University of Leicester
Browse

Adjusting for treatment switching in the METRIC study shows further improved overall survival with trametinib compared with chemotherapy.

Download (287.71 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2016-11-23, 12:25 authored by N. R. Latimer, H. Bell, Keith R. Abrams, M. M. Amonkar, M. Casey
Trametinib, a selective inhibitor of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1 (MEK1) and MEK2, significantly improves progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive advanced or metastatic melanoma (MM). However, the pivotal clinical trial permitted randomized chemotherapy control group patients to switch to trametinib after disease progression, which confounded estimates of the overall survival (OS) advantage of trametinib. Our purpose was to estimate the switching-adjusted treatment effect of trametinib for OS and assess the suitability of each adjustment method in the primary efficacy population. Of the patients randomized to chemotherapy, 67.4% switched to trametinib. We applied the rank-preserving structural failure time model, inverse probability of censoring weights, and a two-stage accelerated failure time model to obtain estimates of the relative treatment effect adjusted for switching. The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis estimated a 28% reduction in the hazard of death with trametinib treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98) for patients in the primary efficacy population (data cut May 20, 2013). Adjustment analyses deemed plausible provided OS HR point estimates ranging from 0.48 to 0.53. Similar reductions in the HR were estimated for the first-line metastatic subgroup. Treatment with trametinib, compared with chemotherapy, significantly reduced the risk of death and risk of disease progression in patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive advanced melanoma or MM. Adjusting for switching resulted in lower HRs than those obtained from standard ITT analyses. However, CI are wide and results are sensitive to the assumptions associated with each adjustment method.

Funding

Funding for the analysis presented in this manuscript was provided by GlaxoSmithKline. Editorial assistance for this manuscript was provided by SciMentum and funded by GlaxoSmithKline. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01245062. KRA is partially supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as a Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0512-10159).

History

Citation

Cancer Medicine, 2016, 5 (5), pp. 806-815

Author affiliation

/Organisation/COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGY/School of Medicine/Department of Health Sciences

Version

  • VoR (Version of Record)

Published in

Cancer Medicine

Publisher

Wiley Open Access

eissn

2045-7634

Acceptance date

2015-12-14

Copyright date

2016

Available date

2016-11-23

Publisher version

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.643/abstract

Notes

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article: Data S1. Implementation of adjustment methods

Language

en

Usage metrics

    University of Leicester Publications

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC