Cargando…
Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
INTRODUCTION: Few randomized controlled trials have compared new treatments for metastatic melanoma. We sought to examine the relative treatment effect of talimogene laherparepvec compared with ipilimumab and vemurafenib. METHODS: A systematic literature review of treatments for metastatic melanoma...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4846697/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x |
_version_ | 1782429083089502208 |
---|---|
author | Quinn, Casey Ma, Qiufei Kudlac, Amber Palmer, Stephen Barber, Beth Zhao, Zhongyun |
author_facet | Quinn, Casey Ma, Qiufei Kudlac, Amber Palmer, Stephen Barber, Beth Zhao, Zhongyun |
author_sort | Quinn, Casey |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Few randomized controlled trials have compared new treatments for metastatic melanoma. We sought to examine the relative treatment effect of talimogene laherparepvec compared with ipilimumab and vemurafenib. METHODS: A systematic literature review of treatments for metastatic melanoma was undertaken but a valid network of evidence could not be established because of a lack of comparative data or studies with sufficient common comparators. A conventional adjusted indirect treatment comparison via network meta-analysis was, therefore, not feasible. Instead, a meta-analysis of absolute efficacy was undertaken, adjusting overall survival (OS) data for differences in prognostic factors between studies using a published algorithm. RESULTS: Four trials were included in the final indirect treatment comparison: two of ipilimumab, one of vemurafenib, and one of talimogene laherparepvec. Median OS for ipilimumab and vemurafenib increased significantly when adjustment was applied, demonstrating that variation in disease and patient characteristics was biasing OS estimates; adjusting for this made the survival data more comparable. For both ipilimumab and vemurafenib, the adjustments improved Kaplan–Meier OS curves; the observed talimogene laherparepvec OS curve remained above the adjusted OS curves for ipilimumab and vemurafenib, showing that long-term survival could differ from the observed medians. CONCLUSION: Even with limited data, talimogene laherparepvec, ipilimumab, and vemurafenib could be compared following adjustments, thereby providing a more reliable understanding of the relative effect of treatment on survival in a more comparable patient population. The results of this analysis suggest that OS with talimogene laherparepvec is at least as good as with ipilimumab and vemurafenib and improvement was more pronounced in patients with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral metastases. FUNDING: Amgen Inc. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4846697 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Springer Healthcare |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48466972016-05-21 Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma Quinn, Casey Ma, Qiufei Kudlac, Amber Palmer, Stephen Barber, Beth Zhao, Zhongyun Adv Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: Few randomized controlled trials have compared new treatments for metastatic melanoma. We sought to examine the relative treatment effect of talimogene laherparepvec compared with ipilimumab and vemurafenib. METHODS: A systematic literature review of treatments for metastatic melanoma was undertaken but a valid network of evidence could not be established because of a lack of comparative data or studies with sufficient common comparators. A conventional adjusted indirect treatment comparison via network meta-analysis was, therefore, not feasible. Instead, a meta-analysis of absolute efficacy was undertaken, adjusting overall survival (OS) data for differences in prognostic factors between studies using a published algorithm. RESULTS: Four trials were included in the final indirect treatment comparison: two of ipilimumab, one of vemurafenib, and one of talimogene laherparepvec. Median OS for ipilimumab and vemurafenib increased significantly when adjustment was applied, demonstrating that variation in disease and patient characteristics was biasing OS estimates; adjusting for this made the survival data more comparable. For both ipilimumab and vemurafenib, the adjustments improved Kaplan–Meier OS curves; the observed talimogene laherparepvec OS curve remained above the adjusted OS curves for ipilimumab and vemurafenib, showing that long-term survival could differ from the observed medians. CONCLUSION: Even with limited data, talimogene laherparepvec, ipilimumab, and vemurafenib could be compared following adjustments, thereby providing a more reliable understanding of the relative effect of treatment on survival in a more comparable patient population. The results of this analysis suggest that OS with talimogene laherparepvec is at least as good as with ipilimumab and vemurafenib and improvement was more pronounced in patients with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral metastases. FUNDING: Amgen Inc. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Healthcare 2016-03-15 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4846697/ /pubmed/26979173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x Text en © The Author(s) 2016 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Quinn, Casey Ma, Qiufei Kudlac, Amber Palmer, Stephen Barber, Beth Zhao, Zhongyun Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma |
title | Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma |
title_full | Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma |
title_fullStr | Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma |
title_full_unstemmed | Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma |
title_short | Indirect Treatment Comparison of Talimogene Laherparepvec Compared with Ipilimumab and Vemurafenib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Melanoma |
title_sort | indirect treatment comparison of talimogene laherparepvec compared with ipilimumab and vemurafenib for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4846697/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0313-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT quinncasey indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma AT maqiufei indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma AT kudlacamber indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma AT palmerstephen indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma AT barberbeth indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma AT zhaozhongyun indirecttreatmentcomparisonoftalimogenelaherparepveccomparedwithipilimumabandvemurafenibforthetreatmentofpatientswithmetastaticmelanoma |