Supplementary materials: Real-world comparison between weekly versus biweekly dosing of cetuximab for metastatic colorectal cancer

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Real-world comparison between weekly versus biweekly dosing of cetuximab for metastatic colorectal cancer' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplemental Table 1: Patient dosing schedule and cetuximab dosage by LOTSupplemental Table 2: Percentiles of time gap between cetuximab administrations in Q2W vs. Q1W cohortsSupplementary Table 3: Patient characteristics by dosing schedule and line of therapy before and after propensity score matchingSupplementary Table 4: Overall survival in 1:1 propensity score-matched Q2W vs. Q1W cohorts under stringent dosing schedule criteriaSupplementary Table 5: Overall survival in 1:1 propensity score-matched Q2W vs. Q1W cohorts excluding patients with long time gap between administrationsSupplementary Table 6: E-values for overall survival results in 1:1 propensity score-matched Q2W versusvs. Q1W cohortsSupplementary Table 7: Overall survival in 1:1 propensity score-matched Q2W vs. Q1W cohorts with non-Missing ECOG performance statusSupplementary Table 8: Overall survival in 1:2 propensity score-matched Q2W vs. Q1W cohorts y score-matched Q2W vs. Q1W cohorts with non-Missing ECOG performance statusSupplementary Table 9: Overall survival in entropy-balanced Q2W vs. Q1W cohortsAim: This real-world study aims to compare overall survival (OS) associated with biweekly (Q2W) versus weekly (Q1W) cetuximab dosing regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment in the US. Methods: Adult patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who received cetuximab ± chemotherapy from 2013 to 2019 were selected using Flatiron Health’s electronic health records database. Propensity score matching was used to balance Q2W and Q1W cohorts on baseline patient characteristics. The Kaplan–Meier method was used for survival analyses. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of findings from the main analysis. Results: Of 1075 patients in the study, 60.7% received cetuximab Q1W and 39.3% Q2W. Median OS (95% confidence interval) in months was 17.2 (15.3, 18.8) for Q2W versus 14.3 (12.8, 16.0) for Q1W; p = 0.246. Similar OS between the dosing cohorts was observed in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Weekly and biweekly cetuximab had comparable effectiveness in this real-world study.

本数据集为发表于《比较疗效研究杂志》的论文《关于结直肠癌转移患者每周与每两周注射西妥昔单抗疗效的对比研究》的同行评审补充材料。补充表1：患者用药方案及按批号划分的西妥昔单抗剂量；补充表2：Q2W与Q1W队列中注射西妥昔单抗时间间隔的百分位数；补充表3：根据倾向得分匹配前后，按用药方案和治疗方案划分的患者特征；补充表4：在严格剂量标准下，1:1倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列的总生存期；补充表5：排除注射间隔较长的患者后，1:1倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列的总生存期；补充表6：1:1倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列中总生存期结果的E值；补充表7：在1:1倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列中，排除ECOG表现状态缺失的患者后的总生存期；补充表8：在1:2倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列中，排除ECOG表现状态缺失的患者后的总生存期；补充表9：熵平衡的Q2W与Q1W队列的总生存期。研究目的：本项实际研究旨在比较美国结直肠癌转移（mCRC）治疗中，每两周（Q2W）与每周（Q1W）注射西妥昔单抗的剂量方案对总生存期（OS）的影响。研究方法：利用Flatiron Health的电子健康记录数据库，选取了2013年至2019年间接受西妥昔单抗±化疗的KRAS野生型mCRC成年患者。采用倾向得分匹配方法平衡Q2W与Q1W队列的基线患者特征。采用Kaplan-Meier方法进行生存分析。进行了多项敏感性分析，以评估主要分析结果的稳健性。研究结果：在1075名患者中，60.7%接受了Q1W的西妥昔单抗，39.3%接受了Q2W。Q2W的中位OS（95%置信区间）为17.2个月（15.3，18.8），Q1W为14.3个月（12.8，16.0）；p = 0.246。在敏感性分析中，剂量队列间的OS相似。研究结论：在本项实际研究中，每周和每两周注射西妥昔单抗在疗效上具有可比性。