Pathological response in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy are needed to provide earlier treatment outcome indicators and accelerate drug approval. This study's main objectives were to investigate the association among pathological complete response, major pathological response, event-free survival and overall survival and to determine whether treatment effects on pathological complete response and event-free survival correlate with treatment effects on overall survival. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to identify neoadjuvant studies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Analysis at the patient level using frequentist and Bayesian random effects (hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival or event-free survival by pathological complete response or major pathological response status, yes vs no) and at the trial level using weighted least squares regressions (hazard ratio for overall survival or event-free survival vs pathological complete response, by treatment arm) were performed. RESULTS: In both meta-analyses, pathological complete response yielded favorable overall survival compared with no pathological complete response (frequentist, 20 studies and 6530 patients: HR = 0.49, 95% confidence interval = 0.42 to 0.57; Bayesian, 19 studies and 5988 patients: HR = 0.48, 95% probability interval = 0.43 to 0.55) and similarly for major pathological response (frequentist, 12 studies and 1193 patients: HR = 0.36, 95% confidence interval = 0.29 to 0.44; Bayesian, 11 studies and 1018 patients: HR = 0.33, 95% probability interval = 0.26 to 0.42). Across subgroups, estimates consistently showed better overall survival or event-free survival in pathological complete response or major pathological response compared with no pathological complete response or no major pathological response. Trial-level analyses showed a moderate to strong correlation between event-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios (R2 = 0.7159) but did not show a correlation between treatment effects on pathological complete response and overall survival or event-free survival. CONCLUSION: There was a strong and consistent association between pathological response and survival and a moderate to strong correlation between event-free survival and overall survival following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Four-year clinical update and treatment switching-adjusted outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the CheckMate 9LA randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression or histology. We report updated efficacy and safety in all randomized patients with a minimum 4-year follow-up and an exploratory treatment-switching adjustment analysis in all treated patients who received chemotherapy and subsequent immunotherapy. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and ECOG performance status ≤1 were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with chemotherapy (two cycles) or chemotherapy (four cycles, with optional maintenance pemetrexed for the nonsquamous population). Assessments included OS, progression-free survival, and objective response rate. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by tumor PD-L1 expression and histology and in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and a treatment-switching adjustment analysis using inverse probability of censoring weighting. RESULTS: With a 47.9-month minimum follow-up for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong OS over chemotherapy in all randomized patients (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87; 4-year OS rate: 21% versus 16%), regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression (HR (95% CI): PD-L1<1%, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86) and ≥1%, 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92)) or histology (squamous, 0.64 (0.48 to 0.84) and non-squamous, 0.80 (0.66 to 0.97)). In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to TRAEs (n=61), the 4-year OS rate was 41%. With treatment-switching adjustment for the 36% of patients receiving subsequent immunotherapy in the chemotherapy arm, the estimated HR of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this 4-year update, patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to have long-term, durable efficacy benefit over chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression and/or histology. A greater estimated relative OS benefit was observed after adjustment for subsequent immunotherapy use in the chemotherapy arm. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic/recurrent NSCLC, including those with tumor PD-L1<1% or squamous histology, populations with high unmet needs.

Modelling Health State Utilities as a Transformation of Time to Death in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: When utilities are analyzed by time to death (TTD), this has historically been implemented by 'grouping' observations as discrete time periods to create health state utilities. We extended the approach to use continuous functions, avoiding assumptions around groupings. The resulting models were used to test the concept with data from different regions and different country tariffs. METHODS: Five-year follow-up in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was used to fit six continuous TTD models using generalized estimating equations, which were compared with progression-based utilities and previously published TTD groupings. Sensitivity analyses were performed using only patients with a confirmed death, the last year of life only, and artificially censoring data at 24 months. The statistically best-fitting model was then applied to data subsets by region and different EQ-5D-3L country tariffs. RESULTS: Continuous (natural) [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] models outperformed other continuous models, grouped TTD, and progression-based models in statistical fit (mean absolute error and Quasi Information Criterion). This held through sensitivity and scenario analyses. The pattern of reduced utility as a patient approaches death was consistent across regions and EQ-5D tariffs using the preferred [Formula: see text] model. CONCLUSIONS: The use of continuous models provides a statistically better fit than TTD groupings, without the need for strong assumptions about the health states experienced by patients. Where a TTD approach is merited for use in modelling, continuous functions should be considered, with the scope for further improvements in statistical fit by both widening the number of candidate models tested and the therapeutic areas investigated.

Real-world relationship of early end points to survival end points in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: Pathologic response has been shown to be a promising surrogate for survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. We examined the real-world relationship between these end  points in patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (CT/CRT). Methods: Electronic health records/medical charts were analyzed. Overall and event-free survival (OS/EFS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier stratified by pathologic response. Associations between the end  points were assessed by Cox analyses. Results: A total of 425 patients were selected for the study; 147 and 278 received CT and CRT, respectively. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was associated with longer OS (adjusted HR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.29-0.85) and EFS (adjusted HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.28-0.68) versus no pCR, and EFS was associated with OS (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38, 0.69). Conclusion: In patients receiving neoadjuvant CT/CRT, pCR and EFS were associated with improved survival in this real-world dataset.

General population reference values for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung and PROMIS-29.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic advances in lung cancer have turned attention toward patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as important clinical outcomes. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) is a common endpoint in lung cancer trials. This study calculated FACT-L reference values for the United States (US) general population. METHODS: Adults from the US general population (N = 2001) were surveyed between September 2020 and November 2020. Surveys contained 126 questions, including the FACT-L [36 items; FACT-G and four subscales (Physical Well-Being [PWB], Social Well-Being [SWB], Emotional Well-Being [EWB], and Functional Well-Being [FWB]) and the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS), and a Trial Outcome Index (TOI)]. Reference values for each FACT-L scale were calculated with means for the total sample and separately for participants with: no comorbidities, COVID-19 as only comorbidity, no COVID-19. RESULTS: In the total sample, the reference scores were as follows: PWB = 23.1; SWB = 16.8; EWB = 18.5; FWB = 17.6; FACT-G = 76.0; LCS = 23.0, TOI = 63.7, and FACT-L Total = 99.0. Scores were lower for those reporting a prior diagnosis of COVID-19, especially for SWB (15.7) and FWB (15.3). SWB scores were lower than previous references values. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide US general adult population reference value set for FACT-L. While some of the subscale results were lower than those found in the reference data for other PROMs, these data were obtained in a more contemporaneous time frame juxtaposed with the COVID-19 pandemic and may represent a new peri-pandemic norm. Thus, these reference values will be useful for future clinical research.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (2 cycles) significantly improved overall survival versus chemotherapy (4 cycles) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and no known sensitising epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations. We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs; minimum follow-up, 2 years). METHODS: In patients (N = 719) randomised 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone, disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life were assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L). Treatment-phase changes in LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) over time were analysed descriptively and using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Time-to-deterioration/improvement analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment-phase PRO questionnaire completion rates were >80%. Mean treatment-phase changes showed no deterioration from baseline in both arms for LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI; however, minimally important differences were not met. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses showed overall reduction in symptom burden from baseline for both arms; changes from baseline for LCSS 3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI were numerically improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, but minimally important differences were not met. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy delayed time-to-definitive-deterioration versus chemotherapy (LCSS ASBI: hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.87]); results were similar across PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year minimum follow-up, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy reduced the risk of definitive deterioration in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03215706.

Economic Evaluation of Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel for the Treatment of Advanced Squamous and Non-squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer After Prior Chemotherapy in China.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic value of nivolumab versus docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy in adults without epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase aberrations in China. METHODS: Partitioned survival models evaluated lifetime costs and benefits of nivolumab versus docetaxel by squamous and non-squamous histologies from a Chinese healthcare payer perspective. Progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death health states were considered over a 20-year time horizon. Clinical data were derived from the CheckMate pivotal Phase III trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01642004, NCT01673867, NCT02613507); patient-level survival data were extrapolated using parametric functions. China-specific health state utilities, healthcare resource utilisation, and unit costs were applied. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty. RESULTS: Nivolumab resulted in extended survival (1.489 and 1.228 life-years [1.226 and 0.995 discounted]) and quality-adjusted survival benefits (1.034 and 0.833 quality-adjusted life-years) at additional costs of ¥214,353 (US$31,829) and ¥158,993 (US$23,608) versus docetaxel in squamous and non-squamous aNSCLC, respectively. Nivolumab was associated with higher acquisition costs, lower subsequent treatment costs, and lower adverse event management costs than docetaxel in both histologies. Drug acquisition costs, discount rate for outcomes, and average body weight were key model drivers. Stochastic results aligned with the deterministic results. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab yielded survival and quality-adjusted survival benefits at incremental cost versus docetaxel in aNSCLC. As a traditional healthcare payer perspective was applied, the true economic benefit of nivolumab may be underestimated as not all treatment benefits and costs of relevance to society were considered.

Evolution of treatment patterns and survival outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated at Frankfurt University Hospital in 2012-2018.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved outcomes for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus chemotherapy in clinical trials. In Germany, ICIs have been used clinically since 2015 for patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC without epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) aberrations. As part of I-O Optimise, a multinational research program utilizing real-world data on thoracic malignancies, we describe real-world treatment patterns and survival following reimbursement of ICIs for advanced NSCLC in Germany. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC without known EGFR/ALK aberrations who received a first line of therapy at Frankfurt University Hospital between January 2012 and December 2018, with follow-up to December 2019 or death, whichever occurred first. Using electronic medical records, treatment patterns and survival outcomes were described by histology (squamous cell [SQ]; non-squamous cell [NSQ]/other) and time period (pre- and post-ICI approval). RESULTS: Among eligible patients who started first-line treatment, 136 (pre-ICI) and 126 (post-ICI) had NSQ/other histology, and 32 (pre-ICI) and 38 (post-ICI) had SQ histology. Use of an ICI in the NSQ/other cohort increased from 5.9% (all second- or third-line) in the pre-ICI period to 57.1% (22.2% in first-line, including 13.5% as monotherapy and 8.7% combined with chemotherapy) in the post-ICI period. This was paralleled by a significant (P < 0.0001) prolongation of median (95% CI) OS from 9.4 (7.1-11.1) to 14.8 (12.7-20.5) months between the pre-ICI and post-ICI periods. A similar increase in the uptake of ICI was observed for the SQ cohort (from 3.1% pre-ICI [fourth-line] to 52.6% post-ICI [28.9% as first-line, including 15.8% as monotherapy and 13.2% combined with chemotherapy]); however, analysis of survival outcomes was limited by small group sizes. CONCLUSION: These real-world data complement clinical trial evidence on the effectiveness of ICIs in patients with advanced NSCLC and NSQ/other histology in Germany.

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.

Effectiveness of Nivolumab in Second-Line and Later in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Real-Life Practice in France and Germany: Analysis of the ESME-AMLC and CRISP Cohorts.

This study reports characteristics and outcomes in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) receiving nivolumab in second-line or later (2L+) in France and Germany between 2015 and 2020. Patients with aNSCLC (stage IIIB-C/IV) receiving nivolumab in 2L+ were included from the retrospective Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics of Advanced and Metastatic Lung Cancer cohort (ESME-AMLC, France; 2015-2019) and Clinical Research platform Into molecular testing, treatment and outcome of non-Small cell lung carcinoma Patients (CRISP, Germany; 2016-2020). Overall, 2262 ESME-AMLC and 522 CRISP patients were included. Median treatment duration (95% confidence intervals) was 2.8 months (2.5-3.2) in squamous and 2.5 months (2.3-2.8) in non-squamous/others patients in ESME-AMLC, and 2.3 months (1.4-3.1) and 2.3 months (2.0-2.8), respectively in CRISP. One-year and two-year overall survival (OS) were 47.2% and 26.7% in squamous and 50.8% and 32.8% in non-squamous/others patients in ESME-AMLC, and 43.1% and 20.9%, and 37.7% and 18.9%, respectively in CRISP. Poorer performance score and shorter time from start of previous line of therapy initiation were significantly associated with shorter treatment duration and OS. This study confirms, in real-world clinical databases, the efficacy of nivolumab previously observed in clinical trials.

Impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors on the management of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in real-life practice in patients initiating treatment between 2015 and 2018 in France and Germany.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) on treatment patterns and survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in France and Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with aNSCLC without known ALK or EGFR mutations receiving first-line (1L) therapy were included from (i) the retrospective Epidemiological-Strategy and Medical Economics Advanced and Metastatic Lung Cancer cohort (ESME-AMLC, France; 2015-2018) and (ii) the prospective Clinical Research platform Into molecular testing, treatment and outcome of non-Small cell lung carcinoma Patients platform (CRISP, Germany; 2016-2018). Analyses were stratified according to histology. Survival outcomes were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology and stratified by year of 1L therapy. Data sources were analysed separately. RESULTS: In ESME-AMLC and CRISP, 8,046 and 2,359 patients were included in the study, respectively. In both countries, approximately 20 % of all patients received pembrolizumab monotherapy as 1L treatment in 2018. In ESME-AMLC, the proportion receiving an ICI over the course of treatment (any line) increased from 42.2 % (2015) to 56.1 % (2018) in patients with squamous histology, and 28.9 % to 51.9 % with non-squamous/other; in CRISP, it increased from 50.6 % (2016) to 65.2 % (2018) with squamous histology, and 40.8 % to 62.7 % with non-squamous/other. Two-year overall survival from 1L initiation was 36.8 % and 25.6 % in the squamous cohorts and 36.5 % and 30.8 % in the non-squamous/other cohorts in ESME-AMLC and CRISP, respectively. No significant change in overall survival was observed over time; however, the follow-up time available was limited in the later years of the analysis. CONCLUSION: The results of this joint research from two large clinical databases in France and Germany demonstrate the growing use of ICIs in the management of aNSCLC. Future analyses will allow for the evaluation of the impact of ICIs on long-term survival of patients with aNSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

AIM: This economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) plus two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) compared with four cycles of PDC as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC in the United States (US). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed with three mutually exclusive health states: progression free, progressed disease, and death. The analysis was conducted from a US healthcare payer perspective, using a time horizon of 25 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Survival outcomes from CheckMate 9LA were extrapolated with longer follow-up data from CheckMate 227 Part 1 (NIVO + IPI) and validated against data from other relevant clinical trials and real-world registries. Health-related quality of life utility values were derived from EQ-5D-3L data collected in CheckMate 9LA. US-specific costs (2020 dollars) were used for disease management; drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring; end-of-life care; adverse events; and subsequent treatments. Model outcomes included life years (LYs) gained, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for NIVO + IPI + PDC versus PDC. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: NIVO + IPI + PDC was associated with higher projected health benefits than PDC, including gains in LYs (3.71 vs 1.89) and QALYs (2.86 vs 1.37), and higher costs ($317,581 vs $119,909). The ICER was $132,960/QALY gained. NIVO + IPI + PDC had a 78-100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000-$250,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in key parameters. LIMITATIONS: The inherent limitation in extrapolating clinical trial data was mitigated using data from the more mature CheckMate 227 Part 1 trial and validating the outcomes against data from other relevant trials and real-world registries. CONCLUSION: NIVO + IPI + PDC (two cycles) provides a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC that is cost-effective within a range considered acceptable in the US.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

AIM: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) for the first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a third-party payer perspective in the United States (US). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed using efficacy, safety, and utility inputs derived from Part 1 of the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT02477826) with 37.7-month minimum follow-up for overall survival (OS). OS and progression-free (PF) survival were extrapolated over a 20-year time-horizon using parametric spline-based models selected based on goodness of fit and validated with data from external sources. Duration of treatment Kaplan-Meier curves were used for treatment cost calculations. US-specific costs (2021 dollars) for drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring; disease management (PF and progressed disease health states); end-of-life care; adverse events; and subsequent treatments were derived from publicly available sources. Time-to-death utilities were applied in the base case, whereas treatment-specific progression-based utilities were tested in a scenario analysis. Main outcomes included incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Model uncertainty was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: NIVO + IPI resulted in 1.53 additional life-years, 1.33 additional QALYs, and $142 088 in additional costs compared with PDC. The incremental cost per LYG was $92 651, whereas incremental cost per QALY gained was $106 553. The application of treatment-specific progression-based utilities yielded an incremental cost per QALY gained of $117 076. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 98% probability that NIVO + IPI was cost-effective versus PDC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO + IPI was estimated to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for stage IV or recurrent NSCLC in the US, with increased survival and higher cost compared with PDC.

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.

Real-world effectiveness of immunotherapies in pre-treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer Patients: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown immunotherapy (IO) to be more effective than chemotherapy in pre-treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is a lack of understanding of its effectiveness in clinical practice, and among patient groups that are often underrepresented in trials. We aimed to summarize the existing real-world evidence (RWE) on the survival outcomes of IO in second- or higher line in advanced NSCLC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of real-world observational studies that reported overall survival (OS) estimates with IO, primarily nivolumab, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab, in adult, previously treated advanced or recurrent NSCLC patients. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effect models to pool 1- and 2-year OS rates across studies. Additional subgroups were examined among patients treated with IO, including the elderly, those with poor performance status (PS) and those exhibiting metastasis. RESULTS: In total, 66 studies were included, of which 46 (70%) included a nivolumab-specific study arm. Pooled 1-year and 2-year OS rates with nivolumab monotherapy were 45.6% (95% CI; 43.4-47.8) and 28.0% (95% CI; 24.8-31.4), respectively, compared to 43.9% (95% CI; 39.1-48.8) and 20.4% (95% CI; 14.7-27.6) in the mixed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) group. OS rates with nivolumab were slightly lower in elderly compared to non-elderly populations. Poor PS was associated with worse survival rates, with a pooled one-year OS estimate of 27.1% in PS ≥ 2 vs 51.6% in PS < 2. The pooled 2-year OS rate with nivolumab in patients with and without brain metastases was 22.1% and 26.1% respectively, and this difference was significant in 36% of individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: While the OS benefits of IO seen in real-world studies among pre-treated, advanced NSCLC patients are consistent with pivotal clinical trials, these tend to vary for the more vulnerable patient groups, such as patients with poor PS, which are often excluded from trials. Further research is needed to investigate findings in patients with brain and liver metastases.

Trends in treatment patterns and survival outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a Canadian population-based real-world analysis.

BACKGROUND: As part of the multi-country I-O Optimise research initiative, this population-based study evaluated real-world treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) in patients treated for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before and after public reimbursement of immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies in Alberta province, Canada. METHODS: This study used data from the Oncology Outcomes (O2) database, which holds information for ~ 4.5 million residents of Alberta. Eligible patients were adults newly diagnosed with NSCLC between January 2010 and December 2017 and receiving first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB or IV) either in January 2010-March 2016 (pre-I-O period) or April 2016-June 2019 (post-I-O period). Time periods were based on the first public reimbursement of I-O therapy in Alberta (April 2017), with a built-in 1-year lag time before this date to allow progression to second-line therapy, for which the I-O therapy was indicated. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate OS. RESULTS: Of 2244 analyzed patients, 1501 (66.9%) and 743 (33.1%) received first-line treatment in the pre-I-O and post-I-O periods, respectively. Between the pre-I-O and post-I-O periods, proportions of patients receiving chemotherapy decreased, with parallel increases in proportions receiving I-O therapies in both the first-line (from < 0.5% to 17%) and second-line (from 8% to 47%) settings. Increased use of I-O therapies in the post-I-O period was observed in subgroups with non-squamous (first line, 15%; second line, 39%) and squamous (first line, 25%; second line, 65%) histology. First-line use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors also increased among patients with non-squamous histology (from 26% to 30%). In parallel with these evolving treatment patterns, median OS increased from 10.2 to 12.1 months for all patients (P < 0.001), from 11.8 to 13.7 months for patients with non-squamous histology (P = 0.022) and from 7.8 to 9.4 months for patients with squamous histology (P = 0.215). CONCLUSIONS: Following public reimbursement, there was a rapid and profound adoption of I-O therapies for advanced NSCLC in Alberta, Canada. In addition, OS outcomes were significantly improved for patients treated in the post-I-O versus pre-I-O periods. These data lend support to the emerging body of evidence for the potential real-world benefits of I-O therapies for treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.

Three-year follow-up and patient-reported outcomes from CheckMate 078: Nivolumab versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: In the phase 3 CheckMate 078 study, nivolumab prolonged overall survival (OS) and showed a favorable safety profile versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). However, long-term efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life findings with second-line nivolumab are very limited in Asian patients with previously treated aNSCLC. Here, we report updated clinical data and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the phase 3 CheckMate 078 trial with a 3-year minimum follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with aNSCLC and disease progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, safety, and disease-related symptom deterioration assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) by Week 12. Additional PRO assessments were exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: At ≥ 37.3 months follow-up, 3-year OS rates were 19% with nivolumab and 12% with docetaxel; 30% and 0% of responders remained in response for ≥ 3 years, respectively. Incidence of treatment-related adverse events occurring after 2 years was lower than during the first 2 years. No new treatment-related deaths were reported. By Week 12 of treatment, rates of disease-related symptom deterioration were 32% with nivolumab and 47% with docetaxel. Completion rates for PRO questionnaires were ≥ 80% in both arms. Clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in LCSS Average Symptom Burden Index scores and delayed time to first symptom deterioration were observed with nivolumab against docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years, nivolumab continued to demonstrate survival benefit versus docetaxel, exhibiting improvements in disease-related symptoms and overall health status in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated aNSCLC. No new safety signals were observed. These findings are similar to the global population.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in older patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma: Analyses of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data.

BACKGROUND: Malignant mesothelioma is a rare neoplasm associated with asbestos exposure. Characterizing treatment patterns and outcomes of older patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is important to understand the unmet needs of this population. AIM: To evaluate the demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes among older patients diagnosed with advanced MPM in the United States between 2007 and 2013. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data linked with Medicare claims. We included patients who were age 66 or older at the time of their primary MPM diagnosis between 2007 and 2013 and followed them through 2014. Treated patients who received first-line chemotherapy with pemetrexed and platinum within 90 days of diagnosis, second-line, or third-line therapy were identified for evaluation of outcomes. RESULTS: There were 666 older patients with advanced MPM, of whom 82% were male, 87% White, 78% stage IV, and 70% had no mobility limitation indicators at diagnosis. There were 262 patients who received first-line chemotherapy for advanced MPM, most of whom (80%; n = 209) received pemetrexed-platinum. Of these 209 patients, 41% (n = 86) initiated second-line therapy, and 26% (n = 22) initiated third-line therapy. Median overall survival for the cohort of 209 patients was 7.2 months. Patients with epithelioid histology had better median overall survival (12.2 months) compared with other histologies (4.4-5.6 months). Within 90 days of diagnosis of advanced MPM, 78% of patients were hospitalized, 52% visited an emergency department, and 21% had hospice care. The 2-year cost of care was over $100 000 for all patients with advanced MPM treated with first-line pemetrexed-platinum. CONCLUSIONS: Although first-line systemic anticancer treatment was generally consistent with guidelines (e.g., pemetrexed-platinum), poor patient outcomes highlight the need for effective treatment options for older patients with advanced MPM.

Initial treatment and survival in Danish patients diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer (2005-2015): SCAN-LEAF study.

Aim: To describe initial treatment patterns and survival of patients diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Denmark, before immune checkpoint inhibitor and later-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor use. Patients & methods: Adults diagnosed with incident NSCLC (2005-2015; follow-up: 2016). Initial treatments and overall survival (OS) are reported. Results: 31,939 NSCLC patients (51.6% stage IV) were included. Increasing use of curative radiotherapy/chemoradiation for stage I, II/IIIA and IIIB NSCLC coincided with improved 2-year OS. Systemic anticancer therapy use increased for patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC (53.0-60.6%) but not squamous NSCLC (44.9-47.3%). 1-year OS improved in patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC (23-31%) but not squamous NSCLC (22-25%). Conclusion: Trends indicated improved OS as treatments evolved between 2005 and 2015, but the effect was limited to 1-year OS in stage IV disease.

Adverse events and clinical outcomes in patients treated with PD-(L)1 blockade for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aims: To describe, in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, the relationship between baseline immunosuppressive drug (ISD)/corticosteroid (CS) use, as well as the incidence of mild/moderate adverse events (AEs), and the clinical effectiveness of PD (L)-1 blockade. Patients & methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with no evidence (n = 131) or positive evidence (n = 269) of ISD/CS use. Results: Duration of treatment, time to next treatment, progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly reduced for patients with evidence of prior ISD/CS use. Occurrence of mild/moderate AEs did not affect any clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Prior ISD/CS use was associated with a poorer prognosis in advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitors, but the occurrence of AEs had no effect.

What is the article about? Patients with advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) are often treated with a class of drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors. There have been previous reports that treatment with corticosteroids and other drugs that suppress the immune system in the period leading up to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors may result in poorer outcomes, but most of these reports focus on serious adverse events leading to hospitalizations or emergency room visits that result from treatment. This study aimed to determine whether treatment with corticosteroids in these patients had any impact on the occurrence of mild or moderate adverse events and long-term treatment outcomes. What were the results? By looking back at deidentified medical insurance claims from patients with aNSCLC, we found that patients who were treated with corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs (vs those who did not receive these drugs) in the months leading up to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors had poorer treatment outcomes (e.g., shorter overall survival). What do the results of the study mean? This study investigated the real-world outcomes in aNSCLC patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors and found that the use of corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs may have an adverse effect. However, we are unable to rule out the possibility that there was an underlying difference between these two sets of patients that caused the difference in treatment outcomes. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed.