The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known.
In this phase 3, ...randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point.
Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval CI, 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib.
Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).
This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilar pegfilgrastim (PegFilBS) and originator pegfilgrastim (PegFilOR) in patients with stage 2-4 breast cancer.
This phase III ...randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study recruited women with stage 2-4 breast cancer in Argentina who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. Stratification was based on the breast cancer stage. The primary end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN, noninferiority margin: 1 day) in the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary end points assessed were incidence of severe neutropenia, grade 3 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, infections, postchemotherapy hospitalization and duration, and the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs).
A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive PegFilBS (58 patients) or PegFilOR (62 patients). Severe neutropenia occurred in 52 of 283 cycles (18.4%) for 27 patients who received PegFilBS and in 48 of 297 cycles (16.2%) for 20 patients who received PegFilOR (
= .48). During the first cycle, severe neutropenia occurred in 16 patients who received PegFilBS (DSN: 0.78 ± 1.53 days) and in 11 patients who received PegFilOR (DSN: 0.53 ± 1.25 days; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.76 days). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean DSN values were 0.90 ± 1.79 days for the PegFilBS group and 0.50 ± 1.21 for the PegFilOR group (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.95 days). No significant differences were observed for the secondary efficacy end points. Three patients experienced seven ADRs in the PegFilBS group while 10 patients experienced 31 ADRs in the PegFilOR group. The most common ADR was myalgia.
Relative to PegFilOR, PegFilBS provided noninferior efficacy outcomes in Argentinian women with stage 2-4 breast cancer who were treated using myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
Abstract Background Response patterns to nivolumab differ from those seen with other approved targeted therapies. Objective To investigate the efficacy of nivolumab in previously treated patients ...with advanced renal cell carcinoma who were treated beyond (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) RECIST progression. Design, setting, and participants This was a subgroup analysis of patients treated with nivolumab in the phase 3 CheckMate 025 study. Patients continuing to tolerate therapy and exhibiting investigator-assessed clinical benefit were eligible to be treated beyond RECIST progression (TBP) and received therapy for ≥4 wk after first progression; patients not treated beyond RECIST progression (NTBP) received 0 wk to <4 wk of therapy after progression. Interventions Nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk. Results and limitations Of 406 nivolumab-treated patients, 316 (78%) progressed by RECIST criteria. Of those who progressed, 48% were TBP, 52% were NTBP. Before being TBP, objective response rate (95% confidence interval) was 20% (14–28) and 14% (9–21) in patients TBP and NTBP, respectively. Differences in clinical characteristics assessed at first progression between patients TBP versus NTBP included better Karnofsky performance status, less deterioration in Karnofsky performance status, shorter time to response, lower incidence of new bone lesions, and improved quality of life. Postprogression, 13% of all patients TBP (20/153) had ≥30% tumor burden reduction including patients with preprogression and postprogression tumor measurements ( n = 142) and complete/partial response (28%, 8/29), stable disease (6%, 3/47), and progressive disease (14%, 9/66) as their best response before being TBP. Incidence of treatment-related adverse events in patients TBP was lower after (59%) versus before (71%) progression. Limitations included potential bias from the nonrandomized nature of the analysis. Conclusions A subset of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and RECIST progression experienced tumor reduction postprogression with nivolumab, and had an acceptable safety profile. Clinical judgment remains essential when switching therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01668784. Patient summary A subset of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and disease progression may continue to benefit from nivolumab treatment beyond progression as evidenced by tumor reduction postprogression and an acceptable safety profile.
Background
CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis ...assesses the long‐term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus.
Methods
The randomized, open‐label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression‐free survival (PFS), safety, and health‐related quality of life (HRQOL).
Results
Eight hundred twenty‐one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow‐up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months 95% CI, 22.2‐29.8 months vs 19.7 months 95% CI, 17.6‐22.1 months; hazard ratio HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62‐0.85) with 5‐year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 23% vs 17 of 411 4%; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72‐0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment‐related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus.
Conclusions
The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow‐up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long‐term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC.
LAY SUMMARY
CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard‐of‐care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy.
After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long‐lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.
The results of the 5‐year follow‐up analysis of the CheckMate 025 trial demonstrate that the clinical benefits are sustained with nivolumab over everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the long term. Overall survival, progression‐free survival, and objective response rate benefits are maintained with nivolumab versus everolimus, and more patients treated with nivolumab experience improved health‐related quality of life; meanwhile, the safety of nivolumab is manageable and compares favorably with that of everolimus.
Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) are usually asymptomatic and seek treatments that improve survival but have a low risk of adverse events. Darolutamide, a ...structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor (ARi), significantly reduced the risk of metastasis and death versus placebo in ARAMIS. We assessed the extended safety and tolerability of darolutamide and the time-course profile of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to ARis and androgen-suppressive treatment.
Patients with nmCRPC were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554). After trial unblinding, patients could receive open-label darolutamide. Tolerability and TEAEs were assessed every 16 weeks. Time interval-specific new and cumulative event rates were determined during the first 24 months of the double-blind period.
Darolutamide remained well tolerated during the double-blind and open-label periods, with 98.8% of patients receiving the full planned dose. The incidence of TEAEs of interest in the darolutamide group was low and ≤2% different from that in the placebo group, except for fatigue. When incidences were adjusted for exposure time, there were minimal differences between the darolutamide double-blind and double-blind plus open-label periods. The rate of initial onset and cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 TEAEs and serious TEAEs were similar for darolutamide and placebo groups over 24 months.
Extended treatment with darolutamide was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. Most ARi-associated and androgen-suppressive treatment-related TEAEs occurred at low incidences with darolutamide, were similar to placebo, and showed minimal increase over time with continued treatment.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02200614.
PDF
