Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of Safety Outcomes With MET Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs) in Patients With MET Exon 14 (METex14) Skipping Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)
Author(s)
Taylor K1, Veillon R2, Griesinger F3, Reinmuth N4, Ghori V5, Vioix H6, Clark A7, Paik P8
1Delta Hat Limited, Long Eaton, NGM, UK, 2CHU Bordeaux, Service des Maladies Respiratoires, Bordeaux, France, 3Pius-Hospital, University Medicine Oldenburg, Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Department Internal Medicine-Oncology, Oldenburg, Germany, 4Asklepios Clinics Munich-Gauting, Department of Thoracic Oncology, Gauting, Germany, 5Ares Trading SA, Eysins, Switzerland, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Eysins, Switzerland, 6Evidence and Value Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, HE, Germany, 7Delta Hat Limited, Nottingham, UK, 8Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: The selective MET TKIs tepotinib and capmatinib are approved in the EU to treat advanced METex14 skipping NSCLC after prior chemo- and/or immunotherapy; the non-selective MET TKI crizotinib is sometimes used off-label. Comparative safety is an important factor for payers and decision-makers, but head-to-head data are unavailable.
METHODS: We used MAIC, a pairwise indirect comparison method, to compare safety outcomes with tepotinib versus capmatinib and crizotinib in patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC. MAICs used patient-level data from the VISION trial of tepotinib (NCT02864992: overall N=313, treatment-naïve [1L], n=164; previously treated [2L+], n=149; data cut-off: November 20, 2022), and aggregate data from trials of capmatinib (GEOMETRY mono-1: Cohorts 5b [1L; N=28] and 4 [2L+; N=69]; January 6, 2020) and crizotinib (PROFILE 1001: 1L and 2L+ [N=69]; January 31, 2018). VISION data were reweighted to match baseline characteristics of comparator trials. Safety was compared, overall or by treatment line.
RESULTS: The VISION population was successfully reweighted to match comparator trial populations. In MAICs versus capmatinib, effective sample sizes (ESSs) for tepotinib were 112.3 (1L) and 145.3 (2L+). After reweighting, rates of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) leading to treatment discontinuation with tepotinib versus capmatinib were 15% vs 21% in 1L, and 14% vs 20% in 2L+. Any-grade/Grade ≥3 TRAE rates were unavailable for capmatinib. In an MAIC across treatment lines (tepotinib ESS=241.5), rates with tepotinib versus crizotinib were 91% vs 94% for any-grade TRAEs, 32% vs 29% for Grade ≥3 TRAEs, 33% vs 38% for TRAEs leading to dose reduction, and 14% vs 7% for TRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation.
CONCLUSIONS: In MAICs based on available data, safety outcomes with tepotinib were improved versus capmatinib, and comparable versus crizotinib in patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC, further supporting tepotinib as a well-tolerated treatment. These data can assist decision-makers in assessing targeted treatment options for this tumor type.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)
Code
CO139
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Clinician Reported Outcomes
Disease
Drugs, Oncology, Personalized & Precision Medicine