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.

Introduction: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors (ALKi) are the standard treatment for metastatic, ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Second- and third-generation ALKi, including alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, envonalkib, and lorlatinib, have shown better efficacy than crizotinib. However, due to the lack of direct head-to-head comparisons among these agents, the optimal treatment for metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC remains unclear.Methods: This study used the IPDfromKM (Individual Patient Data from Kaplan-Meier) method to reconstruct patient-level data from Kaplan-Meier curves of seven randomized phase III trials, involving a total of 3,850 patients. Crizotinib arms were pooled as the common comparator. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, assessed using Cox proportional hazards models and restricted mean survival time (RMST). Subgroup analyses focused on patients with baseline central nervous system (CNS) metastases.Results: All ALKi significantly improved PFS compared to crizotinib. Lorlatinib showed the most meaningful improvement, with the greatest benefit in both overall PFS (HR=0.28; 95% CI 0.21-0.38) and CNS PFS (HR=0.09; 95% CI 0.04-0.2). In direct comparisons, lorlatinib outperformed brigatinib (HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.39-0.87) and envonalkib (HR=0.52; 95% CI 0.35-0.77) in terms of PFS. While lorlatinib also showed improved PFS compared to alectinib (HR=0.72; 95% CI 0.50–1.04) and ensartinib (HR=0.73; 95% CI 0.48–1.10), these differences were not statistically significant. Lorlatinib demonstrated the greatest benefit in PFS among patients with baseline CNS metastases.Conclusion: In this indirect comparison using reconstructed patient data, lorlatinib emerged as the most effective ALKi, showed the most favorable HR for PFS compared to the other ALKi, although it did not reach statistical significance versus alectinib and ensartinib. Additionally, lorlatinib showed the highest efficacy in the control of CNS progression.

Background: Recently, numerous combination therapies based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors have been proposed as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Our study aimed to compare the efficacy of these combination regimens by the application of an innovative method that reconstructs individual patient data. Methods: Six phase III studies describing different combination regimens for aRCC were selected. Individual patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves through the “Shiny method”. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared among combination treatments and sunitinib. Results were summarized as multi-treatment KM curves. Standard statistical testing was used, including hazard ratio and likelihood ratio tests for heterogeneity. Results: In the overall population of aRCC patients, pembrolizumab + lenvatinib showed the longest median PFS and was expected to determine the longest OS. Pembrolizumab + axitinib, nivolumab + cabozantinib and nivolumab + ipilimumab were similar in terms of PFS, but pembrolizumab + axitinib also demonstrated a better OS. Our subgroup analysis showed that sunitinib is still a valuable option, whereas, in intermediate-poor risk patients, pembrolizumab + axitinib and nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly improve OS compared to sunitinib. Conclusion: The Shiny method allowed us to perform all head-to-head indirect comparisons between these agents in a context in which “real” comparative trials have not been performed.

Background: The proven efficacy of mTOR inhibitors (mTORIs), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) suggests that these agents should be investigated as adjuvant therapy with the aim of eliminating undetectable microscopic residual disease after curative resection. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of these treatments using an innovative method of reconstructing individual patient data. Methods: Nine phase III trials describing adjuvant RCC treatments were selected. The IPDfromKM method was used to reconstruct individual patient data from Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves. The combination treatments were compared with the control arm (placebo) for disease-free survival (DFS). Multi-treatment KM curves were used to summarize the results. Standard statistical tests were performed. These included hazard ratio and likelihood ratio tests for heterogeneity. Results: In the overall population, the study showed that two ICIs (nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab) and one TKI (sunitinib) were superior to the placebo, whereas both TKIs and mTORIs were inferior. As we assessed DFS as the primary endpoint for the adjuvant comparison, the overall survival benefit remains unknown. Conclusions: This novel approach to investigating survival has allowed us to conduct all indirect head-to-head comparisons between these agents in a context where no “real” comparative trials have been conducted.

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.

Background: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer have been conventionally treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Recently, numerous new treatments have been proposed to improve overall survival (OS) and reduce adverse effects, but no direct head-to-head comparisons among these agents are available. Methods: The treatments evaluated in our analyses included (a) monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI); (b) combinations of an ICI with chemotherapy; and (c) combinations of an ICI with other drugs. Using OS as the endpoint, a series of indirect comparisons were performed to rank the most effective regimens against both chemotherapy and each other. Our analysis was based on the application of an artificial intelligence software program (IPDfromKM method) that reconstructs individual patient data from the information reported in the graphs of Kaplan–Meier curves. Results: A total of five studies published in six articles were included. In our main analysis, nivolumab plus chemotherapy showed better OS compared to chemotherapy (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.59–0.82), while durvalumab plus tremelimumab showed no OS benefit (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.82–1.11). More interestingly, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab significantly prolonged OS compared to both chemotherapy alone (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.45–0.63) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.60–0.97). Discussion and conclusion: Among new treatments for locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer, enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab showed the best efficacy in terms of OS. Our results support the use of this combination as a first-line treatment in this setting.