BackgroundMany studies have compared real-world clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with reported outcomes data from pivotal trials.... Show moreBackgroundMany studies have compared real-world clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with reported outcomes data from pivotal trials. However, any differences observed could be only limitedly explored further for causation because of the unavailability of individual patient data (IPD) from trial participants. The present study aims to explore the additional benefit of comparison with IPD.MethodsThis study compares progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of metastatic NSCLC patients treated with second line nivolumab in real-world clinical practice (n = 141) with IPD from participants in the Checkmate-057 clinical trial (n = 292). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to construct HRs for real-world practice versus clinical trial.ResultsReal-world patients were older (64 vs. 61 years), had more often ECOG PS ≥ 2 (5 vs. 0%) and were less often treated with subsequent anti-cancer treatment (28.4 vs. 42.5%) compared to trial patients. The median PFS in real-world patients was longer (3.84 (95%CI: 3.19-5.49) vs 2.30 (2.20-3.50) months) and the OS shorter than in trial participants (8.25 (6.93-13.2) vs. 12.2 (9.90-15.1) months). Adjustment with available patient characteristics, led to a shift in the hazard ratio (HR) for OS, but not for PFS (HRs from 1.13 (0.88-1.44) to 1.07 (0.83-1.38), and from 0.82 (0.66-1.03) to 0.79 (0.63-1.00), respectively).ConclusionsThis study is an example how IPD from both real-world and trial patients can be applied to search for factors that could explain an efficacy-effectiveness gap. Making IPD from clinical trials available to the international research community allows this. Show less
Ismail, R.K.; Suijkerbuijk, K.P.M.; Boer, A. de; Dartel, M. van; Hilarius, D.L.; Pasmooij, A.M.G.; ... ; Wouters, M.W.J.M. 2022
Recent results of patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors in clinical trials showed 5-year survival in one-third of patients with a median overall survival (OS)... Show moreRecent results of patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors in clinical trials showed 5-year survival in one-third of patients with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years. This study aimed to investigate these patients' real-world survival and identify the characteristics of long-term survivors. The study population consisted of patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma with a BRAF-V600 mutated tumor who were treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors between 2013 and 2017. Long-term survival was defined as a minimum OS of 2 years from start therapy. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) of real-world patients (n = 435) were respectively 8.0 (95% CI, 6.8-9.4) and 11.7 (95% CI, 10.3-13.5) months. Two-year survival was reached by 28% of the patients, 22% reached 3-year survival and 19% reached 4-year survival. Real-world patients often had brain metastases (41%), stage IV M1c disease (87%), ECOG PS >= 2 (21%), >= 3 organ sites (62%) and elevated LDH of >= 250 U/I (49%). Trial-eligible real-world patients had an mOS of 17.9 months. Patients surviving more than 2 years (n = 116) more often had an ECOG PS <= 1 (83%), normal LDH (60%), no brain metastases (60%), no liver metastases (63%) and <3 organ sites (60%). Long-term survival of real-world patients treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors is significantly lower than that of trial patients, which is probably explained by poorer baseline characteristics of patients treated in daily practice. Long-term survivors generally had more favorable characteristics with regard to age, LDH level and metastatic sites, compared to patients not reaching long-term survival. Show less
Ismaila, R.K.; Breeschoten, J. van; Wouters, M.W.J.M.; Dartel, M. van; Flier, S. van der; Reyners, A.K.L.; ... ; Hilarius, D.L. 2022
Postapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for... Show morePostapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for advanced melanoma patients. We aimed to investigate whether a patient registry can complement or even replace postapproval trials. Postapproval single-arm clinical trial data from the Medicines Evaluation Board and real-world data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were used. The study population consisted of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with targeted therapies (BRAF- or BRAF-MEK inhibitors) in the first line. A Cox hazard regression model and a propensity score matching (PSM) model were used to compare the two patient populations. Compared to patients treated in postapproval trials (n = 467), real-world patients (n = 602) had significantly higher age, higher ECOG performance status, more often >= 3 organ involvement and more symptomatic brain metastases. Lactate dehydrogenase levels were similar between both groups. The unadjusted median overall survival (mOS) in postapproval clinical trial patients was 8.7 (95% CI, 8.1-10.4) months compared to 7.2 (95% CI, 6.5-7.7) months (P < 0.01) in real-world patients. With the Cox hazard regression model, survival was adjusted for prognostic factors, which led to a statistically insignificant difference in mOS for trial and real-world patients of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.9-10.4) months compared to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.3-7.9) months, respectively. The PSM model resulted in 310 matched patients with similar survival (P = 0.9). Clinical outcomes of both data sources were similar. Registries could be a complementary data source to postapproval clinical trials to establish information on clinical outcomes in specific subpopulations. Copyright (c) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Show less
Bornert, O.; Peking, P.; Bremer, J.; Koller, U.; Akker, P.C. van den; Aartsma-Rus, A.; ... ; Nystrom, A. 2017
