Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive one of the following regimens: nivolumab (at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks); nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab-matched placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses) plus nivolumab-matched placebo. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, as compared with the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the median overall survival was more than 60.0 months (median not reached) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 36.9 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.52; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.63). Overall survival at 5 years was 52% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 44% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 26% in the ipilimumab group. No sustained deterioration of health-related quality of life was observed during or after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone. No new late toxic effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, sustained long-term overall survival at 5 years was observed in a greater percentage of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone than in those who received ipilimumab alone, with no apparent loss of quality of life in the patients who received regimens containing nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Overall survival in the real-world and clinical trials: a case study validating external controls in advanced melanoma.

Aims: We assessed the suitability of real-world data (RWD) as an external control for analysis of overall survival (OS) compared with clinical trial data (CTD) in advanced melanoma. Methods: OS among adults receiving ipilimumab for advanced melanoma was compared between trials (CTD group) and the Flatiron Health database (RWD group) using Cox models. Adjusted analyses accounted for differences in baseline factors; missing data were addressed through multiple imputation. Results: After adjusting for baseline factors and accounting for missingness, OS was similar in the CTD (n = 241) versus RWD groups (n = 816; hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.75-1.26). Conclusion: Flatiron Health data is suitable to construct external control groups for OS in advanced melanoma trials after adjusting for baseline factors and missing data.

Clinical trials are the gold standard for measuring the efficacy and safety of new treatments. Comparisons between clinical trials and external controls drawn from real-world data are potentially valuable ­ especially when randomized trials are not available or feasible ­ but carry important risks of bias stemming from differences across populations, care settings and measurement of patient characteristics and outcomes. As a case study, we assessed the suitability of a particular real-world database (the Flatiron Health Database) for analyzing overall survival among patients in clinical trials of treatments for metastatic melanoma. Challenges included differences in patient baseline prognostic factors across populations, including high proportions with missing information in real-world data. After accounting for these differences, we observed similar survival between patients receiving ipilimumab monotherapy in clinical trials and in real-world data. We conclude that real-world external controls can be suitable for metastatic melanoma.

Comparative efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab versus other treatments in adults with resected melanoma: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

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.

Long-term real-world experience with ipilimumab and non-ipilimumab therapies in advanced melanoma: the IMAGE study.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies. METHODS: IMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti-programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab-treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab-treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: With long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Relatlimab Versus Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using RELATIVITY-047 and CheckMate 067 Trial Data.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved for advanced melanoma on the basis of the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials, respectively. As no head-to-head trial comparing these regimens exists, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted using patient-level data from each trial. METHODS: Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for baseline characteristic differences. Minimum follow-ups (RELATIVITY-047, 33 months; CheckMate 067, 36 months) were selected to best align assessments. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) per investigator; overall survival (OS); and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A Cox regression model compared PFS, OS, and MSS. A logistic regression model compared cORRs. Subgroup analyses were exploratory. RESULTS: After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for nivolumab plus relatlimab (n = 339) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 297). Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.33]), cORR (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14]), OS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19]), and MSS (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.12]) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Subgroup comparisons showed larger numerical differences favoring nivolumab plus ipilimumab with acral melanoma, BRAF-mutant melanoma, and lactate dehydrogenase >2 × upper limit of normal, but were limited by small samples. Nivolumab plus relatlimab was associated with fewer grade 3-4 TRAEs (23% v 61%) and any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation (17% v 41%). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar efficacy to nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the overall population, including most-but not all-subgroups, and improved safety in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Results should be interpreted with caution.

Real-World nivolumab dosing patterns and safety outcomes in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) is approved for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. However, real-world data on this regimen are limited in this setting. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database and patient medical charts. Eligible patients were diagnosed with melanoma and received adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy from March to August 2018. Patients were grouped by dosing regimen: cohort 1 (C1), de novo nivolumab 480 mg Q4W; cohort 2 (C2), switched to nivolumab 480 mg Q4W after nivolumab 240 mg or 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); cohort 3 (C3), de novo nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W; or cohort 4 (C4), de novo nivolumab 240 mg Q2W. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. Duration of therapy and safety/tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one patients were included (C1, n = 40; C2, n = 74; C3, n = 22; C4, n = 55). Duration of therapy was relatively consistent across cohorts (median, 10.3 months; range, 8.3-10.7). Likewise, proportions of patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar (range, 54.5%-60.1%), as were the most common events (fatigue, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, nausea, and pruritus). However, proportions experiencing 'significant' TRAEs varied between cohorts. Proportions discontinuing treatment were relatively consistent across cohorts. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses generally supported the unadjusted findings. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world safety profiles of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W and 480 mg Q4W were similar, and both were comparable to the well-documented safety of weight-based dosing (3 mg/kg Q2W), further supporting their approval and use in the adjuvant setting for melanoma.

Health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus relatlimab versus nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma: RELATIVITY-047 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 trial, a novel fixed-dose combination (FDC) of nivolumab plus relatlimab (NIVO + RELA; a programmed death-1 and a lymphocyte-activation gene 3 inhibitor, respectively) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus NIVO in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma (median follow-up, 13.2 months) with stable health-related quality of life (HRQoL), although grade three or four treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were more frequent with the combination. Updated HRQoL results (median follow-up, 19.3 months) are presented. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive intravenous NIVO + RELA (480 mg and 160 mg, respectively) or NIVO (480 mg) every 4 weeks. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Melanoma (FACT-M) and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at baseline, before dosing at each treatment cycle, and at follow-up (posttreatment) visits. RESULTS: Consistent with the initial analysis, HRQoL remained stable with NIVO + RELA on treatment and was similar to that with NIVO. Mean changes from baseline did not exceed clinically meaningful thresholds. HRQoL results were consistent across instruments and scales/subscales. Despite an increased rate of grade three or four TRAEs with NIVO + RELA versus NIVO, the proportion of patients reporting that they were bothered 'quite a bit' or 'very much' by TRAEs was low and comparable between treatments. CONCLUSION: Results from the RELATIVITY-047 trial show that the PFS benefit with NIVO + RELA FDC over NIVO was obtained with stable patient-reported HRQoL, supporting NIVO + RELA as a first-line treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma.

Cost-Utility of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Melanoma in the United States: An Analysis Using Long-Term Overall Survival Data from Checkmate 067.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus other first-line therapies for advanced melanoma in the United States (US) from the third-party payer perspective. METHODS: This analysis estimated total expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs for first-line treatments of advanced melanoma during a 30-year time horizon using indirect treatment comparisons based on time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and a three-state partitioned survival model. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival reference curves were extrapolated based on 5-year follow-up from the phase III Checkmate 067 trial (NCT01844505). Comparators of NIVO + IPI were NIVO, IPI, pembrolizumab, dabrafenib plus trametinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Drug acquisition costs, treatment administration costs, follow-up time, subsequent therapy data, and adverse event frequencies were obtained from published sources. Utility weights were estimated from Checkmate 067, which compared NIVO + IPI or NIVO monotherapy with IPI monotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced melanoma. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity scenarios for BRAF-mutant subgroups were conducted. RESULTS: NIVO + IPI was estimated to generate the longest OS and the highest total costs versus all comparators, accruing 6.99 LYs, 5.70 QALYs, and $469,469 over the 30-year time horizon. The incremental cost utility of NIVO + IPI versus comparators ranged from $2130 per QALY (versus ENCO + BINI) to $76,169 per QALY (versus NIVO). In all base-case and most sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratios for NIVO + IPI were below $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective treatment versus other therapies in the US, with base-case incremental cost-utility ratios below $100,000 per QALY.

Heterogeneity in Survival with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Its Implications for Survival Extrapolations: A Case Study in Advanced Melanoma.

Background: Survival heterogeneity and limited trial follow-up present challenges for estimating lifetime benefits of oncology therapies. This study used CheckMate 067 (NCT01844505) extended follow-up data to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric and flexible models in estimating the long-term overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (an immune checkpoint inhibitor combination) in advanced melanoma. Methods: Six sets of survival models (standard parametric, piecewise, cubic spline, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models) were independently fitted to overall survival data for treatments in CheckMate 067 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab) using successive data cuts (28, 40, 52, and 60 mo). Standard parametric models allow survival extrapolation in the absence of a complex hazard. Piecewise and cubic spline models allow additional flexibility in fitting the hazard function. Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provide flexibility by explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity. Sixty-month follow-up data, external ipilimumab data, and clinical expert opinion were used to evaluate model estimation accuracy. Lifetime survival projections were compared using a 5% discount rate. Results: Standard parametric, piecewise, and cubic spline models underestimated overall survival at 60 mo for the 28-mo data cut. Compared with other models, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate long-term overall survival estimates versus external data, higher mean survival benefit over 20 y for the 28-mo data cut, and more consistent 20-y mean overall survival estimates across data cuts. Conclusion: This case study demonstrates that survival models explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity showed greater accuracy for early data cuts than standard parametric models did, consistent with similar immune checkpoint inhibitor survival validation studies in advanced melanoma. Research is required to assess generalizability to other tumors and disease stages. Highlights: Given that short clinical trial follow-up periods and survival heterogeneity introduce uncertainty in the health technology assessment of oncology therapies, this study evaluated the suitability of conventional parametric survival modeling approaches as compared with more flexible models in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitors that have the potential to provide lasting survival benefits.This study used extended follow-up data from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505) to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric models in comparison with more flexible methods for estimating the long-term survival benefit of the immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate estimates of long-term overall survival versus external data than other models tested.In this case study with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in advanced melanoma, extrapolation models that explicitly incorporate differences in cancer survival between observed or latent subgroups showed greater accuracy with both early and later data cuts than other approaches did.