PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 10, 2026Targeted Oncology0 citationsOpen Access

Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy of Pembrolizumab Versus Nivolumab as Adjuvant Options for Stage IIB/IIC Melanoma

DADimitrios A. AndreikosIAIro ArgyropoulouCTCharalampos Theocharopoulos

Key Points

  • To compare the efficacy of pembrolizumab and nivolumab as adjuvant therapies in stage IIB/IIC melanoma using an indirect treatment comparison.
  • Conducted an anchored Bucher indirect treatment comparison linking KEYNOTE-716 and CheckMate-76K trials.
  • Used recent follow-up hazard ratios for primary analyses and original trial publications for secondary analyses.
  • No statistically significant differences found for recurrence-free survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.69-1.35).
  • No significant differences for distant metastasis-free survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54-1.21).
  • Subgroup analyses remained nonsignificant, with effect estimates trending towards unity as follow-up duration increased.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy improves outcomes in resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma at high risk of recurrence; however, no randomized head-to-head trial has directly compared pembrolizumab with nivolumab. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the efficacy of pembrolizumab and nivolumab as adjuvant therapies in resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma using an indirect treatment comparison (ITC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: An anchored Bucher ITC was performed linking the results of KEYNOTE-716 and the CheckMate-76K trials. Primary analyses used the most recent follow-up hazard ratios (HRs), with secondary analyses based on the original trial publications. RESULTS: The ITC showed no statistically significant differences between pembrolizumab and nivolumab for recurrence-free survival (RFS; HR 0.97, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.69-1.35) or distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS; HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54-1.21). Subgroup analyses for RFS were also nonsignificant: stage IIB HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62-1.50; stage IIC HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61-1.65; age < 65 years HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.76-1.89; and age ≥ 65 years HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47-1.25. Secondary analyses based on the original trial publications yielded nonsignificant estimates that numerically favored nivolumab, with RFS HR 1.48 (95% CI 0.98-2.23) and DMFS HR 1.26 (95% CI 0.74-2.13). CONCLUSIONS: This ITC demonstrated no statistically significant differences between pembrolizumab and nivolumab for RFS or DMFS in resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma, with consistently null findings across subgroup analyses. Longer follow-up attenuated earlier numerical trends, with effect estimates converging toward unity.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Andreikos et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0021b7c8f74e3340f9ca90https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-026-01221-4
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper