Dataset Information

Cabozantinib versus everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib and best supportive care: A network meta-analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in second line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Relative effect of therapies indicated for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after failure of first line treatment is currently not known. The objective of the present study is to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of cabozantinib compared to everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib, and best supportive care (BSC) in aRCC patients who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment.

Methodology & findings

Systematic literature search identified 5 studies for inclusion in this analysis. The assessment of the proportional hazard (PH) assumption between the survival curves for different treatment arms in the identified studies showed that survival curves in two of the studies did not fulfil the PH assumption, making comparisons of constant hazard ratios (HRs) inappropriate. Consequently, a parametric survival network meta-analysis model was implemented with five families of functions being jointly fitted in a Bayesian framework to PFS, then OS, data on all treatments. The comparison relied on data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves of published studies, except for cabozantinib and its comparator everolimus where patient level data were available. This analysis applied a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis model to compare PFS and OS of cabozantinib versus its comparators. The log-normal fixed-effects model displayed the best fit of data for both PFS and OS, and showed that patients on cabozantinib had a higher probability of longer PFS and OS than patients exposed to comparators. The survival advantage of cabozantinib increased over time for OS. For PFS the survival advantage reached its maximum at the end of the first year's treatment and then decreased over time to zero.

Conclusion

With all five families of distributions, cabozantinib was superior to all its comparators with a higher probability of longer PFS and OS during the analyzed 3 years, except with the Gompertz model, where nivolumab was preferred after 24 months.

SUBMITTER: Amzal B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5590935 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) affects over 330,000 new patients every year, of whom 1/3 present with metastatic RCC (mRCC) at diagnosis. Most mRCC patients treated with a first-line agent relapse within 1 year and need second-line therapy. The present study aims to compare overall survival (OS) between nivolumab and cabozantinib from two recent pivotal studies comparing, respectively, each one of the two emerging treatments against everolimus in patients who relapse following first-line treatment. Comparison is traditionally carried out using the Bucher method, which assumes proportional hazard. Since OS curves intersected in one of the pivotal studies, models not assuming proportional hazards were also considered to refine the comparison. Four Bayesian parametric survival network meta-analysis models were implemented on overall survival (OS) data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves reported in the studies. Three models allowing hazard ratios (HR) to vary over time were assessed against a fixed-HR model. The Bucher method favored cabozantinib, with a fixed HR for OS vs. nivolumab of 1.09 (95% confidence interval: [0.77, 1.54]). However, all models with time-varying HR showed better fits than the fixed-HR model. The log-logistic model fitted the data best, exhibiting a HR for OS initially favoring cabozantinib, the trend inverting to favor nivolumab after month 5 (95% credible interval <1 from 10 months). The initial probability of cabozantinib conferring superior OS was 54%, falling to 41.5% by month 24. Numerical differences in study-adjusted OS estimates between the two treatments remained small. This study evidences that HR for OS of nivolumab vs. cabozantinib varies over time, favoring cabozantinib in the first months of treatment but nivolumab afterwards, a possible indication that patients with poor prognosis benefit more from cabozantinib in terms of survival, nivolumab benefiting patients with better prognosis. More evidence, including real-world observational data, is needed to compare effectiveness between cabozantinib and nivolumab.

Project description:Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib with the standard of care in England in adult patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), following prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy. Methods:We developed a partitioned-survival model with three health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib and its comparators. The model time horizon was 30 years. Efficacy and safety data were derived from pivotal clinical trials (METEOR: NCT01865747, CheckMate025: NCT01668784, and AXIS: NCT00678392). METEOR data were used for a direct comparison of cabozantinib and everolimus. Cabozantinib and nivolumab were compared indirectly, whereas equal efficacy for axitinib and everolimus was assumed based on a previously published expert opinion. For all efficacy endpoints, the best-fitting log-logistic or fractional polynomial curves were used to estimate outcomes. Utilities were converted from the 5-level EQ-5D version instrument applied during the METEOR study for specific health states. Reductions in utility scores due to adverse events were applied. English costs (eg, drug prices) and resource use (eg, visit to consultant) data were used. Results:The total treatment cost was estimated to be 84,136 Great British Pounds (GBP) per patient treated with cabozantinib. The health gains were 2.26 life-years (LYs) and 1.78 quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) versus axitinib and everolimus were 98,967 GBP/QALY and 137,450 GBP/QALY, respectively. Cabozantinib was less costly and more effective than nivolumab; the incremental cost was -6,742 GBP and the QALY difference was 0.18. Conclusion:Treatment with cabozantinib was more effective than treatment with axitinib or everolimus but was associated with higher total costs. When compared with nivolumab, cabozantinib represents an efficient option with nominally better efficacy and lower costs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS:We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS:At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).