Adjusting Survival Data for Treatment Crossover in the ELEVATE-TN Trial By Using a Historical Cohort of Patients Treated with Chemoimmunotherapy in Front-Line Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Author(s)

Gaitonde P1, Liljas B2, Miranda P2
1AstraZeneca, ROCKVILLE, MD, USA, 2AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA

OBJECTIVES: Acalabrutinib (A) is a next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treatment. ELEVATE-TN trial interim data (~47 months median follow-up [FU]) did not show survival benefit for A±obinutuzumab (O) versus chlorambucil+obinutuzumab (C+O) despite significantly superior progression-free survival (PFS). One explanation is C+O-to-A patient crossover (39%), which may have provided added C+O overall survival (OS) benefit. We evaluated OS by adjusting for crossover using a historical C+O cohort.

METHODS: The CLL11 trial demonstrated superior PFS and OS for C+O versus C and C+rituximab in first-line CLL prior to BTKi availability. Therefore, OS data for BTKi-naïve C+O patients were digitized and compared with A±O from ELEVATE-TN. Individual patient datasets were used to plot Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and calculate hazard ratios (HR) using Cox regression in R software. To validate our hypothesis (impact of crossovers on relative survival benefit), we compared 28-month FU data, where we observed lower OS HRs (non-significant). CLL11 and ELEVATE-TN trials enrolled patients with similar baseline characteristics; however, this analysis did not account for within-trial heterogeneity.

RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in risk of death with all 3 ELEVATE-TN treatments versus CLL-11 C+O: A+O versus C+OCLL11 (HR=0.23 [95% CI=0.12-0.42, p=0.001]); A versus C+OCLL11 (HR=0.43 [95% CI=0.27-0.70, p<0.05]); C+O versus C+OCLL11 (HR=0.44 [95% CI=0.27-0.71, p<0.05]). In an additional analysis with 28-month FU comparing ELEVATE-TN arms with C+O from CLL-11, KM curves for C+O overlapped (HR=0.79 [95% CI=0.42-1.47], p>0.05), indicating no difference. However, HRs for A+O versus C+OCLL11 (HR=0.39 [95% CI=0.18-0.84]) and for A versus C+OCLL11 (HR=0.48 [95% CI=0.24-0.99]) were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: The non-statistically significant OS for A±O versus C+O was likely due to treatment crossover. Conducting a treatment-switching analyses was challenging due to immature OS data; however, this analysis supports the hypothesis that crossover to A bolstered ELEVATE-TN C+O OS.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2022-05, ISPOR 2022, Washington, DC, USA

Value in Health, Volume 25, Issue 6, S1 (June 2022)

Code

CO22

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Clinical Trials, Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×