In the area of evidence-based medicine, the IPDfromKM-Shiny method is an innovative method of survival analysis, midway between artificial intelligence and advanced statistics. Its main characteristic is that an original software investigates the Kaplan-Meier graphs of trials so that individual-patient data are reconstructed. These reconstructed patients represent a new form of original clinical material. The typical objective of investigations based on this method is to analyze the available evidence, especially in oncology, to perform indirect comparisons, and determine the place in therapy of individual agents. This review examined the most recent applications of the IPDfromKM-Shiny method, in which a new web-based software—published in 2021—was used. Reported here are 14 analyses, mostly focused on oncological treatments. Indirect comparisons were based on overall survival or progression free survival. Each of these analyses provided original information to compare treatments with one another and select the most appropriate depending on patient characteristics. These analyses can also be useful to assess equivalence from a regulatory viewpoint. All investigations stressed the importance of heterogeneity to better interpret the evidence generated by IPDfromKM-Shiny investigations. In conclusion, these investigations showed that the reconstruction of individual patient data through this online tool is a promising new method for analyzing trials based on survival endpoints. This new approach deserves further investigation, particularly in the area of indirect comparisons.

Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors are increasingly used in a variety of solid tumors. In patients with DNA mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer, their efficacy has been demonstrated in recently published phase-II trials. However, an indirect comparison of effectiveness between pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab+ipilimumab is not yet available. After a standard literature search, we analyzed four overall survival (OS) curves from three phase-II trials. Individual patient data were reconstructed from each curve using a specific web-based technique (Shiny method). Indirect statistical comparisons were made based on hazard ratio (HR) and restricted mean survival time (RMST). Nivolumab+ipilumumab had a better HR compared with pembrolizumab (0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.002, p=0.051); the difference being close to statistical significance. In the analysis based on RMST, the combination of nivolumab+ipilimumab showed a significantly longer OS than pembrolizumab (improvement in RMST, 1.08 mos; 95%CI, 0.11 to 2.06; p=0.029). The other two pairwise differences in RMST (nivolumab vs. pembrolizumab and nivolumab+ ipilimumab vs. nivolumab) had a smaller magnitude (0.25 mos, 95%CI, -0.99 to 1.48, and 0.84 mos, 95%CI, -0.40 to 2.07, respectively) and were far from statistical significance. Our results favoring the combination of nivolumab+ipilimumab in metastatic colorectal cancer must be viewed with caution owing to the indirect nature of our statistical comparisons. With this limitation in mind, the magnitude of the incremental benefit for the above combination treatment was estimated to be around one month over a follow-up of 15 months.

While a well-estabished clinical indication of CAR-T in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) includes the pediatric and young adult population [1], CAR-Ts offer a potential treatment option also in a...

In metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with chemotherapy has been demonstrated in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Despite this, an indirect comparison is not yet available. Reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves allows the indirect comparison of different treatments. We analyzed six overall survival (OS) curves from three RCTs. In patients with ≥1% positivity, atezolizumab was found to determine a significantly better OS than pembrolizumab. As regards pembrolizumab, adopting a threshold of PD-L1 positivity ≥10% (as opposed to ≥1%) improved median survival to a remarkable extent (23.0 vs 15.5 months).

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced urothelial carcinoma. Materials & methods: We selected seven cohorts of patients published in four clinical trials. The restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to analyze survival curves, perform the comparisons and rank the treatments based on their effectiveness. The performance of RMST was compared with that of a network meta-analysis. Results: Three ICIs, vinflunine and best standard care, given as second line, were examined. ICIs significantly improved overall survival compared with best standard care. However, the survival gain was quite limited (up to 2.27 months). Post hoc pairwise comparisons were calculated. Conclusion: Our results summarized the efficacy of these treatments and confirmed the good methodological performance of RMST.

Background: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are the standard of care for first-line maintenance in advanced ovarian cancer, but their benefit varies by BRCA and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, and no head-to-head comparisons are available. Methods: We conducted an indirect comparison of PARPi regimens using reconstructed individual patient data (IPD) from Kaplan–Meier curves of phase III randomized trials (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA1, ATHENA, FLAMES). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint; overall survival (OS) was exploratory. Subgroups were defined as BRCA−mutated (BRCA+), BRCA−/HRD+, and BRCA−/HRD−. Safety outcomes were assessed through a network meta-analysis of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Results: In BRCA+ patients, olaparib + bevacizumab achieved the largest PFS improvement (HR = 0.27; 95%CI: 0.19–0.39), followed by olaparib monotherapy, while niraparib performed significantly worse. In BRCA−/HRD+, olaparib + bevacizumab was superior to niraparib and rucaparib, with restricted mean survival time (RMST) gains of 3–4 months. In BRCA−/HRD−, PARPi produced only a modest benefit, with no advantage over bevacizumab monotherapy. Exploratory OS analysis confirmed long-term survival with olaparib in BRCA+ but not in the other subgroups. Safety analysis indicated olaparib had the most favorable hematological profile, while niraparib was associated with the highest rates of severe anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia, despite showing lower gastrointestinal toxicity and fatigue incidence. Conclusions: PARPi efficacy depends strongly on BRCA and HRD status. Olaparib-based regimens provide the greatest clinical benefit with acceptable safety in BRCA+ and HRD+ disease, whereas PARPi appear to be of limited value in HRD-negative ovarian cancer.