Search

A network meta-analysis allows a simultaneous comparison between treatments evaluated in randomised controlled trials that share at least one treatment with at least one other study. Estimates of treatment effects may be required for treatments across disconnected networks of evidence, which requires a different statistical approach and modelling assumptions to account for imbalances in prognostic variables and treatment effect modifiers between studies. In this paper, we review and discuss methods for comparing treatments evaluated in studies that form disconnected networks of evidence. Several methods have been proposed but assessing which are appropriate often depends on the clinical context as well as the availability of data. Most methods account for sampling variation but do not always account for others sources of uncertainty. We suggest that further research is required to assess the properties of methods and the use of approaches that allow the incorporation of external information to reflect parameter and structural uncertainty.

Background: Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic immunotherapy approved in the US, Europe, Australia and Switzerland. We report the final planned analysis of OPTiM, a randomized open-label phase III trial in patients with unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1c melanoma. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intratumoral talimogene laherparepvec or subcutaneous recombinant GM-CSF. In addition to overall survival (OS), durable response rate (DRR), objective response rate (ORR), complete responses (CR), and safety are also reported. All final analyses are considered to be descriptive and treatment responses were assessed by the investigators. Results: Of 436 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 295 were allocated to talimogene laherparepvec and 141 to GM-CSF. Median follow-up in the final OS analysis was 49months. Median OS was 23.3months (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.5-29.6) and 18.9months (95% CI, 16.0-23.7) in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively (unstratified hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-1.00; p = 0.0494 [descriptive]). DRR was 19.0 and 1.4% (unadjusted odds ratio, 16.6; 95% CI, 4.0-69.2; p < 0.0001); ORR was 31.5 and 6.4%. Fifty (16.9%) and 1 (0.7%) patient in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively, achieved CR. In talimogene laherparepvec-treated patients, median time to CR was 8.6 months; median CR duration was not reached. Among patients with a CR, 88.5% were estimated to survive at a 5-year landmark analysis. Talimogene laherparepvec efficacy was more pronounced in stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma as already described in the primary analysis. The safety reporting was consistent with the primary OPTiM analysis. Conclusions: In this final planned OPTiM analysis, talimogene laherparepvec continued to result in improved longer-term efficacy versus GM-CSF and remained well tolerated. The final analysis also confirms that talimogene laherparepvec was associated with durable CRs that were associated with prolonged survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Europe, treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with panitumumab requires prior confirmation of RAS wild-type mutation status. Two studies - a physician survey and a medical records review (MRR) - were conducted to evaluate the use of panitumumab and awareness among prescribing oncologists of the associated RAS testing requirements in clinical practice.Methods: Both studies enrolled participants from nine European countries and were carried out in three consecutive rounds. Rounds 1 and 2 (2012-2013) examined KRAS (exon 2) testing only; the results have been published in full previously. Round 3 (2014-2015) examined full RAS testing (exons 2, 3, 4 of KRAS and NRAS) and was initiated following a change in prescribing guidelines, from requiring KRAS alone to requiring full RAS testing. For the physician survey, telephone interviews were conducted with oncologists who had prescribed panitumumab to patients with mCRC in the previous 6 months. For the MRR, oncologists were asked to provide anonymised clinical information, extracted from their patients' records.Results: In Round 3, 152 oncologists and 131 patients' records were included in the physician survey and MRR, respectively. In Round 3 of the physician survey, 95.4% (n = 145) of participants correctly identified that panitumumab should only be prescribed in RAS wild-type mCRC compared with 99.0% (n = 298) of 301 participants in Rounds 1 and 2, responding to the same question about KRAS testing. In Round 3 of the MRR, 100% (n = 131) of patients included in the study had confirmed KRAS or RAS wild-type status prior to initiation of panitumumab compared with 97.7% (n = 299) of 306 patients in Rounds 1 and 2 (KRAS only). Of those patients in Round 3, 83.2% (n = 109) had been tested for RAS status and 16.8% (n = 22) had been tested for KRAS status only.Conclusions: Physicians' adherence to prescribing guidelines has remained high over time in Europe, despite the change in indication for panitumumab treatment, from KRAS to RAS wild-type mCRC. Additionally, this study demonstrates the uptake of full RAS testing among the majority of oncologists and pathologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Talimogene laherparepvec is the first oncolytic immunotherapy to receive approval in Europe, the USA and Australia. In the randomized, open-label Phase III OPTiM trial (NCT00769704), talimogene laherparepvec significantly improved durable response rate (DRR) versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in 436 patients with unresectable stage IIIB-IVM1c melanoma. The median overall survival (OS) was longer versus GM-CSF in patients with earlier-stage melanoma (IIIB-IVM1a). Here, we report a detailed subgroup analysis of the OPTiM study in patients with IIIB-IVM1a disease. Patients and methods: The patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) to intralesional talimogene laherparepvec or subcutaneous GM-CSF and were evaluated for DRR, overall response rate (ORR), OS, safety, benefit-risk and numbers needed to treat. Descriptive statistics were used for subgroup comparisons. Results: Among 249 evaluated patients with stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma, DRR was higher with talimogene laherparepvec compared with GM-CSF (25.2% versus 1.2%; P<0.0001). ORR was also higher in the talimogene laherparepvec arm (40.5% versus 2.3%; P<0.0001), and 27 patients in the talimogene laherparepvec arm had a complete response, compared with none in GM-CSF-treated patients. The incidence rates of exposure-adjusted adverse events (AE) and serious AEs were similar with both treatments. Conclusion: The subgroup of patients with stage IIIB, IIIC and IVM1a melanoma (57.1% of the OPTiM intent-to-treat population) derived greater benefit in DRR and ORR from talimogene laherparepvec compared with GM-CSF. Talimogene laherparepvec was well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]