Treatment Switching in Evidence Synthesis in Oncology: A Comprehensive Review of Current Meta-Analytical Practices

Author(s)

Metcalfe R1, Gorst-Rasmussen A2, Morga A3, Remiro-Azocar A4, Keene O5, Park J6
1Core Clinical Sciences, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2Novo Nordisk A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd, Addlestone, UK, 4Novo Nordisk, Madrid, Community of Madrid, Spain, 5KeeneONStatistics, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK, 6Core Clinical Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada

OBJECTIVES: The ICH E9(R1) Addendum highlights the importance of specifying post-randomization events that may affect the interpretation of clinical trial outcomes (i.e., intercurrent events; ICEs) and strategies to handle these events. Here, we review current practices for handling treatment switching, a common ICE in oncology, in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their synthesis.

METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of the Cochrane Library for meta-analyses of immune-, targeted, hormone, and other novel oncology therapies. Dates were restricted to 2021 and onwards to allow time for addendum adoption. Outcomes of interest included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Information on treatment switching and analytical strategies were extracted from each meta-analysis and the RCTs they included.

RESULTS: Out of 1,180 oncology reviews published in the Cochrane Library since 2021, eight meta-analyses and 66 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Most RCTs were Phase 3 (45/66, 68%) and/or open-label (50/66, 76%). Half of RCTs explicitly allowed treatment switching (37/66, 56%), while more than one third (25/66, 38%) did not report on treatment switching. Among trials that allowed treatment switching, censoring mechanisms for treatment switching varied in analyses of PFS and OS. Counter to best practice guidelines, no RCTs reported the timing of treatment switching. Despite the high prevalence of treatment switching and the variability in outcome definitions across trials, no meta-analyses addressed treatment switching analytically.

CONCLUSIONS: While treatment switching is a common and well-known ICE in oncology, no meta-analyses reviewed in this study accounted for different approaches to treatment switching in their analyses. The strategy used for this important ICE can have a major impact on the results of a study. Poor reporting in the individual RCTs themselves also hinders the utility of aggregate-level meta-analyses. To ensure accurate interpretation of meta-analytic results, a consistent strategy for this intercurrent event is needed across studies.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2024-11, ISPOR Europe 2024, Barcelona, Spain

Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)

Code

SA85

Topic

Organizational Practices, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Best Research Practices, Clinical Trials, Literature Review & Synthesis

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology

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

×