95P - Quality of life (QoL) and care pathway in patients with durable response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI-DR) for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma: QUALICI study

Background

The prognosis of advanced cancer including melanoma (Mel) and NSCLC has significantly improved with ICIS, leading to the emergence of new QoL issues for patients experiencing ICI-DR. The QUALICI study aimed to provide an overview of these patients’ QoL and their experiences and expectations about QoL management.

Methods

All patients with ICI-DR, defined as ICIs started for ≥2 years without subsequent treatment, were screened within 16 French sites and randomly selected to participate in this cross-sectional study. They completed questionnaires including EQ-5D-5L, Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI) and items on care and QoL management.

Results

The 234 participating patients (117 Mel; 117 NSCLC) had a mean ICI-DR of 48.8 (±14.5) months. Of them, 74.8% initiated ICI at metastatic stage and 29,5% (22.2% Mel; 36.8% NSCLC) were still treated by ICI. Most patients (NSCLC ≥62%; Mel ≥69.7%) reported no or mild issues on the 5 EQ-5D dimensions with mean Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) score of 74.8 (±19) (Mel) and 67.0 (±19.3) (NSCLC). Total SDI scores were 5.9 (±6.6) (Mel) and 10.4 (±8.5) (NSCLC) with 25% (Mel) and 50% (NSCLC) of patients presenting difficulties (score ≥10).Patients dedicated 7.7 (Mel) and 7.5 (NSCLC) hours monthly to care and assessed the burden of care at 3.1 (Mel) and 2.5 (NSCLC) on a 0-10 VAS. Two third addressed QoL issues with healthcare professionals (HP) but 21.5% could not express them as they wished. Patients prioritized closer adverse events monitoring and HP QoL training to improve QoL management (see table). Table: 95P

Patients' expectations to improve QoL management

Conclusions

The majority of ICI-DR patients have no or mild QoL issues, but an important proportion, especially among lung cancer patients, presents nonetheless daily life difficulties. One in five patients do not address as they wish their QoL issues with HP. Some measures prioritized by patients could improve the situation.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Bristol Myers Squibb.

Funding

Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure

N. Girard: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Mirati, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Gilead; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Boehringer, Novartis, Sanofi, AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Grunenthal, Takeda, Owkin, Leo Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen; Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant, Local: Roche, Sivan, Janssen; Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: BMS, Leo Pharma; Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: MSD; Other, Personal, Other, Family member is an employee: AstraZeneca. J. Bonastre: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Scientific board: BMS, MSD, Janssen, Roche; Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding, Funding of the MICADO study: BMS. H. Lemasson, M. Chartier, V. Moreau-Mallet, S. Micheliza: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Bristol Myers Squibb. N. Texier, S. Hervy, M. Coin-Bavarot: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment, CRO in charge of the study: Kappa Santé. C. Robert: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board, Consultancy fees: BMS, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Sanofi, MSD, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Merck, Ultimovacs, Regeneron, Egle, Philogen, Maat Pharma; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Steering Committee: Novartis, Regeneron, Pfizer, IO Biotech; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, IDMC: Ultimovacs; Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, Novartis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.