An Adjusted Treatment Comparison Comparing Amivantimab Versus Real-World Clinical Practice in Europe and the United States for Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Exon 20 Interion Mutations

Jan 13, 2023 | Publications, Published 2023

Home » Publications » An Adjusted Treatment Comparison Comparing Amivantimab Versus Real-World Clinical Practice in Europe and the United States for Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Exon 20 Interion Mutations

Chouaid C, Bosquet L, Girard N, Kron A, Scheffler M, et al. An Adjusted Treatment Comparison Comparing Amivantimab Versus Real-World Clinical Practice in Europe and the United States for Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Exon 20 Interion Mutations. Adv Ther. 2023;40(3):1187-1203. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36652175/

Abstract:

Introduction: Patients with advanced, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with Exon 20 insertion mutations (Exon20ins) have poor prognoses, exacerbated by a previous lack of specific treatment guidelines and unmet need for targeted therapies. Amivantamab, an EGFR and MET bispecific antibody, demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC with Exon20ins following platinum-based therapy in CHRYSALIS (NCT02609776; Cohort D+). Since CHRYSALIS was single-arm, individual patient data (IPD)-based adjusted analyses versus similar patients in real-world clinical practice (RWCP) were conducted to generate comparative evidence.

Methods: RWCP cohorts were derived from seven European and US real-world sources, comprising patients fulfilling CHRYSALIS Cohort D+ eligibility criteria. Amivantamab was compared with a basket of RWCP treatments. Differences in prognostic characteristics were adjusted for using inverse probability weighting (IPW; average treatment effect among the treated [ATT]). Balance between cohorts was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs). Overall response rate (ORR; investigator- [INV] and independent review committee-assessed [IRC]), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS; INV and IRC) and time-to-next treatment (TTNT) were compared. Binary and time-to-event endpoints were analyzed using weighted logistic regression and proportional hazards regression, respectively.

Results: Pre-adjustment, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. IPW ATT-adjustment improved comparability, giving closely matched characteristics. ORR (INV) was 36.8% for amivantamab versus 17.0% for the adjusted EU + US cohort (response rate ratio [RR]: 2.16). Median OS, PFS (INV) and TTNT were 22.77 versus 12.52 months (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.47; p < 0.0001), 6.93 versus 4.17 months (HR: 0.55; p < 0.0001) and 12.42 versus 5.36 months (HR: 0.44; p < 0.0001) for amivantamab versus the adjusted EU + US cohort, respectively. Results were consistent versus EU- and US-only cohorts, and when using IRC assessment.

Conclusion: Adjusted comparisons demonstrated significantly improved outcomes for amivantamab versus RWCP, highlighting the value of amivantamab in addressing unmet need in patients with advanced EGFR Exon20ins NSCLC following platinum-based therapy.

Share This