Open AccessMatching-adjusted indirect comparison of palbociclib versus ribociclib and abemaciclib in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer
Author(s) -
Hope S. Rugo,
Anja Haltner,
Zhan Li,
Anh N. Tran,
Eustratios Bananis,
Becky Hooper,
Debanjali Mitra,
Chris Cameron
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of comparative effectiveness research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.567
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 2042-6313
pISSN - 2042-6305
DOI - 10.2217/cer-2020-0272
Subject(s) - medicine , fulvestrant , palbociclib , hazard ratio , oncology , breast cancer , hormone receptor , gynecology , cancer , metastatic breast cancer , confidence interval , estrogen receptor
Aim: Palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB) and abemaciclib (ABM), in combination with fulvestrant (FUL), are approved for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. This study aims to determine relative efficacy of PAL+FUL versus RIB+FUL and ABM+FUL using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons. Patients & methods: Anchored matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons were conducted using individual patient data from PALOMA-3 and published summary-level data from MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: OS was similar for PAL+FUL versus ABM+FUL (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.54–1.40) and RIB+FUL (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.48–1.63). Conclusion: Adjusting for cross-trial differences suggests similar OS between treatments, underscoring the importance of accounting for these differences when indirectly comparing treatments.