Supplementary materials: A network meta-analysis of immunotherapy-based treatments for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'A network meta-analysis of immunotherapy-based treatments for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Additional MethodologySurvival analysisProportional hazards assumptionPiecewise constant hazard ratios modelsFiguresFig. S1: Network of evidence for first-line to progression - progression-freeFig. S2: Network of evidence for first-line to progression - overall survivalFig. S3: Network of evidence for first-line to progression - progression-free survival and overall survival for the PD-L1 ≥50% subgroup survivalTablesTable S1a: Medline search terms used for SLRTable S1b: Embase search terms used for SLRTable S1c: Cochrane CENTRAL search terms used for SLRTable S2: PICOS StatementTable S3: Reasons for exclusion of studies from the first-line to progression NMA base case analysesTable S4: Reasons for exclusion of studies from the second-line NMA base case analysesData InputsTable S5: Input data for first-line to progression PFS – HRTable S6: Input data for first-line to progression OS – HRTable S7: Input data for second-line PFS – HRTable S8: Input data for second-line PFS – medianTable S9: Input data for second-line OS – HRTable S10: Input data for second-line OS – medianResultsTable S11: Model assessment statistics for the piecewise constant hazard ratio survival models on both OS and PFSTable S12: Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression OS (using random effects model)Table S13: Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression PFS (using random effects model)Table S14: Piecewise analysis: pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression - OS (using random effects model)Table S15: Piecewise analysis: pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression PFS (using random effects model)Table S16: Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression OS (using fixed effects model) in the PD-L1 ≥50 subgroupTable S17: Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression OS (using random effects model) in the PD-L1 ≥50 subgroupTable S18: Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression PFS (using fixed effects model) in the PD-L1 ≥50 subgroupTable S19: Pairwise hazard ratios for first-line to progression PFS (using random effects model) in the PD-L1 ≥50 subgroupTable S20: Pairwise hazard ratios (and credible intervals) for second-line overall survival (using random effects model)Table S21: Pairwise hazard ratios (and credible intervals) for second-line progression-free survival (using random effects model)ReferencesIntroduction: In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these treatments. Materials & methods: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating first-line-to-progression and second-line treatments for advanced NsqNSCLC informed Bayesian NMAs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) end points. Results: Among first-line-to-progression treatments, pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the greatest OS benefit versus other regimens and a PFS benefit versus all but three regimens. Among second-line treatments, an OS benefit was seen for atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab versus docetaxel. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the maximum OS benefit in the first-line setting. In the second-line setting, anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monotherapies were better than docetaxel.本数据集为发表于《比较疗效研究杂志》的论文《基于免疫治疗的高级非鳞状非小细胞肺癌治疗的网络荟萃分析》的同行评审补充材料。补充方法：生存分析、比例风险假设、分段恒定风险比模型。图表：图S1：一线至进展期-无进展生存期的证据网络；图S2：一线至进展期-总生存期的证据网络；图S3：一线至进展期-无进展生存期和总生存期对于PD-L1≥50%亚组生存期的证据网络。表格：表S1a：用于系统文献综述的Medline检索词；表S1b：用于系统文献综述的Embase检索词；表S1c：用于系统文献综述的Cochrane CENTRAL检索词；表S2：PICOS声明；表S3：一线至进展期网络荟萃分析基础案例分析中排除研究的理由；表S4：第二线网络荟萃分析基础案例分析中排除研究的理由。数据输入：表S5：一线至进展期无进展生存期-风险比的输入数据；表S6：一线至进展期总生存期-风险比的输入数据；表S7：第二线无进展生存期-风险比的输入数据；表S8：第二线无进展生存期-中位数的输入数据；表S9：第二线总生存期-风险比的输入数据；表S10：第二线总生存期-中位数的输入数据。结果：表S11：分段恒定风险比生存模型在总生存期和无进展生存期上的模型评估统计量；表S12：一线至进展期总生存期的成对风险比（使用随机效应模型）；表S13：一线至进展期无进展生存期的成对风险比（使用随机效应模型）；表S14：分段分析：一线至进展期-总生存期的成对风险比（使用随机效应模型）；表S15：分段分析：一线至进展期-无进展生存期的成对风险比（使用随机效应模型）；表S16：在PD-L1≥50亚组中，一线至进展期总生存期（使用固定效应模型）的成对风险比；表S17：在PD-L1≥50亚组中，一线至进展期总生存期（使用随机效应模型）的成对风险比；表S18：在PD-L1≥50亚组中，一线至进展期无进展生存期（使用固定效应模型）的成对风险比；表S19：在PD-L1≥50亚组中，一线至进展期无进展生存期（使用随机效应模型）的成对风险比；表S20：第二线总生存期的成对风险比（及置信区间）（使用随机效应模型）；表S21：第二线无进展生存期的成对风险比（及置信区间）（使用随机效应模型）。参考文献：引言：鉴于缺乏比较免疫治疗用于晚期非鳞状非小细胞肺癌（NsqNSCLC）的头对头试验，进行了一项网络荟萃分析（NMA），以比较这些治疗的相对疗效。材料与方法：对评估晚期NsqNSCLC一线至进展期和二线治疗的随机对照试验的系统文献综述，为贝叶斯网络荟萃分析提供了总生存期（OS）和无进展生存期（PFS）终点的信息。结果：在一线至进展期治疗中，帕博利珠单抗+培美曲塞+铂类显示出相对于其他方案的最大总生存期益处，以及相对于除三种方案外的所有方案的无进展生存期益处。在二线治疗中，阿替利珠单抗、尼伏单抗和帕博利珠单抗与多西他赛相比显示出总生存期益处。结论：帕博利珠单抗+培美曲塞+铂类在一线治疗设置中显示出最大的总生存期益处。在二线治疗设置中，抗PD-1/抗PD-L1单药治疗优于多西他赛。