Background: Loncastuximab tesirine (Lonca) and chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) have been assessed in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), but direct evidence from head-to-head randomized clinical trials is not available. Materials and methods: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to evaluate the efficacy of Lonca versus CIT-era treatment in R/R DLBCL. The analysis used individual patient data from the phase II LOTIS-2 trial of Lonca (NCT03589469) and pooled aggregated data from 2 extension studies of the CORAL trial for CIT. The LOTIS-2 trial included 145 patients who had relapsed or progressed following 2 or more multi-agent systemic treatment regimens; the CORAL extension studies included 203 patients who received 2 prior lines of therapy and 75 patients who relapsed after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. MAIC analyses were performed to adjust for cross-trial differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the distribution of observed baseline characteristics. Overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the balanced trial populations. Results: A total of 80 patients in LOTIS-2 were included in the analysis. After matching to the characteristics of 278 patients from the pooled CORAL extension studies, the ORR was significantly higher for Lonca compared with CIT-era treatment (53.4% vs. 40.3%, P < .05). Lonca was also associated with a significantly improved OS compared with CIT-era treatment (median OS 10.8 vs. 6.4 months; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.92], P < .05). Conclusion: This study indicates that Lonca was associated with significantly improved efficacy compared with CIT-era treatments for R/R DLBCL.

Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy of Loncastuximab Tesirine Versus Treatment in the Chemoimmunotherapy Era for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma

Carlo-Stella, Carmelo
2022-01-01

Abstract

Background: Loncastuximab tesirine (Lonca) and chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) have been assessed in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), but direct evidence from head-to-head randomized clinical trials is not available. Materials and methods: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to evaluate the efficacy of Lonca versus CIT-era treatment in R/R DLBCL. The analysis used individual patient data from the phase II LOTIS-2 trial of Lonca (NCT03589469) and pooled aggregated data from 2 extension studies of the CORAL trial for CIT. The LOTIS-2 trial included 145 patients who had relapsed or progressed following 2 or more multi-agent systemic treatment regimens; the CORAL extension studies included 203 patients who received 2 prior lines of therapy and 75 patients who relapsed after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. MAIC analyses were performed to adjust for cross-trial differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the distribution of observed baseline characteristics. Overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the balanced trial populations. Results: A total of 80 patients in LOTIS-2 were included in the analysis. After matching to the characteristics of 278 patients from the pooled CORAL extension studies, the ORR was significantly higher for Lonca compared with CIT-era treatment (53.4% vs. 40.3%, P < .05). Lonca was also associated with a significantly improved OS compared with CIT-era treatment (median OS 10.8 vs. 6.4 months; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.92], P < .05). Conclusion: This study indicates that Lonca was associated with significantly improved efficacy compared with CIT-era treatments for R/R DLBCL.
2022
Antibody-drug conjugates
Indirect treatment comparison
Overall survival
Response rate
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11699/84786
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact