Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35356551›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Heterogeneity in Survival with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Its Implications for Survival Extrapolations: A Case Study in Advanced Melanoma.

Victoria Federico Paly, Murat Kurt, Lirong Zhang, Marcus O Butler, Olivier Michielin, Adenike Amadi, Emma Hernlund, Helen M Johnson, Srividya Kotapati, Andriy Moshyk and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01844505 (A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Nivolumab Monotherapy or Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Monotherapy in Subjects With Previously Untreated Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01844505 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Nivolumab Monotherapy or Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Monotherapy in Subjects With Previously Untreated Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorBristol-Myers SquibbRan2013 to 2024Enrolled945ConditionsUnresectable or Metastatic MelanomaArmsNivolumab, Ipilimumab, Placebo for Nivolumab, Placebo for Ipilimumab
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Victoria Federico PalyICON plc, Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, North Wales, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3508-1296
Murat KurtBristol Myers Squibb, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Lirong ZhangICON plc, Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, London, UK.
Marcus O ButlerDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Olivier MichielinCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Adenike AmadiBristol Myers Squibb, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Uxbridge, UK.
Emma HernlundICON plc, Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Stockholm, Sweden.
Helen M JohnsonBristol Myers Squibb, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Uxbridge, UK.
Srividya KotapatiBristol Myers Squibb, Worldwide Medical Affairs, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Andriy MoshykBristol Myers Squibb, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Princeton, NJ, USA.
John BorrillBristol Myers Squibb, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Uxbridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1047-8556
Bristol-Myers Squibb (United Kingdom) · GBBristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USHealth Economics and Outcomes Research (United Kingdom) · GBHealth Outcomes Solutions (United States) · USUniversity Hospital of Lausanne · CHUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Survival heterogeneity and limited trial follow-up present challenges for estimating lifetime benefits of oncology therapies. This study used CheckMate 067 (NCT01844505) extended follow-up data to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric and flexible models in estimating the long-term overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (an immune checkpoint inhibitor combination) in advanced melanoma. Methods: Six sets of survival models (standard parametric, piecewise, cubic spline, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models) were independently fitted to overall survival data for treatments in CheckMate 067 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab) using successive data cuts (28, 40, 52, and 60 mo). Standard parametric models allow survival extrapolation in the absence of a complex hazard. Piecewise and cubic spline models allow additional flexibility in fitting the hazard function. Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provide flexibility by explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity. Sixty-month follow-up data, external ipilimumab data, and clinical expert opinion were used to evaluate model estimation accuracy. Lifetime survival projections were compared using a 5% discount rate. Results: Standard parametric, piecewise, and cubic spline models underestimated overall survival at 60 mo for the 28-mo data cut. Compared with other models, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate long-term overall survival estimates versus external data, higher mean survival benefit over 20 y for the 28-mo data cut, and more consistent 20-y mean overall survival estimates across data cuts. Conclusion: This case study demonstrates that survival models explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity showed greater accuracy for early data cuts than standard parametric models did, consistent with similar immune checkpoint inhibitor survival validation studies in advanced melanoma. Research is required to assess generalizability to other tumors and disease stages. Highlights: Given that short clinical trial follow-up periods and survival heterogeneity introduce uncertainty in the health technology assessment of oncology therapies, this study evaluated the suitability of conventional parametric survival modeling approaches as compared with more flexible models in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitors that have the potential to provide lasting survival benefits.This study used extended follow-up data from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505) to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric models in comparison with more flexible methods for estimating the long-term survival benefit of the immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate estimates of long-term overall survival versus external data than other models tested.In this case study with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in advanced melanoma, extrapolation models that explicitly incorporate differences in cancer survival between observed or latent subgroups showed greater accuracy with both early and later data cuts than other approaches did.

Indexed as

advanced melanomaimmune checkpoint inhibitorimmuno-oncologyipilimumabnivolumabsurvival heterogeneitysurvival modeling

Identifiers

PMID35356551
PMCPMC8958523
OpenAlexW4221048747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.