TY - JOUR
T1 - Indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma
AU - Weber, Jeffrey S.
AU - Ascierto, Paolo A.
AU - Middleton, Mark R.
AU - Hennicken, Delphine
AU - Zoffoli, Roberto
AU - Pieters, Anne
AU - Amadi, Adenike
AU - Kupas, Katrin
AU - Kotapati, Srividya
AU - Moshyk, Andriy
AU - Schadendorf, Dirk
N1 - Funding Information:
Bristol Myers Squibb Company (Princeton, NJ, USA).The authors thank the patients and investigators who participated in the CheckMate 238 and EORTC 18071 trials. They acknowledge Ono Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd. (Osaka, Japan) for contributions to nivolumab development. Professional medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Mark Palangio and Michele Salernitano at Ashfield MedComms, an Ashfield Health company, funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (Princeton, NJ, USA).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Background: Nivolumab (an anti–programmed death-1 antibody) is an adjuvant standard of care for patients with high-risk resected melanoma, although a watch-and-wait strategy remains an option. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo, the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy, was conducted in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Methods: An ITC using the Bucher method compared nivolumab with placebo using intention-to-treat population data from the phase III CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs ipilimumab; minimum follow-up, 4 years; NCT02388906) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 (ipilimumab vs placebo; minimum follow-up, ≈4.5 years; NCT00636168) trials. The end-points were recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). To account for cross-trial differences in staging and subsequent therapy, additional analyses examined patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and adjusted post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071, respectively. Results: Nivolumab versus placebo was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–0.68) and OS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45–0.89). Nivolumab versus placebo was also associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40–0.69), DMFS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46–0.83) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.97) in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and in OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46–0.92) in the overall population after adjusting post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071. Conclusion: This ITC shows that adjuvant nivolumab provides clinically meaningful improvements in RFS, DMFS and OS versus a watch-and-wait strategy in high-risk resected melanoma.
AB - Background: Nivolumab (an anti–programmed death-1 antibody) is an adjuvant standard of care for patients with high-risk resected melanoma, although a watch-and-wait strategy remains an option. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo, the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy, was conducted in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Methods: An ITC using the Bucher method compared nivolumab with placebo using intention-to-treat population data from the phase III CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs ipilimumab; minimum follow-up, 4 years; NCT02388906) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 (ipilimumab vs placebo; minimum follow-up, ≈4.5 years; NCT00636168) trials. The end-points were recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). To account for cross-trial differences in staging and subsequent therapy, additional analyses examined patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and adjusted post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071, respectively. Results: Nivolumab versus placebo was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–0.68) and OS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45–0.89). Nivolumab versus placebo was also associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40–0.69), DMFS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46–0.83) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.97) in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and in OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46–0.92) in the overall population after adjusting post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071. Conclusion: This ITC shows that adjuvant nivolumab provides clinically meaningful improvements in RFS, DMFS and OS versus a watch-and-wait strategy in high-risk resected melanoma.
KW - Adjuvant treatment
KW - Anti–programmed death-1 antibody
KW - Distant metastasis-free survival
KW - Indirect treatment comparison
KW - Melanoma
KW - Nivolumab
KW - Overall survival
KW - Recurrence-free survival
KW - Watch-and-wait strategy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117405360&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85117405360&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.08.028
DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.08.028
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85117405360
JO - European Journal of Cancer
JF - European Journal of Cancer
SN - 0959-8049
ER -