Patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more of tumor cells were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or ...chemotherapy. Overall survival was significantly longer among the patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab than among those who received chemotherapy.
In a randomized trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free ...and overall survival and the likelihood of response. A total of 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued one or both of the trial drugs prematurely.
In CheckMate 227, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) greater than or equal to 1% (primary end ...point) or less than 1% (prespecified descriptive analysis). We report results with minimum 4 years' follow-up.
Adults with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥1%); or to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Efficacy included OS and other measures. Safety included timing and management of immune-mediated adverse events (AEs). A post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs).
After 54.8 months' median follow-up, OS remained longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.65–0.90) and PD-L1 less than 1% (0.64; 0.51–0.81); 4-year OS rate with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was 29% versus 18% (PD-L1 ≥1%); and 24% versus 10% (PD-L1 <1%). Benefits were observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies. In a descriptive analysis, efficacy was improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to nivolumab (PD-L1 ≥1%) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Safety was consistent with previous reports. The most common immune-mediated AE with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab plus chemotherapy was rash; most immune-mediated AEs (except endocrine events) occurred within 6 months from start of treatment and resolved within 3 months after, mainly with systemic corticosteroids. Patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs had long-term OS benefits, as seen in the all randomized population.
At more than 4 years' minimum follow-up, with all patients off immunotherapy treatment for at least 2 years, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate durable long-term efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified. Immune-mediated AEs occurred early and resolved quickly with guideline-based management. Discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs did not have a negative impact on the long-term benefits seen in all randomized patients.
CheckMate 651 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02741570) evaluated first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cetuximab plus cisplatin/carboplatin plus fluorouracil ≤ six cycles, then ...cetuximab maintenance) in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN).
Patients without prior systemic therapy for R/M SCCHN were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or EXTREME. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in the all randomly assigned and programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 20 populations. Secondary end points included OS in the programmed death-ligand 1 CPS ≥ 1 population, and progression-free survival, objective response rate, and duration of response in the all randomly assigned and CPS ≥ 20 populations.
Among 947 patients randomly assigned, 38.3% had CPS ≥ 20. There were no statistically significant differences in OS with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME in the all randomly assigned (median: 13.9
13.5 months; hazard ratio HR, 0.95; 97.9% CI, 0.80 to 1.13;
= .4951) and CPS ≥ 20 (median: 17.6
14.6 months; HR, 0.78; 97.51% CI, 0.59 to 1.03;
= .0469) populations. In patients with CPS ≥ 1, the median OS was 15.7 versus 13.2 months (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97). Among patients with CPS ≥ 20, the median progression-free survival was 5.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) versus 7.0 months (EXTREME), objective response rate was 34.1% versus 36.0%, and median duration of response was 32.6 versus 7.0 months. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28.2% of patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 70.7% treated with EXTREME.
CheckMate 651 did not meet its primary end points of OS in the all randomly assigned or CPS ≥ 20 populations. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed a favorable safety profile compared with EXTREME. There continues to be a need for new therapies in patients with R/M SCCHN.
CEREBEL compared the incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer receiving lapatinib-capecitabine ...or trastuzumab-capecitabine.
Patients without baseline CNS metastases were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive lapatinib-capecitabine (lapatinib 1,250 mg per day; capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 to 14 every 21 days) or trastuzumab-capecitabine (trastuzumab loading dose of 8 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks; capecitabine 2,500 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 to 14 every 21 days). The primary end point was incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
The study was terminated early with 540 enrolled patients (271 received lapatinib-capecitabine, and 269 received trastuzumab-capecitabine). Incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse was 3% (eight of 251 patients) for lapatinib-capecitabine and 5% (12 of 250 patients) for trastuzumab-capecitabine (treatment differences, -1.6%; 95% CI, -2% to 5%; P = .360). PFS and OS were longer with trastuzumab-capecitabine versus lapatinib-capecitabine (hazard ratio HR for PFS, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.64; HR for OS, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.64). Serious adverse events were reported in 13% (34 of 269 patients) and 17% (45 of 267 patients) of patients in the lapatinib-capecitabine and trastuzumab-capecitabine arms, respectively.
CEREBEL is inconclusive for the primary end point, and no difference was detected between lapatinb-capecitabine and trastuzumab-capecitabine for the incidence of CNS metastases. A better outcome was observed with trastuzumab-capecitabine in the overall population. However, lapatinib-capecitabine efficacy may have been affected by previous exposure to a trastuzumab regimen and/or when treatment was given as first- or second-line therapy in the metastatic setting.
The
/2 gene mutations,
loss/mutation, 1p/19q status, and
promoter methylation are increasingly used as prognostic or predictive biomarkers of gliomas. However, the effect of their combination on ...radiation therapy outcome is discussable. Previously, we demonstrated that the
c.G395A; p.R132H mutation was associated with longer survival in grade II astrocytoma and GBM (Glioblastoma). Here we analyzed the
promoter methylation status in patients with a known mutation status in codon 132 of
, followed by clinical and genetic data analysis based on the two statuses. After a subtotal tumor resection, the patients were treated using IMRT (Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy) with 6 MeV photons. The total dose was: 54 Gy for astrocytoma II, 60 Gy for astrocytoma III, 60 Gy for glioblastoma, 2 Gy per day, with 24 h intervals, five days per week. The patients with
promoter methylation and
somatic mutation (OS = 40 months) had a better prognosis than those with
methylation alone (OS = 18 months). In patients with astrocytoma anaplasticum (
= 7) with the
p.R132H mutation and hypermethylated
, the prognosis was particularly favorable (median OS = 47 months). In patients with astrocytoma II meeting the above criteria, the prognosis was also better than in those not meeting those criteria. The
mutation appears more relevant for the prognosis than
methylation. The
p.R132H mutation combined with
hypermethylation seems to be the most advantageous for treatment success. Patients not meeting those criteria may require more aggressive treatments.
Abstract only
9500
Background: In the phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 (NCT02477826; minimum follow-up, 29.3 mo), 1L NIVO + IPI significantly improved overall survival (OS) vs chemo in treatment-naive ...patients (pts) with aNSCLC and tumor PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% (primary analysis) or < 1% (pre-specified descriptive analysis). Here we report data with 3-y minimum follow-up. Methods: Pts with stage IV / recurrent NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥ 1% (n = 1189) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), NIVO (240 mg Q2W) alone, or chemo. Pts with PD-L1 < 1% (n = 550) were randomized to NIVO + IPI, NIVO (360 mg Q3W) + chemo, or chemo. Primary endpoint was OS with NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. An exploratory analysis of OS in pts by response status (CR/PR, SD, progressive disease PD) at 6 mo was conducted. Results: After a median follow-up of 43.1 mo (database lock, 28 Feb 2020), pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% continued to derive OS benefit from NIVO + IPI vs chemo (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67–0.93); 3-y OS rates were 33% (NIVO + IPI), 29% (NIVO), and 22% (chemo). At 3 y, 18% of pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% treated with NIVO + IPI remained progression-free vs 12% with NIVO and 4% with chemo; 38% of confirmed responders remained in response in the NIVO + IPI arm at 3 y vs 32% in the NIVO arm and 4% in the chemo arm. In pts with PD-L1 < 1%, OS HR for NIVO + IPI vs chemo was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.51–0.81); 3-y OS rates were 34% (NIVO + IPI), 20% (NIVO + chemo), and 15% (chemo); 13%, 8%, and 2% of pts remained progression-free; and 34%, 15%, and 0% of confirmed responders remained in response, respectively. Pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% with either CR/PR at 6 mo had longer subsequent OS with NIVO + IPI vs chemo; pts with SD or PD at 6 mo had generally similar subsequent OS between treatments (Table); results in PD-L1 < 1% pts will be presented. Any-grade / grade 3–4 treatment-related AEs were observed in 77% / 33% of all pts treated with NIVO + IPI, and 82% / 36% with chemo. Conclusions: With 3 y minimum follow-up, NIVO + IPI continued to provide durable and long-term OS benefits vs chemo for pts in 1L aNSCLC. Pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% who achieved CR/PR at 6 mo had marked OS benefit with NIVO + IPI vs chemo. No new safety signals were identified for NIVO + IPI. Clinical trial information: NCT02477826. Table: see text
Abstract only
9501
Background: NIVO + IPI was shown to improve overall survival (OS) and durability of response vs chemo in 1L advanced NSCLC in CheckMate 227 Part 1, regardless of PD-L1 expression. ...We hypothesized that a limited course of chemo combined with NIVO + IPI could provide rapid disease control while building on the durable OS benefit seen with dual PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibition. CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706) is a phase 3 randomized study evaluating NIVO + IPI + 2 cycles chemo vs chemo in 1L stage IV/recurrent NSCLC. Methods: Adults with tx-naive, histologically confirmed stage IV/recurrent NSCLC, ECOG performance status 0–1, and no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 360 mg Q3W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W + chemo (2 cycles) (n = 361) or chemo (4 cycles) alone (n = 358), stratified by PD-L1 (< 1% vs ≥ 1%), sex, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous). Chemo was based on histology. Pts with non-squamous NSCLC in the chemo-only arm could receive optional pemetrexed maintenance. Pts were treated with immunotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for 2 y. The primary endpoint was OS; the interim analysis using Lan–DeMets alpha spending function with O’Brien–Fleming boundary was planned at ~80% information fraction (ie, after observing ~322 total events). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability. Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced across arms. At a preplanned interim analysis (minimum follow-up 8.1 mo), OS was significantly prolonged with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo (HR 0.69, 96.71% CI: 0.55–0.87; P = 0.0006); statistically significant improvements in PFS and ORR were seen. With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 mo), NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo continued to provide longer OS; median 15.6 vs 10.9 mo (HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.55–0.80); 1-y OS rates were 63 vs 47%. Clinical benefit was consistent across all efficacy measures in key subgroups including by PD-L1 and histology. Grade 3–4 tx-related adverse events were reported in 47 vs 38% of pts in the NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo arms, respectively. Conclusions: CheckMate 9LA met its primary endpoint: a statistically significant improvement in OS was observed with NIVO + NSCLC-optimized IPI + a limited course of chemo vs chemo (4 cycles) in 1L advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were reported. Clinical trial information: NCT03215706 .
BackgroundIn CheckMate 9LA, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression or histology. We report updated ...efficacy and safety in all randomized patients with a minimum 4-year follow-up and an exploratory treatment-switching adjustment analysis in all treated patients who received chemotherapy and subsequent immunotherapy.MethodsAdults with stage IV/recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and ECOG performance status ≤1 were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with chemotherapy (two cycles) or chemotherapy (four cycles, with optional maintenance pemetrexed for the nonsquamous population). Assessments included OS, progression-free survival, and objective response rate. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by tumor PD-L1 expression and histology and in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and a treatment-switching adjustment analysis using inverse probability of censoring weighting.ResultsWith a 47.9-month minimum follow-up for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong OS over chemotherapy in all randomized patients (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87; 4-year OS rate: 21% versus 16%), regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression (HR (95% CI): PD-L1<1%, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86) and ≥1%, 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92)) or histology (squamous, 0.64 (0.48 to 0.84) and non-squamous, 0.80 (0.66 to 0.97)). In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to TRAEs (n=61), the 4-year OS rate was 41%. With treatment-switching adjustment for the 36% of patients receiving subsequent immunotherapy in the chemotherapy arm, the estimated HR of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80). No new safety signals were observed.ConclusionsIn this 4-year update, patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to have long-term, durable efficacy benefit over chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression and/or histology. A greater estimated relative OS benefit was observed after adjustment for subsequent immunotherapy use in the chemotherapy arm. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic/recurrent NSCLC, including those with tumor PD-L1<1% or squamous histology, populations with high unmet needs.
Patient characteristics appear to influence the first-line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Patients older and with lower Gleason scores tended to receive abiraterone, ...those younger and with more advanced disease tended to receive docetaxel, and those with fewer metastases and more favourable performance tended to receive enzalutamide. The benefit to patients from these observations remains unknown.
Prostate cancer has a multifaceted treatment pattern. Evidence is lacking for optimal treatment sequences for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
To increase the understanding of real-world treatment pathways and outcomes in patients with mCRPC.
A prospective, noninterventional, real-world analysis of 3003 patients with mCRPC in the Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR; NCT02236637) from June 14, 2013 to July 9, 2018 was conducted.
Patients received first- and second-line hormonal treatment and chemotherapy as follows: abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone)-docetaxel (ABI-DOCE), abiraterone-enzalutamide (ABI-ENZA), abiraterone–radium-223 (ABI-RAD), docetaxel-abiraterone (DOCE-ABI), docetaxel-cabazitaxel (DOCE-CABA), docetaxel-enzalutamide (DOCE-ENZA), and enzalutamide-docetaxel (ENZA-DOCE).
Baseline patient characteristics, quality of life, mCRPC treatments, and efficacy outcomes (progression and survival) were presented descriptively.
Data from 727 patients were eligible for the analysis (ABI-DOCE n = 178, ABI-ENZA n = 99, ABI-RAD n = 27, DOCE-ABI n = 191, DOCE-CABA n = 74, DOCE-ENZA n = 116, and ENZA-DOCE n = 42). Demographics and disease characteristics among patients between different sequences varied greatly. Most patients who started on abiraterone or enzalutamide stopped therapy because of disease progression. No randomisation to allow treatment/sequence comparisons limited this observational study.
The real-world PCR data complement clinical trial data, reflecting more highly selected patient populations than seen in routine clinical practice. Baseline characteristics play a role in mCRPC first-line treatment selection, but other factors, such as treatment availability, have an impact. Efficacy observations are limited and should be interpreted with caution.
Baseline characteristics appear to have a role in the first-line treatment selection of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the real-world setting. First-line abiraterone acetate plus prednisone seems to be the preferred treatment option for older patients and those with lower Gleason scores, first-line docetaxel for younger patients and those with more advanced disease, and first-line enzalutamide for patients with fewer metastases and more favourable performance status. The benefit to patients from these observations remains unknown.
PDF
