveris, Aadi biosciences, Bioatla, Mindmed, ANP Technologies. Research funding to institution from Merck, Genentech. Patent pending on movement and unexpected healthcare encounters. KAM has received consulting/advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Mirati Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly and Puma Biotechnology, as well as Honoraria from AstraZeneca. KAM receives research funding to Johns Hopkins University from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Mirati Therapeutics. V.K.L. reports serving in a consultant/advisory role for Seattle Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health, Takeda, and Anheart Therapeutics, and has received research funding from BMS, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Astra Zeneca LCV reports researching funding from Janssen, BMS, Merck, Regeneron, GSK, AstraZeneca, BioAtla, Black Daimon Therapeutics, Jazz, Genentech, Beigene. Consulting fees from Takeda, Janssen, Intervenn Biosciences, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz, BMS, Gilead. CA reports receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Genentech, Incyte, Macrogenics, Medimmune, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, and receiving consultation fees from Genentech, Lilly, Celgene Merck, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Genetics, Shionogi, Daiichi Sankyo/ Astra Zeneca, Regeneron/ Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Turning Point, Pfizer, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim. LS reports research funding from Blueprint (Inst), Seagen (Inst), IO Biotech (Inst), Erasca (Inst). Consulting with Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, GenMab, Seagen, and Bayer. MEM reports researching funding from Eli Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Merck (Inst), Genentech (Inst) consulting role with Astra Zeneca, Novocure, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Takeda, Blueprint Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ikena; Honorarium from Thermo Fisher; stock in Merck, Johnson & Johnson. * **Funding:** This work is supported in part by grants from Takeda, AstraZeneca and LUNGevity. * Received February 22, 2024. * Revision received February 22, 2024. * Accepted February 23, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Hess LM, Cui ZL, Li XI, Molife C, Oton AB. Treatment sequencing for the care of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021;37(3):469–476. doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1866516 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/03007995.2020.1866516&link_type=DOI) 2. 2.Hess LM, Li X, Wu Y, Goodloe RJ, Cui ZL. Defining treatment regimens and lines of therapy using real-world data in oncology. Future Oncol Lond Engl. 2021;17(15):1865–1877. doi:10.2217/fon-2020-1041 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2217/fon-2020-1041&link_type=DOI) 3. 3.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Published online 2022. [https://www.R-project.org/](https://www.R-project.org/). 4. 4.Food and Drug Administration. IMFINZI® (durvalumab) injection, for intravenous use. Published online November 1, 2022. Accessed March 28, 2023. [https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/761069s033lbl.pdf](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/761069s033lbl.pdf) 5. 5.Abernethy AP, Arunachalam A, Burke T, et al. Real-world first-line treatment and overall survival in non-small cell lung cancer without known EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements in US community oncology setting. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(6):e0178420. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178420 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0178420&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F23%2F2024.02.22.24302979.atom) 6. 6.Johnston S, Wilson K, Varker H, et al. Real-world Direct Health Care Costs for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab-containing Regimens in First-line or First-line Through Second-line Therapy. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017;16(4):386–396.e1. doi:10.1016/j.clcc.2017.03.014 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clcc.2017.03.014&link_type=DOI) 7. 7.Meng W, Mosesso KM, Lane KA, et al. An Automated Line-of-Therapy Algorithm for Adults With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Validation Study Using Blinded Manual Chart Review. JMIR Med Inform. 2021;9(10):e29017. doi:10.2196/29017 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2196/29017&link_type=DOI)