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.