Comparative Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy versus Conventional Comparator Treatments in Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the relative efficacy of neoadjuvant nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy (neoNIVO + CT) compared to relevant treatments amongst resectable non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (rNSCLC) patients. METHODS: Treatment comparisons were based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) using randomized clinical trial data identified via systematic literature review (SLR). The outcomes of interest were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR). NeoNIVO + CT was compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neoCT), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT), adjuvant chemotherapy (adjCT), and surgery alone (S). Due to the potential for effect modification by stage, all-stage and stage-specific networks were considered. Fixed-effect (FE) and random-effects Bayesian NMA models were run (EFS = hazard ratios [HR]; pCR = odds ratios [OR]; 95% credible intervals [CrI]). RESULTS: Sixty-one RCTs were identified (base case = 9 RCTs [n = 1978 patients]). In the all-stages FE model, neoNIVO + CT had statistically significant EFS improvements relative to neoCT (HR = 0.68 [95% CrI: 0.49, 0.94]), S (0.59 [0.42, 0.82]), adjCT (0.66 [0.45, 0.96]), but not relative to neoCRT (HR = 0.77 [0.52, 1.16]). NeoNIVO + CT (5 RCTs) had statistically significant higher odds of pCR relative to neoCT (OR = 12.53 [5.60, 33.82]) and neoCRT (7.15 [2.31, 24.34]). Stage-specific model findings were consistent. CONCLUSIONS: This NMA signals improved EFS and/or pCR of neoNIVO + CT relative to comparators among patients with rNSCLC.

Long-term comparative efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to other first-line therapies for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) relative to other immunotherapy (IO)-based regimens and chemotherapy in patients with first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). METHODS: Phase 3 randomized controlled-trials (RCTs) with minimum 3-year follow-up evaluating IO-based regimens approved for first-line aNSCLC were identified via systematic literature review. Analytic populations were defined by levels of PD-L1 expression and histology. Due to presence of proportional hazards violations, time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated via Bayesian fractional polynomial network meta-analysis. For safety endpoints, odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). RESULTS: CheckMate 227, KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407, KEYNOTE-024, KEYNOTE-042, and IMpower150 were included in the base case analysis. For OS and PFS, HRs of NIVO + IPI relative to other IO-based regimens trended downward over time across analytic populations. The 36-month OS HRs of NIVO + IPI versus comparators were: 0.69 (95 % credible interval: 0.47, 1.00) versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy and 0.65 (0.45, 0.93) versus atezolizumab + bevacizumab + chemotherapy in the non-squamous and PD-L1 all-comers population; 0.73 (0.53, 1.02) versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in the squamous and PD-L1 all-comers population; and 1.05 (0.83, 1.32) versus pembrolizumab in the mixed histology and PD-L1 ≥ 50 % population. For PFS, 36-month HR point estimates ranged from 0.46 to 0.85 (only statistically significant versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in the squamous population; 0.46 [0.31, 0.69]). Adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation were not statistically significantly different between NIVO + IPI and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy, nor between NIVO + IPI and pembrolizumab monotherapy, although treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs were higher with NIVO + IPI than pembrolizumab monotherapy (OR = 2.21 [1.30, 3.75]). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates trends towards long-term benefit with NIVO + IPI compared with other IO-based combinations, with manageable toxicities.

Systematic review of outcomes and patient heterogeneity in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Aim: To evaluate trials of systemic therapies in transplant-ineligible or -experienced, relapsed/refractory diffuse large-B cell lymphoma and the impact of patient characteristics on overall response rate (ORR). Patients & methods: Systematically reviewed multiple databases through 22 July 2021. Analyzed variations in patient characteristics and their relationship with ORR across trials. Results: Among 17 included trials, key patient characteristics varied substantially: primary refractory (0-69%), refractory to last line of therapy (LOT) (12-100%), ≥2 prior LOTs (14-100%), ≥3 prior LOTs (0-64%), IPI ≥3 (23-73%), tumor stage III/IV (50-90%) and median age (56-74 years). ORRs varied substantially (25-83%), correlating with these characteristics. Conclusion: Differences in patient characteristics significantly contribute to the variability in ORR across these trials and should be considered when contextualizing efficacy data.

Correlations between objective response rate and survival-based endpoints in first-line advanced non-small cell lung Cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The study objective was to estimate the relationship between objective response and survival-based endpoints by drug class, in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line aNSCLC therapies reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or objective response rate (ORR). Trial-level and arm-level linear regression models were fit, accounting for inclusion of immunotherapy (IO)-based or chemotherapy-only RCT arms. Weighted least squares-based R2 were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the main trial-level analysis of OS vs. ORR, the surrogate threshold effect was estimated. Exploratory analyses involved further stratification by: IO monotherapy vs. chemotherapy, dual-IO therapy vs. chemotherapy, and IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy. RESULTS: From 17,040 records, 57 RCTs were included. In the main analysis, trial-level associations between OS and ORR were statistically significant in both the IO-based and chemotherapy-only strata, with R2 estimates of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.26-0.81) and 0.34 (0.05-0.63), respectively. OS gains associated with a given ORR benefit were statistically significantly larger within IO vs. chemotherapy comparisons compared to chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy comparisons (p < 0.001). Exploratory analysis suggested a trend by IO type: for a given change in ORR, 'pure' IO (IO monotherapy and dual-IO) vs. chemotherapy RCTs tended to have a larger OS benefit than IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy RCTs. For ORR vs. PFS, trial-level correlations were strong in the IO-based vs. chemotherapy (R2 = 0.84; 0.72-0.95), and chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy strata (R2 = 0.69; 0.49-0.88). For OS vs. PFS, correlations were moderate in both strata (R2 = 0.49; 0.20-0.78 and R2 = 0.49; 0.23-0.76). CONCLUSION: The larger OS benefit per unit of ORR benefit in IO-based RCTs compared to chemotherapy-only RCTs provides an important addition to the established knowledge regarding the durability and depth of response in IO-based treatments.

Undertreatment of overactive bladder among men with lower urinary tract symptoms in the United States: A retrospective observational study.

AIMS: To characterize the epidemiology and treatment patterns of adult men (≥40 years) diagnosed with, or treated for, overactive bladder (OAB) and/or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data extracted from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and the Medicare Supplemental Coordination of Benefits database. Men with BPH and/or OAB were identified and observed to assess treatment and diagnostic patterns. RESULTS: Within the entire study sample (N = 462 400), BPH diagnosis (61.5%) and BPH treatment (73.7%) were more common than the corresponding values for OAB (25.8% and 7.0%, respectively). Notably, among diagnosed individuals, the dispensation of a corresponding treatment was more likely in individuals diagnosed with BPH (183 672 out of 284 416 = 64.6%) compared with OAB (16 468 out of 119 236 = 13.8%). Among newly diagnosed and/or treated patients (n = 196 576), only 60.3% received treatment. Among treated patients, most experienced only a single type of treatment (93.4%), 6.6% went on to receive a secondary treatment and 3.5% a tertiary. The most common primary treatment was alpha-blocker monotherapy (76.9%) followed by tadalafil monotherapy (16.4%). Among those untreated at first diagnosis, the median time between diagnosis and treatment initiation was 128 days. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis and management of OAB among males are challenging given the inherent overlap in symptoms observed with BPH. Unsurprisingly, we found that BPH is diagnosed and treated more frequently than OAB; but the differences between diagnosis and treatment patterns for the two conditions highlight the potential undertreatment of OAB and misdirection of therapy for men with a combination of voiding and storage symptoms.