Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Objective The aim of this study was to describe real-world use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. Methods Adult women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer who received at least one line of systemic treatment between January 1, 2014 and November 1, 2020, then followed to May 31, 2021 in a nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database. Chi-Squared test or Welch's 2-sample t-tests were used to compare patient and clinical factors associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. Time to next treatment analyses were performed based on the treatment line of the immune checkpoint inhibitor. Sankey plots depicted patient-level temporal systemic treatment. Results During our study period, 326 women received their first immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, increasing from 12 patients in 2016 to 148 in 2020. Factors associated with ever receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors included disease stage (p=0.002), mismatch repair (MMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI) status (pConclusion In an observational retrospective real-world database study, immune checkpoint inhibitors were used in 14.7% of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer across multiple lines of treatment, including after initial immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Sarah P. Huepenbecker
St. Luke's University Health Network
Larissa A. Meyer
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Miranda Craft
University of California, San Francisco
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Sutter Health
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Huepenbecker et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68e61f34b6db6435875b0b82 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2024-005541
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: