A Q-TWiST Analysis Comparing Nivolumab and Therapy of Investigator's Choice in Patients with Recurrent/Metastatic Platinum-Refractory Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

Kim Cocks, Marta Contente, Sarah Simpson, Michael DeRosa, Fiona C Taylor, James W Shaw, Kim Cocks, Marta Contente, Sarah Simpson, Michael DeRosa, Fiona C Taylor, James W Shaw

Abstract

Objectives: In the CheckMate 141 trial (NCT02105636), nivolumab demonstrated survival, health-related quality of life, and healthcare resource utilization benefits vs single-agent therapy of investigator's choice (IC) (methotrexate, docetaxel or cetuximab) in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). We assessed between-treatment differences in quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST).

Methods: Survival data from CheckMate 141 (nivolumab, n = 240; IC, n = 121) was partitioned into toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST), and relapse (REL). TOX was defined as time spent with all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events after randomization, before disease progression. TWiST was defined as time not in TOX or REL. REL was defined as time between disease progression and death. Utility values derived from three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire data from CheckMate 141 were used to calculate Q-TWiST as the utility-weighted sum of the mean duration in each health state.

Results: The between-group difference in Q-TWiST score was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.29) favoring nivolumab (p < 0.001). The nivolumab group experienced significantly longer mean time in TWiST (3.82 vs 2.78 months) and REL (4.02 vs 3.30 months) compared with the IC group (p < 0.001). Mean time in TOX was lower for nivolumab vs IC (0.30 vs 0.37 months, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In CheckMate 141, nivolumab resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful gains (relative difference > 10%) in quality-adjusted survival vs standard of care in patients with R/M SCCHN.

Conflict of interest statement

Kim Cocks, Sarah Simpson, and Fiona Taylor are employees of Adelphi Values, which has received payment from Bristol-Myers Squibb for contracted analyses. Kim Cocks has also received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, EndoMag, and Onyx Pharmaceuticals. James W. Shaw and Marta Contente are employees and shareholders of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Partitioned survival curve for a the nivolumab treatment arm, and b the investigator’s choice treatment arm. REL relapse, TOX toxicity, TWiST time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Threshold analysis using UK norms for utility of TWiST: a absolute difference in Q-TWiST, months with nivolumab compared with IC; b relative gain in Q-TWiST, months with nivolumab compared with IC. Utility values during TOX and REL vary from 0 to 1; the utility value for TWiST is held at 0.805 based on the UK population norm [16] weighted to the CheckMate 141 randomized population. Shading represents absolute and relative gain category for a given utility value of TOX and REL. Relative gain in Q-TWiST: difference between nivolumab and IC divided by median OS in IC arm (5.1 months). aAt a TOX utility value of 1 and a REL utility value of 0, relative gain was 14.9%. IC investigator’s choice, Q-TWiST quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity, REL relapse, TOX toxicity, TWiST time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21332.
    1. Argiris A, Karamouzis MV, Raben D, Ferris RL. Head and neck cancer. Lancet. 2008;371(9625):1695–1709. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60728-X.
    1. Pignon JP, Bourhis J, Domenge C, Designé L. Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses of updated individual data. MACH-NC Collaborative Group. Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy on Head and Neck Cancer. Lancet. 2000;355(9208):949–955. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)90011-4.
    1. Colevas AD. Systemic therapy for metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13(5):e37–e48. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0080.
    1. Sobecki-Ryniak D, Krouse HJ. Head and neck cancer: historical evolution of treatment and patient self-care requirements. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(6):659–663. doi: 10.1188/13.CJON.659-663.
    1. Singer S, Krauss O, Keszte J, Siegl G, Papsdorf K, Severi E, et al. Predictors of emotional distress in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2012;34(2):180–187. doi: 10.1002/hed.21702.
    1. Rhoten BA, Murphy B, Ridner SH. Body image in patients with head and neck cancer: a review of the literature. Oral Oncol. 2013;49(8):753–760. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2013.04.005.
    1. Adelstein DJ, Li Y, Adams GL, Wagner H, Kish JA, Ensley JF, et al. An intergroup phase III comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable squamous cell head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(1):92–98. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.008.
    1. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G, Jr, Fayette J, Guigay J, Colevas AD, Licitra L, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1856–1867. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602252.
    1. Harrington KJ, Ferris RL, Blumenschein G, Jr, Colevas AD, Fayette J, Licitra L, et al. Nivolumab versus standard, single-agent therapy of investigator’s choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CheckMate 141): health-related quality-of-life results from a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(8):1104–1115. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30421-7.
    1. DeRosa M, Cocks K, Taylor F, Bobiak S, Juarez Garcia A, Shaw J. Analyses of healthcare resource utilization in checkmate 141, a phase 3 study of nivolumab versus investigator’s choice in patients with recurrent or metastatic platinum-refractory squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 22nd Annual International Meeting, Boston, MA, USA, May 20–24, 2017.
    1. Gelber RD, Cole BF, Gelber S, Goldhirsch A. The Q-TWiST method. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. pp. 437–444.
    1. Gelber RD, Gelman RS, Goldhirsch A. A quality-of-life-oriented endpoint for comparing therapies. Biometrics. 1989;45(3):781–795. doi: 10.2307/2531683.
    1. Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A. A new endpoint for the assessment of adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4(12):1772–1779. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.12.1772.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Szende A, Janssen B, Cabases J. Self-reported population health: an international perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands; 2014.
    1. Fairclough DL. Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials. 2. London: CRC Press; 2010.
    1. Glasziou P, Simes R, Gelber R. Quality adjusted survival analysis. Stat Med. 1990;9(11):1259–1276. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780091106.
    1. Revicki DA, Feeny D, Hunt TL, Cole BF. Analyzing oncology clinical trial data using the Q-TWiST method: clinical importance and sources for health state preference data. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(3):411–423. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-1579-7.
    1. Huang M, Pietanza MC, Samkari A, Pellissier J, Burke T, Chandwani S, et al. Q-TWiST analysis to assess benefit-risk of pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-positive advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(1):105–116. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0752-0.
    1. McDermott DF, Shah R, Gupte-Singh K, Sabater J, Luo L, Botteman M, et al. Quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma: a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(1):109–119. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1984-3.
    1. Patil S, Figlin RA, Hutson TE, Michaelson MD, Negrier S, Kim ST, et al. Q-TWiST analysis to estimate overall benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated in a phase III trial of sunitinib vs interferon-alpha. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(10):1587–1590. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.149.
    1. Sherrill B, Wang J, Kotapati S, Chin K. Q-TWiST analysis comparing ipilimumab/dacarbazine vs placebo/dacarbazine for patients with stage III/IV melanoma. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(1):8–13. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.298.
    1. Zbrozek AS, Hudes G, Levy D, Strahs A, Berkenblit A, DeMarinis R, et al. Q-TWiST analysis of patients receiving temsirolimus or interferon alpha for treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(7):577–584. doi: 10.2165/11535290-000000000-00000.
    1. Solem CT, Kwon Y, Shah RM, Aly A, Botteman MF. Systematic review and benchmarking of Quality-Adjusted Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) in oncology. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(3):245–253. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2018.1434414.
    1. Hirschmann A, Lupatsch JE, Schwenkglenks M, Panje CM, Matter-Walstra K, Espeli V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in the treatment of head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. 2018;87:104–110. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.10.032.
    1. Tringale KR, Carroll KT, Zakeri K, Sacco AG, Barnachea L, Murphy JD. Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab for treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(5):479–485. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx226.
    1. Ward MC, Shah C, Adelstein DJ, Geiger JL, Miller JA, Koyfman SA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. 2017;74:49–55. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.09.017.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere