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.

A phase 1 study of triple-targeted therapy with BRAF, MEK, and AKT inhibitors for patients with BRAF-mutated cancers.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant PI3K/AKT signaling in BRAF-mutant cancers contributes to resistance to BRAF inhibitors. The authors examined dual MAPK and PI3K pathway inhibition in patients who had BRAF-mutated solid tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01902173). METHODS: Patients with BRAF V600E/V600K-mutant solid tumors received oral dabrafenib at 150 mg twice daily with dose escalation of oral uprosertib starting at 50 mg daily, or, in the triplet cohorts, with dose escalation of both oral trametinib starting at 1.5 mg daily and oral uprosertib starting at 25 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed within the first 56 days of treatment. Radiographic responses were assessed at 8-week intervals. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (22 evaluable) were enrolled in parallel doublet and triplet cohorts. No DLTs were observed in the doublet cohorts (N = 7). One patient had a DLT at the maximum administered dose of triplet therapy (dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg daily plus uprosertib 75 mg daily). Three patients in the doublet cohorts had partial responses (including one who had BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma). Two patients in the triplet cohorts had a partial response, and one patient had an unconfirmed partial response. Pharmacokinetic data suggested reduced dabrafenib and dabrafenib metabolite exposure in patients who were also exposed to both trametinib and uprosertib, but not in whose who were exposed to uprosertib without trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant inhibition of both the MAPK and PI3K-AKT pathways for the treatment of BRAF-mutated cancers was well tolerated, leading to objective responses, but higher level drug-drug interactions affected exposure to dabrafenib and its metabolites.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Relatlimab Versus Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using RELATIVITY-047 and CheckMate 067 Trial Data.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved for advanced melanoma on the basis of the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials, respectively. As no head-to-head trial comparing these regimens exists, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted using patient-level data from each trial. METHODS: Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for baseline characteristic differences. Minimum follow-ups (RELATIVITY-047, 33 months; CheckMate 067, 36 months) were selected to best align assessments. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) per investigator; overall survival (OS); and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A Cox regression model compared PFS, OS, and MSS. A logistic regression model compared cORRs. Subgroup analyses were exploratory. RESULTS: After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for nivolumab plus relatlimab (n = 339) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 297). Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.33]), cORR (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14]), OS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19]), and MSS (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.12]) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Subgroup comparisons showed larger numerical differences favoring nivolumab plus ipilimumab with acral melanoma, BRAF-mutant melanoma, and lactate dehydrogenase >2 × upper limit of normal, but were limited by small samples. Nivolumab plus relatlimab was associated with fewer grade 3-4 TRAEs (23% v 61%) and any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation (17% v 41%). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar efficacy to nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the overall population, including most-but not all-subgroups, and improved safety in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Results should be interpreted with caution.

Overall Survival and Response with Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2/3 trial ­ A Study of Relatlimab Plus Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab Alone in Participants With Advanced Melanoma (RELATIVITY-047) ­ evaluated nivolumab + relatlimab as a fixed-dose combination and found a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit over nivolumab monotherapy in previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. We now report updated PFS and safety data and the first results for overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nivolumab 480 mg and relatlimab 160 mg fixed-dose combination or nivolumab 480 mg alone, given intravenously every 4 weeks. PFS (primary end point) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, was assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points, tested hierarchically, were OS and then ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, per BICR. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 19.3 months, median PFS according to BICR was 10.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 14.8) with nivolumab + relatlimab versus 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.4) with nivolumab (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.94). Median OS was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 34.2 to NR) with nivolumab + relatlimab versus 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.2 to NR) with nivolumab (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.01; P=0.059) (prespecified value for statistical significance, P≤0.043). ORRs per BICR were 43.1% (95% CI, 37.9 to 48.4) versus 32.6% (95% CI, 27.8 to 37.7), respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 21.1% of patients treated with nivolumab + relatlimab versus 11.1% treated with nivolumab. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed-dose combination of nivolumab + relatlimab showed consistent PFS benefit versus nivolumab with approximately 6 months of additional median follow-up. The combination treatment did not reach the preplanned statistical threshold for OS, with a 10.3 percentage-point difference in ORR. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with nivolumab + relatlimab versus nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03470922.)