Dataset Information

A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy vs. Nivolumab + Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapies in Patients with PD-L1 TPS ?1% Metastatic NSCLC.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the absence of head-to-head trials, this study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs nivolumab + ipilimumab for the first-line treatment of metastatic stage IV NSCLC patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ?1%.

Methods

An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted using pooled individual patient data (IPD) from the ITT population in KEYNOTE-021G, KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 (n = 816) and published aggregate data of nivolumab + ipilimumab from CheckMate 227 Part 1A (n = 793). To adjust for cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics, data from KEYNOTE-021G/KEYNOTE-189/KEYNOTE-407 were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of CheckMate 227 Part 1A. Outcomes included OS, PFS and ORR. Base case analyses were restricted to patients with PD-L1 TPS ?1%, with sub-group analyses in PD-L1 TPS ?50% and 1-49%.

Results

The estimated HR (95% CI) of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs nivolumab + ipilimumab was 0.80 (0.59,1.09) and 0.53 (0.41,0.68) for OS and PFS, respectively. For ORR, the estimated risk ratio was 1.8 (1.3,2.4) for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs nivolumab + ipilimumab and the risk difference was 25.5% (15.0,36.0). PD-L1 TPS ?50% and 1-49% sub-groups showed an OS HR of 0.89 (0.58,1.36) and 0.68 (0.46,1.01), respectively.

Conclusion

These MAIC results suggest that pembrolizumab + chemotherapy leads to a greater clinical benefit vs nivolumab + ipilimumab in patients with PD-L1 TPS ?1% across multiple endpoints.

SUBMITTER: Halmos B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7762014 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy vs. Nivolumab + Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapies in Patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% Metastatic NSCLC.

Halmos Balazs B Burke Thomas T Kalyvas Chrysostomos C Insinga Ralph R Vandormael Kristel K Frederickson Andrew A Piperdi Bilal B

Cancers 20201204 12

<h4>Background</h4>In the absence of head-to-head trials, this study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs nivolumab + ipilimumab for the first-line treatment of metastatic stage IV NSCLC patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1%.<h4>Methods</h4>An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted using pooled individual patient data (IPD) from the ITT population in KEYNOTE-021G, KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 (<i>n</i> = 816) and publ ...[more]

PMID: 33291810

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundApproved first-line treatments for patients with BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma include nivolumab (a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor) plus ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibitor; NIVO+IPI) and the BRAF/MEK inhibitors dabrafenib plus trametinib (DAB+TRAM), encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO+BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (VEM+COBI). Results from prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing these treatments have not yet been reported. This analysis evaluated the relative efficacy and safety of NIVO+IPI versus DAB+TRAM, ENCO+BINI, and VEM+COBI in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).Patients and methodsA systematic literature review identified RCTs for DAB+TRAM, ENCO+BINI, and VEM+COBI in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. Individual patient-level data for NIVO+IPI were derived from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial (BRAF-mutant cohort) and restricted to match the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the comparator trials. Treatment effects for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) models. Safety outcomes (grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events) with NIVO+IPI and the comparators were compared.ResultsIn the Cox proportional hazards analysis, NIVO+IPI showed improved OS compared with DAB+TRAM (HR = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.73), ENCO+BINI (HR = 0.60; CI, 0.42-0.85), and VEM+COBI (HR = 0.50; CI, 0.36-0.70) for the overall study period. In the time-varying analysis, NIVO+IPI was associated with significant improvements in OS and PFS compared with the BRAF/MEK inhibitors 12 months after treatment initiation. There were no significant differences between NIVO+IPI and BRAF/MEK inhibitor treatment from 0 to 12 months. Safety outcomes favored DAB+TRAM over NIVO+IPI, whereas NIVO+IPI was comparable to VEM+COBI.ConclusionResults of this MAIC demonstrated durable OS and PFS benefits for patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma treated with NIVO+IPI compared with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, with the greatest benefits noted after 12 months.

Project description:BackgroundAnchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), based on propensity score weighting, is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method in health technology assessment. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small.MethodsA modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parametric models. One estimates the treatment assignment mechanism in the study with individual patient data (IPD), the other estimates the trial assignment mechanism. The first model produces inverse probability weights that are combined with the odds weights produced by the second model. The resulting weights seek to balance covariates between treatment arms and across studies. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle in an indirect comparison performed across two randomized trials. Nevertheless, 2SMAIC can be applied in situations where the IPD trial is observational, by including potential confounders in the treatment assignment model. The simulation study also explores the use of weight truncation in combination with MAIC for the first time.ResultsDespite enforcing randomization and knowing the true treatment assignment mechanism in the IPD trial, 2SMAIC yields improved precision and efficiency with respect to MAIC in all scenarios, while maintaining similarly low levels of bias. The two-stage approach is effective when sample sizes in the IPD trial are low, as it controls for chance imbalances in prognostic baseline covariates between study arms. It is not as effective when overlap between the trials' target populations is poor and the extremity of the weights is high. In these scenarios, truncation leads to substantial precision and efficiency gains but induces considerable bias. The combination of a two-stage approach with truncation produces the highest precision and efficiency improvements.ConclusionsTwo-stage approaches to MAIC can increase precision and efficiency with respect to the standard approach by adjusting for empirical imbalances in prognostic covariates in the IPD trial. Further modules could be incorporated for additional variance reduction or to account for missingness and non-compliance in the IPD trial.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment-free survival (TFS) represents an alternative time-to-event end point, accurately characterizing time spent free of systemic therapy, providing a more patient-centric view of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimens. There remains a lack of studies evaluating TFS outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma who are receiving immunotherapy, especially outside of the clinical trial setting.ObjectiveTo evaluate TFS outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy outside of a clinical trial setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2020, was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Data analysis was performed in August 2022.ExposuresPatients received standard-of-care, first-line ICI therapy treatment regimens including single-agent nivolumab, single-agent pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab-nivolumab.Main outcomes and measuresTreatment-free survival was defined as the difference in the 36-month restricted mean survival time between 2 conventional survival end points: (1) time from treatment initiation to ICI cessation, death, or censoring at last follow-up and (2) time from treatment initiation to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, death, or censoring at last follow-up.ResultsA total of 316 patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line nivolumab (n = 51; median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-78 years]; 31 men [60.8%]), pembrolizumab (n = 158; median age, 69 years [IQR, 60-78 years]; 112 men [70.9%]), or combination nivolumab-ipilimumab (n = 107; median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-60 years]; 72 men [67.3%]) were included. Treatment groups were similar with regard to sex, primary tumor location, and presence of metastasis, although patients receiving combination nivolumab-ipilimumab had a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, were younger, and were more likely to be BRAF V600E positive than those receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.0 months]) compared with nivolumab (8.9 months [95% CI, 4.4-13.5 months]) and pembrolizumab (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-13.8 months]). During the 36-month follow-up interval, patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab spent 34.4% of their time (12.4 of 36 months) not receiving systemic anticancer treatments compared with 30.8% (11.1 of 36 months) and 24.7% (8.9 of 36 months) of the time for the pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment groups, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy suggests that TFS represents a patient-centric, informative end point. Patients treated with combination nivolumab-ipilimumab spent more time alive and free from systemic anticancer therapy than those treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone.

Project description:PurposeCombination of antiprogrammed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) plus anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 (anti-CTLA-4) immunotherapy shows greater response rates (RRs) than anti-PD-1 antibody alone in melanoma, but RR after initial anti-PD-1 and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody progression awaits robust investigation. Anti-CTLA-4 antibody alone after anti-PD-1/L1 antibody progression has a historical RR of 13%. We report the results of the first prospective clinical trial evaluating ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus pembrolizumab following progression on anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.MethodsPatients with advanced melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1/L1 antibody as immediate prior therapy (including non-anti-CTLA-4 antibody combinations) were eligible. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by pembrolizumab monotherapy. The primary end point was RR by irRECIST. After 35 patients, the trial met the primary end point and was expanded to enroll a total of 70 patients to better estimate the RR.ResultsPrior treatments included 60 on anti-PD-1 antibody alone and 10 on anti-PD-1/L1 antibody-based combinations. Thirteen patients had progressed in the adjuvant setting. The median length of prior treatment with anti-PD-1/L1 antibody was 4.8 months. Response assessments included five complete and 15 partial responses, making the irRECIST RR 29% among the entire trial population. The median progression-free survival was 5.0 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months. The median duration of response was 16.6 months. There was no difference in median time on prior anti-PD1/L1 or time to PD1 + CTLA4 initiation between responders and nonresponders. Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events occurred in 27% of patients. Responses occurred in PD-L1-negative, non-T-cell-inflamed, and intermediate tumor phenotypes.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first prospective study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus low-dose ipilimumab after anti-PD-1/L1 immunotherapy failure, demonstrating significant antitumor activity and tolerability.