Supplementary materials: Indirect treatment comparison of lurbinectedin versus other second-line treatments for small-cell lung cancer

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Indirect treatment comparison of lurbinectedin versus other second-line treatments for small-cell lung cancer' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Table S1: Eligibility criteria for screeningTable S2: Search strategy for EmbaseTable S3: Search strategy for MEDLINETable S4: Search strategy for Cochrane Register of Controlled TrialsTable S5: Summary of absolute standardized difference and effective sample size when matched to the basket trial platinum-sensitive subgroup (n = 60)Table S6: Estimated odds ratios and hazard ratios for overall survival and overall response rate across sensitivity analysesTable S7: Estimated odds ratios from the fixed-effect network meta-analysis of hematological adverse eventsFigure S1: Network of trials included in the feasibility assessment, with visualization of platinum sensitivity statusFigure S2: Evidence networks for overall response rate, overall survival, grade 3/4 anemia, grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, and grade 3/4 neutropenia for (A) sensitivity analysis #1 and (B) sensitivity analysis #2Figure S3: Results from network meta-analysis of progression-free survival/time to progression. Aim: Compare lurbinectedin versus other second-line (2L) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments. Methods: An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison connected the platinum-sensitive SCLC cohort of a single-arm lurbinectedin trial to a network of three randomized controlled trials (oral and intravenous [IV] topotecan, and platinum re-challenge) identified by systematic literature review. Network meta-analysis methods estimated relative treatment effects. Results: In platinum-sensitive patients, lurbinectedin demonstrated a survival benefit and favorable safety profile versus oral and IV topotecan and platinum re-challenge (overall survival, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.43; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.27, 0.67; HR: 0.43; 95% CrI: 0.26, 0.70; HR: 0.42; 95% CrI: 0.30, 0.58 respectively). Conclusion: Lurbinectedin showed a robust survival benefit and favorable safety versus other SCLC treatments in 2L platinum-sensitive SCLC.

本数据集为发表于《比较有效性研究杂志》之文章《卢比尼韦汀与其他二线治疗方案在小细胞肺癌中的间接治疗比较》的同行评审补充材料。其中，表S1详述了筛选资格标准；表S2、S3、S4分别列出了Embase、MEDLINE和Cochrane临床试验注册库的搜索策略；表S5总结了与篮式试验铂敏感亚组（n=60）匹配的绝对标准化差异和有效样本量；表S6估计了整体生存率和整体反应率在敏感性分析中的比值比和风险比；表S7为固定效应网络Meta分析中血液学不良事件的比值比；图S1展示了可行性评估中包含的试验网络，并可视化铂敏感性状态；图S2呈现了针对总体反应率、整体生存率、3/4级贫血、3/4级血小板减少症和3/4级中性粒细胞减少症的证据网络，包括（A）敏感性分析#1和（B）敏感性分析#2；图S3展示了无进展生存期/进展时间的网络Meta分析结果。研究目的：比较卢比尼韦汀与其他二线（2L）小细胞肺癌（SCLC）治疗方案。研究方法：通过未锚定的匹配调整间接比较，将单一臂卢比尼韦汀试验的铂敏感SCLC队列与系统文献综述确定的三个随机对照试验网络（口服和静脉[IV]拓扑替康，以及铂重新挑战）连接。网络Meta分析方法估计相对治疗效应。研究结果：在铂敏感患者中，卢比尼韦汀与口服和静脉拓扑替康以及铂重新挑战相比，显示出生存优势及良好的安全性特征（总体生存率，风险比[HR]：0.43；95%可信区间[CrI]：0.27，0.67；HR：0.43；95% CrI：0.26，0.70；HR：0.42；95% CrI：0.30，0.58）。研究结论：卢比尼韦汀在二线铂敏感SCLC中显示出相对于其他SCLC治疗的显著生存优势及良好的安全性。