Quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma: a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis

Modernizing the assessment and reporting of adverse events in oncology clinical trials using complementary statistical approaches: a case study of the MOTIVATE trial

The reporting of adverse events (AEs) is fundamental to characterize safety profiles of novel therapeutic drug classes, however, conventional analysis strategies are suboptimal tools for this task. We therefore attempted to contribute to the modernization of AE analysis by encompassing the dimension of time, the duration and the recurrent nature of AEs induced by these extended treatment durations. This paper presents and highlights the benefits of alternative approaches to modernize AE analysis based on the MOTIVATE prospective study modeling immune-related AEs (irAEs) in patients with solid tumors (regardless of the primary site) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor irrespective of disease stage. The probability of presenting an irAE over time was estimated using the prevalence function. The time-to-onset (TTO) and the mean number of recurrent irAEs were also assessed. Among the 147 patients analyzed, 39.7% had a melanoma, 37.7% a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 74.8% were treated for metastatic disease. Despite a higher proportion of melanoma patients presenting at least one irAE, the prevalence of irAEs was lower in melanoma than in NSCLC patients over time. TTO analysis showed that irAEs occurred earlier in NSCLC patients whereas melanoma patients experienced more recurrent irAEs over the long-term. The prevalence function of non-metastatic and metastatic patients revealed different long-term toxicity profiles. These alternative methodologies capture different toxicity patterns (time-to-onset, recurrent, acute episodic or long-term moderate AEs) and provide a more consistent safety assessment for new therapeutics, thereby assisting clinicians and health authorities in their therapeutic decision-making processes.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures for advanced skin cancer patients

Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to study quality of life (QOL) in the skin cancer population. Advanced melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) may be associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and treatment side effects; however, it is unclear which PROM is valid and appropriate to use in these populations for both clinical and research purposes. We aimed to identify the PROMs that have been used to measure QOL in advanced skin cancer patients and determine which of these PROMs have been validated to assess QOL outcomes in this population. A PubMed and EMBASE search was conducted from its inception to March 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines with a comprehensive list of search terms under three main topics: (1) PROM; (2) advanced skin cancer; and (3) staging and interventions. We included articles utilizing a PROM measuring QOL and having a patient population with advanced skin cancer defined as melanoma stage > T1a or non-melanoma AJCC stage T3 or greater. Advanced skin cancer patients were also defined as those with metastasis or requiring adjuvant therapy (systemic chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy). Studies were excluded according to the following criteria: mix of low-risk and advanced skin cancer patients in the study population without stratification into low-risk and advanced groups, stage T1a melanoma or mix of stages without stratification, low-risk NMSC, no PROM (i.e., study specific questionnaires), non-English publication, review article or protocol paper, conference abstract, or populations including non-skin cancers. A total of 1,998 articles were identified. 82 met our inclusion criteria resulting in 22 PROMs: five generic health-related (QWB-SA, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D, SF-36, and PRISM), six general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-C36, LASA, IOC, Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, and FACT-G), nine disease-focused or specialized (EORTC QLQ-H&N35, EORTC QLQ-MEL38, EORTC QLQ-BR23, Facial Disability Index, FACT-H&N, FACT-BRM, FACT-B, FACT-M, and scqolit), and two general dermatology (Skindex-16 and DLQI) PROMs. All PROMs have been generally validated except for EORTC QLQ-MEL38. Only two PROMs have been validated in the advanced melanoma population: FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C36. No PROMS have been validated in the advanced NMSC population. The PROMs that were validated in the advanced melanoma population do not include QOL issues unique to advanced skin tumors such as odor, bleeding, itching, wound care burden, and public embarrassment. Breast cancer and head and neck cancer instruments were adapted but not validated for use in the advanced skin cancer population due to the lack of an adequate instrument for this population. This study highlights the need for PROM instrument validation or creation specifically geared toward the advanced skin cancer population. Future studies should aim to develop and validate a PROM to assess QOL in this population.

Early Adverse Event Derived Biomarkers in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Immunotherapy

RATIONALE

Adverse events (AEs) have been shown to have clinical associations, in addition to patient safety assessments of drugs of interest. However, due to their complex content and associated data structure, AE evaluation has been restricted to descriptive statistics and small AE subset for efficacy analysis, limiting the opportunity for global discovery. This study takes a unique approach to utilize AE-associated parameters to derive a set of innovative AE metrics. Comprehensive analysis of the AE-derived biomarkers enhances the chance of discovering new predictive AE biomarkers of clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We utilized a set of AE-associated parameters (grade, treatment relatedness, occurrence, frequency, and duration) to derive 24 AE biomarkers. We further innovatively defined early AE biomarkers by landmark analysis at an early time point to assess the predictive value. Statistical methods included the Cox proportional hazards model for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), two-sample t-test for mean difference of AE frequency and duration between disease control (DC: complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + stable disease (SD)) versus progressive disease (PD), and Pearson correlation analysis for relationship of AE frequency and duration versus treatment duration. Two study cohorts (Cohort A: vorinostat + pembrolizumab, and B: Taminadenant) from two immunotherapy trials in late-stage non-small cell lung cancer were used to test the potential predictiveness of AE-derived biomarkers. Data from over 800 AEs were collected per standard operating procedure in a clinical trial using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5 (CTCAE). Clinical outcomes for statistical analysis included PFS, OS, and DC.

RESULTS

An early AE was defined as event occurrence at or prior to day 30 from initial treatment date. The early AEs were then used to calculate the 24 early AE biomarkers to assess overall AE, each toxicity category, and each individual AE. These early AE-derived biomarkers were evaluated for global discovery of clinical association. Both cohorts showed that early AE biomarkers were associated with clinical outcomes. Patients previously experienced with low-grade AEs (including treatment related AEs (TrAE)) had improved PFS, OS, and were associated with DC. The significant early AEs included low-grade TrAE in overall AE, endocrine disorders, hypothyroidism (pembrolizumab's immune-related adverse event (irAE)), and platelet count decreased (vorinostat related TrAE) for Cohort A and low-grade AE in overall AE, gastrointestinal disorders, and nausea for Cohort B. In contrast, patients with early development of high-grade AEs tended to have poorer PFS, OS, and correlated with PD. The associated early AEs included high-grade TrAE in overall AE, gastrointestinal disorders with two members, diarrhea and vomiting, for Cohort A and high-grade AE in overall AE, three toxicity categories, and five related individual AEs for Cohort B. One low-grade TrAE, alanine aminotransferase increased (vorinostat + pembrolizumab related), was an irAE and correlated with worse OS in Cohort A.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated the potential clinical utility of early AE-derived biomarkers in predicting positive and negative clinical outcomes. It could be TrAEs or combination of TrAEs and nonTrAEs from overall AEs, toxicity category AEs, to individual AEs with low-grade event leaning to encouraging effect and high-grade event to undesirable impact. Moreover, the methodology of the AE-derived biomarkers could change current AE analysis practice from a descriptive summary into modern informative statistics. It modernizes AE data analysis by helping clinicians discover novel AE biomarkers to predict clinical outcomes and facilitate the generation of vast clinically meaningful research hypotheses in a new AE content to fulfill the demands of precision medicine.

Q-TWiST analysis of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer that expresses PD-L1

OBJECTIVE

In the KEYNOTE-355 (KN355) trial, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy demonstrated superior efficacy and manageable safety compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable and metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) with PD-L1 positive (Combined Positive Score [CPS]≥ 10) tumours. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits and risks of pembrolizumab measured by quality-adjusted survival in the trial population.

METHODS

The study used data from the final analysis of KN355. The Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease progression or Toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) analysis was used to compare treatments of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Patients' survival time was partitioned into three health states - toxicity before disease progression (TOX), time without symptoms or toxicity before disease progression (TWiST), and relapse (REL). Utilities for these health states were estimated using EuroQol-5 Dimensions, 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) data collected in KN355. Q-TWiST was derived as the utility-weighted sum of the mean health state durations.

RESULTS

Patients randomised to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy had 3.7 months greater Q-TWiST (relative gain of 18%; P = 0.003) compared to those randomised to chemotherapy at the median follow-up of 44 months, and 4.3 months greater Q-TWiST (relative gain of 20%; P = 0.004) at the maximum follow-up of 52 months. The Q-TWiST gain increased with longer follow-up time.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with statistically significant and clinically important improvement in Q-TWiST compared to chemotherapy in previously untreated PD-L1-positive mTNBC.

Comparative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for BRAF-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Results from a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane published until November 2020. Screening used prespecified eligibility criteria. Following a transitivity assessment across included studies, Bayesian NMA was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 43 publications reporting 15 targeted therapy trials and 42 reporting 18 immunotherapy trials were retained from the SLR and considered for the NMA. Due to substantial between-study heterogeneity with immunotherapy trials, the analysis considered a network restricted to targeted therapies. Among combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib was superior to dabrafenib + trametinib for overall response rate (OR = 1.86; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 1.10, 3.17), superior to vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 0.51; 95 % CrI 0.29, 0.91) and fewer discontinuations due to AEs (OR = 0.45; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.96), and superior to atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer SAEs (OR = 0.41; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.82). Atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib and encorafenib + binimetinib were generally comparable for efficacy endpoints. Among double combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib showed high probabilities of being better for all efficacy and safety endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA confirms that combination therapies are more efficacious than monotherapies. Encorafenib + binimetinib has a favourable efficacy profile compared to other double combination therapies and a favourable safety profile compared to both double and triple combination therapies.

Association of Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Cancer Drug Trials With Survival Outcomes and Drug Class

Importance

Although quality of life (QOL) is an important clinical end point, cancer drugs are often approved based on overall survival (OS) or putative surrogate end points such as progression-free survival (PFS) without QOL data.

Objective

To ascertain whether cancer drug trials that show improvement in OS or PFS also improve global QOL of patients with cancer compared with the control treatment, as well as to assess how unchanged or detrimental QOL outcomes are reported in trial publications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included all patients with cancer in the advanced setting who were enrolled into phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs reporting QOL data and published in English language in a PubMed-indexed journal in the calendar year 2019. The systematic search of PubMed was conducted in July 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Association of QOL outcomes with OS and PFS, framing of unchanged QOL outcomes in trial publications, and the association of favorable framing with industry funding of the trials.

Results

A total of 45 phase 3 RCTs enrolling 24 806 participants (13 368 in the experimental arm and 11 438 in the control arm) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study analyses. Improvement in global QOL with the experimental agent was reported in 11 (24%) RCTs. The RCTs with improved QOL were more likely to also show improved OS vs trials with unimproved QOL (7 of 11 [64%] trials vs 10 of 34 [29%] trials; χ2 = 4.13; P = .04); there was no such association observed for PFS (6 of 11 [55%] trials vs 17 of 34 [50%] trials, χ2 = 0.03; P = .87). Six trials reported worsening QOL, of which 3 (50%) were trials of targeted drugs, and 11 trials reported improvement in QOL, of which 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Of the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, 16 (47%) reported these results in a positive frame, an observation statistically significantly associated with industry funding (χ2 = 6.35; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, a small proportion of RCTs of cancer drugs showed benefit in global QOL with the experimental agent. These results showed an association between QOL benefit and OS benefit but no such association with PFS benefit. Trials that failed to show improved QOL often reported their QOL outcomes more favorably. Non-immunotherapy-targeted drugs led to worse QOL more often than did cytotoxic agents.

Treatment of Advanced Metastatic Melanoma

The introduction in clinical practice of new drug compounds both targeted therapies anti-BRAF and checkpoint inhibitors have largely improved our potential to manage advanced metastatic melanoma patients. This has led to a significant improvement in terms of response rates and particularly in the overall survival (OS). The long-term results of trials with follow-up data of patients treated with targeted or immunotherapies reported median OS rates around 24 months, with 5-year survival rates around 35-40%. As to the drugs currently available and reimbursed by the Italian National Health System, 3 combinations of anti-BRAF/anti-MEK inhibitors are available (dabrafenib/trametinib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib and the most recently introduced encorafenib/binimetinib). As for checkpoint inhibitors, first line immunotherapy is represented by anti-PD1 blockers (nivolumab and pembrolizumab), whilst the anti-CTLA-4 ipilimumab can be used as second line immunotherapy. The decision-making factors that define the best treatment approach in stage IV patients with metastatic melanoma include the mutation pattern, performance status, high/low tumor load, brain metastases, progression pattern (low/fast), and availability of clinical trials. This review will analyze the current therapeutic tools adopted for the treatment of metastatic melanoma patients. It will then focus on the latest results obtained by novel treatments (checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) which can be used in the clinical daily practice.

An update on the safety of nivolumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma

Introduction: Due to its unique mechanism of action as an immune checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab has high antitumor activity, but at the same time this mechanism is responsible for immune-related adverse events that may limit patients' safety and therapy continuation.Areas covered: Long-term safety of nivolumab including 5-year follow-up, safety of nivolumab treatment after ipilimumab therapy, safety of nivolumab in challenging subgroups (elderly, patients with brain metastases, patients with autoimmune disorders), safety of nivolumab in with rare melanoma subtypes (including mucosal melanoma), as well as specificity of AEs reported for nivolumab treatment in melanoma patients in comparison to other cancer types and other immunotherapy molecules, and impact of AEs on response rates and PFS on nivolumab treatment are discussed.Expert opinion: Search for biomarkers that would help us to identify patient populations that may suffer from severe nivolumab toxicity could help in selecting patients that should not be treated with this type of therapy. Novel combinations and immunotherapy drugs including use of NKTR-214 (IL-2 pathway), lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3), local injections of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), or systemic use of T-cell receptors agonists such as OX40, CD137, ICOS-1, could provide regimens with limited toxicity and higher activity.

Evolving impact of long-term survival results on metastatic melanoma treatment

Melanoma treatment has been revolutionized over the past decade. Long-term results with immuno-oncology (I-O) agents and targeted therapies are providing evidence of durable survival for a substantial number of patients. These results have prompted consideration of how best to define long-term benefit and cure. Now more than ever, oncologists should be aware of the long-term outcomes demonstrated with these newer agents and their relevance to treatment decision-making. As the first tumor type for which I-O agents were approved, melanoma has served as a model for other diseases. Accordingly, discussions regarding the value and impact of long-term survival data in patients with melanoma may be relevant in the future to other tumor types. Current findings indicate that, depending on the treatment, over 50% of patients with melanoma may gain durable survival benefit. The best survival outcomes are generally observed in patients with favorable prognostic factors, particularly normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase and/or a low volume of disease. Survival curves from melanoma clinical studies show a plateau at 3 to 4 years, suggesting that patients who are alive at the 3-year landmark (especially in cases in which treatment had been stopped) will likely experience prolonged cancer remission. Quality-of-life and mixture-cure modeling data, as well as metrics such as treatment-free survival, are helping to define the value of this long-term survival. In this review, we describe the current treatment landscape for melanoma and discuss the long-term survival data with immunotherapies and targeted therapies, discussing how to best evaluate the value of long-term survival. We propose that some patients might be considered functionally cured if they have responded to treatment and remained treatment-free for at least 2 years without disease progression. Finally, we consider that, while there have been major advances in the treatment of melanoma in the past decade, there remains a need to improve outcomes for the patients with melanoma who do not experience durable survival.

[Quality of life in immune checkpoint inhibitors trials]

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized oncological management in several tumor types, allowing prolonged tumoral responses. Thus, they are administered over long periods of time and can give specific autoimmune adverse reactions that may have a potential impact on quality of life (QoL). Most of phase III trials with ICI have included an assessment of QoL. In metastatic setting, in comparison with chemotherapy or targeted therapies, they indicate an absence of degradation of the QoL scores or even an improvement of these scores. In adjuvant setting, the deterioration of QoL scores is not clinically significant, regardless of the ICI used. In addition, there is no impairment of quality of life in patients with prolonged treatment duration. However, the measurement of QoL under ICI remains a challenge because of the specificities of these treatments and adapted measurement scales are being developed to improve the assessment of the impact of these treatments on patients' QoL.

The efficacy and safety of combined immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab plus ipilimumab): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, nivolumab and ipilimumab are the most widely used immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy in cancer treatment.

METHODS

We examined data from PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library. Eleven articles fulfilled our criteria, which we divided into 3 groups: nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab (the dose used for monotherapy is 3 mg/kg), nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab (the dose used for monotherapy is 3 mg/kg), and nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3) versus nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1). We measured the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), objective response rate (ORR), and TRAEs in any grade and grade 3 or higher.

RESULTS

The overall effect estimate favored the combined immunotherapy group in terms of the ORR (RR: 1.40, p < 0.001) and PR (RR: 1.50, p < 0.001) than nivolumab alone. Compared with ipilimumab alone, the combined immunotherapy group had better CR (RR: 4.89, p < 0.001), PR (RR: 2.75, p < 0.001), and ORR (RR: 3.31, p < 0.001). Finally, N1I3 showed better PR (RR: 1.35, p = 0.006) and ORR (RR: 1.21, p = 0.03) than N3I1. The incidence of any TRAEs was similar between both groups (RR: 1.05, p = 0.06). However, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) was lower in group N3I1 than group N1I3 (RR: 1.51, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that the curative effect of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was better than that of nivolumab or ipilimumab monotherapy. In the combined immunotherapy group, N1I3 was more effective than N3I1. Although the side effects were slightly increased in N1I3 group, overall safety was acceptable.

Modernizing adverse events analysis in oncology clinical trials using alternative approaches: rationale and design of the MOTIVATE trial

In oncology clinical research, the analysis and reporting of adverse events is of major interest. A consistent depiction of the safety profile of a new treatment is as crucial in establishing how to use it as its antitumor activity. The advent of new therapeutics has led to major changes in the management of patients and targeted therapies or immune checkpoint inhibitors are administered continuously for months or even years. However, the classical methods of adverse events analysis are no longer adequate to properly assess their safety profile. Indeed, the worst grade method and time-to-event analysis cannot capture the duration or the evolution of adverse events induced by extended treatment durations. Many authors have highlighted this issue and argue that the analysis of safety data from clinical trials should be modernized by considering the dimension of time and the recurrent nature of adverse events. This paper aims to illustrate the limitations of current methods and discusses the value of alternative approaches such as the prevalence function, Q-TWiST, the ToxT and the recurrent event approaches. The rationale and design of the MOTIVATE trial, which aims to model the evolution of toxicities over time using the prevalence function in patients treated by immunotherapy, is also presented ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03447483; Date of registration: 27 February 2018).

Treatment-Free Survival: A Novel Outcome Measure of the Effects of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition-A Pooled Analysis of Patients With Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE

Outcome measures that comprehensively capture attributes of immuno-oncology agents, including prolonged treatment-free time and persistent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), are needed to complement conventional survival end points.

METHODS

We pooled data from the CheckMate 067 and 069 clinical trials of nivolumab and ipilimumab, as monotherapies or in combination, for patients with advanced melanoma. Treatment-free survival (TFS) was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two conventional time-to-event end points, each defined from random assignment: time to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was partitioned as time with and without toxicity by a third end point, time to cessation of both ICI therapy and toxicity. Toxicity included persistent and late-onset grade 3 or higher TRAEs. The area under each Kaplan-Meier curve was estimated by the 36-month restricted mean time.

RESULTS

At 36 months, many of the 1,077 patients who initiated ICI therapy were surviving free of subsequent therapy initiation (47% nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 37% nivolumab, 15% ipilimumab). The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (11.1 months) compared with nivolumab (4.6 months; difference, 6.5 months; 95% CI, 5.0 to 8.0 months) or ipilimumab (8.7 months; difference, 2.4 months; 95% CI, 0.8 to 4.1 months); restricted mean TFS represented 31% (3% with and 28% without toxicity), 13% (1% and 11%), and 24% (less than 1% and 23%) of the 36-month period, respectively, in the three treatment groups. TFS without toxicity was longer for nivolumab plus ipilimumab than nivolumab (difference, 6.0 months) or ipilimumab (difference, 1.7 months).

CONCLUSION

The analysis of TFS between ICI cessation and subsequent therapy initiation revealed longer TFS without toxicity for patients with advanced melanoma who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nivolumab or ipilimumab. Regardless of treatment, a small proportion of the TFS involved grade 3 or higher TRAEs.

A Q-TWiST Analysis Comparing Nivolumab and Therapy of Investigator's Choice in Patients with Recurrent/Metastatic Platinum-Refractory Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

OBJECTIVES

In the CheckMate 141 trial (NCT02105636), nivolumab demonstrated survival, health-related quality of life, and healthcare resource utilization benefits vs single-agent therapy of investigator's choice (IC) (methotrexate, docetaxel or cetuximab) in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). We assessed between-treatment differences in quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST).

METHODS

Survival data from CheckMate 141 (nivolumab, n = 240; IC, n = 121) was partitioned into toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST), and relapse (REL). TOX was defined as time spent with all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events after randomization, before disease progression. TWiST was defined as time not in TOX or REL. REL was defined as time between disease progression and death. Utility values derived from three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire data from CheckMate 141 were used to calculate Q-TWiST as the utility-weighted sum of the mean duration in each health state.

RESULTS

The between-group difference in Q-TWiST score was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.29) favoring nivolumab (p < 0.001). The nivolumab group experienced significantly longer mean time in TWiST (3.82 vs 2.78 months) and REL (4.02 vs 3.30 months) compared with the IC group (p < 0.001). Mean time in TOX was lower for nivolumab vs IC (0.30 vs 0.37 months, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In CheckMate 141, nivolumab resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful gains (relative difference > 10%) in quality-adjusted survival vs standard of care in patients with R/M SCCHN.

Q-TWiST Analysis to Assess Benefit-Risk of Pembrolizumab in Patients with PD-L1-Positive Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed significantly longer overall survival and fewer treatment-related adverse events compared to chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors in the first-line setting in KEYNOTE (KN)-024 and in those previously treated in KN010. The objective of this analysis was to assess the benefit-risk of pembrolizumab in terms of quality-adjusted survival amongst patients in these trials.

METHODS

The Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease progression or Toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) analysis was used to compare treatments. Survival time was partitioned into three health states: with toxicity before disease progression, without toxicity before disease progression, and disease progression until death. Health state utilities were estimated using EuroQol-5 Dimensions, 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) data collected in the trials. Q-TWiST was calculated as the utility-weighted sum of the mean health state durations. Trial data analyzed included the primary analysis and subsequent data cutoffs. The base-case analysis was based on the most recent analysis of the trials.

RESULTS

Patients randomized to pembrolizumab had 2.49 months greater Q-TWiST (P value < 0.001) compared to those randomized to platinum-based chemotherapy at a follow-up of 24 months in KN024, and 2.29 months greater Q-TWiST (P value < 0.001) compared to docetaxel over 30 months follow-up in KN010. Results across the trial analyses showed an increase in trend for the Q-TWiST improvement of pembrolizumab over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab showed significant improvement in Q-TWiST compared to chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic NSCLC in both previously untreated and treated patients. The benefits of pembrolizumab continued to accrue with longer follow-ups.