DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25745979.v1
title: Supplementary materials: A network meta-analysis of immunotherapy-based treatments for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer

description: <b>These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article '</b><b>A network meta-analysis of </b><b>immunotherapy-based treatments for </b><b>advanced nonsquamous non-small cell </b><b>lung cancer</b><b>' published in the</b><b> </b><b><i>Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research</i></b><b>.</b><b>Additional Methodology</b><b>Survival analysis</b><b>Proportional hazards assumption</b><b>Piecewise constant hazard ratios models</b><b>Figures</b><b>Fig. S1: </b>Network of evidence for first-line to progression - progression-free<b>Fig. S2: </b>Network of evidence for first-line to progression - overall survival<b>Fig. S3: </b>Network of evidence for first-line to progression - progression-free survival and overall survival for the PD-L1 ≥50% subgroup survival<b>Tables</b><b>Table S1a: </b>Medline search terms used for SLR<b>Table S1b: </b>Embase search terms used for SLR<b>Table S1c: </b>Cochrane CENTRAL search terms used for SLR<b>Table S2: </b>PICOS Statement<b>Table S3: </b>Reasons for exclusion of studies from the first-line to progression NMA base case analyses<b>Table S4: </b>Reasons for exclusion of studies from the second-line NMA base case analyses<b>Data Inputs</b><b>Table S5: </b>Input data for first-line to progression PFS – HR<b>Table S6:</b> Input data for first-line to progression OS – HR<b>Table S7: </b>Input data for second-line PFS – HR<b>Table S8:</b> Input data for second-line PFS – median<b>Table S9:</b> Input data for second-line OS – HR<b>Table S10:</b> Input data for second-line OS – median<b>Results</b><b>Table S11: </b>Model assessment statistics for the piecewise constant hazard ratio survival models on both OS and PFS<b>Table S12: </b>Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression OS (using random effects model)<b>Table S13: </b>Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression PFS (using random effects model)<b>Table S14: </b>Piecewise analysis: pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression - OS (using random effects model)<b>Table S15: </b>Piecewise analysis: pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression PFS (using random effects model)<b>Table S16: </b>Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression OS (using fixed effects model) in the PD-L1 ≥50 subgroup<b>Table S17: </b>Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression OS (using random effects model) in the PD-L1 ≥50 subgroup<b>Table S18: </b>Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression PFS (using fixed effects model) in the PD-L1 ≥50 subgroup<b>Table S19:</b> Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression PFS (using random effects model) in the PD-L1 ≥50 subgroupTable S20: Pairwise hazard ratios (and credible intervals) for second-line overall survival (using random effects model)Table S21: Pairwise hazard ratios (and credible intervals) for second-line progression-free survival (using random effects model)<b>References</b><b>Introduction:</b> In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these treatments. <b>Materials & methods:</b> A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating first-line-to-progression and second-line treatments for advanced NsqNSCLC informed Bayesian NMAs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) end points. <b>Results: </b>Among first-line-to-progression treatments, pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the greatest OS benefit versus other regimens and a PFS benefit versus all but three regimens. Among second-line treatments, an OS benefit was seen for atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab versus docetaxel. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the maximum OS benefit in the first-line setting. In the second-line setting, anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monotherapies were better than docetaxel.