Table 5.

PFS and OS MAIC results for the comparison of liso-cel to tisagenlecleucel, infused patients

	JULIET (tisagenlecleucel) efficacy analysis set [8]		TRANSCEND (liso-cel) DLBCL efficacy set [6]		Liso-cel vs tisagenlecleucel
	N	Median, months (95% CI)	n or ESS	Median, months (95% CI)a	HR (95% CI)	P-value
PFS analyses
Naive	111	2.8 (2.3‒4.2)b	256	6.8 (3.5‒17.7)	0.67 (0.49‒0.91)	0.009
Primary			149.3	6.7 (3.5‒NR)	0.65 (0.47‒0.91)	0.012
Sensitivity			24.8	5.9 (3.1‒NR)	0.55 (0.32‒0.96)	0.035
OS analyses
Naive	111	11.7 (7.2‒NR)b	256	21.1 (3.3‒NR)	0.73 (0.52‒1.02)	0.062
Primary			180	22.0 (16.8‒NR)	0.67 (0.47‒0.95)	0.026
Sensitivity			24.8	19.9 (9.2‒NR)	0.68 (0.42‒1.10)	0.115

CI confidence interval, DLBCL diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, ESS effective sample size, HR hazard ratio, IPD individual patient data, liso-cel lisocabtagene maraleucel, MAIC matching-adjusted indirect comparison, NR not reached, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival

^aCIs for the medians were estimated using cumulative hazard function

^bThe median was obtained from pseudo-IPD based on a digitized Kaplan–Meier curve