Comparison of Long-term Survival Benefits in Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor vs Non–Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Anticancer Agents Using ASCO Value Framework and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale
Authors: Louis Everest, Monica Shah, Kelvin K. W. Chan
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2019)

<h3>Importance</h3> Recently, anticancer agents have generated excitement owing to their capacity to preserve long-term durable survival in some patients who are represented by a tail of the survival curve. However, because traditional measures of clinical benefit may not accurately capture durable survival, amendments to various valuation frameworks have been proposed to capture this benefit. <h3>Objectives</h3> To determine how frequently immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) anticancer agents vs non-ICI anticancer agents displayed trends of long-term durable survival, as defined by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF v2) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1), as well as to further analyze the degree of agreement between ASCO and ESMO frameworks. <h3>Design, Setting, and Participants</h3> In this cohort study, anticancer agents from phase 2 or 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 2011 and March 2018 were identified. Data required for the ASCO-VF v2 tail-of-the-curve bonus and the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments were extracted from relevant RCTs. Frequency and difference in proportions were calculated to determine how often survival benefits were awarded to anticancer agents overall and to ICI and non-ICI anticancer agents individually. <h3>Main Outcomes and Measures</h3> American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework v2 tail-of-the-curve bonuses and ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments. <h3>Results</h3> In total, 247 RCTs were identified, and 100 RCTs involving 57 164 patients were included, with 14 examining ICI agents (1 ipilimumab, 5 pembrolizumab, 5 nivolumab, 2 atezolizumab, and 1 durvalumab) and 86 examining non-ICI agents (74 targeted therapy, 8 chemotherapy, 3 hormone therapy, and 1 radiopharmaceutical). Randomized clinical trials were awarded ASCO-VF v2 tail-of-the-curve bonuses more often than ESMO-MCBS v1.1 immunotherapy-triggered long-term plateau adjustments (ASCO-VF v2, 45.0% [8 of 14 ICI RCTs and 37 of 86 non-ICI RCTs] vs ESMO-MCBS v1.1, 2.6% [1 of 12 ICI RCTs and 1 of 66 non-ICI RCTs). Randomized clinical trials for ICIs were not more likely to receive an ASCO-VF v2 bonus or ESMO-MCBS v1.1 adjustment than non-ICI RCTs (ASCO-VF: risk difference, 0.14; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.42;<i>P</i> = .32; ESMO-MCBS: risk difference, 0.07; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.23;<i>P</i> = .40). Poor agreement was found between the framework algorithms in identifying long-term survival benefits from RCTs (κ = 0.01; 95% CI, −0.23 to 0.22;<i>P</i> = .50). <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> The ASCO-VF v2 and ESMO-MCBS v1.1 may require additional refinement to accurately capture the benefit of durable long-term survival, or ICI agents may not preserve long-term survival as conventionally thought.