View in EDS

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Lurbinectedin vs. Other Second-Line Treatments for Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Indirect Treatment Comparison of Lurbinectedin vs. Other Second-Line Treatments for Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
Authors: Rengarajan, B.1 (AUTHOR), Hanvesakul, R.2 (AUTHOR), Stack, C.3 (AUTHOR), Wilson, F.4 (AUTHOR), Park, J.4 (AUTHOR), Adeyemi, A.4 (AUTHOR)
Source: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. Feb2022, Vol. 112 Issue 2, pe18-e18. 1p.
Subjects: Lung cancer, Topotecan, Survival rate, Ovarian epithelial cancer, Treatment effectiveness, Overall survival
Abstract: Lurbinectedin received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy based on the results of a single-arm phase 2 basket trial. In this trial, lurbinectedin demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 35.2% and a median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 months. Here, we performed an indirect treatment comparison of lurbinectedin vs relevant second-line treatments for SCLC by means of a network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic literature review (1990–Jan 2021) identified 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of second-line SCLC therapies recommended by NCCN guidelines that met the criteria for the NMA. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) connected Study B-005 to the network of RCTs. The RCT with the most overlap with Study B-005 was used as the target population in the base case, and a MAIC was performed to estimate the relative treatment effect of lurbinectedin vs oral topotecan (central node of the network). Relative treatment effects from the MAIC were used as direct evidence in the NMA. Analyses were conducted in a Bayesian framework for OS and ORR using a fixed-effect NMA, and relative effectiveness was assessed with hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratio. The 3 RCTs included in the NMA were Baize 2020 (carboplatin/etoposide vs oral topotecan), and Eckardt 2007 and von Pawel 2001 (oral topotecan vs IV topotecan). In the base case, Baize 2020 was the target population, which consisted only of patients with platinum-sensitive disease (chemotherapy-free interval ≥90 day); therefore, the platinum-sensitive subgroup of Study B-005 was connected to the network. In the base case analysis, the HR for OS significantly favored lurbinectedin vs oral topotecan, IV topotecan, and carboplatin/etoposide (Table). There was a significant improvement in ORR for lurbinectedin vs oral topotecan; the ORR was similar for lurbinectedin vs carboplatin/etoposide (Table). Two sensitivity analyses were also conducted. In the absence of head-to-head RCTs, indirect treatment comparisons provide a means of estimating the relative efficacy of lurbinectedin vs relevant comparators for the second-line treatment of SCLC. In this NMA, lurbinectedin showed a robust survival benefit for the second-line treatment of platinum-sensitive patients with SCLC compared with platinum rechallenge and vs oral and IV topotecan. Study B-005; NCT02454972 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 154338741
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Indirect Treatment Comparison of Lurbinectedin vs. Other Second-Line Treatments for Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rengarajan%2C+B%2E%22">Rengarajan, B.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hanvesakul%2C+R%2E%22">Hanvesakul, R.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stack%2C+C%2E%22">Stack, C.</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wilson%2C+F%2E%22">Wilson, F.</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Park%2C+J%2E%22">Park, J.</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adeyemi%2C+A%2E%22">Adeyemi, A.</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22International+Journal+of+Radiation+Oncology%2C+Biology%2C+Physics%22">International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics</searchLink>. Feb2022, Vol. 112 Issue 2, pe18-e18. 1p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lung+cancer%22">Lung cancer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Topotecan%22">Topotecan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Survival+rate%22">Survival rate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ovarian+epithelial+cancer%22">Ovarian epithelial cancer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Treatment+effectiveness%22">Treatment effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Overall+survival%22">Overall survival</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Lurbinectedin received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy based on the results of a single-arm phase 2 basket trial. In this trial, lurbinectedin demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 35.2% and a median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 months. Here, we performed an indirect treatment comparison of lurbinectedin vs relevant second-line treatments for SCLC by means of a network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic literature review (1990–Jan 2021) identified 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of second-line SCLC therapies recommended by NCCN guidelines that met the criteria for the NMA. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) connected Study B-005 to the network of RCTs. The RCT with the most overlap with Study B-005 was used as the target population in the base case, and a MAIC was performed to estimate the relative treatment effect of lurbinectedin vs oral topotecan (central node of the network). Relative treatment effects from the MAIC were used as direct evidence in the NMA. Analyses were conducted in a Bayesian framework for OS and ORR using a fixed-effect NMA, and relative effectiveness was assessed with hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratio. The 3 RCTs included in the NMA were Baize 2020 (carboplatin/etoposide vs oral topotecan), and Eckardt 2007 and von Pawel 2001 (oral topotecan vs IV topotecan). In the base case, Baize 2020 was the target population, which consisted only of patients with platinum-sensitive disease (chemotherapy-free interval ≥90 day); therefore, the platinum-sensitive subgroup of Study B-005 was connected to the network. In the base case analysis, the HR for OS significantly favored lurbinectedin vs oral topotecan, IV topotecan, and carboplatin/etoposide (Table). There was a significant improvement in ORR for lurbinectedin vs oral topotecan; the ORR was similar for lurbinectedin vs carboplatin/etoposide (Table). Two sensitivity analyses were also conducted. In the absence of head-to-head RCTs, indirect treatment comparisons provide a means of estimating the relative efficacy of lurbinectedin vs relevant comparators for the second-line treatment of SCLC. In this NMA, lurbinectedin showed a robust survival benefit for the second-line treatment of platinum-sensitive patients with SCLC compared with platinum rechallenge and vs oral and IV topotecan. Study B-005; NCT02454972 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=154338741
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.10.194
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 1
        StartPage: e18
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Lung cancer
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Topotecan
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Survival rate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ovarian epithelial cancer
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Treatment effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Overall survival
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Indirect Treatment Comparison of Lurbinectedin vs. Other Second-Line Treatments for Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rengarajan, B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hanvesakul, R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stack, C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wilson, F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Park, J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adeyemi, A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Text: Feb2022
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 03603016
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 112
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
              Type: main
ResultId 1