Tumor and Microenvironment Evolution during Immunotherapy with Nivolumab.

The mechanisms by which immune checkpoint blockade modulates tumor evolution during therapy are unclear. We assessed genomic changes in tumors from 68 patients with advanced melanoma, who progressed on ipilimumab or were ipilimumab-naive, before and after nivolumab initiation (CA209-038 study). Tumors were analyzed by whole-exome, transcriptome, and/or T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing. In responding patients, mutation and neoantigen load were reduced from baseline, and analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity during therapy demonstrated differential clonal evolution within tumors and putative selection against neoantigenic mutations on-therapy. Transcriptome analyses before and during nivolumab therapy revealed increases in distinct immune cell subsets, activation of specific transcriptional networks, and upregulation of immune checkpoint genes that were more pronounced in patients with response. Temporal changes in intratumoral TCR repertoire revealed expansion of T cell clones in the setting of neoantigen loss. Comprehensive genomic profiling data in this study provide insight into nivolumab's mechanism of action.

Antigen and checkpoint receptor engagement recalibrates T cell receptor signal strength.

How T cell receptor (TCR) signal strength modulates T cell function and to what extent this is modified by immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) are key questions in immunology. Using Nr4a3-Tocky mice, we characterized early quantitative and qualitative changes that occur in CD4+ T cells in relation to TCR signaling strength. We captured how dose- and time-dependent programming of distinct co-inhibitory receptors rapidly recalibrates T cell activation thresholds and visualized the immediate effects of ICB on T cell re-activation. Our findings reveal that anti-PD1 immunotherapy leads to an increased TCR signal strength. We defined a strong TCR signal metric of five genes upregulated by anti-PD1 in T cells (TCR.strong), which was superior to a canonical T cell activation gene signature in stratifying melanoma patient outcomes to anti-PD1 therapy. Our study therefore reveals how analysis of TCR signal strength-and its manipulation-can provide powerful metrics for monitoring outcomes to immunotherapy.

Comprehensive assessment of TECENTRIQ® and OPDIVO®: analyzing immunotherapy indications withdrawn in triple-negative breast cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Atezolizumab (TECENTRIQ®) and nivolumab (OPDIVO®) are both immunotherapeutic indications targeting programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), respectively. These inhibitors hold promise as therapies for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and have demonstrated encouraging results in reducing the progression and spread of tumors. However, due to their adverse effects and low response rates, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has withdrawn the approval of atezolizumab in TNBC and nivolumab in HCC treatment. The withdrawals of atezolizumab and nivolumab have raised concerns regarding their effectiveness and the ability to predict treatment responses. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate the immunotherapy withdrawal of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, specifically atezolizumab for TNBC and nivolumab for HCC. This study will examine both the structural and clinical aspects. This review provides detailed insights into the structure of the PD-1 receptor and its ligands, the interactions between PD-1 and PD-L1, and their interactions with the withdrawn antibodies (atezolizumab and nivolumab) as well as PD-1 and PD-L1 modifications. In addition, this review further assesses these antibodies in the context of TNBC and HCC. It seeks to elucidate the factors that contribute to diverse responses to PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in different types of cancer and propose approaches for predicting responses, mitigating the potential risks linked to therapy withdrawals, and optimizing patient outcomes. By better understanding the mechanisms underlying responses to PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and developing strategies to predict these responses, it is possible to create more efficient treatments for TNBC and HCC.

Response and outcome of patients with melanoma skin metastases and immune checkpoint inhibition.

It is known, that different metastatic organ systems respond differently to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In this study, we aimed to investigate the extent to which skin/subcutaneous metastases respond to ICI or targeted therapies (TTs) and whether the response rate differs from that of distant metastases in the same patient. Patients with melanoma diagnosed between January 2021 and September 2023 with at least one skin/subcutaneous metastasis who had received therapy with ICI or TT in an advanced setting were included in the analysis. Best overall response (BOR) was classified according to the revised response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). The BOR of skin metastases and visceral metastases to ICI and TT was compared using the chi-square test. Skin metastases treated with ICI a first-line setting showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 44.1%. In contrast, visceral metastases had a higher ORR of 51.1%. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = .77). Regarding TT, the ORR for skin metastases was 57.1%, compared to 38.5% for visceral metastases (p = .59). Interestingly, the ORR for skin/subcutaneous metastases was notably lower with ICI compared to visceral metastases, in contrast to patients who underwent TT. Skin metastases showed a poorer response to ICI than visceral metastases. Therefore, careful monitoring is recommended to detect non-response early in patients with skin metastases as skin metastases may have a worse response than TT. A larger cohort is needed for a comprehensive analysis and confirmation of our results.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer in Japanese patients from CheckMate 816.

In the open-label, phase III CheckMate 816 study (NCT02998528), neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated statistically significant improvements in event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR) versus chemotherapy alone in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we report efficacy and safety outcomes in the Japanese subpopulation. Patients with stage IB-IIIA, resectable NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for three cycles before undergoing definitive surgery within 6 weeks of completing neoadjuvant treatment. The primary end-points (EFS and pCR) and safety were assessed in patients enrolled at 16 centers in Japan. Of the Japanese patients randomized, 93.9% (31/33) in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 82.9% (29/35) in the chemotherapy arm underwent surgery. At 21.5 months' minimum follow-up, median EFS was 30.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.8-not reached [NR]) with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus 19.6 months (95% CI, 8.5-NR) with chemotherapy; hazard ratio, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.30-1.24). The pCR rate was 30.3% (95% CI, 15.6-48.7) versus 5.7% (95% CI, 0.7-19.2), respectively; odds ratio, 7.17 (95% CI, 1.44-35.85). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 59.4% versus 42.9% of patients, respectively, with no new safety signals identified. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in longer EFS and a higher pCR rate versus chemotherapy alone in Japanese patients, consistent with findings in the global population. These data support nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a neoadjuvant treatment option in Japanese patients with resectable NSCLC.

Nivolumab receptor occupancy on effector regulatory T cells predicts clinical benefit.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor discovery represents a turning point in cancer treatment. However, the response rates of solid tumors remain ~10%-30%; consequently, prognostic and immune-related adverse event (irAE) predictors are being explored. The programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor occupancy (RO) of PD-1 inhibitors depends on the number of peripheral blood lymphocytes and their PD-1 expression levels, suggesting that the RO may be related to efficacy and adverse events. As PD-1 inhibition affects each T-cell subset differently, the RO of each cell population must be characterized. However, relevant data have not been reported, and the prognostic relevance of this parameter is not known. In this study, we aimed to clarify the association between the nivolumab RO in each T-cell population and patient prognosis and reveal the development of irAEs in nivolumab-treated patients. Thirty-two patients were included in the study, and the mean follow-up period was 364 days. The nivolumab RO on effector regulatory T cells (eTregs) was significantly lower in the group that presented clinical benefits, and a significant negative association was observed between PD-1 occupancy on eTregs and all-cause mortality. The results suggest that the nivolumab RO on eTregs may be a prognostic factor in PD-1 inhibitor therapy, implying that the inhibition of PD-1/PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) signaling on eTregs may attenuate antitumor effects.

Assessment of the safety of nivolumab in people living with HIV with advanced cancer on antiretroviral therapy: the AIDS Malignancy Consortium 095 Study.

BACKGROUND: Although immunotherapy has emerged as a therapeutic strategy for many cancers, there are limited studies establishing the safety and efficacy in people living with HIV (PLWH) and cancer. METHODS: PLWH and solid tumors or Kaposi sarcoma (KS) receiving antiretroviral therapy and a suppressed HIV viral load received nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, in two dose deescalation cohorts stratified by CD4 count (stratum 1: CD4 count > 200/µL and stratum 2: CD4 count 100-199/µL). An expansion cohort of 24 participants with a CD4 count > 200/µL was then enrolled. RESULTS: A total of 36 PLWH received nivolumab, including 15 with KS and 21 with a variety of other solid tumors. None of the first 12 participants had dose-limiting toxicity in both CD4 strata, and five patients (14%) overall had grade 3 or higher immune related adverse events. Objective partial response occurred in nine PLWH and cancer (25%), including in six of 15 with KS (40%; 95% CI, 16.3-64.7). The median duration of response was 9.0 months overall and 12.5 months in KS. Responses were observed regardless of PDL1 expression. There were no significant changes in CD4 count or HIV viral load. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab has a safety profile in PLWH similar to HIV-negative subjects with cancer, and also efficacy in KS. Plasma HIV remained suppressed and CD4 counts remained stable during treatment and antiretroviral therapy, indicating no adverse impact on immune function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02408861.

SWOG 1609 cohort 48: anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 for advanced gallbladder cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with advanced gallbladder cancer are treated with multiagent chemotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors offer the possibility of a durable response with less toxicity. This prospective, multicenter, open-label study was designed to evaluate the anticancer activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced gallbladder cancer. METHODS: Nineteen patients with advanced gallbladder cancer refractory to ≥1 previous therapy received nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was confirmed radiographic overall response rate (ORR) (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] confirmed on subsequent scan); secondary end points included unconfirmed overall response, clinical benefit rate (confirmed and unconfirmed responses + stable disease >6 months), progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. RESULTS: The confirmed ORR was 16% (CR, n = 1 [5%]; PR, n = 2 [11%]); all were microsatellite stable, and the confirmed CR had undetectable programmed death-ligand 1 by immunohistochemistry. The unconfirmed ORR and clinical benefit rates were both 32%. The median duration of response was 14.8 months (range, 4-35.1+ months). The 6-month progression-free survival was 26% (95% CI, 12-55). The median overall survival was 7.0 months (95% CI, 3.9-19.1). The most common toxicities were fatigue (32%), anemia (26%), and anorexia (26%). Aspartate aminotransferase elevation was the most common grade 3/4 toxicity (11%). There was 1 possibly related death (sepsis with attendant hepatic failure). CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab was well tolerated and showed modest efficacy with durable responses in previously treated patients with advanced gallbladder cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02834013 (ClincialTrials.gov). PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This prospective study assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 19 patients with advanced gallbladder cancer refractory to previous therapy. The combination demonstrated modest efficacy with a 16% confirmed overall response rate, durable responses, and manageable toxicities, suggesting potential benefits for this challenging patient population.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with unresectable clear cell sarcoma and alveolar soft part sarcoma (OSCAR Trial/NCCH1510).

BACKGROUND: Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) and alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) are rare, and standard systemic therapy is not established except for sunitinib in ASPS. It is known that CCS and ASPS have a common biological feature of melanoma and Xp11.2/TFE3 translocation renal cell carcinoma, and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective in these tumors. The authors conducted a phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab for CCS and ASPS. METHODS: The number of patients expected to be enrolled was 15-25 and was determined based on the Bayesian design. The primary end point was the confirmed objective response rate (ORR) according to the central review and the secondary end points included ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (CCS, 12; ASPS, 14) were enrolled. Efficacy and safety were analyzed on 25 and 26 patients, respectively. The minimum number of responses required for a positive conclusion regarding the efficacy was four. However, only one patient (4.0%) with ASPS had a partial response. Complete response, stable disease, progression disease, and not evaluable were 0%, 60%, 32%, and 4.0%, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 57.7% (15 of 26). The median PFS was 4.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7-8.6 months) and the median OS was 15.8 months (95% CI, 8.2-not reached). CONCLUSIONS: The primary end point of the ORR was not met for CCS and ASPS on the central review. Further studies are needed to evaluate ICIs in patients with ASPS.

Multiorgan transplant for therapy-associated lung and liver failure in a patient with stage III lung cancer.

Immunotherapy can significantly improve efficacy of cancer treatments. For locally advanced stage III lung cancers, chemoimmunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting can achieve complete pathological response in about 40% of cases. However, optimal cancer response in patients receiving immunotherapy is sometimes associated with potentially fatal bystander injury to lung and liver. We report a successful combined double lung and liver transplantation for immunotherapy-associated respiratory failure and cirrhosis in a patient with advanced lung cancer. A 68-year-old male with stage IIIA squamous cell lung cancer, encountered severe interstitial pneumonitis and nodular regenerative hyperplasia of the liver following systemic anti-cancer therapy that included immunotherapy and platinum-based chemotherapy. These adverse events culminated in fulminant end-stage pulmonary fibrosis and cirrhosis, that was treated with simultaneous lung and liver transplantation, complete resection of lung cancer and mediastinal lymphadenectomy. The patient demonstrated promising early outcomes without recurrence of cancer at 12 months. Given that oncologic treatments can induce irreversible solid organ failure despite cancer control, our report suggests that in carefully selected patients without systemic metastasis and in whom complete resection of residual cancer can be performed, organ transplantation can be life-saving.

A Pooled Analysis of 3 Phase II Trials of Salvage Nivolumab/Ipilimumab After Nivolumab in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has demonstrated improved survival for treatment-naïve advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A series of clinical trials evaluated the effect of salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients without an objective response to nivolumab. Given the size and heterogeneity of these studies, we performed a pooled analysis to better inform the activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab after nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients included those with advanced clear cell RCC having received no prior immunotherapy. The primary objective was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator-assessment. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The analysis included 410 patients with clear cell RCC, of whom 340 (82.9%) had IMDC intermediate/poor risk disease, and 137 (33.4%) had prior treatment. The 16-18-week ORR to nivolumab prior to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 22.7% (n = 93), and best ORR to nivolumab was 25.1% (n = 103). Two hundred and thirty (56.1%) patients treated with nivolumab received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 9-19) after initiation of nivolumab [27.0% (n = 62) with stable disease and 73.0% (n = 168) with progressive disease to nivolumab]. The ORR to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 12.6% (n = 29). Six-month PFS on nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 37% (95% CI, 27-47). Median follow-up was 34.3 months and 3-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 53-64) from nivolumab start. CONCLUSION: A small subset of patients lacking a response to nivolumab derive benefit from salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab. When possible, both drugs should be given in concomitantly, rather in an adaptive fashion.

Tumor Response Predicts Survival Time of Nivolumab Monotherapy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Subgroup Analysis of the DELIVER Trial (JACCRO GC-08).

BACKGROUND: This prospective observational study evaluated the real-world effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated advanced gastric cancer (GC). A preplanned 2-year final analysis was performed to confirm survival and tumor behavior with nivolumab monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The data regarding tumor size were prospectively collected and evaluated using the RECIST criteria. Exploratory analyses were performed for survival according to the tumor response and depth of response (DpR) in patients with measurable lesions who were receiving nivolumab monotherapy as third- or later-line therapy. RESULTS: In 487 patients, the median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were 5.8 (95% CI 5.3-6.9) months and 1.8 (95% CI 1.7-2.0) months, respectively. The response rate (RR) was 14.5% in 282 patients with measurable lesions. In 234 patients treated with third- or later-line, the DpR was found to be associated with PFS and OS in the Spearman analysis (r = 0.55 and 0.44, respectively) as well as using a discrete variable. When the DpR was divided into 5 groups (-20%≥DpR; -20%

Adjuvant Systemic Therapies for Resected Stages III and IV Melanoma: A Multi-Center Retrospective Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapies have been approved for resected melanoma based on improved recurrence-free survival. We present early findings from a real-world study on adjuvant treatments for melanoma. METHODS: A comprehensive chart review was conducted for patients receiving adjuvant systemic therapy for resected high-risk stages III and IV melanoma. Statistical analysis was performed to assess recurrence-free survival and subgroup differences. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients (median age = 58.0 years, 61.1% men, 49.7% with BRAF V600E/K genotypes) were included, with 94.6% having resected stage III melanoma. Anti-PD-1 immunotherapy was received by 86.5% of patients, while 13.4% received BRAF-targeted therapy. At a median follow-up of 22.4 months, the recurrence rate was 31.5%, with 1-year and 2-year recurrence-free survival rates of 79% and 62%, respectively. Similar recurrence rates were observed between anti-PD-1 immunotherapy and BRAF-targeted therapy. Long-term toxicity affected 27.4% of patients, with endocrinopathies and late-emergent immune-related adverse events being common. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world adjuvant systemic therapy aligns with clinical trial practice. Recurrence rates remain high despite treatment, and long-term toxicities, including endocrinopathies and chronic inflammatory conditions, are not uncommon.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab plus relatlimab.

The use of programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors has been a pivotal advancement in treating advanced melanoma, yet their efficacy is limited. The approval of relatlimab (RELA), a lymphocyte activation gene 3 protein (LAG-3) antibody, in combination with nivolumab (NIVO), a PD-1 inhibitor, marked a significant stride toward enhancing treatment efficacy for metastatic and unresectable stage 3 and 4 melanoma. This combination has been shown to synergistically improve antitumor activity and effector T-cell activity in the tumor microenvironment, despite limited data on real-world outcomes. Our retrospective review at a tertiary cancer center of patients with stage 3 and 4 melanoma treated with NIVO-RELA revealed an overall response rate (ORR) of 39%, with notable improvements in median PFS and ORR, especially in first-line treated patients. Our study highlights the superior efficacy of NIVO-RELA over previous reports, demonstrating its significant potential in the treatment landscape of advanced melanoma.

SAPPHIRE: phase III study of sitravatinib plus nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy revolutionized treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, most patients progress due to primary or acquired resistance. Sitravatinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can shift the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment toward an immunostimulatory state. Combining sitravatinib with nivolumab (sitra + nivo) may potentially overcome initial CPI resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase III SAPPHIRE study, patients with advanced non-oncogenic driven, nonsquamous NSCLC who initially benefited from (≥4 months on CPI without progression) and subsequently experienced disease progression on or after CPI combined with or following platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to sitra (100 mg once daily administered orally) + nivo (240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks administered intravenously) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks administered intravenously). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR; all assessed by blinded independent central review), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 577 patients included randomized: sitra + nivo, n = 284; docetaxel, n = 293 (median follow-up, 17.1 months). Sitra + nivo did not significantly improve OS versus docetaxel [median, 12.2 versus 10.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.05; P = 0.144]. The median PFS was 4.4 versus 5.4 months, respectively (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.32; P = 0.452). The ORR was 15.6% for sitra + nivo and 17.2% for docetaxel (P = 0.597); CBR was 75.5% and 64.5%, respectively (P = 0.004); median DOR was 7.4 versus 7.1 months, respectively (P = 0.924). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 53.0% versus 66.7% of patients receiving sitra + nivo versus docetaxel, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although median OS was numerically longer with sitra + nivo, the primary endpoint was not met in patients with previously treated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The safety profiles demonstrated were consistent with previous reports.

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.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab for renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The evolving oncology treatment paradigm has created an unmet need for administration options that improve patient experiences and healthcare efficiencies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 67T (NCT04810078) was a phase 3, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial in which patients with advanced/metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomized to subcutaneous nivolumab (1200 mg every 4 weeks; coformulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 20,000 units) or intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Primary objective was to assess the noninferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab by coprimary endpoints determined from a population pharmacokinetics analysis (time-averaged serum concentration over the first 28 days [Cavgd28], and minimum steady-state serum concentration [Cminss]; noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratios [GMR] ≥0.8). Objective response rate (ORR) was a key secondary endpoint powered for noninferiority (noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 95% CI of relative risk of ORR [subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab] ≥0.60). RESULTS: Overall, 495 patients were randomized. Relative exposure in the subcutaneous versus intravenous arm reported by the GMR of Cavgd28 and Cminss was 2.098 (90% CI, 2.001-2.200) and 1.774 (90% CI, 1.633-1.927), respectively. After 8 months minimum follow-up, ORR was 24.2% with subcutaneous nivolumab (95% CI, 19.0-30.0) versus 18.2% with intravenous nivolumab (95% CI, 13.6-23.6; relative risk: 1.33 [95% CI, 0.94-1.87]). Coprimary endpoints and ORR met noninferiority thresholds. Additional efficacy and safety measures were similar. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous nivolumab was noninferior to intravenous nivolumab based on pharmacokinetics and ORR. No new safety signals were observed.

Nivolumab in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: 5-year follow-up from CheckMate 040.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) have a poor prognosis and high mortality. Nivolumab monotherapy demonstrated clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile in patients with aHCC in the CheckMate 040 study. Five-year follow-up of the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups of CheckMate 040 is presented here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received nivolumab monotherapy at dose levels of 0.1-10.0 mg/kg (dose-escalation phase) or 3 mg/kg (dose-expansion phase) every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability (dose escalation), and objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) and by investigator as per RECIST version 1.1 (dose expansion). RESULTS: Eighty sorafenib-naive and 154 sorafenib-experienced patients were treated. Minimum follow-up in both groups was 60 months. ORR as per BICR was 20% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 30%] and 14% (95% CI 9% to 21%) in the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups, respectively. Responses occurred regardless of HCC etiology or baseline tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Median overall survival (OS) was 26.6 months (95% CI 16.6-30.6 months) and 15.1 months (95% CI 13.0-18.2 months) in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients, respectively. The 3-year OS rates were 28% in the sorafenib-naive and 20% in the sorafenib-experienced groups; 5-year OS rates were 14% and 12%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 33% and 21% of patients in the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups, respectively. Biomarker analyses showed that baseline PD-L1 expression ≥1% was associated with higher ORR and longer OS compared with PD-L1 <1%. In the sorafenib-naive group, patients with OS ≥3 years exhibited higher baseline CD8 T-cell density compared with those with OS <1 year. CONCLUSION: With 5 years of follow-up, nivolumab monotherapy continued to provide durable clinical benefit with manageable safety in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with aHCC.

Overall survival from tebentafusp versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab in first-line metastatic uveal melanoma: a propensity score-weighted analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tebentafusp demonstrated a superior overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51] compared to investigator's choice (82% pembrolizumab) in a randomized, phase III trial (IMCgp100-202; N = 378) in untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). The 1-year OS rates for tebentafusp and pembrolizumab were 73% and 59%, respectively. In the single-arm GEM1402 (N = 52), the 1-year OS rate for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) in mUM was 52%. Due to limitations in conducting randomized trials in mUM, we compared OS on tebentafusp or pembrolizumab (IMCgp100-202) to N+I (GEM1402) in untreated mUM using propensity scoring methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analyses were adjusted using propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), balancing age, sex, baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), baseline alkaline phosphatase, disease location, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and time from primary diagnosis to metastasis. OS was assessed using IPT-weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. Sensitivity analyses using alternative missing data and weights methods were conducted. RESULTS: The primary IPTW analysis included 240 of 252 patients randomized to tebentafusp from IMCgp100-202 and 45 of 52 N+I-treated patients from GEM-1402. Key baseline covariates, including LDH, were generally well balanced before weighting. The IPTW-adjusted OS favored tebentafusp, HR 0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.78]; 1-year OS was 73% for tebentafusp versus 50% for N+I. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent superior OS for tebentafusp with all IPTW HRs ≤0.61. IPTW analysis of pembrolizumab versus N+I showed no significant difference in OS (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Tebentafusp was previously shown to provide an OS benefit compared to checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy in untreated mUM. Propensity score analysis demonstrated a similar OS benefit for tebentafusp compared with N+I. These data further support tebentafusp as the standard of care in previously untreated human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A∗02:01+ adult patients with mUM.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 8-year follow-up results of efficacy and safety from the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years of median follow-up from CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aRCC (N = 1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and IRRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients. RESULTS: With 8 years (99.1 months) of median follow-up, the hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). The median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1 months-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2 months] in ITT patients, 82.8 versus 19.8 months (54.1 months-NE versus 16.4-26.4 months) in I/P patients, and 61.5 versus 33.2 months (27.8 months-NE versus 24.8-51.4 months) in FAV patients. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time. CONCLUSIONS: Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC.