ArticleAdvances in therapy2025
Matching-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Tarlatamab Versus Comparator Therapies in England in Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Have Received Two or More Prior Lines of Therapy.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe non-comparative phase 2 DeLLphi-301 trial found that tarlatamab, a bispecific T cell engager immunotherapy, can provide sustained objective response rates and improved survival outcomes for patients with previously treated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). In the absence of direct head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate the efficacy of tarlatamab relative to comparator therapies in England.
methodsThe outcomes of patients in the DeLLphi-301 trial were compared against those of a comparator therapies cohort identified through linkage of population-level real-world databases in England. The study population consisted of patients with relapsed ES-SCLC who received two or more prior lines of therapy and who met key eligibility criteria from the DeLLphi-301 trial. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to estimate the efficacy of tarlatamab relative to available comparator therapies, adjusting for key baseline characteristics to match the patient cohort from DeLLphi-301 with the comparator therapies cohort. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model with robust variance estimation was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for both OS and PFS.
resultsThe analyses included 97 patients enrolled in the DeLLphi-301 trial and 540 patients receiving available treatment options in England. After matching, tarlatamab was associated with improved OS (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.14, 0.43) and PFS (HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.11, 0.31) relative to the comparator therapies. Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses performed by changing the variables for adjustment.
conclusionTarlatamab provides a clinically meaningful survival benefit compared to currently available treatments in England. These findings support the use of tarlatamab as an effective treatment option for patients with previously treated ES-SCLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41060525What OpenQuestion holds
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.