Network meta-analysis of pembrolizumab as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma / Metanálise em rede comparativa de pembrolizumabe como monoterapia e em combinação com quimioterapia para tratamento de primeira linha de carcinoma de células escamosas da cabeça e pescoço recorrente ou metastático

Pembrolizumab monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy is approved as first-line treatment in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) based on improved overall survival (OS) versus EXTREME regimen in the KEYNOTE-048 trial. The clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab were compared with other recommended first-line treatments in R/M HNSCC in this study through a Bayesian network meta-analysis. A systematic literature review was conducted in July 2022, from which six trials that matched the KEYNOTE-048 patient eligibility criteria were included in the network. The OS and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes were compared in the approved pembrolizumab indication (i.e., total population for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy and combined positive score [CPS] ≥ 1 population for pembrolizumab monotherapy). A significant OS improvement was observed for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy versus EXTREME regimen (hazard ratio, 95% credible interval: 0.72, 0.60-0.86; 0.73, 0.60-0.88), platinum+5- FU (0.58, 0.43-0.76; 0.58, 0.44-0.78), and platinum+paclitaxel (0.53, 0.35-0.79; 0.53, 0.35-0.81), respectively. A non-significant numeric trend in OS improvement was observed versus the TPEx regimen. PFS was comparable with most first-line treatments and was improved versus platinum+5-FU (0.48, 0.36-0.64; 0.59, 0.45-0.79). Additional analyses in higher CPS subgroups also showed consistent results. Overall, our study results showed an improvement in OS outcomes versus alternative first-line treatments, consistent with the findings of the KEYNOTE-048 trial. These data support using pembrolizumab as a suitable firstline treatment option in R/M HNSCC.

Pembrolizumabe em monoterapia ou em combinação com quimioterapia é aprovado como tratamento de primeira linha em carcinoma de células escamosas recorrente/metastático de cabeça e pescoço (CECCP R/M) com base na melhora da sobrevida global (OS), em comparação com o esquema EXTREME no estudo KEYNOTE-048. Esse estudo comparou os resultados clínicos de pembrolizumabe com outros tratamentos recomendados de primeira linha em CECCP R/M por meio de uma metanálise de rede bayesiana. Uma revisão sistemática da literatura foi conduzida em julho de 2022, a partir da qual seis ensaios clínicos que atendiam aos critérios de elegibilidade de pacientes do KEYNOTE-048 foram incluídos na rede. Os desfechos de OS e sobrevida livre de progressão (PFS) foram comparados na indicação de pembrolizumabe (população total para pembrolizumabe em combinação com quimioterapia e população com escore positivo combinado [CPS] ≥ 1 em monoterapia com pembrolizumabe). Foi observada melhora significativa na OS para pembrolizumabe em combinação com quimioterapia e monoterapia com pembrolizumabe versus o esquema EXTREME (razão de risco, intervalo de confiança de 95%: 0,72, 0,60-0,86; 0,73, 0,60-0,88), platina+5-FU (0,58, 0,43-0,76; 0,58, 0,44-0,78) e platina+paclitaxel (0,53, 0,35-0,79; 0,53, 0,35-0,81), respectivamente. Uma tendência numérica não significativa de melhoria na OS foi observada em relação ao esquema TPEx. A PFS foi comparável com a maioria dos tratamentos de primeira linha e melhor em relação à platina+5-FU (0,48, 0,36-0,64; 0,59, 0,45-0,79). Análises adicionais em subgrupos com CPS mais elevado também mostraram resultados consistentes. No geral, os resultados de nosso estudo mostraram melhora nos desfechos de OS em comparação aos tratamentos de primeira linha alternativos, consistentes com os achados do estudo KEYNOTE-048. Esses dados apoiam o uso de pembrolizumabe como opção de tratamento em primeira linha em pacientes com CECCP R/M.

Clinical Outcomes for Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although second-line treatments improve survival compared to best supportive care in patients with advanced gastric cancer with disease progression on first-line therapy, prognosis remains poor. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to quantify the efficacy of second-or-later line systemic therapies in this target population. METHODS: A systematic literature review (January 1, 2000 to July 6, 2021) of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL with additional searches of 2019-2021 annual ASCO and ESMO conferences was conducted to identify studies in the target population. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed among studies involving chemotherapies and targeted therapies relevant in treatment guidelines and HTA activities. Outcomes of interest were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) presented as Kaplan-Meier data. Randomized controlled trials reporting any of the outcomes of interest were included. For OS and PFS, individual patient-level data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Forty-four trials were eligible for the analysis. Pooled ORR (42 trials; 77 treatment arms; 7256 participants) was 15.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.7-17.5%). Median OS from the pooled analysis (34 trials; 64 treatment arms; 60,350 person-months) was 7.9 months (95% CI 7.4-8.5). Median PFS from the pooled analysis (32 trials; 61 treatment arms; 28,860 person-months) was 3.5 months (95% CI 3.2-3.7). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms poor prognosis among patients with advanced gastric cancer, following disease progression on first-line therapy. Despite the approved, recommended, and experimental systemic treatments available, there is still an unmet need for novel interventions for this indication.

Structured expert elicitation to inform long-term survival extrapolations using alternative parametric distributions: a case study of CAR T therapy for relapsed/ refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to extend traditional parametric models used to extrapolate survival in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) by integrating individual-level patient data (IPD) from a clinical trial with estimates from experts regarding long-term survival. This was illustrated using a case study evaluating survival of patients with triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) in KarMMa (a phase 2, single-arm trial). METHODS: The distribution of patients expected to be alive at 3, 5, and 10 years given the observed survival from KarMMa (13.3 months of follow-up) was elicited from 6 experts using the SHeffield ELicitation Framework. Quantities of interest were elicited from each expert individually, which informed the consensus elicitation including all experts. Estimates for each time point were assumed to follow a truncated normal distribution. These distributions were incorporated into survival models, which constrained the expected survival based on standard survival distributions informed by IPD from KarMMa. RESULTS: Models for ide-cel that combined KarMMa data with expert opinion were more consistent in terms of survival as well as mean survival at 10 years (survival point estimates under different parametric models were 29-33% at 3 years, 5-17% at 5 years, and 0-6% at 10 years) versus models with KarMMa data alone (11-39% at 3 years, 0-25% at 5 years, and 0-11% at 10 years). CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrates a transparent approach to integrate IPD from trials with expert opinion using traditional parametric distributions to ensure long-term survival extrapolations are clinically plausible.

Correlation Between Early Time-to-Event Outcomes and Overall Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Definitive Chemoradiation Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Overall survival (OS) is the most patient-relevant outcome in oncology; however, in early cancers, large sample sizes and extended follow-up durations are needed to detect statistically significant differences in OS between interventions. Use of early time-to-event outcomes as surrogates for OS can help facilitate faster approval of cancer therapies. In locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC), event-free survival (EFS) was previously evaluated as a surrogate outcome (Michiels 2009) and demonstrated a strong correlation with OS. The current study aimed to further assess the correlation between EFS and OS in LA-HNSCC using an updated systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on patients receiving definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Methods: An SLR was conducted on May 27, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials assessing radiotherapy alone or CRT in the target population. Studies assessing CRT and reporting hazard ratios (HRs) or Kaplan-Meier data for OS and EFS were eligible for the analysis. CRT included any systemic treatments administered concurrently or sequentially with radiation therapy. Trial-level EFS/OS correlations were assessed using regression models, and the relationship strength was measured with Pearson correlation coefficient (R). Correlations were assessed across all CRT trials and in trial subsets assessing concurrent CRT, sequential CRT, RT+cisplatin, targeted therapies and intensity-modulated RT. Subgroup analysis was conducted among trials with similar EFS definitions (i.e. EFS including disease progression and/or death as events) and longer length of follow-up (i.e.≥ 5 years). Results: The SLR identified 149 trials of which 31 were included in the analysis. A strong correlation between EFS and OS was observed in the overall analysis of all CRT trials (R=0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.93). Similar results were obtained in the sensitivity analyses of trials assessing concurrent CRT (R=0.88), sequential CRT (R=0.83), RT+cisplatin (R=0.82), targeted therapies (R=0.83) and intensity-modulated RT (R=0.86), as well as in trials with similar EFS definitions (R=0.87), with longer follow-up (R=0.81). Conclusion: EFS was strongly correlated with OS in this trial-level analysis. Future research using individual patient-level data can further investigate if EFS could be considered a suitable early clinical endpoint for evaluation of CRT regimens in LA-HNSCC patients receiving definitive CRT.

Indirect treatment comparison of idecabtagene vicleucel versus conventional care in triple-class exposed multiple myeloma.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) versus conventional care (CC) in triple-class exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Patients & methods: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient-level data from the pivotal, phase II, single-arm KarMMa trial (NCT03361748) and aggregate-level data from MAMMOTH, the largest independent observational study of CC in heavily pretreated RRMM patients. Results: Ide-cel improved overall response rate (odds ratio: 5.30; 95% CI: 2.96-9.51), progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.36-0.70) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25-0.56) versus CC. Conclusion: These results suggest ide-cel offers improvements in clinical outcomes relative to CC in this heavily pretreated RRMM population.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A "partitioned survival" framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Matching adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy outcomes for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) versus selinexor + dexamethasone and belantamab mafodotin in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, has been investigated in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody in the single-arm phase 2 KarMMa clinical trial. Two therapies with distinct mechanisms of action - selinexor plus dexamethasone (Sd) and belantamab mafodotin (BM) - are currently approved in the United States for heavily pretreated patients, including those who are triple-class refractory. To compare ide-cel versus Sd and ide-cel versus BM, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were performed. Ide-cel extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus both Sd and BM (hazard ratio (HR); 95% confidence interval (CI)). PFS: ide-cel versus Sd, 0.46; 0.28-0.75; ide-cel versus BM, 0.45; 0.27-0.77. OS: ide-cel versus Sd, 0.23; 0.13-0.42; ide-cel versus BM, 0.35; 0.14-0.87. These results suggest ide-cel offers clinically meaningful improvements over currently approved regimens for patients with heavily pretreated RRMM.

Comparative efficacy of cemiplimab versus other systemic treatments for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

Aim: To estimate the comparative efficacy of cemiplimab, a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor, versus EGFR inhibitors, pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. Patients & methods: We performed an indirect treatment comparison of cemiplimab and other available systemic therapies for patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Results: Cemiplimab was associated with benefits in OS (hazard ratios range: 0.07-0.52) and progression-free survival (hazard ratios range: 0.30-0.67) versus EGFR inhibitors and pembrolizumab (data from KEYNOTE-629). Cemiplimab was more efficacious versus platinum-based chemotherapy in terms of OS. Conclusion: Cemiplimab may offer improvements in survival for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients compared with existing systemic therapies.

Pembrolizumab versus the standard of care for relapsed and refractory classical Hodgkin's lymphoma progressing after brentuximab vedotin: an indirect treatment comparison.

BACKGROUND: There is significant unmet need among patients with relapsed and refractory classical Hodgkin's lymphoma (RRcHL) who have failed multiple lines of therapy, including brentuximab vedotin (BV). Pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, is one possible treatment solution for this population. RESEARCH METHODS: The objective of this study was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) with standard of care (SOC) versus pembrolizumab in previously BV treated RRcHL patients. A systematic literature review identified one observational study of SOC that was suitable for comparison with KEYNOTE-087, the principal trial of pembrolizumab in this population. Both naïve and population-adjusted (using outcomes regression) pairwise indirect comparisons were conducted. The primary analysis included all patients who had failed BV, with a secondary analysis conducted including only those known to have failed BV that was part of definitive treatment. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, SOC was inferior to pembrolizumab in both the unadjusted comparison (HR 5.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.56-7.01]) and the adjusted comparison (HR 6.35 [95% CI 4.04-9.98]). These HRs increased to 5.16 (95% CI 3.61-7.38) and 6.56 (95% CI 4.01-10.72), respectively, in the secondary analysis. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab offers a significant improvement in PFS compared to SOC in this population.