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.

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.

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.

[A Case of Advanced Gastric Cancer Treated with Conversion Surgery followed by Nivolumab Combination Chemotherapy].

The use of nivolumab as first-line therapy for unresectable advanced gastric cancer has now become a standard practice, and its efficacy has been established. This is the first report of a patient with advanced gastric cancer who underwent conversion surgery after first-line nivolumab combination chemotherapy. The patient was a 58-year-old woman. Her medical history included hypertension and dyslipidemia. She had advanced gastric cancer with extensive lymph node metastasis in the left supraclavicular fossa and around the abdominal aorta. After confirming the HER2-negative status and the PD-L1 CPS score to be ≥5, nivolumab was administered in combination with chemotherapy. After the treatment, she underwent a total gastrectomy with D2 dissection, combined splenectomy and pancreatic tail resection for adhesions, and para-aortic lymph node sampling as a conversion surgery. There was no obvious cancerous remnant in the resected specimen, and the pathological response was Grade 3. The patient was alive and recurrence-free at 4 months postoperatively.

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.

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.

Retrospective comparison of a weight-based dose every 2 weeks with a fixed dose every month: a real-life analysis of nivolumab in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Nivolumab was first authorized at a weight-based dose (WBD) of 3 mg/kg every two weeks (Q2W). Since 2017, a fixed dose (FD) regimen [first 240 mg Q2W and then 480 mg per month (Q4W)] was allowed. The objective of the study was to compare a WBD regimen and an FD regimen with regard to effectiveness and safety. We conducted a single-center, retrospective, real-life study of consecutive adult patients who had received a WBD of nivolumab or an FD of 480 mg Q4W. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The secondary endpoints were overall survival and cost of the treatment. In all, 342 patients were included: 71 in the WBD cohort and 271 in the FD cohort. Of these patients, 201 patients (59.6%) experienced an irAE, and 24 of these events were graded as ≥3. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in irAE occurrence between the two cohorts [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.54 (0.21-1.36), P  = 0.19]. The 12-month overall survival rate was significantly lower in the WBD cohort ( P  < 0.001). Switching from a fortnightly weight dose to a fixed monthly dose halves the cost of hospitalization. Our results did not show a significant difference between WBD and FD cohort in the occurrence of severe irAEs. However overall survival appeared to be significantly higher in FD group. Some clinical trials are investigating a hybrid dosing regimen in which a WBD is capped by an FD. The present results need to be confirmed in prospective studies.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus bevacizumab therapy improves the prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer in humanized mouse models.

BACKGROUND: The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-angiogenic agents has been proposed as a promising strategy to improve the outcome of advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, further investigation is warranted to elucidate the specific mechanisms underlying the effects of combination therapy and its potential as neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage TNBC. METHODS: In this study, we constructed humanized mouse models by engrafting the human immune system into severely immunodeficient mice and subsequently implanting TNBC cells into the model. The mice were treated with neoadjuvant combination therapy (bevacizumab combined with nivolumab), followed by in vivo imaging system to assess tumor recurrence and metastasis after surgery. The immune microenvironment of tumors was analyzed to investigate the potential mechanisms. Furthermore, we verified the impact of extending the interval before surgery or administering adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy on the prognosis of mice. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant combination therapy significantly inhibited tumor growth, prevented recurrence and metastasis by normalizing tumor vessels and inducing robust CD8+ T cell infiltration and activation in primary tumors (p < 0.001). In vivo experiments demonstrated that prolonging the interval before surgery or administering adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy did not enhance its efficacy. CONCLUSION: The preclinical study has demonstrated the therapeutic efficacy and mechanism of neoadjuvant combination therapy (nivolumab plus bevacizumab) in treating early TNBC.

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.

Prognostic outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving second-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor following first-line immune-oncology combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the prognostic outcomes in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI following first-line IO combination therapy. METHODS: This study retrospectively included 243 mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI after first-line IO combination therapy: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 189, IO-IO group) and either pembrolizumab plus axitinib or avelumab plus axitinib (n = 54, IO-TKI group). Oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared, and prognostication systems were developed for these patients. RESULTS: In the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, the objective response rates to second-line TKI were 34.4% and 25.9% (p = 0.26), the median PFS periods were 9.7 and 7.1 months (p = 0.79), and the median OS periods after the introduction of second-line TKI were 23.1 and 33.5 months (p = 0.93), respectively. Among the several factors examined, non-CCRCC, high CRP, and low albumin levels were identified as independent predictors of both poor PFS and OS by multivariate analyses. It was possible to precisely classify the patients into 3 risk groups regarding both PFS and OS according to the positive numbers of the independent prognostic factors. Furthermore, the c-indices of this study were superior to those of previous systems as follows: 0.75, 0.64, and 0.61 for PFS prediction and 0.76, 0.70, and 0.65 for OS prediction by the present, IMDC, and MSKCC systems, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the prognostic outcomes after introducing second-line TKI between the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, and the histopathology, CRP and albumin levels had independent impacts on the prognosis in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI, irrespective of first-line IO combination therapies.

Nivolumab for Patients With High-Risk Oral Leukoplakia: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Proliferative verrucous leukoplakia (PVL) is an aggressive oral precancerous disease characterized by a high risk of transformation to invasive oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), and no therapies have been shown to affect its natural history. A recent study of the PVL immune landscape revealed a cytotoxic T-cell-rich microenvironment, providing strong rationale to investigate immune checkpoint therapy. Objective: To determine the safety and clinical activity of anti-programmed cell death 1 protein (PD-1) therapy to treat high-risk PVL. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial was conducted from January 2019 to December 2021 at a single academic medical center; median (range) follow-up was 21.1 (5.4-43.6) months. Participants were a population-based sample of patients with PVL (multifocal, contiguous, or a single lesion ≥4 cm with any degree of dysplasia). Intervention: Patients underwent pretreatment biopsy (1-3 sites) and then received 4 doses of nivolumab (480 mg intravenously) every 28 days, followed by rebiopsy and intraoral photographs at each visit. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the change in composite score (size and degree of dysplasia) from before to after treatment (major response [MR]: >80% decrease in score; partial response: 40%-80% decrease). Secondary analyses included immune-related adverse events, cancer-free survival (CFS), PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, 9p21.3 deletion, and other exploratory immunologic and genomic associations of response. Results: A total of 33 patients were enrolled (median [range] age, 63 [32-80] years; 18 [55%] were female), including 8 (24%) with previously resected early-stage OSCC. Twelve patients (36%) (95% CI, 20.4%-54.8%) had a response by composite score (3 MRs [9%]), 4 had progressive disease (>10% composite score increase, or cancer). Nine patients (27%) developed OSCC during the trial, with a 2-year CFS of 73% (95% CI, 53%-86%). Two patients (6%) discontinued because of toxic effects; 7 (21%) experienced grade 3 to 4 immune-related adverse events. PD-L1 combined positive scores were not associated with response or CFS. Of 20 whole-exome sequenced patients, all 6 patients who had progression to OSCC after nivolumab treatment exhibited 9p21.3 somatic copy-number loss on pretreatment biopsy, while only 4 of the 14 patients (29%) who did not develop OSCC had 9p21.3 loss. Conclusions and Relevance: This immune checkpoint therapy precancer nonrandomized clinical trial met its prespecified response end point, suggesting potential clinical activity for nivolumab in high-risk PVL. Findings identified immunogenomic associations to inform future trials in this precancerous disease with unmet medical need that has been difficult to study. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03692325.

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Perioperative Nivolumab and Chemotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive a diagnosis of stage III disease. There is no current consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment for these patients. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (experimental group) or chemotherapy alone (control group), followed by surgery. Patients in the experimental group who had R0 resections received adjuvant treatment with nivolumab for 6 months. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival at 24 months and safety. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients underwent randomization; 57 were assigned to the experimental group and 29 were assigned to the control group. A pathological complete response occurred in 37% of the patients in the experimental group and in 7% in the control group (relative risk, 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 21.23; P = 0.02). Surgery was performed in 93% of the patients in the experimental group and in 69% in the control group (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.74). Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival at 24 months were 67.2% in the experimental group and 40.9% in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.88). Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival at 24 months were 85.0% in the experimental group and 63.6% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 11 patients in the experimental group (19%; some patients had events of both grades) and 3 patients in the control group (10%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC, perioperative treatment with nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response and longer survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADIM II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03838159; EudraCT number, 2018-004515-45.).

Postmarketing surveillance of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in Japanese patients with unresectable malignant melanoma.

Although malignant melanoma is relatively rare in Japan, it is often diagnosed at a later stage than in Western countries. Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed death 1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4, respectively. Owing to their complementary anticancer effects, nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy (N + I) has been studied and approved for treating malignant melanoma in various countries including Japan. Real-world postmarketing surveillance was implemented to record treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with N + I following its approval in Japan. Patients were eligible for registration if they had unresectable malignant melanoma and started N + I between September 2018 and August 2019. The observation period was 13 weeks from starting N + I. Only safety information was collected and evaluated. The final case report form lock was March 2021. Overall, 173 patients (median age, 66.0 years; performance status 0-1, 88.4%; skin: 53.2%; mucosal: 32.4%) were eligible for the analyses. Overall, 34.1% of patients completed 4 doses of N + I. N + I was discontinued by 63.0% (due to adverse events in 67.9% and disease progression/death in 22.9%). Any grade and grade ≥3 TRAEs were reported in 73.41% and 52.02%, respectively. TRAEs in ≥10 patients were hepatic function abnormal (any grade/grade ≥3: 23.12%/13.29%), pyrexia (10.40%/0.58%), diarrhea (9.25%/2.89%), rash (8.67%/0.58%), hypophysitis (5.78%/5.20%), interstitial lung disease (5.78%/2.89%), and liver disorder (5.78%/4.62%). TRAEs were classified as recovered (36.99% of patients), recovering (44.51%), unrecovered (13.29%), recovered with sequelae (2.31%), and death (1.73%). Overall, 24 of 34 patients (70.59%) with gastrointestinal-related and 53 of 65 (81.54%) liver-related TRAEs received treatment, such as a steroid with/without an immunosuppressant; most patients recovered within 1 to 2 months. In conclusion, this postmarketing surveillance of N + I in patients with unresectable malignant melanoma revealed no new safety concerns compared with results of prior studies. Immune-related TRAEs were generally manageable by appropriate treatment including a steroid.

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.).

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results from CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Nivolumab Alone for Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: The Phase 2 CheckMate 714 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There remains an unmet need to improve clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). Objective: To evaluate clinical benefit of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in patients with R/M SCCHN. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CheckMate 714, double-blind, phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted at 83 sites in 21 countries between October 20, 2016, and January 23, 2019. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and had platinum-refractory or platinum-eligible R/M SCCHN and no prior systemic therapy for R/M disease. Data were analyzed from October 20, 2016 (first patient, first visit), to March 8, 2019 (primary database lock), and April 6, 2020 (overall survival database lock). Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously [IV] every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks) or nivolumab (3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) plus placebo for up to 2 years or until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or consent withdrawal. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response between treatment arms by blinded independent central review in the population with platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN. Exploratory end points included safety. Results: Of 425 included patients, 241 (56.7%; median age, 59 [range, 24-82] years; 194 males [80.5%]) had platinum-refractory disease (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 159; nivolumab, n = 82) and 184 (43.3%; median age, 62 [range, 33-88] years; 152 males [82.6%]) had platinum-eligible disease (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 123; nivolumab, n = 61). At primary database lock, the ORR in the population with platinum-refractory disease was 13.2% (95% CI, 8.4%-19.5%) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 18.3% (95% CI, 10.6%-28.4%) with nivolumab (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95.5% CI, 0.33-1.43; P = .29). Median duration of response for nivolumab plus ipilimumab was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 11.0 months to NR) vs 11.1 months (95% CI, 4.1 months to NR) for nivolumab. In the population with platinum-eligible disease, the ORR was 20.3% (95% CI, 13.6%-28.5%) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 29.5% (95% CI, 18.5%-42.6%) with nivolumab. The rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab were 15.8% (25 of 158) vs 14.6% (12 of 82) in the population with platinum-refractory disease and 24.6% (30 of 122) vs 13.1% (8 of 61) in the population with platinum-eligible disease. Conclusions and Relevance: The CheckMate 714 randomized clinical trial did not meet its primary end point of ORR benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with an acceptable safety profile. Research to identify patient subpopulations in R/M SCCHN that would benefit from nivolumab plus ipilimumab over nivolumab monotherapy is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02823574.

An Enhancer Demethylator Phenotype Converged to Immune Dysfunction and Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinomas.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCC). Although analyses of transcriptome, genetic alterations, and the tumor microenvironment (TME) have shed light into mechanisms of response and resistance to these agents, the role of epigenetic alterations in this process remains fully unknown. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We investigated the methylome of six ccRCC cohorts as well as one cell line dataset. Of note, we took advantage of the BIONIKK trial aiming to tailor treatments according to Paris Descartes 4-gene expression subgroups, and performed Illumina EPIC profiling for 46 samples related to patients treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab, and 17 samples related to patients treated with sunitinib. RESULTS: A group of tumors associated with enhancer demethylation was discovered, namely TED. TED was associated with tumors with sarcomatoid differentiation and poor clinical outcome. TED harbored TET1 promoter demethylation, activated the gene expression signature of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and IL6/JAK/STAT3 pathways, and displayed a TME characterized by both immune activation and suppressive populations, fibroblast infiltration, and endothelial depletion. In addition, TED was a predictive factor of resistance to the combination of first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab in the BIONIKK clinical trial. Finally, TED was associated with activation of specific regulons, which we also found to be predictive of resistance to immunotherapy in an independent cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We report on the discovery of a novel epigenetic phenotype associated with resistance to ICIs that may pave the way to better personalizing patients' treatments. See related commentary by Zhou and Kim, p. 1170.

Clinical outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Real-world data from a Japanese multicenter retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Although nivolumab plus ipilimumab has become a standard treatment regimen for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), its efficacy in non-clear cell carcinoma (nccRCC) has not been fully examined. In the current study, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in nccRCC compared with ccRCC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 22 patients with metastatic and/or locally advanced unresectable nccRCC who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a first-line therapy and compared them with 107 patients with ccRCC. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity were compared between the nccRCC and ccRCC groups. RESULTS: The histology of nccRCC included eight papillary, six unclassified, three chromophobe, two collecting duct carcinoma, and three other subtypes. Best objective response in nccRCC patients included three complete responses and five partial responses, resulting in an ORR of 36%, while that in ccRCC patients was 50% (p = 0.22). With a median follow-up of 11.9 months, OS was significantly shorter in patients with nccRCC than in those with ccRCC (median 20.8 months vs. not reached, p = 0.04), while there was no significant difference in PFS (median 6.3 vs. 10.8 months, p = 0.21). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 14 (64%) nccRCC patients and 81 (76%) ccRCC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab demonstrated modest clinical efficacy in patients with nccRCC compared with patients with ccRCC, suggesting it could be a therapeutic option for metastatic nccRCC patients.