Everolimus and sunitinib for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Experimental Hematology & Oncology

Peter Metrakos⁴  Beth Devine¹  Tomas Haas⁵  Judith Klimovsky³  Xufang Wang³  Evan Kantor²  Elyse Swallow²  James Signorovitch² 

[1] School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Box 357630, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA 98195, USA;Analysis Group, Inc., 111 Huntington Ave 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02199, USA;Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 180 Park Ave, Bldg 105, Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA;McGill University Health Center, Multi-Organ Transplant and Hepatopancreatobiliary Service, Royal Victoria Hospital, 687 Pine Ave West, Montréal, (Québec) H3A 1A1, Canada;Novartis Oncology, Postfach, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland

关键词: Cross-over;    Indirect comparison;    Sunitinib;    Everolimus;    Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors;   

Others  :  810638
DOI  :  10.1186/2162-3619-2-32

 received in 2013-10-14, accepted in 2013-11-26,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Everolimus and sunitinib have been approved for the treatment advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, but have not been compared to each other in a randomized trial and have not demonstrated prolonged overall survival compared to placebo. This study aimed to indirectly compare overall and progression-free among everolimus, sunitinib and placebo across separate randomized trials.

Methods

A matching adjusted indirect comparison was conducted in which individual patient data from the pivotal trial of everolimus (n = 410) were adjusted to match the inclusion criteria and average baseline characteristics reported for the pivotal trial of sunitinib (n = 171). Prior to matching, trial populations differed in baseline performance status and prior treatments. After matching, these and all other available baseline characteristics were balanced between trials.

Results

Compared to the placebo arm in the sunitinib trial, everolimus was associated with significantly prolonged overall survival (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.98, p = 0.042).

Compared to sunitinib, everolimus was associated with similar progression-free (hazard ratio for death (HR) = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.46–1.53, p = 0.578) and overall survival (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.49–1.31, p = 0.383).

Conclusion

After adjusting for observed cross-trial differences, everolimus treatment was associated with longer overall survival than the placebo arm in the sunitinib trial for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Signorovitch et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, Dagohoy C, Leary C, Mares JE, Abdalla EK, Fleming JB, Vauthey JN, Rashid A, Evans DB: One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:3063-3072.
• [2]Halfdanarson TR, Rabe KG, Rubin J, Petersen GM: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs): incidence, prognosis and recent trend toward improved survival. Ann Oncol 2008, 19:1727-1733.
• [3]Kulke MH, Bendell J, Kvols LK, Picus J, Pommier R: Evolving diagnostic and treatment strategies for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Hematol Oncol 2011, 4:29. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Rinke A, Michl P, Gress T: Medical treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Cancers 2012, 4:113-129.
• [5]Yao JC, Phan AT, Chang DZ, Wolff RA, Hess K, Gupta S, Jacobs C, Mares JE, Landgraf AN, Rashid A, Meric-Bernstam F: Efficacy of RAD001 (everolimus) and octreotide LAR in advanced low- to intermediate-grade neuroendocrine tumors: results of a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:4311-4318.
• [6]Yao JC, Lombard-Bohas C, Baudin E, Kvols LK, Rougier P, Ruszniewski P, Hoosen S, St Peter J, Haas T, Lebwohl D, et al.: Daily oral everolimus activity in patients with metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors after failure of cytotoxic chemotherapy: a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:69-76.
• [7]Faivre S, Delbaldo C, Vera K, Robert C, Lozahic S, Lassau N, Bello C, Deprimo S, Brega N, Massimini G, et al.: Safety, pharmacokinetic, and antitumor activity of SU11248, a novel oral multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24:25-35.
• [8]Kulke MH, Lenz HJ, Meropol NJ, Posey J, Ryan DP, Picus J, Bergsland E, Stuart K, Tye L, Huang X, et al.: Activity of sunitinib in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:3403-3410.
• [9]Afinitor [package insert]. http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/product/pi/pdf/afinitor.pdf webcite
• [10]Sutent [package insert]. http://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=607 webcite
• [11]Clinical Practice Guideline on Oncology - Neuroendocrine Tumors [http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/neuroendocrine.pdf webcite]
• [12]Raymond E, Dahan L, Raoul JL, Bang YJ, Borbath I, Lombard-Bohas C, Valle J, Metrakos P, Smith D, Vinik A, et al.: Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med 2011, 364:501-513.
• [13]FDA: Oncology Drugs Advisory - FDA review: sNDA 21,938. In Book Oncology Drugs Advisory - FDA review: sNDA 21,938. City: Food and Drug Administration; 2011.
• [14]EMA: Assessment report for sutent (sunitinib). In Book Assessment Report for Sutent (sunitinib). City: European Medicines Agency; 2010.
• [15]Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC: Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health 2011, 14:417-428.
• [16]Mills EJ, Bansback N, Ghement I, Thorlund K, Kelly S, Puhan MA, Wright J: Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 3:193-202.
• [17]Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD: The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:683-691.
• [18]Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D’Amico R, Bradburn M, Eastwood AJ, International Stroke Trial Collaborative G: Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005, 9:1-134. iii-iv
• [19]Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K: Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26:753-767.
• [20]Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, Gerrits CM, Kantor E, Bao Y, Gupta SR, Mulani PM: Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics 2010, 28:935-945.
• [21]Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Swallow E, Kantor E, Fan L, Gruenberger JB: Comparative efficacy of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials. Clin Drug Investig 2011, 31:665-674.
• [22]Yao JC, Shah MH, Ito T, Bohas CL, Wolin EM, Van Cutsem E, Hobday TJ, Okusaka T, Capdevila J, de Vries EG, et al.: Everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med 2011, 364:514-523.
• [23]Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L: Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 1998, 17:2815-2834.
• [24]Williamson PR, Smith CT, Hutton JL, Marson AG: Aggregate data meta-analysis with time-to-event outcomes. Stat Med 2002, 21:3337-3351.
• [25]Engauge Digitizer. http://digitizer.sourceforge.net/ webcite
• [26]Protocol A6181111. http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org/documents/company-study_8958_0.pdf webcite
• [27]Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Betts KA, Parikh K, Kantor E, Guo A, Bollu VK, Williams D, Wei LJ, DeAngelo DJ: Comparative efficacy of nilotinib and dasatinib in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials. Curr Med Res Opin 2011, 27:1263-1271.
• [28]Hirano K, Imbens GW, Ridder G: Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. In Book Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score. City: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc; 2000.
• [29]Kulke MH, Siu LL, Tepper JE, Fisher G, Jaffe D, Haller DG, Ellis LM, Benedetti JK, Bergsland EK, Hobday TJ, et al.: Future directions in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors: consensus report of the National Cancer Institute Neuroendocrine Tumor clinical trials planning meeting. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:934-943.
• [30]Adjei AA, Christian M, Ivy P: Novel designs and end points for phase II clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 2009, 15:1866-1872.