Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of PFS and OS comparisons between the TRANSCEND and ZUMA-1 studies

From: Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of liso-cel versus axi-cel in relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma

 

ZUMA-1 (axi-cel)

TRANSCEND (liso-cel)

Liso-cel versus axi-cel

N (%)

Median (95% CI), mo

N/ESS

Median (95% CI), mo

HR (95% CI)

P

PFS

 Naïve comparison

101

5.8 (3.4–15.0)*

256

4.1 (3.0–6.0)

1.20 (0.90–1.59)

0.219

 Initial analysis

  

40.0

6.3 (3.0–NR)

0.95 (0.58–1.57)

0.847

 Sensitivity analysis 1

  

151.4

3.5 (3.0–5.9)

1.30 (0.96–1.77)

0.095

 Sensitivity analysis 2

  

98.9

5.0 (3.0–9.2)

1.16 (0.81–1.66)

0.408

OS

 Naïve comparison

101

NR (12.8–NR)*

256

21.1 (13.3–NR)

1.13 (0.81–1.58)

0.457

 Initial analysis

  

38.3

NR (11.6–NR)

0.81 (0.44–1.49)

0.506

 Sensitivity analysis 1

  

152.6

19.9 (12.1–NR)

1.15 (0.80–1.65)

0.454

 Sensitivity analysis 2

  

98.9

21.1 (14.4–NR)

1.04 (0.70–1.56)

0.838

  1. Axi-cel, axicabtagene ciloleucel; CI, confidence interval; ESS, effective sample size; HR, hazard ratio; liso-cel, lisocabtagene maraleucel; N, sample size; NR, not reached; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival
  2. *The median was obtained from pseudo-individual patient data based on a digitized Kaplan–Meier curve [16]