Indirect treatment comparison of bevacizumab + interferon-α-2a vs tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy
Gerald HJ Mickisch1, Björn Schwander2, Bernard Escudier3, Joaquim Bellmunt4, José P Maroto5, Camillo Porta6, Stefan Walzer7, Uwe Siebert8,9
1Department of Urology, Center of Operative Urology Bremen, Bremen, Germany; 2Department of Outcomes Research, AiM GmbH Assessment-in-Medicine, Lörrach, Germany; 3Immunotherapy Unit, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; 4Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital del Mar UPF, Barcelona, Spain; 5Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; 6Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Matteo University Hospital Foundation, Pavia, Italy; 7Global Health Economics, F Hoffmann-La Roche Pharmaceuticals AG, Basel, Switzerland; 8Department of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria; 9Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Background: The vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab (BEV) given in combination with interferon-α-2a (IFN), and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sunitinib (SUN) and pazopanib (PAZ), have all shown significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) therapy. These targeted therapies are currently competing to be primary choice; hence, in the absence of direct head-to-head comparison, there is a need for valid indirect comparison assessment.
Methods: Standard indirect comparison methods were applied to independent review PFS data of the pivotal Phase III trials, to determine indirect treatment comparison hazard-ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). As BEV+IFN and SUN have been compared to IFN, indirect comparison was enabled by the common IFN comparator arms. As PAZ was compared to placebo (PLA), a connector trial (IFN vs PLA) was required for the indirect comparison to BEV+IFN. Sensitivity analyses taking into account real-life influence of patient compliance on clinical outcomes were performed.
Results: The indirect efficacy comparison resulted in a statistically nonsignificant PFS difference of BEV+IFN vs SUN (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.78–1.45; P = 0.73) and of BEV+IFN vs PAZ (range based on different connector trials; HR: 0.74–1.03; P = 0.34–0.92). Simulating real-life patient compliance and its effectiveness impact showed an increased tendency towards BEV+IFN without reaching statistical significance.
Conclusions: There is no statistically significant PFS difference between BEV+IFN and TKIs in first-line mRCC. These findings imply that additional treatment decision criteria such as tolerability and therapy sequencing need to be considered to guide treatment decisions.
Keywords: indirect treatment comparison, progression-free survival, renal cell carcinoma, bevacizumab, sunitinib, pazopanib
This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php