Population-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparisons of Repotrectinib Among Patients with ROS1+ NSCLC

Популяционно скорректированные косвенные сравнительные исследования репотректиниба у пациентов с ROS1+ немелкоклеточным раком лёгкого
Byoung Chul Cho, D. Ross Camidge, Alexander Drilon, Dieter Ayers, Sarah Goring, Yong Yuan, Adam Lee, Jürgen Wolf, C. Calvet, Greta Lozano‐Ortega, Ellen Korol, SARAH G.C. KORPACH, Madeleine Crabtree, Lavanya Huria
2025-02-22

ROS1+ non-small-cell lung cancermatching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC)objective response rate (ORR)progression-free survival (PFS)repotrectinib
BACKGROUND: locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). METHODS: Using evidence from a systematic literature review, unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to estimate population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and DoR and odds ratios (ORs) for ORR for repotrectinib vs. crizotinib and vs. entrectinib among patients with TKI-naïve aNSCLC. The MAICs were adjusted for imbalances in baseline patient characteristics that were pre-specified as being prognostic or predictive of treatment effects. Weighted Cox (for PFS and DoR) and logistic (for ORR) regression models were fit. Supplementary analyses (SAs) explored the impact of missing data and modeling assumptions on effect estimates. RESULTS: The evidence base was formed by TRIDENT-1 EXP-1 (repotrectinib; N = 71), a pooled set of five trials involving crizotinib (N = 273), and the pooled ALKA-372-001/STARTRK-1 and -2 trials (entrectinib; N = 168). After population adjustment, repotrectinib was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS relative to crizotinib (HR = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29, 0.67) and entrectinib (HR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.91). Differences in ORR and DoR were not statistically significant but numerically favored repotrectinib. SAs were consistent with the main analyses across all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: aNSCLC.
1
Objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) differences favored repotrectinib numerically versus crizotinib and entrectinib but were not statistically significant.
2
Repotrectinib showed significantly improved PFS versus entrectinib (HR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36–0.91) after population adjustment.
3
Supplementary analyses exploring missing data and modeling assumptions produced results consistent with the primary MAIC findings.
4
Using unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs), repotrectinib showed significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib (HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.29–0.67) in TKI-naïve ROS1+ aNSCLC patients.

Repotrectinib compared to crizotinib and entrectinib in patients with ROS1-positive advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC)

Population-adjusted comparative effectiveness on progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), and objective response rate (ORR) estimated via unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs)

Publication Details
Publication Date
2025-02-22
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
3
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Byoung Chul Cho
D. Ross Camidge
Alexander Drilon
Dieter Ayers
Sarah Goring
Yong Yuan
Adam Lee
Jürgen Wolf
C. Calvet
Greta Lozano‐Ortega
Ellen Korol
SARAH G.C. KORPACH
Madeleine Crabtree
Lavanya Huria
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%