IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0155389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nivolumab versus Cabozantinib: Comparing Overall Survival in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Author

Listed:
  • Witold Wiecek
  • Helene Karcher

Abstract

Renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) affects over 330,000 new patients every year, of whom 1/3 present with metastatic RCC (mRCC) at diagnosis. Most mRCC patients treated with a first-line agent relapse within 1 year and need second-line therapy. The present study aims to compare overall survival (OS) between nivolumab and cabozantinib from two recent pivotal studies comparing, respectively, each one of the two emerging treatments against everolimus in patients who relapse following first-line treatment. Comparison is traditionally carried out using the Bucher method, which assumes proportional hazard. Since OS curves intersected in one of the pivotal studies, models not assuming proportional hazards were also considered to refine the comparison. Four Bayesian parametric survival network meta-analysis models were implemented on overall survival (OS) data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves reported in the studies. Three models allowing hazard ratios (HR) to vary over time were assessed against a fixed-HR model. The Bucher method favored cabozantinib, with a fixed HR for OS vs. nivolumab of 1.09 (95% confidence interval: [0.77, 1.54]). However, all models with time-varying HR showed better fits than the fixed-HR model. The log-logistic model fitted the data best, exhibiting a HR for OS initially favoring cabozantinib, the trend inverting to favor nivolumab after month 5 (95% credible interval

Suggested Citation

  • Witold Wiecek & Helene Karcher, 2016. "Nivolumab versus Cabozantinib: Comparing Overall Survival in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0155389
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155389
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155389&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0155389?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0155389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.