Indirect comparison of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in first-line metastatic lung cancer

Balazs Halmos, Thomas Burke, Chrysostomos Kalyvas, Ralph Insinga, Kristel Vandormael, Andrew Frederickson, Bilal Piperdi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Aim: This study indirectly compared the effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials and methods: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using pooled individual patient data from KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 and published aggregate data from CheckMate 227 Part 1A, with platinum doublet chemotherapy as the anchor. Results: After matching, estimated hazard ratios (95% CI) of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab for overall survival and progression-free survival were 1.07 (0.82, 1.39) and 1.16 (0.93, 1.45), respectively. For objective response rate, the estimated risk ratio (95% CI) was 0.93 (0.71, 1.22) and the risk difference (95% CI) was -2.86%(-11.38, 5.67). Conclusion: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison results demonstrated comparable effectiveness between pembrolizumab monotherapy and nivolumab + ipilimumab as first-line therapies for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor-proportion score ≥1%.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)295-307
Number of pages13
JournalImmunotherapy
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2022

Keywords

  • comparative effectiveness
  • nivolumab
  • non-small-cell lung cancer
  • pembrolizumab

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Immunology
  • Oncology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Indirect comparison of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in first-line metastatic lung cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this