Balazs Halmos1, Thomas Burke2, Chrysostomos Kalyvas3, Ralph Insinga2, Kristel Vandormael3, Andrew Frederickson4, Bilal Piperdi5. 1. Department of Oncology, Montefiore/Albert Einstein Cancer Center, 2nd floor, 1695 Eastchester Rd, Bronx, NY 10461, USA. 2. Center for Observational & Real World Evidence (CORE), Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. 3. Biostatistics and Research Decision Sciences, MSD Europe, Inc., 1200 Brussels, Belgium. 4. Precision HEOR, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. 5. Oncology Clinical Development, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA.
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.
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 NSCLCpatients 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.
Authors: Andrew M Frederickson; Stella Arndorfer; Ina Zhang; Maria Lorenzi; Ralph Insinga; Ashwini Arunachalam; Thomas A Burke; George R Simon Journal: Immunotherapy Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 4.196
Authors: Lachlan Standfield; Adèle R Weston; Helen Barraclough; Maximiliano Van Kooten; Nick Pavlakis Journal: Respirology Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 6.424
Authors: Shirish Gadgeel; Delvys Rodríguez-Abreu; Giovanna Speranza; Emilio Esteban; Enriqueta Felip; Manuel Dómine; Rina Hui; Maximilian J Hochmair; Philip Clingan; Steven F Powell; Susanna Yee-Shan Cheng; Helge G Bischoff; Nir Peled; Francesco Grossi; Ross R Jennens; Martin Reck; Edward B Garon; Silvia Novello; Belén Rubio-Viqueira; Michael Boyer; Takayasu Kurata; Jhanelle E Gray; Jing Yang; Tuba Bas; M Catherine Pietanza; Marina C Garassino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jorge E Cortes; Bogdan Muresan; Carla Mamolo; Joseph C Cappelleri; Rocco J Crescenzo; Yun Su; Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini; Bart Heeg; B Douglas Smith Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 2.580