Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of ribociclib and palbociclib in HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer

• Main Authors: Tremblay G, Chandiwana D, Dolph M, Hearnden J, Forsythe A, Monaco M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dove Medical Press 2018-05-01
• Series: Cancer Management and Research
• Subjects: breast cancer; indirect treatment comparison; matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison; ribociclib; palbociclib
• Online Access: https://www.dovepress.com/matching-adjusted-indirect-treatment-comparison-of-ribociclib-and-palb-peer-reviewed-article-CMAR

Gabriel Tremblay,1 David Chandiwana,2 Mike Dolph,1 Jaclyn Hearnden,1 Anna Forsythe,1 Mauricio Monaco2 1Purple Squirrel Economics, New York, NY, USA; 2Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA Background: Ribociclib (RIBO) and palbociclib (PALBO), combined with letrozole (LET), have been evaluated as treatments for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in separate Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but not head-to-head. Population differences can lead to biased results by classical indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) aims to correct these differences. We compared RIBO and PALBO in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer using MAIC. Methods: Patient-level data were available for RIBO (MONALEESA-2), while only published summary data were available for PALBO (PALOMA-2). Weights were assigned to MONALEESA-2 patient data such that mean baseline characteristics matched those reported for PALOMA-2; the resulting matched cohort was used in comparisons. Limited by the results reported in PALOMA-2, progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary comparison. Cox regression models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS, before indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was performed with 95% confidence intervals. An exploratory analysis was performed similarly for overall survival using earlier PALBO data (PALOMA-1). Grade 3/4 adverse events were also compared. Results: Racial characteristics, prior chemotherapy setting, and the extent of metastasis were the most imbalanced baseline characteristics. The unadjusted PFS HRs were 0.556 (0.429, 0.721) for RIBO+LET versus LET alone and 0.580 (0.460, 0.720) for PALBO+LET versus LET alone. MAIC adjustment resulted in an HR of 0.524 (0.406, 0.676) for RIBO+LET versus LET. PFS ITC using unadjusted trial data produced an HR of 0.959 (0.681, 1.350) for RIBO versus PALBO, or 0.904 (0.644, 1.268) with MAIC. Unadjusted overall survival HR of RIBO versus PALBO was 0.918 (0.492, 1.710); while exploratory MAIC was 0.839 (0.440, 1.598). ITC of grade 3/4 adverse events yielded a risk ratio of 0.806 (0.604, 1.076). Conclusion: MAIC was performed for RIBO and PALBO in the absence of a head-to-head trial: though not statistically significant, the results favored RIBO. Keywords: breast cancer, indirect treatment comparison, matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison, ribociclib, palbociclib