Reanalysis of Urothelial Cancer Chemoimmunotherapy Trials With Differential Censoring

Importance: Three similar phase 3 randomized clinical trials have investigated PD-1/PD-L1 (programmed cell death 1 protein/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1) inhibitors in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130, atezolizumab; KEYNOTE-361, pembrolizumab; and CheckMate901, nivolumab). Only CheckMate901 reported overall survival (OS) benefit for the combination. The reason for these inconsistent results is unclear. Objective: To explore whether differential censoring - that is, censoring imbalance between the study groups - is a possible explanation for these inconsistent findings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study involved a censoring analysis of data from IMvigor130, KEYNOTE-361, and CheckMate901, which enrolled patients between 2016 and 2022. Participants included patients in these 3 trials. Exposure: Participation in 1 of the 3 trials. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were censoring rates adjusted for treatment effects. Censoring rates were calculated from the Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. When excess censoring in the control group of open-label trials was found, the hypothesis was that better-performing patients might be dropping out to seek alternative treatments; a sensitivity analysis was conducted in which their survival was assumed to be similar to that of the longest surviving patients in the control group. Treatment effects of the censoring-adjusted KM curves were calculated using the 2-sided log-rank test. Results: The 3 trials involved a total of 2162 patients (1640 male [76%]; age range, 65-69 years) Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) curves demonstrated no differential censoring in IMvigor130, but there was more than 30% excess censoring in the chemotherapy-only groups in KEYNOTE-361 and CheckMate901 trials. After sensitivity analysis, the PFS benefit was no longer significant in either study (KEYNOTE-361, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.95-1.35]; CheckMate901, adjusted HR, 1.17 [0.96-1.44]). Analysis of OS curves demonstrated no differential censoring in IMvigor130 or KEYNOTE-361, but there was more censoring in the chemotherapy-only group in CheckMate901. After sensitivity analysis, the OS benefit of adding nivolumab to chemotherapy was lost (before adjustment, HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63-0.95]; P =.01; adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.17]; P =.64). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study, differential censoring explained the inconsistent results reported in the evaluated trials. The term perceived-inferiority censoring is suggested to describe a phenomenon wherein better-performing patients are aware of their treatment and drop out to pursue alternative therapeutic options; it is possible that this occurred in the open-label KEYNOTE-361 and CheckMate901 trials. Such censoring confounds randomization and interpretation of clinical trials, since a larger experimental group is compared with a selected group of controls with poorer prognosis..