Impact of the treatment crossover design on comparative efficacy in EMPOWER-Lung 1: Cemiplimab monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

• Published in: Frontiers in oncology Vol. 12; p. 1081729
• Main Authors: Feliciano, Josephine Louella, McLoone, Dylan, Xu, Yingxin, Quek, Ruben G W, Kuznik, Andreas, Pouliot, Jean-Francois, Gullo, Giuseppe, Rietschel, Petra, Guyot, Patricia, Konidaris, Gerasimos, Chan, Keith, Keeping, Sam, Wilson, Florence R, Freemantle, Nick
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 04-04-2023
• Subjects: cemiplimab; chemotherapy; crossover design; EMPOWER-lung 1; first-line treatment; non-small cell lung cancer; Oncology; non-small cell lung cancer; cemiplimab; first-line treatment; EMPOWER-lung 1; chemotherapy; crossover design
• ISSN: 2234-943X; 2234-943X
• DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1081729

In randomized-controlled crossover design trials, overall survival (OS) treatment effect estimates are often confounded by the control group benefiting from treatment received post-progression. We estimated the adjusted OS treatment effect in EMPOWER-Lung 1 (NCT03088540) by accounting for the potential impact of crossover to cemiplimab among controls and continued cemiplimab treatment post-progression.
Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients with disease progression while on or after chemotherapy could receive cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 weeks. Those who experienced progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab at 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 additional weeks with four chemotherapy cycles added. Three adjustment methods accounted for crossover and/or continued treatment: simplified two-stage correction (with or without recensoring), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFT; with or without recensoring).
In the programmed cell death-ligand 1 ≥50% population (N=563; median 10.8-month follow-up), 38.2% (n=107/280) crossed over from chemotherapy to cemiplimab (71.3%, n=107/150, among those with confirmed progression) and 16.3% (n=46/283) received cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy (38.7%, n=46/119, among those with confirmed progression). The unadjusted OS hazard ratio (HR) with cemiplimab versus chemotherapy was 0.566 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.418, 0.767). Simplified two-stage correction-the most suitable method based on published guidelines and trial characteristics-produced an OS HR of 0.490 (95% CI: 0.365, 0.654) without recensoring and 0.493 (95% CI: 0.361, 0.674) with recensoring. The IPCW and RPSFT methods produced estimates generally consistent with simplified two-stage correction.
After adjusting for treatment crossover and continued cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy observed in EMPOWER-Lung 1, cemiplimab continued to demonstrate a clinically important and statistically significant OS benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with the primary analysis.