Supplementary tables: 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 vs. 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 cohortsSupplementary 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.

本数据集为发表在《比较疗效研究杂志》上的文章《每周与每两周注射西妥昔单抗治疗转移性结直肠癌的对比研究》的同行评审补充材料。补充表1：患者给药计划和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的时间间隔百分位数；补充表3：按给药计划和治疗方案划分的患者特征，以及倾向得分匹配前后的患者特征；补充表4：在1:1倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列中，在严格的给药计划标准下，总体生存率（OS）；补充表5：在1:1倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列中，排除给药间隔较长的患者后的总体生存率；补充表6：1:1倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列中，总体生存率的E值；补充表7：1:1倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列中，非缺失ECOG功能状态下的总体生存率；补充表8：1:2倾向得分匹配的Q2W与Q1W队列中的总体生存率；补充表9：熵平衡的Q2W与Q1W队列中的总体生存率。研究目标：本项真实世界研究旨在比较美国转移性结直肠癌（mCRC）治疗中，每周（Q1W）与每两周（Q2W）西妥昔单抗给药方案对总体生存率（OS）的影响。研究方法：通过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成人患者。采用倾向得分匹配法平衡Q2W和Q1W队列在基线患者特征上的差异。生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier方法。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西妥昔单抗治疗，39.3%接受了Q2W治疗。Q2W组的平均OS（95%置信区间）为17.2个月（15.3，18.8），而Q1W组为14.3个月（12.8，16.0）；p = 0.246。敏感性分析中观察到给药队列间的OS相似。研究结论：在本项真实世界研究中，每周和每两周西妥昔单抗在有效性方面具有可比性。