Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, everolimus and sunitinib in advanced, unresectable gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: Relative effectiveness of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours
Mohid S. Khan , Elaine Stamp , Cormac Sammon , Tessa Brabander , Wouter W. de Herder , Marianne E. Pavel
{"title":"Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, everolimus and sunitinib in advanced, unresectable gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: Relative effectiveness of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours","authors":"Mohid S. Khan , Elaine Stamp , Cormac Sammon , Tessa Brabander , Wouter W. de Herder , Marianne E. Pavel","doi":"10.1016/j.ejcsup.2021.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Head-to-head comparisons of the efficacy of treatments for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) have not yet been reported. This study used a series of matching-adjusted indirect comparisons to indirectly compare the effectiveness of [<sup>177</sup>Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE to everolimus, sunitinib and best supportive care (BSC) for extending progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced, unresectable gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs and P-NETs. The results of the main analysis suggest that after accounting for differences in key prognostic variables, the hazard of progression was 62% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; confidence interval [CI]<sub>95</sub> 0.25–0.58) and 65% (HR 0.35 CI<sub>95</sub> 0.21–0.59) lower in patients with GI-NETs treated with [<sup>177</sup>Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE than in those treated with everolimus and BSC, respectively. Similarly, the hazard of progression was 64% (HR 0.36 CI<sub>95</sub> 0.18–0.70), 54% (HR 0.46 CI<sub>95</sub> 0.30–0.71) and 79–87% (HR 0.21 CI<sub>95</sub> 0.13–0.32; HR 0.13 CI<sub>95</sub> 0.08–0.22) lower in patients with P-NET treated with [<sup>177</sup>Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE than in those treated with sunitinib, everolimus and BSC, respectively. The hazard of death was 58% (HR 0.42 CI<sub>95</sub> 0.25–0.72), 47% (HR 0.53 CI<sub>95</sub> 0.33–0.87) and 44–64% (HR 0.56 CI<sub>95</sub> 0.36–0.90; HR 0.34 CI<sub>95</sub> 0.20–0.57) lower in P-patients with NET treated with [<sup>177</sup>Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE than in those treated with sunitinib, everolimus and BSC, respectively. While our results must be interpreted with caution given the non-randomised nature of the comparisons and the potential for residual confounding, the magnitude of the effect sizes we observe and their consistency across comparators suggest that [<sup>177</sup>Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE may be a more effective treatment option than everolimus, sunitinib and BSC in advanced, unresectable GEP-NETs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11675,"journal":{"name":"Ejc Supplements","volume":"16 ","pages":"Pages 5-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a1/94/main.PMC8591206.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejc Supplements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359634921000021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Head-to-head comparisons of the efficacy of treatments for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) have not yet been reported. This study used a series of matching-adjusted indirect comparisons to indirectly compare the effectiveness of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE to everolimus, sunitinib and best supportive care (BSC) for extending progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced, unresectable gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs and P-NETs. The results of the main analysis suggest that after accounting for differences in key prognostic variables, the hazard of progression was 62% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; confidence interval [CI]95 0.25–0.58) and 65% (HR 0.35 CI95 0.21–0.59) lower in patients with GI-NETs treated with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE than in those treated with everolimus and BSC, respectively. Similarly, the hazard of progression was 64% (HR 0.36 CI95 0.18–0.70), 54% (HR 0.46 CI95 0.30–0.71) and 79–87% (HR 0.21 CI95 0.13–0.32; HR 0.13 CI95 0.08–0.22) lower in patients with P-NET treated with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE than in those treated with sunitinib, everolimus and BSC, respectively. The hazard of death was 58% (HR 0.42 CI95 0.25–0.72), 47% (HR 0.53 CI95 0.33–0.87) and 44–64% (HR 0.56 CI95 0.36–0.90; HR 0.34 CI95 0.20–0.57) lower in P-patients with NET treated with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE than in those treated with sunitinib, everolimus and BSC, respectively. While our results must be interpreted with caution given the non-randomised nature of the comparisons and the potential for residual confounding, the magnitude of the effect sizes we observe and their consistency across comparators suggest that [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE may be a more effective treatment option than everolimus, sunitinib and BSC in advanced, unresectable GEP-NETs.
期刊介绍:
EJC Supplements is an open access companion journal to the European Journal of Cancer. As an open access journal, all published articles are subject to an Article Publication Fee. Immediately upon publication, all articles in EJC Supplements are made openly available through the journal''s websites.
EJC Supplements will consider for publication the proceedings of scientific symposia, commissioned thematic issues, and collections of invited articles on preclinical and basic cancer research, translational oncology, clinical oncology and cancer epidemiology and prevention.
Authors considering the publication of a supplement in EJC Supplements are requested to contact the Editorial Office of the EJC to discuss their proposal with the Editor-in-Chief.
EJC Supplements is an official journal of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the European CanCer Organisation (ECCO) and the European Society of Mastology (EUSOMA).