Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 109–119 | Cite as

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

  • David F. McDermottEmail author
  • Ruchit Shah
  • Komal Gupte-Singh
  • Javier Sabater
  • Linlin Luo
  • Marc Botteman
  • Sumati Rao
  • Meredith M. Regan
  • Michael Atkins
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma based on a minimum 36-month follow-up from the CheckMate 067 trial.

Methods

Overall survival was partitioned into time without symptoms of progression or toxicity (TWiST), time with treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events after randomization but before progression (TOX), and time from progression until end of follow-up or death (REL). Mean quality-adjusted TWiST (Q-TWiST) was calculated by multiplying the mean time spent in each health state by a utility of 1.0 for TWiST and 0.5 for TOX and REL. Sensitivity analyses included varying utilities of TOX and REL; Q-TWiST gains at different follow-up times were calculated using EQ-5D-3L utilities from the trial. Relative Q-TWiST gain of ≥ 10% was considered clinically important.

Results

Compared with ipilimumab-treated patients, those who received nivolumab + ipilimumab combination had significantly longer TWiST and TOX but shorter REL; nivolumab-treated patients had significantly longer TWiST, shorter REL, and shorter but statistically nonsignificant TOX. Mean Q-TWiST was highest for nivolumab + ipilimumab (23.5 months; 95% CI 21.9–25.2), followed by nivolumab (21.8 months; 95% CI 20.2–23.4) and ipilimumab (15.3 months; 95% CI 13.9–16.6). Relative Q-TWiST gains were favorable and clinically important for nivolumab + ipilimumab combination (+ 36.81%) and nivolumab alone (+ 29.18%) versus ipilimumab alone. Relative gains increased with follow-up from 3 to 40 months for all comparisons. These gains remained consistent in magnitude and direction in the different sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Nivolumab + ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone resulted in a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in quality-adjusted survival compared with ipilimumab alone.

Keywords

Q-TWiST Advanced melanoma Nivolumab Ipilimumab Quality-adjusted survival 

Abbreviations

M stage

Metastases stage

PD-1

Programmed death 1

PD-L1

Programmed death ligand 1

Q-TWiST

Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity

RECIST

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors

REL

Time from progression until end of follow-up or death

TWiST

Time without disease progression or symptoms of toxicity

TOX

Time with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events after randomization but before progression

U

Utilities

ULN

Upper limit of normal

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the patients and their families, the clinical study teams, and the investigators who participated in the CheckMate 067 trial. Editorial assistance was provided by Kakoli Parai, PhD, and Cara Hunsberger at StemScientific, an Ashfield Company, funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Funding

This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

David F. McDermott served as a consultant or advisor for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Exelixis, Array BioPharma, and Genentech; and his institution received research funding from Prometheus Laboratories and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Ruchit Shah, Linlin Luo, and Marc Botteman are employed by Pharmerit International. Marc Botteman also reports stock ownership in Pharmerit International. Pharmerit International has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb to conduct this research. Pharmerit International is a global health economics and outcomes research consulting firm that receives research funding and fees related to consulting and other advisory roles from numerous private organizations from the pharmaceutical, biotech, device, and medical industry. Komal Gupte-Singh and Sumati Rao are employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb and own stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb. Javier Sabater was a Bristol-Myers Squibb employee at the time this work was conducted and owns stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb. Meredith M. Regan served as a consultant or advisor for Merck and Ipsen; received funding for travel, accommodations and expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and her institution received research funding from Veridex, OncoGenex, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis, Merck, Ferring, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Michael Atkins served as a consultant or advisor for Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, C-Cam, X4 Pharma, Amgen, Lilly, Alkermes, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Genoptix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nektar, and Merck.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the CheckMate 067 study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the CheckMate 067 study.

Supplementary material

11136_2018_1984_MOESM1_ESM.docx (88 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 87 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2017). Cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 67, 7–30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Cancer Society. (2018). Cancer facts & figs. 2018. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hodi, F. S., O’Day, S. J., McDermott, D. F., Weber, R. W., Sosman, J. A., Haanen, J. B., et al. (2010). Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(8), 711–723.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1003466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robert, C., Thomas, L., Bondarenko, I., O’Day, S., Weber, J., Garbe, C., et al. (2011). Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine, 364(26), 2517–2526.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1104621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buchbinder, E. I., & Desai, A. (2016). CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways: Similarities, differences, and implications of their inhibition. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 39(1), 98–106.  https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schachter, J., Ribas, A., Long, G. V., Arance, A., Grob, J. J., Mortier, L., et al. (2017). Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: Final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006). Lancet, 390(10105), 1853–1862.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31601-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Long, G. V., Atkinson, V., Ascierto, P. A., Robert, C., Hassel, J. C., Rutkowski, P., et al. (2016). Effect of nivolumab on health-related quality of life in patients with treatment-naive advanced melanoma: Results from the phase III CheckMate 066 study. Annals of Oncology, 27(10), 1940–1946.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robert, C., Long, G. V., Brady, B., Dutriaux, C., Maio, M., Mortier, L., et al. (2015). Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(4), 320–330.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1412082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolchok, J. D., Chiarion-Sileni, V., Gonzalez, R., Rutkowski, P., Grob, J. J., Cowey, C. L., et al. (2017). Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine, 377(14), 1345–1356.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1709684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schadendorf, D., Larkin, J., Wolchok, J., Hodi, F. S., Chiarion-Sileni, V., Gonzalez, R., et al. (2017). Health-related quality of life results from the phase III CheckMate 067 study. European Journal of Cancer, 82, 80–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.05.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Medicines Agency. (2014). Revised framework for interaction between the European Medicines Agency and patients and consumers and their organisations. http://attwww.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2009/12/WC500018013.pdf.
  12. 12.
    Postmus, D., Richard, S., Bere, N., van Valkenhoef, G., Galinsky, J., Low, E., et al. (2018). Individual trade-offs between possible benefits and risks of cancer treatments: Results from a stated preference study with patients with multiple myeloma. The Oncologist, 23(1), 44–51.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Postmus, D., Mavris, M., Hillege, H. L., Salmonson, T., Ryll, B., Plate, A., et al. (2016). Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: Results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 99(5), 548–554.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U. S. Food and Drug Administration. (2017). Plan for issuance of patient-focused drug development guidance under 21st century cures act title III section 3002https://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm563618.pdf.
  15. 15.
    Cherny, N. I., Sullivan, R., Dafni, U., Kerst, J. M., Sobrero, A., Zielinski, C., de Vries, E. G., et al. (2015). A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Annals of Oncology, 26(8), 1547–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schnipper, L. E., Davidson, N. E., Wollins, D. S., Tyne, C., Blayney, D. W., Blum, D., et al. (2015). American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33(23), 2563–2577.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Solem, C. T., Kwon, Y., Shah, R. M., Aly, A., & Botteman, M. F. (2018). Systematic review and benchmarking of quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in oncology. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research, 5, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1434414.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldhirsch, A., Gelber, R. D., Simes, R. J., Glasziou, P., & Coates, A. S. (1989). Costs and benefits of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: A quality-adjusted survival analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 7(1), 36–44.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1989.7.1.36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Revicki, D. A., Feeny, D., Hunt, T. L., & Cole, B. F. (2006). Analyzing oncology clinical trial data using the Q-TWiST method: Clinical importance and sources for health state preference data. Quality of Life Research, 15(3), 411–423.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-1579-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chung, H. C., Bang, Y., Van Cutsem, E., Kang, Y., Hamamoto, Y., Moiseyenko, V., et al. (2010). (Q)-TWiST analysis of trastuzumab plus fluoropyrimidine/cisplatin(T-XP/FP) versus XP/FP alone as first-line therapy for advanced HER2-positive gastric cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28, 4048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sherrill, B., Wang, J., Kotapati, S., & Chin, K. (2013). Q-TWiST analysis comparing ipilimumab/dacarbazine vs placebo/dacarbazine for patients with stage III/IV melanoma. British Journal of Cancer, 109(1), 8–13.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kilbridge, K. L., Cole, B. F., Kirkwood, J. M., Haluska, F. G., Atkins, M. A., Ruckdeschel, J. C., et al. (2002). Quality-of-life-adjusted survival analysis of high-dose adjuvant interferon alpha-2b for high-risk melanoma patients using intergroup clinical trial data. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 20(5), 1311–1318.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.20.5.1311.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cole, B. F., Solal-Celigny, P., Gelber, R. D., Lepage, E., Gisselbrecht, C., Reyes, F., et al. (1998). Quality-of-life-adjusted survival analysis of interferon alfa-2b treatment for advanced follicular lymphoma: An aid to clinical decision making. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16(7), 2339–2344.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1998.16.7.2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patil, S., Figlin, R. A., Hutson, T. E., Michaelson, M. D., Negrier, S., Kim, S. T., et al. (2012). 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. British Journal of Cancer, 106(10), 1587–1590.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sloan, J. A., Sargent, D. J., Lindman, J., Allmer, C., Vargas-Chanes, D., Creagan, E. T., et al. (2002). A new graphic for quality adjusted life years (Q-TWiST) survival analysis: The Q-TWiST plot. Quality of Life Research, 11(1), 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zbrozek, A. S., Hudes, G., Levy, D., Strahs, A., Berkenblit, A., DeMarinis, R., et al. (2010). Q-TWiST analysis of patients receiving temsirolimus or interferon alpha for treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics, 28(7), 577–584.  https://doi.org/10.2165/11535290-000000000-00000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zee, B., Cole, B., Li, T., Browman, G., James, K., Johnston, D., et al. (1998). Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity analysis of interferon maintenance in multiple myeloma. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16(8), 2834–2839.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1998.16.8.2834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lafuma, A., Dreno, B., Delaunay, M., Emery, C., Fagnani, F., Hieke, K., et al. (2001). Economic analysis of adjuvant therapy with interferon alpha-2a in stage II malignant melanoma. European Journal of Cancer, 37(3), 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cole, B. F., Gelber, R. D., Kirkwood, J. M., Goldhirsch, A., Barylak, E., & Borden, E. (1996). Quality-of-life-adjusted survival analysis of interferon alfa-2b adjuvant treatment of high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14(10), 2666–2673.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.10.2666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larkin, J., Chiarion-Sileni, V., Gonzalez, R., Grob, J. J., Cowey, C. L., Lao, C. D., et al. (2015). Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(1), 23–34.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1504030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gelber, R. D., Cole, B., Gelber, S., & Goldhirsch, A. (1995). Comparing treatments using quality-adjusted survival: The Q-TWiST method. The American Statistician, 49, 161–169.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haanen, J., Carbonnel, F., Robert, C., Kerr, K. M., Peters, S., Larkin, J., et al. (2017). Management of toxicities from immunotherapy: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology, 28(suppl_4), iv119–iv142.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gelber, R. D., & Goldhirsch, A. (1986). A new endpoint for the assessment of adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with operable breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 4(12), 1772–1779.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1986.4.12.1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fenton, J. J., Duberstein, P. R., Kravitz, R. L., Xing, G., Tancredi, D. J., Fiscella, K., et al. (2018). Impact of prognostic discussions on the patient-physician relationship: Prospective cohort study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 36, 225–230.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.75.6288.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wolchok, J. D., Hoos, A., O’Day, S., Weber, J. S., Hamid, O., Lebbé, C., et al. (2009). Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: Immune-related response criteria. Clinical Cancer Research, 15, 7412–7420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jessy, T. (2011). Immunity over inability: The spontaneous regression of cancer. Journal of Natural Science, Biology, and Medicine, 2(1), 43–49.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-9668.82318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Seymour, L., Bogaerts, J., Perrone, A., Ford, R., Schwartz, L. H., Mandrekar, S., et al. (2017). iRECIST: Guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncology, 18(3), e143–e152.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30074-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David F. McDermott
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ruchit Shah
    • 2
  • Komal Gupte-Singh
    • 3
  • Javier Sabater
    • 3
    • 6
  • Linlin Luo
    • 2
  • Marc Botteman
    • 2
  • Sumati Rao
    • 3
  • Meredith M. Regan
    • 4
  • Michael Atkins
    • 5
  1. 1.Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Pharmerit InternationalBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Bristol-Myers SquibbPrincetonUSA
  4. 4.Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  5. 5.Lombardi Cancer CenterGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA
  6. 6.ServierSuresnesFrance

Personalised recommendations