Science News
from research organizations

Ceritinib in advanced lung cancer: No hint of added benefit

Drug manufacturer's dossier contained no suitable data for any patient group

Date:
October 6, 2015
Source:
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care
Summary:
Reviewers of Ceritinib say that the drug manufacturer's dossier contained no study data suitable for an assessment for any of the two research questions being asked.
Share:
FULL STORY

The drug ceritinib (trade name: Zykadia) has been approved since May 2015 for the treatment of adults with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It is an option when certain changes in the cancer cells (anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive) stimulate tumour growth and patients have already been pretreated with crizotinib.

The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) examined in a dossier assessment whether ceritinib offers an added benefit over the appropriate comparator therapy. Such an added benefit cannot be derived from the dossier, however, because it contained no data suitable for the assessment.

G-BA distinguished between two research questions

The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) distinguished between two research questions: In patients who are eligible for chemotherapy with docetaxel or pemetrexed, ceritinib was to be compared with one of these two drugs.

In patients who are not eligible for chemotherapy, the G-BA specified best supportive care (BSC) as appropriate comparator therapy. BSC refers to the therapy that provides the patient with the best possible, individually optimized, supportive treatment to alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life.

Unadjusted historical comparisons not interpretable

Because there were no studies that tested ceritinib directly against chemotherapy, the manufacturer presented different unadjusted historical comparisons. These were not evaluable, however. One of the reasons was that partly different patient groups were considered (patients pretreated with crizotinib and crizotinib-naive patients). Furthermore, it was not ensured for the data on overall survival that the comparator therapy specified by the G-BA was used.

Irrespective of this, historical comparisons per se have a lower certainty of results, which is why the observed differences have to reach a certain magnitude. However, the effect differences reported in the dossier on ceritinib are so small that they may be caused by systematic bias alone.

The company presented no data for the comparison with BSC. Hence there is no hint of an added benefit for any of the two research questions.


Story Source:

Materials provided by Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.


Cite This Page:

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. "Ceritinib in advanced lung cancer: No hint of added benefit: Drug manufacturer's dossier contained no suitable data for any patient group." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 6 October 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151006111605.htm>.
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. (2015, October 6). Ceritinib in advanced lung cancer: No hint of added benefit: Drug manufacturer's dossier contained no suitable data for any patient group. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 23, 2017 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151006111605.htm
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. "Ceritinib in advanced lung cancer: No hint of added benefit: Drug manufacturer's dossier contained no suitable data for any patient group." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151006111605.htm (accessed May 23, 2017).

RELATED STORIES