Everolimus and sunitinib for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

BackgroundEverolimus and sunitinib have been approved for the treatment advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, but have not been compared to each other in a randomized trial and have not demonstrated prolonged overall survival compared to placebo. This study aimed to indirectly compare overall and progression-free among everolimus, sunitinib and placebo across separate randomized trials.MethodsA matching adjusted indirect comparison was conducted in which individual patient data from the pivotal trial of everolimus (n = 410) were adjusted to match the inclusion criteria and average baseline characteristics reported for the pivotal trial of sunitinib (n = 171). Prior to matching, trial populations differed in baseline performance status and prior treatments. After matching, these and all other available baseline characteristics were balanced between trials.ResultsCompared to the placebo arm in the sunitinib trial, everolimus was associated with significantly prolonged overall survival (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.98, p = 0.042).Compared to sunitinib, everolimus was associated with similar progression-free (hazard ratio for death (HR) = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.46–1.53, p = 0.578) and overall survival (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.49–1.31, p = 0.383).ConclusionAfter adjusting for observed cross-trial differences, everolimus treatment was associated with longer overall survival than the placebo arm in the sunitinib trial for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

[1]  S D Walter,et al.  The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  Y. Bang,et al.  Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity , 2011, Clinical epidemiology.

[4]  K. Hess,et al.  Efficacy of RAD001 (everolimus) and octreotide LAR in advanced low- to intermediate-grade neuroendocrine tumors: results of a phase II study. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Eric Q. Wu,et al.  Comparative Efficacy of Vildagliptin and Sitagliptin in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus , 2011, Clinical drug investigation.

[6]  G. Procopio,et al.  Activity of sunitinib in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  Eric Q. Wu,et al.  Comparative efficacy of nilotinib and dasatinib in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials , 2011, Current medical research and opinion.

[8]  T. Gress,et al.  Medical Treatment of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors , 2012, Cancers.

[9]  D G Altman,et al.  Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[10]  M. Parmar,et al.  Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  G. Petersen,et al.  Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs): incidence, prognosis and recent trend toward improved survival. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[12]  E. Raymond,et al.  Safety, pharmacokinetic, and antitumor activity of SU11248, a novel oral multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with cancer. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Joseph C Cappelleri,et al.  Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[14]  Eric Q. Wu,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness Without Head-to-Head Trials , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[15]  L. Kvols,et al.  Evolving Diagnostic and Treatment Strategies for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors , 2011, Journal of hematology & oncology.

[16]  Manal M. Hassan,et al.  One hundred years after "carcinoid": epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  G. Imbens,et al.  Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score , 2002 .

[18]  Keith Abrams,et al.  Use of Indirect and Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Technology Assessment , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[19]  F. Song,et al.  In collaboration with the International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions , 2005 .

[20]  Paula R Williamson,et al.  Aggregate data meta‐analysis with time‐to‐event outcomes , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  G. Imbens,et al.  Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score , 2000 .

[22]  E. Baudin,et al.  Daily Oral Everolimus Activity in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors after Failure of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy: A Phase II Trial , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  J. Stockman,et al.  Everolimus for Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors , 2012 .

[24]  L. Ellis,et al.  Future directions in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors: consensus report of the National Cancer Institute Neuroendocrine Tumor clinical trials planning meeting. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Fynn Rw.  One hundred years after. , 1959 .

[26]  M. Christian,et al.  Novel Designs and End Points for Phase II Clinical Trials , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.