Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies for third-line or later treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: lisocabtagene maraleucel versus tisagenlecleucel

Table 5 PFS and OS MAIC results for the comparison of liso-cel to tisagenlecleucel, infused patients

	JULIET (tisagenlecleucel) efficacy analysis set [8]		TRANSCEND (liso-cel) DLBCL efficacy set [6]		Liso-cel vs tisagenlecleucel
	N	Median, months (95% CI)	n or ESS	Median, months (95% CI)^a	HR (95% CI)	P-value
PFS analyses
Naive	111	2.8 (2.3‒4.2)^b	256	6.8 (3.5‒17.7)	0.67 (0.49‒0.91)	0.009
Primary			149.3	6.7 (3.5‒NR)	0.65 (0.47‒0.91)	0.012
Sensitivity			24.8	5.9 (3.1‒NR)	0.55 (0.32‒0.96)	0.035
OS analyses
Naive	111	11.7 (7.2‒NR)^b	256	21.1 (3.3‒NR)	0.73 (0.52‒1.02)	0.062
Primary			180	22.0 (16.8‒NR)	0.67 (0.47‒0.95)	0.026
Sensitivity			24.8	19.9 (9.2‒NR)	0.68 (0.42‒1.10)	0.115

CI confidence interval, DLBCL diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, ESS effective sample size, HR hazard ratio, IPD individual patient data, liso-cel lisocabtagene maraleucel, MAIC matching-adjusted indirect comparison, NR not reached, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival
^aCIs for the medians were estimated using cumulative hazard function
^bThe median was obtained from pseudo-IPD based on a digitized Kaplan–Meier curve

ISSN: 2162-3619