Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Molecular Epidemiology of ALK Rearrangements in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma in Latin America.

OBJECTIVE: Latin American countries are heterogeneous in terms of lung cancer incidence and exposure to potential carcinogens. We evaluated the frequency and clinical characteristics of ALK rearrangements (ALKr) in Latin America. METHODS: A total of 5,130 lung cancer patients from 10 Latin American countries were screened for inclusion. ALKr detection was performed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), immunohistochemistry (IHC), and real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to assess method variability. Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS: Among the 5,130 patients screened, 8.4% (n = 433) had nonevaluable FISH tests. Evaluable FISH analyses revealed positive ALKr in 6.8% (320/4,697) of the study population, which included patients from 9 countries. ALKr distribution for each country was: Mexico 7.6% (79/1,034), Colombia 4.1% (10/242), Argentina 6.0% (153/2,534), Costa Rica 9.5% (13/137), Panama 4.4% (5/114), Uruguay 5.4% (2/37), Chile 8.6% (16/185), Venezuela 8.9% (13/146), and Peru 10.8% (29/268). RT-PCR showed high positive (83.6%) and negative (99.7%) predictive values when compared to the gold standard FISH. In contrast, IHC only showed a high negative predictive value (94.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a clear country and continental variability in terms of ALKr frequency, this difference is not significant and the overall incidence of ALKr in Latin America does not differ from the rest of the world.

Avelumab versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (JAVELIN Lung 200): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Antibodies targeting the immune checkpoint molecules PD-1 or PD-L1 have demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this trial we investigated the efficacy and safety of avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with NSCLC who had already received platinum-based therapy. METHODS: JAVELIN Lung 200 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 173 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 31 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC and disease progression after treatment with a platinum-containing doublet, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, an estimated life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice-response system with a stratified permuted block method with variable block length, to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (≥1% vs <1% of tumour cells), which was measured with the 73-10 assay, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed when roughly 337 events (deaths) had occurred in the PD-L1-positive population. Efficacy was analysed in all PD-L1-positive patients (ie, PD-L1 expression in ≥1% of tumour cells) randomly assigned to study treatment (the primary analysis population) and then in all randomly assigned patients through a hierarchical testing procedure. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02395172. Enrolment is complete, but the trial is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 24, 2015, and Jan 23, 2017, 792 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive avelumab (n=396) or docetaxel (n=396). 264 participants in the avelumab group and 265 in the docetaxel group had PD-L1-positive tumours. In patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, median overall survival did not differ significantly between the avelumab and docetaxel groups (11·4 months [95% CI 9·4-13·9] vs 10·3 months [8·5-13·0]; hazard ratio 0·90 [96% CI 0·72-1·12]; one-sided p=0·16). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 251 (64%) of 393 avelumab-treated patients and 313 (86%) of 365 docetaxel-treated patients, including grade 3-5 events in 39 (10%) and 180 (49%) patients, respectively. The most common grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (six patients [2%]) and increased lipase (four [1%]) in the avelumab group and neutropenia (51 [14%]), febrile neutropenia (37 [10%]), and decreased neutrophil counts (36 [10%]) in the docetaxel group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (9%) patients in the avelumab group and 75 (21%) in the docetaxel group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) participants in the avelumab group, two due to interstitial lung disease, one due to acute kidney injury, and one due to a combination of autoimmune myocarditis, acute cardiac failure, and respiratory failure. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 (4%) patients in the docetaxel group, three due to pneumonia, and one each due to febrile neutropenia, septic shock, febrile neutropenia with septic shock, acute respiratory failure, cardiovascular insufficiency, renal impairment, leucopenia with mucosal inflammation and pyrexia, infection, neutropenic infection, dehydration, and unknown causes. INTERPRETATION: Compared with docetaxel, avelumab did not improve overall survival in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1-positive NSCLC, but had a favourable safety profile. FUNDING: Merck and Pfizer.

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. This randomized, open-label, international, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, as compared with docetaxel in this patient population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 272 patients to receive nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks, or docetaxel, at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3 to 13.3) with nivolumab versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.3) with docetaxel. The risk of death was 41% lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 42% (95% CI, 34 to 50) with nivolumab versus 24% (95% CI, 17 to 31) with docetaxel. The response rate was 20% with nivolumab versus 9% with docetaxel (P=0.008). The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months with nivolumab versus 2.8 months with docetaxel (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.81; P<0.001). The expression of the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 7% of the patients in the nivolumab group as compared with 55% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced, previously treated squamous-cell NSCLC, overall survival, response rate, and progression-free survival were significantly better with nivolumab than with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 017 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01642004.).

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, including patients with ECOG performance status 2 and other special populations: CheckMate 817.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 817, a phase 3B study, evaluated flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, in this research, we report on first-line treatment in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 (cohort A) and special populations (cohort A1: ECOG PS 2; or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, or controlled HIV infection). METHODS: Cohorts A and A1 received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3-4 and grade 5 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs; adverse events (AEs) deemed potentially immune-related, occurring <100 days of last dose, and treated with immune-modulating medication (except endocrine events)) and treatment-related select AEs (treatment-related AEs with potential immunological etiology requiring frequent monitoring/intervention, reported between first dose and 30 days after the last dose) in cohort A; efficacy endpoints were secondary/exploratory. In cohort A1, safety/efficacy assessment was exploratory. RESULTS: The most common grade 3-4 IMAEs were pneumonitis (5.1%), diarrhea/colitis (4.9%), and hepatitis (4.6%) in cohort A (N=391) and diarrhea/colitis (3.5%), hepatitis (3.5%), and rash (3.0%) in cohort A1 (N=198). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related select AEs were hepatic (5.9%), gastrointestinal (4.9%), and pulmonary (4.6%) events in cohort A and gastrointestinal (4.0%), skin (3.5%), and endocrine (3.0%) events in cohort A1. No grade 5 IMAEs or treatment-related select AEs occurred. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 (1.0%) and 3 (1.5%) patients in cohorts A and A1, respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.7% and 20.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was associated with manageable safety and durable efficacy in cohort A, consistent with data from phase 3 metastatic NSCLC studies. Special populations of cohort A1 including patients with ECOG PS 2 or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases had manageable treatment-related toxicity and clinically meaningful 3-year OS rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02869789.

Avelumab Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Platinum-Treated Advanced NSCLC: 2-Year Follow-Up From the JAVELIN Lung 200 Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the JAVELIN Lung 200 trial, avelumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] antibody) did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1+ NSCLC. We report greater than 2-year follow-up data. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC with disease progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The primary end point was OS in patients with PD-L1+ tumors (greater than or equal to 1% tumor cell expression; IHC 73-10 pharmDx assay). RESULTS: Of 792 patients, 529 had PD-L1+ tumors (264 versus 265 in the avelumab versus docetaxel arms, respectively). As of March 4, 2019, median duration of follow-up for OS in the PD-L1+ population was 35.4 months in the avelumab arm and 34.7 months in the docetaxel arm; study treatment was ongoing in 25 (9.5%) versus 0 patients, respectively. In the PD-L1+ population, 2-year OS rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) with avelumab versus docetaxel were 29.9% (24.5%-35.5%) versus 20.5% (15.6%-25.8%); in greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+ subgroups, 2-year OS rates were 36.4% (29.1%-43.7%) versus 17.7% (11.8%-24.7%) and in the greater than or equal to 80% subgroup were 40.2% (31.3%-49.0%) versus 20.3% (12.9%-28.8%), respectively. Median duration of response (investigator assessed) was 19.1 months (95% CI: 10.8-34.8) versus 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.1-8.3). Safety profiles for both arms were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although the JAVELIN Lung 200 primary analysis (reported previously) revealed that avelumab did not significantly prolong OS versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1+ NSCLC, posthoc analyses at 2 years of follow-up revealed that 2-year OS rates were doubled with avelumab in subgroups with higher PD-L1 expression (greater than or equal to 50% and greater than or equal to 80%).

Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up. METHODS: Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory. RESULTS: Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

Cabozantinib, a New Standard of Care for Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma and Bone Metastases? Subgroup Analysis of the METEOR Trial.

Purpose Cabozantinib, an inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, and AXL, increased progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after previous vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in the phase III METEOR trial. Because bone metastases are associated with increased morbidity in patients with RCC, bone-related outcomes were analyzed in METEOR. Patients and Methods Six hundred fifty-eight patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 60 mg cabozantinib or 10 mg everolimus. Prespecified subgroup analyses of PFS, OS, and ORR were conducted in patients grouped by baseline bone metastases status per independent radiology committee (IRC). Additional end points included bone scan response per IRC, skeletal-related events, and changes in bone biomarkers. Results For patients with bone metastases at baseline (cabozantinib [n = 77]; everolimus [n = 65]), median PFS was 7.4 months for cabozantinib versus 2.7 months for everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.51]). Median OS was also longer with cabozantinib (20.1 months v 12.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.84]), and ORR per IRC was higher (17% v 0%). The rate of skeletal-related events was 23% with cabozantinib and 29% with everolimus, and bone scan response per IRC was 20% versus 10%, respectively. PFS, OS, and ORR were also improved with cabozantinib in patients without bone metastases. Changes in bone biomarkers were greater with cabozantinib than with everolimus. The overall safety profiles of cabozantinib and everolimus in patients with bone metastases were consistent with those observed in patients without bone metastases. Conclusion Cabozantinib treatment was associated with improved PFS, OS, and ORR when compared with everolimus treatment in patients with advanced RCC and bone metastases and represents a good treatment option for these patients.