Time-dependent efficacy analysis of first-line immunotherapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and network meta-analyses have demonstrated that the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients can be improved through combination immunotherapy or monotherapies. However, time-dependent analysis of the treatment effect is currently lacking. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of first-line immunotherapy, and establish a hazard ratio function to reflect the time-varying progression or mortality risk of patients with NSCLC. METHODS: Seventeen clinical trials were selected based on search strategy. Baseline characteristics, including the age, sex, smoking status, geographical region, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of patients, were balanced, resulting in ten immunotherapies from nine appropriate clinical trials to conduct treatment effect comparison. RESULTS: We found that nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) improved the PFS and OS over time. The hazard ratio of nivo + ipi, relative to that of pembrolizumab, decreased from 1.11 to 0.36 for PFS, and from 0.93 to 0.49 for OS over a 10-year period. In terms of the response to immunotherapy in patients with different PD-L1 expression levels, patients with PD-L1 > = 50% experienced lower rates of progression and a reduced mortality risk over time. The hazard ratio of patients with PD-L1 > = 50% relative to all of the patients decreased from 0.73 to 0.69 for PFS, and from 0.78 to 0.67 for OS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the fact that time-dependent progression and mortality risk existed during the treatment duration, physicians should select a suitable treatment regimen for patients based on the hazard ratio.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib: 5-year results from CheckMate 040.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated promising clinical activity and durable responses in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the CheckMate 040 study at 30.7-month median follow-up. Here, we present 5-year results from this cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to arm A [nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)] or arm B [nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)], each followed by nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, or arm C (nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q6W). The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) per RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were randomized across treatment arms. At 60-month minimum follow-up (62.6-month median follow-up), the ORR was 34% (n = 17), 27% (n = 13), and 29% (n = 14) in arms A, B, and C, respectively. The median DOR was 51.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.6 months-not estimable (NE)], 15.2 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE), and 21.7 months (95% CI 4.2 months-NE), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was 22.2 months (34/50; 95% CI 9.4-54.8 months) in arm A, 12.5 months (38/49; 95% CI 7.6-16.4 months) in arm B, and 12.7 months (40/49; 95% CI 7.4-30.5 months) in arm C; 60-month OS rates were 29%, 19%, and 21%, respectively. In an exploratory analysis of OS by response (6-month landmark), the median OS was meaningfully longer for responders versus nonresponders for all arms. No new safety signals were identified with longer follow-up. There were no new discontinuations due to immune-mediated adverse events since the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the primary analysis, the arm A regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful responses and long-term survival benefit, with no new safety signals in patients with advanced HCC following sorafenib treatment, further supporting its use as a second-line treatment in these patients.

Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial: early discontinuation of nivolumab upon achieving a complete or partial response in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab - study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma presenting with poor prognostic factors are usually treated with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), consisting of ipilimumab and nivolumab. This combination therapy is associated with severe immune related adverse events (irAEs) in about 60% of patients. In current clinical practice, patients are usually treated with ICIs for up to two years or until disease progression or the occurrence of unacceptable AEs. The incidence of irAEs gradually increases with duration of treatment. While durable tumour responses have been observed after early discontinuation of treatment, no consensus has been reached on optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of ICIs is safe in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy. METHODS: The Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 80 patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy of ipilimumab-nivolumab and have a complete or partial response (CR/PR) according to RECIST v1.1 will be included to early discontinue maintenance therapy with anti-PD-1. The primary endpoint is the rate of ongoing response at 12 months after start of ICI. Secondary endpoints include ongoing response at 24 months, disease control at different time points, melanoma specific and overall survival, the incidence of irAEs and health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: From a medical, healthcare and economic perspective, overtreatment should be prevented and shorter treatment duration of ICIs is preferred. If early discontinuation of ICIs is safe for patients who are treated with the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab, the treatment duration of nivolumab could be shortened in patients with a favourable tumour response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05652673, registration date: 08-12-2022.

Comparison of Cabozantinib and Axitinib as Second-line Therapy After Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Analysis of Retrospective Real-world Data.

BACKGROUND: To date, no studies have compared the treatment outcomes of second-line therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line treatments in patients with metastatic ccRCC who previously received immune-oncology combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment were identified among 243 patients with RCC treated between August 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022 at 34 institutions belonging to the Japanese Urological Oncology Group. Patients were assessed for treatment outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and incidence rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients treated with cabozantinib and 60 treated with axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC were identified. The median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 11.0 months (9.0-16.0) with cabozantinib and 9.5 months (6.0-13.0) with axitinib. The ORRs were 37.5% (cabozantinib) and 38.3% (axitinib). The rates of any-grade AEs and grade ≥3 AEs were 79.2% (cabozantinib) versus 63.3% (axitinib; P = .091) and 35.4% (cabozantinib) versus 23.3% (axitinib; P = .202), respectively. In the poor-risk group, PFS was longer in the cabozantinib group than in the axitinib group (P = .033). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and axitinib were comparable. In the poor-risk group, cabozantinib was more effective than axitinib. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of second-line treatment options after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment in patients with metastatic ccRCC.

Prognostic impact of FAN score in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

FAN score is reportedly associated with prognostic outcomes in patients with urothelial carcinoma being treated with immune check point inhibitors. However, the prognostic impact of pre-treatment FAN score in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab remains unclear. We retrospectively evaluated the association between pre-treatment FAN score and prognostic outcomes in 154 patients with metastatic RCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The pre-treatment FAN score was '0' in 56 patients (36%), '1' in 60 patients (40%), '2' in 37 patients (24%) and '3' in one patient (1%). Progression-free survival was not significantly different between patients with different FAN scores, but second progression-free survival (PFS2), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly different. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, FAN score ≥ 2 was a significant predictor of poor PFS2 (vs. FAN score 0, HR: 2.43, 95% CI 1.21-4.87, P = 0.01), poor CSS (vs. FAN score 0, HR: 2.71, 95% CI 1.13-6.47, P = 0.02) and poor OS (vs. FAN score 0, HR: 2.42, 95% CI 1.11-5.25, P = 0.02). High pre-treatment FAN score could be a significant independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic RCC.

Case report: Durable complete response of a mucosal melanoma of the rectum after neoadjuvant immunotherapy with ipilimumab plus nivolumab.

Melanoma causes the majority of skin cancer-related deaths. Despite novel therapy options, metastatic melanoma still has a poor prognosis. Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy has been shown to prolong overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma, but mucosal melanomas respond less favorably compared to melanomas of cutaneous origin. We report on a patient with a mucosal melanoma of the rectum diagnosed in June 2020. Since a surgical intervention in order to achieve a tumor-free situation would have required an amputation of the rectum, a neo-adjuvant systemic immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab was initiated. As restaging and colonoscopy after four doses of this combination immunotherapy showed a partial response, the patient decided against the pre-planned surgery and a maintenance therapy with nivolumab was started. Repeated colonoscopy showed a complete response after four doses of nivolumab. After ongoing ICI therapy with nivolumab and no evidence of tumor relapse, immunotherapy was stopped in July 2022 after nearly 2 years of continuous treatment. The patient remained tumor-free during further follow-up. Neo-adjuvant immunotherapy is getting more explored in advanced melanoma. By administering ICI therapy before surgical resection of an essentially operable tumor, a stronger and more diverse immunological response is supposed to be achieved. Our reported case demonstrates that this approach could also be effective in mucosal melanoma despite of its generally lower response to immunotherapy.

Distinct autoantibody profiles across checkpoint inhibitor types and toxicities.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in combination. To understand the effects of different ICI categories, we characterized changes in circulating autoantibodies in patients enrolled in the E4412 trial (NCT01896999) of brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus ipilimumab, BV plus nivolumab, or BV plus ipilimumab-nivolumab for Hodgkin Lymphoma. Cycle 2 Day 1 (C2D1) autoantibody levels were compared to pre-treatment baseline. Across 112 autoantibodies tested, we generally observed increases in ipilimumab-containing regimens, with decreases noted in the nivolumab arm. Among 15 autoantibodies with significant changes at C2D1, all nivolumab cases exhibited decreases, with more than 90% of ipilimumab-exposed cases showing increases. Autoantibody profiles also showed differences according to immune-related adverse event (irAE) type, with rash generally featuring increases and liver toxicity demonstrating decreases. We conclude that dynamic autoantibody profiles may differ according to ICI category and irAE type. These findings may have relevance to clinical monitoring and irAE treatment.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in advanced cancers (excluding melanoma): a systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I2). RESULTS: Nine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi. CONCLUSIONS: Combining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Real-world evidence of efficacy of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus chemotherapy as initial treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: For advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), combination therapies including a PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy or a PD-1 inhibitor, CTLA-4 inhibitor, and chemotherapy are standard first-line options. However, data directly comparing these regimens are lacking. This study compared the efficacy of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (CP) against nivolumab plus ipilimumab and chemotherapy (CNI) in a real-world setting. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study, we compared the efficacy and safety of CP and CNI as first-line therapies in 182 patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary outcomes included the response rate (RR) and safety profiles. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models were utilized for data analysis, adjusting for confounding factors such as age, gender, and PD-L1 expression. RESULTS: In this study, 160 patients received CP, while 22 received CNI. The CP group was associated with significantly better PFS than the CNI group (median 11.7 vs. 6.6 months, HR 0.56, p = 0.03). This PFS advantage persisted after propensity score matching to adjust for imbalances. No significant OS differences were observed. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred comparably, but immune-related adverse events were numerically more frequent in the CNI group. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, CP demonstrated superior PFS compared with CNI. These findings can inform treatment selection in advanced NSCLC.

Adverse events of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab plus cabozantinib: a real-world pharmacovigilance study.

BACKGROUND: No head-to-head clinical trials have compared the differences in adverse events (AEs) between nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). AIM: We analysed the two largest real-world databases, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's VigiBase, to elucidate the differences in AEs between NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO. METHOD: In total, 40,376 and 38,022 records were extracted from FAERS and VigiBase, and 193 AEs were analysed. The reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence interval were calculated using a disproportionality analysis (NIVO-CABO/NIVO-IPI). RESULTS: The reported numbers of immune-related AEs, including myocarditis, colitis, and hepatitis, were significantly higher with NIVO-IPI (ROR = 0.18 for FAERS and 0.13 for VigiBase). Contrarily, the reported numbers of other AEs, including gastrointestinal disorders (ROR = 2.68 and 2.92) and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (ROR = 2.94 and 3.55), considered to be potentiated by the combination of NIVO and CABO, were higher with NIVO-CABO. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to the selection and clinical management of NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO, which minimizes the risk of AEs for individual patients with mRCC by considering distinctive differences in the AE profiles.

Beyond T cell toxicity - Intrathecal chemokine CXCL13 indicating B cell involvement in immune-related adverse events following checkpoint inhibition: A two-case series and literature review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to raise awareness of a role of B cells in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-associated neurological immune-related adverse events (nirAE). METHODS: A systematic literature review was made, with case observations of a melanoma and a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient who developed ICI-associated nirAE with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings indicating B cell involvement. RESULTS: Two patients receiving ipilimumab/nivolumab for melanoma and chemotherapy/pembrolizumab for NSCLC developed nirAE in the form of myocarditis/myositis/myasthenia gravis overlap syndrome (triple M) and cerebellitis plus longitudinal transverse myelitis (c-LETM), respectively. Intrathecal inflammation with chemokine C-X-C motif ligand (CXCL13) elevation was present in both patients; the triple M case had acetylcholine receptor antibodies, antititin reactivity, altered CD4/CD8 T cell ratio in blood, and depressed programmed death-1 (PD-1) expression on CSF T cells; the c-LETM case showed intrathecal antibody production and plasma cells. Both patients insufficiently responded to first-line treatment. The NSCLC case improved upon administration of B cell-depleting therapy with rituximab, whereas the melanoma patient died before escalation therapy was initiated. Literature research revealed one additional ICI-associated LETM case with intrathecal CXCL13 elevation, three cases with ICI-associated aquaporin-4 antibody neuromyelitis spectrum disorder, and evidence of B cell-mediated toxicity based on antibody-mediated immune pathologies in ICI-associated immune-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The case observations highlight the plethora of uncertainties in diagnosis and treatment of ICI-associated nirAE, exemplify the heterogeneity of immune mechanisms involved, and suggest a role of B cells, which may be underdiagnosed. Intrathecal CXCL13 may serve as a biomarker of B cell involvement in nirAE, supported by intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis, presence of plasma cells, and/or recruitment of cognate immune cells.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.

BACKGROUND: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort. METHODS: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Association of lung immune prognostic index with survival outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

OBJECTIVE: Lung immune prognostic index is based on derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and lactate dehydrogenase level. Lung immune prognostic index has reported association with survival outcomes in patients with various malignancies undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the prognostic impact of pre-treatment lung immune prognostic index in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment remains unclear. This study examines the association between lung immune prognostic index and outcomes in this setting. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 156 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab at eight institutions. We assessed the associations between pre-treatment lung immune prognostic index and survival outcomes including progression-free survival, second progression-free survival (PFS2), cancer-specific survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Patients were classified into good (n = 84, 54%), intermediate (n = 52, 33%) and poor (n = 20, 13%) lung immune prognostic index groups. Progression-free survival did not significantly differ between lung immune prognostic index groups, but there was significant difference in PFS2, cancer-specific survival and overall survival. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, high pre-treatment lung immune prognostic index was a significant predictor of poor PFS2 (vs. good group, intermediate group: P = 0.01 and poor group: P = 0.04) and poor overall survival (vs. good group, intermediate group: P = 0.01 and poor group: P < 0.01). Moreover, the patients with poor lung immune prognostic index had significantly poorer cancer-specific survival than those with good LIPI (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: High pre-treatment LIPI is suggested by our results to be a significant independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Annual melanoma incidence in the US is escalating. OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive evaluation of nivolumab alone or with ipilimumab for advanced melanoma treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, extending until August 2023. A range of outcomes were evaluated, encompassing overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), adverse events (both any and serious), complete response rate, mortality rate, and recurrence rate in patients with advanced melanoma. RESULTS: This analysis was conducted on seven relevant studies, involving 2,885 patients. The baseline characteristics of both groups were found to be comparable across all outcomes, with the exception of tumor size. The pooled analysis did not reveal any significant disparities, except for PFS, where the nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment group demonstrated a significantly longer PFS compared to the nivolumab group. However, there was a notable discrepancy in any adverse events (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.96, 3.69; p < 0.00001) and serious adverse events (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.88, 4.49, p < 0.00001) between the two groups, suggesting that the safety profile of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was inferior. CONCLUSIONS: Given diversity and potential biases, oncologists should base immunotherapy decisions on professional expertise and patient characteristics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023453484.

Neoadjuvant Dual Checkpoint Inhibitors vs Anti-PD1 Therapy in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM. Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered. Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Usage of nivolumab and ipilimumab for recurrent or advanced malignant vaginal melanoma: a two-case series.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors help treat malignant melanoma, but show limited use in treating malignant vaginal melanoma, an aggressive, rare gynecological malignancy. We identified two patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab for vaginal melanoma; both were immunonegative for programmed cell death-ligand 1 and wild-type BRAF. Case 1, a 56-year-old female who underwent radical surgery for stage 1 malignant vaginal melanoma, experienced recurrence 15 months postoperatively. She briefly responded to ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy before showing disease progression. Tumor shrinkage occurred with nivolumab and local radiotherapy and, 45 months postoperatively, she survives with the melanoma. Case 2, a 50-year-old female, presented with a 4-cm blackish polypoid vaginal tumor with metastatic pelvic lymph nodes. She received ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy for stage III unresectable malignant vaginal melanoma. The vaginal tumor shrank after the third course of treatment, and the lymphadenopathy disappeared. The patient underwent radical surgery and is currently disease-free, using nivolumab for maintenance therapy. Both patients had immune-related adverse events coinciding with periods of high therapeutic efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Neoadjuvant therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy for immune checkpoint inhibitor resensitization may effectively treat advanced or recurrent vaginal melanoma.

The Relationship Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in CheckMate 214.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 214 (median follow-up, 25.2 months), nivolumab plus ipilimumab yielded greater overall survival (OS) benefit than sunitinib in patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) was also more favorable for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the sunitinib group. We investigated whether HRQoL scores can predict OS of patients with 5 years follow-up in CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 214 was an open-label, phase III trial in previously untreated aRCC (N = 1096). Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk disease (International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic score ≥ 1; n = 847) were randomized to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Pooled data for OS and FKSI-19 total and subscales (disease-related symptoms [DRS], DRS-physical [DRS-P], and function/well-being [FWB]) were analyzed. Relationships between HRQoL and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with baseline and longitudinal scores. Associations between HRQoL changes and OS were assessed by landmark analyses. RESULTS: Patients with higher FKSI-19 total and subscale scores at baseline had longer OS than patients with lower scores (HR ≤ 0.834; P < .0001). Longitudinal models indicated stronger associations between HRQoL and OS (HR ≤ 0.69; P < .001 for each). At 3 months after randomization, patients with stable/improved HRQoL versus baseline had longer median OS than patients with worsened/unobserved HRQoL versus baseline (55.9 and 26.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; P < .0001). Results at 6-, 9-, and 12-month landmarks were consistent with these findings. CONCLUSION: In aRCC, patient-reported outcomes are important for HRQoL and prognostic evaluation. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02231749; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749.

Real-world outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japanese patients: data with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up data regarding treatment outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma as a first-line therapy are limited in real-world Japanese populations. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of 56 advanced renal cell carcinoma patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with a follow-up of at least 3 years. Survival, tumour response and adverse event profiles were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients (73%) were histopathologically diagnosed with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and 34 (61%) were categorized into the International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk group. The median follow-up period was 34.4 months. Regarding an effectiveness profile, median progression-free survival, time to treatment failure and overall survival were 9.01, 12.5 and 49.0 months, respectively. Objective response was observed in 27 patients (48%), including eight patients with complete response (14%), and the median duration of response was 30.8 months. Multivariate analyses showed that clear-cell histology was an independent factor of longer overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.23, P = 0.0013). Regarding safety profiles, adverse events of any grade and those with grade ≥3 developed in 40 (71%) and 25 patients (45%), respectively. Median time to adverse event development was 1.68 months. Treatment was interrupted in 28 patients (50%), and corticosteroid administration was needed in 25 (45%). CONCLUSION: The 3-year follow-up data showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy exhibited a feasible effectiveness in real-world Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Accordingly, the high risk of adverse event development, which often requires treatment withdrawal and corticosteroid administration, should be considered.

Correlation between tumor size change and outcome in a rare cancer immunotherapy basket trial.

BACKGROUND: RECIST criteria for progressive disease, partial response, and complete response, reflecting +20%, -30%, and -100% tumor size changes, respectively, are critical outcome variables in oncology clinical trials. Herein, we evaluated post-immunotherapy tumor size change correlation with outcomes. METHODS: We used a unique clinical trial data resource, a multicenter basket trial in patients with rare solid tumors treated with nivolumab (anti-PD-1) and ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) between 2017 and 2023 (National Cancer Institute/Southwest Oncology Group-sponsored DART trial [NCT02834013]) (open at 1083 sites at its peak). Outcome associations were evaluated by survival analysis techniques including Martingale residuals. RESULTS: In 638 evaluable patients, we found strong linear relationships between percent change in tumor measurement up to a 40%-50% increase and progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (both Cox regression P < .001; landmark analyses based on day 65). Pearson R correlation between survival estimates and tumor change category were -0.94, -0.89, and -0.89 (PFS) and -0.84, -0.90, and -0.90 (OS) for median, 6-month (PFS), and 1-year (OS) and for 1-year (PFS) and 2-year (OS) estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Percent change in tumor measurement per RECISTv1.1 (the sum of longest dimensions of target lesions) has a linear association with PFS and OS up to a 40% to 50% increase in tumor measurement in this cohort of patients with rare cancers who received combination immune checkpoint blockade. Quantitative first scan tumor measurement changes include important information to evaluate the potential efficacy of a therapy beyond the proportion of patients who achieve an objective response.