Patterns of care and health care resource use among Medicaid-enrolled women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a public health challenge and remains a disease with high unmet need. Previous real-world studies demonstrated significant variability in treatments for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC). A large proportion of patients with cervical cancer are insured through Medicaid; however, previous studies examining treatment patterns for r/mCC have not included Medicaid patients. As the r/mCC treatment landscape continues to evolve, there is a need to understand current real-world unmet need among patients with r/mCC enrolled in Medicaid. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment patterns and health care resource utilization (HCRU) among Medicaid-enrolled women with r/mCC. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of nationwide Medicaid claims to assess patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and HCRU among patients with r/mCC between 2016 and 2019. First-line treatment (1L) for r/mCC was defined by the first administration of systemic therapy without concomitant radiation or surgery. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and HCRU were characterized by line of therapy. RESULTS: A total of 3,375 eligible adult female patients initiated systemic treatment for r/mCC between 2016 and 2019. Mean age at treatment initiation was 52.9 (SD ± 12.8) years. Nearly 1,300 (1,294, 38.3%) women had evidence of receiving second-line treatment (2L), with nearly one-third (N = 420) of those also having evidence of third-line treatment. The majority (60.5%) of 1L regimens were doublet chemotherapy ± bevacizumab, consistent with treatment guidelines. In contrast, no clear preferred treatment choice was observed among patients receiving 2L or later (2L+) therapy. Notably, immunotherapy accounted for 21.6% of treatment regimens in 2L/3L overall, with its use increasing substantially over time (<6% in 2016 to 40.8% in 2019). Despite increased use of immunotherapy, however, most patients did not remain on treatment for prolonged durations (immunotherapy median duration 2.2 months vs 2.4 months for nonimmunotherapy; P = 0.5). Across most HCRU measures (inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims), 2L+ patients had significantly less utilization per patient compared with 1L patients in unadjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis found that the majority of Medicaid patients with r/mCC received guideline-recommended standard of care in 1L between 2016 and 2019. However, there was no clear standard of care for patients with 2L+ r/mCC enrolled in Medicaid over this time period. Although immunotherapy use is increasing, short durations of treatment suggest a potential unmet medical need among this population. New therapies should provide meaningful clinical benefit without significant increase in HCRU for Medicaid enrollees needing treatment for r/mCC.