How Assessment-Schedule Matching Limits Bias When Comparing Progression-Free Survival in Single-Arm Studies: An Application in Second-Line Urothelial Carcinoma Treatments

Value Health. 2021 Aug;24(8):1137-1144. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.03.004. Epub 2021 May 8.

Abstract

Objectives: Population-adjusted comparisons of progression-free survival (PFS) from single-arm trials of cancer treatments can be derived using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs); however, results are still susceptible to bias, particularly if the trials had different tumor assessment schedules. This study aims to assess the effects of assessment-schedule matching (ASM) on the relative effectiveness on the PFS of avelumab versus approved comparator immunotherapies or chemotherapy after population matching in the second-line (2L) setting for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Methods: The MAIC used patient-level data for avelumab from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial (NCT01772004). PFS was compared with published curves for other treatments to obtain population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). The MAIC was repeated after conducting ASM for differences in tumor assessment scheduled first at 6 weeks for avelumab and durvalumab and at 8 or 9 weeks for other treatments.

Results: MAIC adjustment alone altered the HR estimates up to 23%, whereas MAIC plus ASM resulted in up to 32.7% reductions from naive comparisons. Even in cases in which MAIC had little effect, ASM brought an additional change of 11.1% to 15.4%. Overall, the HR range of avelumab versus other treatments changed from 0.83 to 1.25 for naive comparisons to 0.76 to 0.99 after ASM plus MAIC, numerically favoring avelumab.

Conclusions: Small variations in assessment schedules can introduce bias in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons of interval-censored time-to-event outcomes. In this study, adjusted PFS was comparable across second-line urothelial carcinoma treatment options, numerically favoring avelumab versus immunotherapies and chemotherapy agents. Correcting this bias is especially important when HRs are applied in cost-effectiveness models to transition patients between states.

Keywords: assessment-schedule matching; assessment-time bias; health technology assessment; matching-adjusted indirect comparisons; population-adjusted indirect comparisons; progression-free survival.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial, Phase I
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Antibodies, Monoclonal / therapeutic use*
  • Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized / therapeutic use*
  • Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological / therapeutic use*
  • Bias
  • Carcinoma, Transitional Cell / drug therapy*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Immunotherapy
  • Male
  • Progression-Free Survival*
  • Technology Assessment, Biomedical*
  • Urinary Bladder Neoplasms / drug therapy*

Substances

  • Antibodies, Monoclonal
  • Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
  • Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
  • durvalumab
  • avelumab