Overall survival indirect treatment comparison between brigatinib and alectinib for the treatment of front-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive non–small cell lung cancer using data from ALEX and final results from ALTA-1L

References

• Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA A Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casal-Mouriño A, Ruano-Ravina A, Lorenzo-González M, et al. Epidemiology of stage III lung cancer: frequency, diagnostic characteristics, and survival. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021;10(1):506–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gainor JF, Varghese AM, Ou SH, et al. ALK rearrangements are mutually exclusive with mutations in EGFR or KRAS: an analysis of 1,683 patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(15):4273–4281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong DW, Leung EL, So KK, et al. The EML4-ALK fusion gene is involved in various histologic types of lung cancers from nonsmokers with wild-type EGFR and KRAS. Cancer. 2009;115(8):1723–1733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koivunen JP, Mermel C, Zejnullahu K, et al. EML4-ALK fusion gene and efficacy of an ALK kinase inhibitor in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(13):4275–4283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camidge DR, Kim HR, Ahn MJ, et al. Brigatinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(21):2027–2039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(9):829–838.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camidge DR, Kim HR, Ahn M-J, et al. Brigatinib versus crizotinib in ALK inhibitor–naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC: final results of phase 3 ALTA-1L trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16(12):2091–2108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mok T, Camidge DR, Gadgeel SM, et al. Updated overall survival and final progression-free survival data for patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the ALEX study. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(8):1056–1064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Workshop 21: indirect treatment comparisons: an interactive workshop on choosing the right tool for the available data [Internet] [cited 2022 Mar 25]. Available from: https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/presentations/91031pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=fa53447c_0
   Google Scholar
• Brigatinib for ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer that has not been previously treated with an ALK inhibitor. Technology appraisal guidance [TA670] [Internet] [cited 2022 Mar 10]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta670
   Google Scholar
• Brigatinib for treating ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after crizotinib. Technology appraisal guidance [TA571] [Internet] [cited 2022 Mar 10]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta571/
   Google Scholar
• Robins JM, Finkelstein DM. Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS clinical trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank tests. Biometrics. 2000;56(3):779–788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi T, Ohashi Y. Adjusting for differential proportions of second-line treatment in cancer clinical trials. Part II: an application in a clinical trial of unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer. Stat Med. 2004;23(13):2005–2022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi T, Ohashi Y. Adjusting for differential proportions of second-line treatment in cancer clinical trials. Part I: structural nested models and marginal structural models to test and estimate treatment arm effects. Stat Med. 2004;23(13):1991–2003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latimer NR, White IR, Abrams KR, et al. Causal inference for long-term survival in randomised trials with treatment switching: should re-censoring be applied when estimating counterfactual survival times? Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(8):2475–2493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber RM, Hansen KH, Paz Ares Rodríguez L, et al. Brigatinib in crizotinib-refractory ALK + NSCLC: 2-year follow-up on systemic and intracranial outcomes in the phase 2 ALTA trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15(3):404–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reckamp KL, Lin HM, Cranmer H, et al. Indirect comparisons of brigatinib and alectinib for front-line ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol. 2022;18(20):2499–2510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faria R, Hernandez Alava M, Manca A, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 17: the use of observational data to inform estimates of treatment effectiveness in technology appraisal: methods for comparative individual patient data [Internet] [cited 2022 Mar 25]. Available from: https://nicedsu.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/tsds/observational-data-tsd
   Google Scholar
• Latimer NR, Abrams KR. NICE DSU technical support document 16: Adjusting survival time estimates in the presence of treatment switching. London (UK): National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott J, Bai Z, Hsieh SC, et al. ALK inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0229179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Sheng Z, Zhang J, et al. Comparison of lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib in ALK inhibitor-naive/untreated ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Chemother. 2021;34(2):87–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swallow E, Patterson-Lomba O, Ayyagari R, et al. Causal inference and adjustment for reference-arm risk in indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis. J Comp Eff Res. 2020;9(10):737–750.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar