Scholarlink

Introduction <p>The non-comparative phase&#xa0;2 DeLLphi-301 trial found that tarlatamab, a bispecific T&#xa0;cell engager immunotherapy, can provide sustained objective response rates and improved survival outcomes for patients with previously treated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). In the absence of direct head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate the efficacy of tarlatamab relative to comparator therapies in England.</p> Methods <p>The outcomes of patients in the DeLLphi-301 trial were compared against those of a comparator therapies cohort identified through linkage of population-level real-world databases in England. The study population consisted of patients with relapsed ES-SCLC who received two or more prior lines of therapy and who met key eligibility criteria from the DeLLphi-301 trial. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to estimate the efficacy of tarlatamab relative to available comparator therapies, adjusting for key baseline characteristics to match the patient cohort from DeLLphi-301 with the comparator therapies cohort. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model with robust variance estimation was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for both OS and PFS.</p> Results <p>The analyses included 97 patients enrolled in the DeLLphi-301 trial and 540 patients receiving available treatment options in England. After matching, tarlatamab was associated with improved OS (HR 0.24; 95%&#xa0;CI 0.14, 0.43) and PFS (HR 0.18; 95%&#xa0;CI 0.11, 0.31) relative to the comparator therapies. Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses performed by changing the variables for adjustment.</p> Conclusion <p>Tarlatamab provides a clinically meaningful survival benefit compared to currently available treatments in England. These findings support the use of tarlatamab as an effective treatment option for patients with previously treated ES-SCLC.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Tarlatamab Versus Comparator Therapies in England in Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Have Received Two or More Prior Lines of Therapy

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月8日

查看全文
  • Rumbidzai Takundwa,
  • Gaurav Suri,
  • Franziska Dirnberger,
  • Andre Verhoek,
  • Elizabeth Vinand,
  • Jessie Wang,
  • Stephen Puntis,
  • Xerxes Pundole,
  • Fiona Blackhall

摘要

Introduction

The non-comparative phase 2 DeLLphi-301 trial found that tarlatamab, a bispecific T cell engager immunotherapy, can provide sustained objective response rates and improved survival outcomes for patients with previously treated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). In the absence of direct head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate the efficacy of tarlatamab relative to comparator therapies in England.

Methods

The outcomes of patients in the DeLLphi-301 trial were compared against those of a comparator therapies cohort identified through linkage of population-level real-world databases in England. The study population consisted of patients with relapsed ES-SCLC who received two or more prior lines of therapy and who met key eligibility criteria from the DeLLphi-301 trial. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to estimate the efficacy of tarlatamab relative to available comparator therapies, adjusting for key baseline characteristics to match the patient cohort from DeLLphi-301 with the comparator therapies cohort. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model with robust variance estimation was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for both OS and PFS.

Results

The analyses included 97 patients enrolled in the DeLLphi-301 trial and 540 patients receiving available treatment options in England. After matching, tarlatamab was associated with improved OS (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.14, 0.43) and PFS (HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.11, 0.31) relative to the comparator therapies. Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses performed by changing the variables for adjustment.

Conclusion

Tarlatamab provides a clinically meaningful survival benefit compared to currently available treatments in England. These findings support the use of tarlatamab as an effective treatment option for patients with previously treated ES-SCLC.