Retrospective Comparison of Survival Projections for CAR T-Cell Therapies in Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Durable remission has been observed in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Consequently, hazard functions for overall survival (OS) are often complex, requiring the use of flexible methods for extrapolations. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to retrospectively compare the predictive accuracy of different survival extrapolation methods and evaluate the validity of goodness-of-fit (GOF) criteria-based model selection for CAR T-cell therapies in R/R LBCL. METHODS: OS data were sourced from JULIET, ZUMA-1, and TRANSCEND NHL 001. Standard parametric, mixture cure, cubic spline, and mixture models were fit to multiple database locks (DBLs), with varying follow-up durations. GOF was assessed using the Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion. Predictive accuracy was calculated as the mean absolute error (MAE) relative to OS observed in the most mature DBL. RESULTS: For all studies, mixture cure and cubic spline models provided the best predictive accuracy for the least mature DBL (MAE 0.013‒0.085 and 0.014‒0.128, respectively). The predictive accuracy of the standard parametric and mixture models showed larger variation (MAE 0.024‒0.162 and 0.013‒0.176, respectively). With increasing data maturity, the predictive accuracy of standard parametric models remained poor. Correlation between GOF criteria and predictive accuracy was low, particularly for the least mature DBL. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses demonstrated that mixture cure and cubic spline models provide the most accurate survival extrapolations of CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL. Furthermore, GOF should not be the only criteria used when selecting the optimal survival model.

A Guide to Selecting Flexible Survival Models to Inform Economic Evaluations of Cancer Immunotherapies.

OBJECTIVES: Parametric models are routinely used to estimate the benefit of cancer drugs beyond trial follow-up. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has challenged this paradigm, and emerging evidence suggests that more flexible survival models, which can better capture the shapes of complex hazard functions, might be needed for these interventions. Nevertheless, there is a need for an algorithm to help analysts decide whether flexible models are required and, if so, which should be chosen for testing. This position article has been produced to bridge this gap. METHODS: A virtual advisory board comprising 7 international experts with in-depth knowledge of survival analysis and health technology assessment was held in summer 2021. The experts discussed 24 questions across 6 topics: the current survival model selection procedure, data maturity, heterogeneity of treatment effect, cure and mortality, external evidence, and additions to existing guidelines. Their responses culminated in an algorithm to inform selection of flexible survival models. RESULTS: The algorithm consists of 8 steps and 4 questions. Key elements include the systematic identification of relevant external data, using clinical expert input at multiple points in the selection process, considering the future and the observed hazard functions, assessing the potential for long-term survivorship, and presenting results from all plausible models. CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm provides a systematic, evidence-based approach to justify the selection of survival extrapolation models for cancer immunotherapies. If followed, it should reduce the risk of selecting inappropriate models, partially addressing a key area of uncertainty in the economic evaluation of these agents.