Four-year clinical update and treatment switching-adjusted outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the CheckMate 9LA randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In 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. METHODS: Adults 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. RESULTS: With 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. CONCLUSIONS: In 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.

Summary of Research: Adjuvant Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Placebo for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial.

This is a summary of a research article reporting Part A of the CheckMate 914 study (NCT03138512; EudraCT 2016-004502-34). Following surgery to remove renal cell carcinoma (RCC), people with a high risk of the cancer returning received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (adjuvant therapy) or placebo to see if this risk was reduced. The results of this study showed that the risk of RCC returning or death was not changed with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment compared with placebo. In addition, people treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had more side effects compared with people treated with placebo (89% versus 57%).

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

Systemic and Intracranial Outcomes With First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC and Baseline Brain Metastases From CheckMate 227 Part 1.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227 Part 1, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Here, we report post hoc exploratory systemic and intracranial efficacy outcomes and safety by baseline brain metastasis status at 5 years' minimum follow-up. METHODS: Treatment-naive adults with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alterations, including asymptomatic patients with treated brain metastases, were enrolled. Patients with tumor PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy; patients with tumor PD-L1 less than 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy groups. Assessments included OS, systemic and intracranial progression-free survival per blinded independent central review, new brain lesion development, and safety. Brain imaging was performed at baseline (all randomized patients) and approximately every 12 weeks thereafter (patients with baseline brain metastases only). RESULTS: Overall, 202 of 1739 randomized patients had baseline brain metastases (nivolumab plus ipilimumab: 68; chemotherapy: 66). At 61.3 months' minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy in patients with baseline brain metastases (hazard ratio = 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.92) and in those without (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.87). In patients with baseline brain metastases, 5-year systemic and intracranial progression-free survival rates were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (12% and 16%, respectively) than chemotherapy (0% and 6%). Fewer patients with baseline brain metastases developed new brain lesions with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (4%) versus chemotherapy (20%). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: With all patients off immunotherapy for more than or equal to 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to provide a long-term, durable survival benefit in patients with or without brain metastases. Intracranial efficacy outcomes favored nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an efficacious first-line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of baseline brain metastasis status.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (2 cycles) significantly improved overall survival versus chemotherapy (4 cycles) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and no known sensitising epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations. We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs; minimum follow-up, 2 years). METHODS: In patients (N = 719) randomised 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone, disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life were assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L). Treatment-phase changes in LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) over time were analysed descriptively and using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Time-to-deterioration/improvement analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment-phase PRO questionnaire completion rates were >80%. Mean treatment-phase changes showed no deterioration from baseline in both arms for LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI; however, minimally important differences were not met. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses showed overall reduction in symptom burden from baseline for both arms; changes from baseline for LCSS 3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI were numerically improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, but minimally important differences were not met. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy delayed time-to-definitive-deterioration versus chemotherapy (LCSS ASBI: hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.87]); results were similar across PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year minimum follow-up, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy reduced the risk of definitive deterioration in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03215706.

Niraparib and Abiraterone Acetate for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains a lethal disease with current standard-of-care therapies. Homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, including BRCA1/2 alterations, can sensitize cancer cells to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition, which may improve outcomes in treatment-naïve mCRPC when combined with androgen receptor signaling inhibition. METHODS: MAGNITUDE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03748641) is a phase III, randomized, double-blinded study that evaluates niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (niraparib + AAP) in patients with (HRR+, n = 423) or without (HRR-, n = 247) HRR-associated gene alterations, as prospectively determined by tissue/plasma-based assays. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib + AAP or placebo + AAP. The primary end point, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed by central review, was evaluated first in the BRCA1/2 subgroup and then in the full HRR+ cohort, with secondary end points analyzed for the full HRR+ cohort if rPFS was statistically significant. A futility analysis was preplanned in the HRR- cohort. RESULTS: Median rPFS in the BRCA1/2 subgroup was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.6 v 10.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79; P = .001). In the overall HRR+ cohort, rPFS was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.5 v 13.7 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .022). These findings were supported by improvement in the secondary end points of time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In the HRR- cohort, futility was declared per the prespecified criteria. Treatment with niraparib + AAP was tolerable, with anemia and hypertension as the most reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events. CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with niraparib + AAP significantly lengthened rPFS in patients with HRR+ mCRPC compared with standard-of-care AAP.[Media: see text].

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo for localised renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective adjuvant therapy for patients with resected localised renal cell carcinoma represents an unmet need, with surveillance being the standard of care. We report results from part A of a phase 3, randomised trial that aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 CheckMate 914 trial enrolled patients with localised clear cell renal cell carcinoma who were at high risk of relapse after radical or partial nephrectomy between 4-12 weeks before random assignment. Part A, reported herein, was done in 145 hospitals and cancer centres across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks for 12 doses plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) intravenously every 6 weeks for four doses, or matching placebo, via an interactive response technology system. The expected treatment period was 24 weeks, and treatment could be continued until week 36, allowing for treatment delays. Randomisation was stratified by TNM stage and nephrectomy (partial vs radical). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival according to masked independent central review; safety was a secondary endpoint. Disease-free survival was analysed in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population); exposure, safety, and tolerability were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (all-treated population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138512. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2017, and March 16, 2021, 816 patients were randomly assigned to receive either adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (405 patients) or placebo (411 patients). 580 (71%) of 816 patients were male and 236 (29%) patients were female. With a median follow-up of 37·0 months (IQR 31·3-43·7), median disease-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and was 50·7 months (95% CI 48·1 to not estimable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·71-1·19; p=0·53). The number of events required for the planned overall survival interim analysis was not reached at the time of the data cutoff, and only 61 events occurred (33 in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 28 in the placebo group). 155 (38%) of 404 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 42 (10%) of 407 patients who received placebo had grade 3-5 adverse events. All-cause adverse events of any grade led to discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 129 (32%) of 404 treated patients and of placebo in nine (2%) of 407 treated patients. Four deaths were attributed to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and no deaths were attributed to treatment with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not improve disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. Our study results do not support this regimen for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus EXTREME Regimen as First-Line Treatment for Recurrent/Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: The Final Results of CheckMate 651.

PURPOSE: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 v 13.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 97.9% CI, 0.80 to 1.13; P = .4951) and CPS ≥ 20 (median: 17.6 v 14.6 months; HR, 0.78; 97.51% CI, 0.59 to 1.03; P = .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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Safety of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC: A Pooled Analysis of CheckMate 227, CheckMate 568, and CheckMate 817.

INTRODUCTION: We characterized the safety of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) in a large patient population with metastatic NSCLC and efficacy outcomes after NIVO+IPI discontinuation owing to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). METHODS: We pooled data from three first-line NIVO+IPI studies (NIVO, 3 mg/kg or 240 mg every 2 wk; IPI, 1 mg/kg every 6 wk) in metastatic NSCLC (CheckMate 227 part 1, CheckMate 817 cohort A, CheckMate 568 part 1). Safety end points included TRAEs and immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) in the pooled population and patients aged 75 years or older. RESULTS: In the pooled population (N = 1255), any-grade TRAEs occurred in 78% of the patients, grade 3 or 4 TRAEs in 34%, and discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs in 21%. The most frequent TRAE and IMAE were diarrhea (20%; grade 3 or 4, 2%) and rash (17%; grade 3 or 4, 3%), respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 IMAEs were hepatitis (5%) and diarrhea/colitis and pneumonitis (4% each). Pneumonitis was the most common cause of treatment-related death (5 of 16). Safety in patients aged 75 years or older (n = 174) was generally similar to the overall population, but discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs was more common (29%). In patients discontinuing NIVO+IPI owing to TRAEs (n = 225), 3-year overall survival was 50% (95% confidence interval: 42.6-56.0), and 42% (31.2-52.4) of 130 responders remained in response 2 years after discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: First-line NIVO+IPI was well tolerated in this large population with metastatic NSCLC and in patients aged 75 years or older. Discontinuation owing to TRAEs did not reduce long-term survival.

Real-world Treatment Sequencing in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from the Prospective, International, Observational Prostate Cancer Registry.

Background: Prostate cancer has a multifaceted treatment pattern. Evidence is lacking for optimal treatment sequences for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Objective: To increase the understanding of real-world treatment pathways and outcomes in patients with mCRPC. Design setting and participants: 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. Intervention: 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). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Baseline patient characteristics, quality of life, mCRPC treatments, and efficacy outcomes (progression and survival) were presented descriptively. Results and limitations: 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. Conclusions: 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. Patient summary: 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.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced NSCLC: 4-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.).

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced NSCLC With 1% or Greater Tumor PD-L1 Expression: Patient-Reported Outcomes From CheckMate 227 Part 1.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), patients with treatment-naive stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression had significantly improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Patients (N = 1189) were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were exploratory. Changes in Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) average symptom burden index, LCSS 3-item global index, EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and EQ-5D utility index were analyzed descriptively. Mixed-effect model repeated measures and time-to-first deterioration and improvement analyses were conducted. RESULTS: PRO completion rates were generally greater than 80%. On-treatment improvements from baseline in LCSS measures of symptom burden and global health status with nivolumab plus ipilimumab generally met or exceeded the minimal important difference (smallest clinically meaningful change) from weeks 24 and 30, respectively; improvements with chemotherapy generally remained below the minimal important difference. Mean on-treatment EQ-5D VAS scores for both treatments approached the U.K. population norm at week 24, remaining so throughout the treatment period. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses revealed numerically greater improvements from baseline with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS average symptom burden index and 3-item global index, and EQ-5D VAS and utility index. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had delayed time-to-first deterioration (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.56 to 0.98]) and a trend for more rapid time-to-first improvement (1.24 [0.98 to 1.59]) versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab revealed delayed deterioration and numerical improvement in symptoms and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and 1% or greater programmed death ligand 1 expression.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 9LA): an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown improved overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to investigate whether the addition of a limited course (two cycles) of chemotherapy to this combination would further enhance the clinical benefit. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 103 hospitals in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web response system via permuted blocks (block size of four) to nivolumab (360 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) combined with histology-based, platinum doublet chemotherapy (intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles; experimental group), or chemotherapy alone (every 3 weeks for four cycles; control group). Randomisation was stratified by tumour histology, sex, and PD-L1 expression. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was analysed in all treated patients. Results reported here are from a pre-planned interim analysis (when the study met its primary endpoint) and an exploratory longer-term follow-up analysis. This study is active but no longer recruiting patients, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03215706. FINDINGS: Between Aug 24, 2017, and Jan 30, 2019, 1150 patients were enrolled and 719 (62·5%) randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (n=361 [50%]) or four cycles of chemotherapy alone (n=358 [50%]). At the pre-planned interim analysis (median follow-up 9·7 months [IQR 6·4-12·8]), overall survival in all randomly assigned patients was significantly longer in the experimental group than in the control group (median 14·1 months [95% CI 13·2-16·2] vs 10·7 months [9·5-12·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [96·71% CI 0·55-0·87]; p=0·00065). With 3·5 months longer median follow-up (median 13·2 months [IQR 6·4-17·0]), median overall survival was 15·6 months (95% CI 13·9-20·0) in the experimental group versus 10·9 months (9·5-12·6) in the control group (HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55-0·80]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (in 24 [7%] patients in the experimental group vs 32 [9%] in the control group), anaemia (21 [6%] vs 50 [14%]), diarrhoea (14 [4%] vs two [1%]), increased lipase (22 [6%] vs three [1%]), and asthenia (tjree [1%] vs eight [2%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 106 (30%) patients in the experimental group and 62 (18%) in the control group. Seven (2%) deaths in the experimental group (acute kidney failure, diarrhoea, hepatotoxicity, hepatitis, pneumonitis, sepsis with acute renal insufficiency, and thrombocytopenia; one patient each) and six (2%) deaths in the control group (anaemia, febrile neutropenia, pancytopenia, pulmonary sepsis, respiratory failure, and sepsis; one patient each) were treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided a significant improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone and had a favourable risk-benefit profile. These data support this regimen as a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an early-phase study involving patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with nivolumab monotherapy, particularly among patients with tumors that expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Data are needed to assess the long-term benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. The patients who had a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1% were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. All the patients had received no previous chemotherapy. The primary end point reported here was overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. RESULTS: Among the patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.0 to 20.1) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 14.9 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 16.7) with chemotherapy (P = 0.007), with 2-year overall survival rates of 40.0% and 32.8%, respectively. The median duration of response was 23.2 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6.2 months with chemotherapy. The overall survival benefit was also observed in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1%, with a median duration of 17.2 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 22.0) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 12.2 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 14.3) with chemotherapy. Among all the patients in the trial, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% CI, 15.2 to 19.9) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 13.9 months (95% CI, 12.2 to 15.1) with chemotherapy. The percentage of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events in the overall population was 32.8% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.0% with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in a longer duration of overall survival than did chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC, independent of the PD-L1 expression level. No new safety concerns emerged with longer follow-up. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826.).

Detection of somatic mutations in ctDNA derived from adenocarcinoma patients - EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor monitoring preliminary study.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The main purpose of this study was to assess detection of mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a tool for EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monitoring therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted using 20 samples from 7 adenocarcinoma patients treated with TKIs. Blood samples for ctDNA analysis were collected in 2015-2016. ctDNA was isolated using the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen) and analyzed using the ctEGFR Mutation Detection Kit (EntroGen). RESULTS: The most common exon 19 deletion and p.Leu858Arg mutation in exon 21 of the EGFR gene were detected. We observed a correlation between stabilization of patient condition and the lack of p.Thr790Met mutation detection in ctEGFR during TKI treatment (2 out of 7 patients). We also observed a correlation between progression of the disease and p.Thr790Met mutation detection in ctEGFR (3 out of 7 cases). We did not detect ctDNA p.Thr790Metp in two patients in whom progression occurred shortly thereafter. Last but not least, we noticed that good organization during plasma collection and transportation (average time of 6 minutes and 30 seconds) allows to use K2EDTA tubes. CONCLUSIONS: When tissue is limited or insufficient, analysis of the ctEGFR mutational status can be considered as an alternative tool for qualifying patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for TKI therapy, also as a potential monitoring tool. The plasma p.Thr790Met-negative result needs to be verified for the presence of p.Thr790Met-positive tumor tissue.

A systemic literature review of neuroimaging studies in women with breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy-induced cognitive deficits in patients with breast cancer, predominantly in attention and verbal memory, have been observed in numerous studies. These neuropsychological findings are corroborated by the results of neuroimaging studies. The aim of this paper was to survey the reports on cerebral structural and functional alterations in women with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy (CTx). First, we discuss the host-related and disease-related mechanisms underlying cognitive impairment after CTx. We point out the direct and indirect neurotoxic effect of cytostatics, which may cause: a damage to neurons or glial cells, changes in neurotransmitter levels, deregulation of the immune system and/or cytokine release. Second, we focus on the results of neuroimaging studies on brain structure and function that revealed decreased: density of grey matter, integrity of white matter and volume of multiple brain regions, as well as their lower activation during cognitive task performance. Finally, we concentrate on compensatory mechanisms, which activate additional brain areas or neural connection to reach the premorbid cognitive efficiency.

Verbal fluency in breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive decline caused by chemotherapy used in the treatment of malignant diseases was reported in several studies. ICCTF recommends the diagnosis of cognitive function in patient treated with chemotherapy. One of the suggested method is Verbal Fluency Test (VFT). METHODS: Study was carried out on a group of 30 women with early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and 29 healthy controls. The patients underwent neuropsychological assessment using VFT at three time points: T1: before chemotherapy, T2: mid-chemotherapy and T3: post-chemotherapy. The examination in healthy controls was conducted at the same time intervals. RESULTS: In phonetic fluency task patients produced more words at T2 compared to T1 (Z = 2.02; p < 0.05) and at T3 compared to T1, both patients (Z = 2.36; p < 0.05) and controls (Z = 2.57; p < 0.01). The patients scored lower than controls (Z = -2.04; p < 0.05) as well as on average cluster size in the same task (Z = -2.38; p < 0.05) at T3, while they scored higher on the number of phonetic switches at T2 compared to T1 (Z = 2.62; p < 0.01) and at T3 compared to T1 (Z = 2.50; p < 0.01). In semantic task controls produced more words at T3 than at T1 (Z = 2.62; p < 0.01) and at T3 compared to T2 (Z = 2.89; p < 0.01) and semantic clusters at T3 compared to T2 (Z = 2.43; p < 0.05). In patients, number of clusters was smaller at T3 compared to T2 (Z = -2.85; p < 0.05), while number of semantic switches was higher at T3 than at T2 (Z = 3.05; p < 0.01). Patients scored also lower than controls on number of semantic switches at T2 (Z = -2.05; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy does not decrease verbal fluency, but it has a negative impact on semantic memory.

Potential Role of Methylation Marker in Glioma Supporting Clinical Decisions.

The IDH1/2 gene mutations, ATRX loss/mutation, 1p/19q status, and MGMT 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 IDH1 c.G395A; p.R132H mutation was associated with longer survival in grade II astrocytoma and GBM (Glioblastoma). Here we analyzed the MGMT promoter methylation status in patients with a known mutation status in codon 132 of IDH1, 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 MGMT promoter methylation and IDH1 somatic mutation (OS = 40 months) had a better prognosis than those with MGMT methylation alone (OS = 18 months). In patients with astrocytoma anaplasticum (n = 7) with the IDH1 p.R132H mutation and hypermethylated MGMT, 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 IDH1 mutation appears more relevant for the prognosis than MGMT methylation. The IDH1 p.R132H mutation combined with MGMT hypermethylation seems to be the most advantageous for treatment success. Patients not meeting those criteria may require more aggressive treatments.

CEREBEL (EGF111438): A Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine Versus Trastuzumab Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: 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 AND METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.