Comparative effectiveness from a single-arm trial and real-world data: alectinib versus ceritinib
Abstract
Aim: To compare the overall survival of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients who received alectinib with those who received ceritinib. Materials & methods: Two treatment arms (alectinib [n = 183] and ceritinib [n = 67]) were extracted from clinical trials and an electronic health record database, respectively. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Kaplan–Meier and multivariate Cox regression were conducted. Results: After propensity score adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced. Alectinib had a prolonged median overall survival (alectinib = 24.3 months and ceritinib = 15.6 months) and lower risk of death (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.48–0.88). Conclusion: Alectinib was associated with prolonged overall survival versus ceritinib, which is consistent with efficacy evidence from clinical trials.
Supplementary Material
File (suppl_materials.docx)
- Download
- 62.23 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Hall P. Real-world data for efficient health technology assessment. Eur. J. Cancer 79, 235–237 (2017).
2.
Vivot A, Boutron I, Béraud-Chaulet G et al. Evidence for treatment-by-biomarker interaction for FDA-approved oncology drugs with required pharmacogenomic biomarker testing. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 6882 (2017).
3.
Hatswell AJ, Baio G, Berlin et al. Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999–2014. BMJ Open 6 (6), e011666 (2016).
4.
Shaw AT, Yeap BY, Solomon BJ et al. Effect of crizotinib on overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring ALK gene rearrangement: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 12(11), 1004–1012 (2011).
5.
Mateos MV, Hernandez JM, Hernandez MT et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone in elderly untreated patients with multiple myeloma: results of a multicenter Phase 1/2 study. Blood 108(7), 2165–2172 (2006).
6.
Di Lorenzo G, Casciano R, Malangone E et al. An adjusted indirect comparison of everolimus and sorafenib therapy in sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using repeated matched samples. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 12(10), 1491–1497 (2011).
7.
Tan DS, Araújo A, Zhang J et al. Comparative efficacy of ceritinib and crizotinib as initial ALK-targeted therapies in previously treated advanced NSCLC: an adjusted comparison with external controls. J. Thorac Oncol. 11(9), 1550–1557 (2016).
8.
Flatiron Health Data, NY, USA (February 2016). https://flatiron.com/real-world-evidence/.
9.
Ou SHI, Ahn JS, De Petris L et al. Alectinib in crizotinib-refractory ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer: a Phase II global study. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(7), 661–668 (2016).
• Global Phase II study of alectinib in crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALK+ NSCLC). Alectinib was active and well tolerated, including in patients with central nervous system metastases.
10.
Shaw AT, Gandhi L, Gadgeel S et al. Alectinib in ALK-positive, crizotinib-resistant, non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-group, multicentre, Phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(2), 234–242 (2016).
• Phase II study of alectinib in patients with ALK+ NSCLC who progressed on crizotinib in North America. Alectinib showed clinical activity and was well tolerated, providing evidence for alectinib as a suitable treatment in this patient population.
11.
Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav. Res. 46(3), 399–424 (2011).
•• Describes different propensity score methods and balance diagnostics for examining whether the propensity score model has been adequately specified.
12.
Hadley JH, Yabroff R, Barrett MJ, Penson DF, Saigal CS, Potosky AL. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments: evaluating statistical adjustments for confounding in observational data. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102(23), 1780–1793 (2010).
13.
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat. Med. 34(28), 3661–3679 (2015).
•• Describes methods to allow assessment of whether measured baseline covariates are balanced between treatment groups in a weighted sample in inverse probability treatment weighting.
14.
Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS ONE 6(3), e18174 (2011).
15.
Diamond A, Sekhon JS. Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95(3), 932–945 (2013).
• Describes genetic matching, a type of multivariate matching that uses an evolutionary search algorithm to determine the weight of each covariate.
16.
Crino L, Ahn M, De Marinis F et al. Multicenter Phase II study of whole-body and intracranial activity with ceritinib in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and crizotinib: results from ASCEND-2. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(24), 2866–2873 (2016).
• The Phase II ASCEND-2 trial evaluated efficacy and safety of certinib in patients with ALK+ NSCLC previously treated with chemotherapy and who had progressed on crizotinib. Certinib treatment showed clinically meaningful responses, including in patients with central nervous system metastases.
17.
Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ et al. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan–Meier survival curves. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2(12), 9 (2012).
• Describes a method that derives a close approximation to the original individual patient time-to-event data from the published Kaplan–Meier survival curves from which they were generated.
18.
Guerin A, Sasane M, Zhang J et al. ALK rearrangement testing and treatment patterns for patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. 39(3), 307–312 (2015).
19.
Cadranel J, Park K, Arrieta O et al. Characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival among ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with crizotinib: a chart review study. Lung Cancer 98, 9–14 (2016).
20.
Al-Gilani M, Skillington SA, Kallogjeri D, Haughey B, Piccirillo JF. Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment modalities for T3 glottic squamous cell carcinoma. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 142(10), 940–946 (2016).
21.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1), 41–55 (1983).
22.
Eulenburg C, Suling A, Neuser P et al. Propensity scoring after multiple imputation in a retrospective study on adjuvant radiation therapy in lymph-node positive vulvar cancer. PLoS ONE 11(11), e0165705 (2016).
23.
Galsky MD, Stensland KD, Moshier E et al. Effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced bladder cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(8), 825–832 (2016).
24.
Novello S, Mazières J, Oh IJ et al. Alectinib versus chemotherapy in crizotinib-pretreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from the Phase III ALUR study. Ann. Oncol. 29(6), 1409–1416 (2018).
25.
Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(9), 829–838 (2017).
26.
Davies J, Patel M, Gridelli C, de Marinis F, Waterkamp D, McCusker ME. Real-world treatment patterns for patients receiving second-line and third-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review of recently published studies. PLoS ONE 12(4), e0175679 (2017).
27.
Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 171(2), 481–502 (2018).
28.
Curtis MD, Griffith SD, Tucker M et al. Development and validation of a high-quality composite real-world mortality endpoint. Health Serv. Res. (2018) (Epub ahead of print).
29.
Yang JC, Ou SH, De Petris L et al. Pooled systemic efficacy and safety data from the pivotal Phase II studies (NP28673 and NP28761) of alectinib in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 12(10), 1552–1560 (2017).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2018 Jessica Davies.
History
Received: 12 April 2018
Accepted: 6 June 2018
Published online: 26 June 2018
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Comparative effectiveness from a single-arm trial and real-world data: alectinib versus ceritinib. (2018) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2018-0032
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Rahul Mudumba, Xiaofan Liu, Shihan Jin, Ian J. Davis, Drishti Baid, John A. Romley, Jorge J. Nieva, Comparative effectiveness of first-line targeted therapies in ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer: real-world evidence of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, Lung Cancer, 10.1016/j.lungcan.2026.109451, 217, (109451), (2026).
- F. Saxer, G. Jansen, S.M.A. Bierma-Zeinstra, B. Holzhauer, D. Demanse, J. Melnick, D. Vukadinovic Greetham, T. Rall, P. Mesenbrink, M. Schieker, Why is there no treatment for osteoarthritis – Opportunity for AI based big data analytics to advance the field, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 10.1016/j.joca.2025.12.021, 34, 5, (657-666), (2026).
- D.G. Knapen, M. van Kruchten, D.J.A. de Groot, K.E. Broekman, R.S.N. Fehrmann, Artificial intelligence for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis: a narrative review, ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology, 10.1016/j.esmorw.2026.100682, 11, (100682), (2026).
- Jan-Niklas Eckardt, Waldemar Hahn, Arsela Prelaj, Martin Bornhäuser, Jan Moritz Middeke, Jakob Nikolas Kather, Artificial intelligence-generated synthetic data for cancer research and clinical trials, Nature Reviews Cancer, 10.1038/s41568-026-00912-4, 26, 5, (351-363), (2026).
- Clinical trials gain intelligence, Nature Biotechnology, 10.1038/s41587-025-02754-1, 43, 7, (1017-1018), (2025).
- Susmit Tripathi, Sorayouth Chumnanvej, Digital Twin Technology for Precision Medicine, Smart Healthcare, Clinical Diagnostics, and Bioprinting Solutions for Modern Medicine, 10.4018/979-8-3373-0659-9.ch006, (101-122), (2025).
- Tatsiana Vaitsiakhovich, Alexander Hartenstein, Stephen Privitera, Manesh R. Patel, Jonathan P. Piccini, Craig I. Coleman, Khaled Abdelgawwad, Gerlind Holberg, Igor Khorlo, Hardi Mundl, Bernhard Schaefer, Thomas Viethen, Kai Vogtländer, Alexander Vowinkel, Frank Kleinjung, An External Control Arm for the Oral Factor XIa Inhibitor Asundexian Phase 2 Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (PACIFIC-AF) Using Electronic Health Records, Cardiology and Therapy, 10.1007/s40119-025-00411-x, 14, 3, (403-421), (2025).
- Mohan Pammi, Prakesh S Shah, Liu K Yang, Joseph Hagan, Nima Aghaeepour, Josef Neu, Digital twins, synthetic patient data, and in-silico trials: can they empower paediatric clinical trials?, The Lancet Digital Health, 10.1016/j.landig.2025.01.007, 7, 5, (100851), (2025).
- Giuseppe Pasculli, Marco Virgolin, Puja Myles, Anna Vidovszky, Charles Fisher, Elisabetta Biasin, Miranda Mourby, Francesco Pappalardo, Saverio D'Amico, Mario Torchia, Alexander Chebykin, Vincenzo Carbone, Luca Emili, Daniel Roeshammar, Synthetic Data in Healthcare and Drug Development: Definitions, Regulatory Frameworks, Issues, CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology, 10.1002/psp4.70021, 14, 5, (840-852), (2025).
- Alind Gupta, Grace Hsu, Seamus Kent, Stephen J. Duffield, Evie Merinopoulou, Alexandre Lockhart, Paul Arora, Joshua Ray, Samantha Wilkinson, Nicolas Scheuer, Sreeram V. Ramagopalan, Rolf H. H. Groenwold, Sanjay Popat, Miguel A. Hernán, Quantitative Bias Analysis for Single-Arm Trials With External Control Arms, JAMA Network Open, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.2152, 8, 3, (e252152), (2025).
- See more