Kabirraaj Toor1, Mark R Middleton2, Keith Chan3, Adenike Amadi4, Andriy Moshyk5, Srividya Kotapati5. 1. Precision HEOR, 1505 West 2nd Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3Y4, Canada. kabirraaj.toor@precisionvh.com. 2. University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK. 3. Precision HEOR, 1505 West 2nd Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3Y4, Canada. 4. Bristol Myers Squibb, Unit 2 Uxbridge Business Park, Uxbridge, UB8 1DH, UK. 5. Bristol Myers Squibb, Route 206 and Province Line Road, Princeton, NJ, 08543, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary. RESULTS: Of 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27-0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14-0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk-benefit profile.
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary. RESULTS: Of 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27-0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14-0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk-benefit profile.
Authors: Sanjiv S Agarwala; Sandra J Lee; Waiki Yip; Uma N Rao; Ahmad A Tarhini; Gary I Cohen; Douglas S Reintgen; Terry L Evans; Joanna M Brell; Mark R Albertini; Michael B Atkins; Shaker R Dakhil; Robert M Conry; Jeffrey A Sosman; Lawrence E Flaherty; Vernon K Sondak; William E Carson; Michael G Smylie; Alberto S Pappo; Richard F Kefford; John M Kirkwood Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Johan Hansson; Steinar Aamdal; Lars Bastholt; Yvonne Brandberg; Micaela Hernberg; Bo Nilsson; Ulrika Stierner; Hans von der Maase Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Rudolf Stadler; Thomas Luger; Thomas Bieber; Ulrike Köhler; Ruthild Linse; Kristin Technau; Roland Schubert; Katja Schroth; Feredoun Vakilzadeh; Matthias Volkenandt; Harald Gollnick; Harald Von Eick; Fredrik Thoren; Orjan Strannegård Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: T K Eigentler; R Gutzmer; A Hauschild; L Heinzerling; D Schadendorf; D Nashan; E Hölzle; F Kiecker; J Becker; C Sunderkötter; I Moll; E Richtig; I Pönitzsch; H Pehamberger; R Kaufmann; C Pföhler; T Vogt; C Berking; M Praxmarer; C Garbe Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Axel Hauschild; Reinhard Dummer; Dirk Schadendorf; Mario Santinami; Victoria Atkinson; Mario Mandalà; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; James Larkin; Marta Nyakas; Caroline Dutriaux; Andrew Haydon; Caroline Robert; Laurent Mortier; Jacob Schachter; Thierry Lesimple; Ruth Plummer; Kohinoor Dasgupta; Tomas Haas; Mark Shilkrut; Eduard Gasal; Richard Kefford; John M Kirkwood; Georgina V Long Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544