Randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors of high tumor mutational burden.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy has demonstrated overall survival benefit in multiple tumor types. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapies. This study evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab+ipilimumab in multiple tumor types based on TMB status evaluated using either tumor tissue (tTMB) or circulating tumor DNA in the blood (bTMB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors with high (≥10 mutations per megabase) tTMB (tTMB-H) and/or bTMB (bTMB-H) who were refractory to standard therapies were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab+ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in an open-label, phase 2 study (CheckMate 848; NCT03668119). tTMB and bTMB were determined by the Foundation Medicine FoundationOne® CDx test and bTMB Clinical Trial Assay, respectively. The dual primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) in patients with tTMB-H and/or bTMB-H tumors treated with nivolumab+ipilimumab. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients refractory to standard therapies were randomized: 135 had tTMB-H and 125 had bTMB-H; 82 patients had dual tTMB-H/bTMB-H. In patients with tTMB-H, ORR was 38.6% (95% CI 28.4% to 49.6%) with nivolumab+ipilimumab and 29.8% (95% CI 17.3% to 44.9%) with nivolumab monotherapy. In patients with bTMB-H, ORR was 22.5% (95% CI 13.9% to 33.2%) with nivolumab+ipilimumab and 15.6% (95% CI 6.5% to 29.5%) with nivolumab monotherapy. Early and durable responses to treatment with nivolumab+ipilimumab were seen in patients with tTMB-H or bTMB-H. The safety profile of nivolumab+ipilimumab was manageable, with no new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors with TMB-H, as determined by tissue biopsy or by blood sample when tissue biopsy is unavailable, who have no other treatment options, may benefit from nivolumab+ipilimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03668119.

Nivolumab maintenance improves overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma who experience severe immune-related adverse events on nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

BACKGROUND: The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is a highly effective treatment for metastatic cutaneous melanoma. However, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common, often necessitating treatment interruption and the use of immunosuppressive agents. There is no data on the impact of resuming nivolumab on survival following recovery from the irAE and completion of immunosuppressive treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, we examined a cohort of patients treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab who developed irAEs requiring treatment interruption and immunosuppressive therapy. The differences in physician practice patterns at our institution allowed us to examine the survival effect of restarting single-agent nivolumab. A multivariate analysis of clinical factors associated with improved survival was performed. RESULTS: We identified 165 patients who were treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab and developed irAEs requiring treatment interruption and immunosuppressive therapy. Patients with the best overall response of progressive disease were excluded. Of the remaining 122 patients, 46 resumed single-agent nivolumab. When stratified by age and adjusted for sex, M-stage, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), therapy duration, and irAE type, the effect of resumption of nivolumab on survival was highly significant (p=0.02). Patients who resumed nivolumab had a 68% reduction in the hazard of death compared with patients who had not yet or never resumed nivolumab (HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.84). Of the patients who resumed nivolumab, 12 (26%) patients had subsequent irAEs, with five patients having grade 3 irAEs. No grade 4 or 5 irAEs were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Resuming single-agent nivolumab following a treatment interruption for ipilimumab/nivolumab-associated irAE and completion of immunosuppressive therapy increased overall survival compared with discontinuing nivolumab permanently in patients with metastatic melanoma. Toxicity observed post-resumption of single-agent nivolumab was manageable with no severe irAEs observed.

Blockade of LAG-3 and PD-1 leads to co-expression of cytotoxic and exhaustion gene modules in CD8+ T cells to promote antitumor immunity.

Relatlimab (rela; anti-LAG-3) plus nivolumab (nivo; anti-PD-1) is safe and effective for treatment of advanced melanoma. We designed a trial (NCT03743766) where advanced melanoma patients received rela, nivo, or rela+nivo to interrogate the immunologic mechanisms of rela+nivo. Analysis of biospecimens from this ongoing trial demonstrated that rela+nivo led to enhanced capacity for CD8+ T cell receptor signaling and altered CD8+ T cell differentiation, leading to heightened cytotoxicity despite the retention of an exhaustion profile. Co-expression of cytotoxic and exhaustion signatures was driven by PRDM1, BATF, ETV7, and TOX. Effector function was upregulated in clonally expanded CD8+ T cells that emerged after rela+nivo. A rela+nivo intratumoral CD8+ T cell signature was associated with a favorable prognosis. This intratumoral rela+nivo signature was validated in peripheral blood as an elevated frequency of CD38+TIM3+CD8+ T cells. Overall, we demonstrated that cytotoxicity can be enhanced despite the retention of exhaustion signatures, which will inform future therapeutic strategies.

Treatment-free survival and partitioned survival analysis of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib: 5-year update of CheckMate 214.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy can be associated with prolonged disease control even after cessation of treatment without the need for further cancer-directed therapy. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) can also persist after discontinuation of therapy. Treatment-free survival (TFS) with and without toxicity as a component of a partitioned survival model can characterize patient survival time, which is not captured by standard outcome measures. METHODS: Data from 1096 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the CheckMate 214 trial were analyzed. TFS was defined as the area between two Kaplan-Meier curves for time from randomization to protocol therapy discontinuation and time from randomization to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated as the difference in 60-month restricted mean times with confidence intervals (CIs) obtained using bootstrap sampling. Time on protocol therapy and TFS were further characterized as time with and without grade 2+ and 3+TRAEs. Survival functions were estimated in subgroups including International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: At 5 years from randomization, 48% of patients treated with NIVO+IPI and 37% of patients treated with SUN were alive. In the intent-to-treat population, 18% of the NIVO+IPI-treated and 5% of SUN-treated patients are surviving treatment-free. For favorable-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 14.4 months for NIVO+IPI versus 5.5 months for SUN (difference 8.9 months (95% CI 4.9 to 12.8)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 5.0 and 2.1 months, respectively, and with grade 3+TRAEs was 1.2 and 0.3 months, respectively. For intermediate/poor-risk patients, the 60-month mean TFS was 10.1 months for NIVO+IPI versus 4.1 months for SUN (difference 6.1 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.9)). TFS for NIVO+IPI versus SUN with grade 2+TRAEs was 4.0 versus 2.0 months, respectively, and 0.6 versus 0.3 months with grade 3+TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall survival was similar, favorable-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI spent more time surviving treatment-free with and without toxicity versus SUN after 60 months of follow-up. Intermediate/poor-risk patients treated with NIVO+IPI had longer survival and longer TFS without toxicity versus SUN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

Circulating T cell status and molecular imaging may predict clinical benefit of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade in oral cancer.

BACKGROUND: Addition of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition to standard-of-care interventions for locally advanced oral cancer could improve clinical outcome. METHODS: In this study, 16 evaluable patients with stage III/IV oral cancer were treated with one dose of 480 mg nivolumab 3 weeks prior to surgery. Primary objectives were safety, feasibility, and suitability of programmed death receptor ligand-1 positron emission tomography (PD-L1 PET) as a biomarker for response. Imaging included 18F-BMS-986192 (PD-L1) PET and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET before and after nivolumab treatment. Secondary objectives included clinical and pathological response, and immune profiling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) for response prediction. Baseline tumor biopsies and postnivolumab resection specimens were evaluated by histopathology. RESULTS: Grade III or higher adverse events were not observed and treatment was not delayed in relation to nivolumab administration and other study procedures. Six patients (38%) had a pathological response, of whom three (19%) had a major (≥90%) pathological response (MPR). Tumor PD-L1 PET uptake (quantified using standard uptake value) was not statistically different in patients with or without MPR (median 5.3 vs 3.4). All major responders showed a significantly postnivolumab decreased signal on FDG PET. PBMC immune phenotyping showed higher levels of CD8+ T cell activation in MPR patients, evidenced by higher baseline expression levels of PD-1, TIGIT, IFNγ and lower levels of PD-L1. CONCLUSION: Together these data support that neoadjuvant treatment of advanced-stage oral cancers with nivolumab was safe and induced an MPR in a promising 19% of patients. Response was associated with decreased FDG PET uptake as well as activation status of peripheral T cell populations.

In vitro T cell responses to PD-1 blockade are reduced by IFN-α but do not predict therapy response in melanoma patients.

PD-1 blockade therapy has revolutionized melanoma treatment, but still not all patients benefit and pre-treatment identification of those patients is difficult. Increased expression of inflammatory markers such as interleukin (IL)-6 in blood of patients correlates with poor treatment response. We set out to study the effect of inflammatory cytokines on PD-1 blockade in vitro. For this, we studied the effect of IL-6 and type I interferon (IFN) in vitro on human T cells in a mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR) in the absence or presence of PD-1 blockade. While IL-6 reduced IFN-γ secretion by T cells in both the presence and absence of PD-1 blockade, IFN-α specifically reduced the IFN-γ secretion only in the presence of PD-1 blockade. IFN-α reduced T cell proliferation independent of PD-1 blockade and reduced the percentage of cells producing IFN-γ only in the presence of PD-1 blockade. Next we determined the type I IFN score in a cohort of 22 melanoma patients treated with nivolumab. In this cohort, we did not find a correlation between clinical response and type I IFN score, nor between clinical response and IFN-γ secretion in vitro in a MLR in the presence of PD-1 blockade. We conclude that IFN-α reduces the effectiveness of PD-1 blockade in vitro, but that in this cohort, type I IFN score in vivo, nor IFN-γ secretion in vitro in a MLR in the presence of PD-1 blockade correlated to decreased therapy responses in patients.

A phase Ib randomized multicenter trial of isolated hepatic perfusion in combination with ipilimumab and nivolumab for uveal melanoma metastases (SCANDIUM II trial).

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare malignancy where 50% of patients develop metastatic disease primarily affecting the liver. Approximately 40% of patients with metastatic UM respond to one-time isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) with high-dose melphalan. This phase I trial investigates the safety and clinical efficacy of IHP combined with ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Immunotherapy-naïve patients were randomized in this phase I trial to receive either IHP followed by IPI 3 mg/kg and NIVO 1 mg/kg (IPI3/NIVO1) for four cycles (post-operative arm), or one cycle of preoperative IPI3/NIVO1, IHP and then three cycles of IPI3/NIVO1 (pre-post-operative arm), followed by maintenance therapy with NIVO 480 mg for 1 year. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled and randomized. Three patients did not undergo IHP as planned. In total, 11/18 patients (6 in the post-operative arm and 5 in the pre-post-operative arm) did not complete the planned four cycles of IPI3/NIVO1. Toxicity to IHP was similar in both groups, but the number of immune-related adverse events (AEs) was higher in the pre-post-operative arm. Among assessable patients, overall response rate was 57% in the post-operative arm (4/7) and 22% in the pre-post-operative arm (2/9). CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with IHP and IPI3/NIVO1 was associated with severe AEs. The efficacy of this combination is encouraging with high response rates. One cycle of preoperative IPI/NIVO before IHP did not show potential benefits in terms of safety or efficacy.

Nivolumab Reaches Brain Lesions in Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma and Induces T-cell Activity and Upregulation of Checkpoint Pathways.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive brain tumor with poor prognosis. Although immunotherapy is being explored as a potential treatment option for patients with GBM, it is unclear whether systemic immunotherapy can reach and modify the tumor microenvironment in the brain. We evaluated immune characteristics in patients receiving the anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab 1 week prior to surgery, compared with control patients receiving salvage resection without prior nivolumab treatment. We observed saturating levels of nivolumab bound to intratumorally and tissue-resident T cells in the brain, implicating saturating levels of nivolumab reaching brain tumors. Following nivolumab treatment, significant changes in T-cell activation and proliferation were observed in the tumor-resident T-cell population, and peripheral T cells upregulated chemokine receptors related to brain homing. A strong nivolumab-driven upregulation in compensatory checkpoint inhibition molecules, i.e., TIGIT, LAG-3, TIM-3, and CTLA-4, was observed, potentially counteracting the treatment effect. Finally, tumor-reactive tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) were found in a subset of nivolumab-treated patients with prolonged survival, and neoantigen-reactive T cells were identified in both TILs and blood. This indicates a systemic response toward GBM in a subset of patients, which was further boosted by nivolumab, with T-cell responses toward tumor-derived neoantigens. Our study demonstrates that nivolumab does reach the GBM tumor lesion and enhances antitumor T-cell responses both intratumorally and systemically. However, various anti-inflammatory mechanisms mitigate the clinical efficacy of the anti-PD-1 treatment.

Nivolumab, Pomalidomide, and Elotuzumab Combination Regimens for Treatment of Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results from the Phase 3 CheckMate 602 Study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest that combining nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor, with pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pd) with or without elotuzumab, an antisignaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 monoclonal antibody, may improve multiple myeloma (MM) treatment efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase 3 CheckMate 602 study (NCT02726581) assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus pomalidomide/dexamethasone (NPd) and NPd plus elotuzumab (NE-Pd). Eligible patients (aged ≥ 18 years) had measurable MM after ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, that included an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and proteasome inhibitor (PI), each for ≥ 2 consecutive cycles, alone or combined, and were refractory to their last line of therapy. Patients were randomized 3:3:1 to receive NPd, Pd, or NE-Pd. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); overall response rate (ORR) was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 16.8 months, PFS was similar between treatment arms (Pd, 7.3 months [95% CI, 6.5-8.4]; NPd, 8.4 months [95% CI, 5.8-12.1]; NE-Pd, 6.3 months [95% CI, 2.4-11.1]). ORR was similar in the Pd (55%), NPd (48%), and NE-Pd (42%) arms. Nivolumab-containing arms were associated with a less favorable safety profile versus Pd, including a higher rate of thrombocytopenia (NPd, 25.0%; NE-Pd, 16.7%; Pd, 15.7%), any-grade immune-mediated adverse events (NPd, 13.9%; NE-Pd, 16.7%; Pd, 2.9%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation (NPd, 25.0%; NE-Pd, 33.3%; Pd, 18.6%). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: CheckMate 602 did not demonstrate clinical benefit of nivolumab (+/- elotuzumab) plus Pd versus Pd for patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM).

Nivolumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in France: interim results of the observational, real-world WITNESS study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved in Europe for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in patients resistant to prior antiangiogenic therapy. WITNESS is an ongoing, prospective, observational study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nivolumab in patients with aRCC treated in real life (or routine practice) in France (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03455452). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study includes adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of aRCC who have initiated nivolumab after 1-2 prior lines of antiangiogenic therapy. Endpoints include overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of treatment (DOT), duration of response (DOR), overall response rate (ORR), subgroup analyses, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results after a median follow-up of 12.3 months are presented here. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients with aRCC were included, of whom 38.2% had a Karnofsky score <80, 77.8% received nivolumab as second-line therapy, and 69.5% had undergone a previous nephrectomy. In the overall population, median OS was 20.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.6-25.0] months and median PFS was 5.2 (95% CI 4.5-5.9) months. ORR was 34.5%, median DOT was 3.8 months, and median DOR was 16.5 months. Nivolumab was effective in different subgroups including patients with bone or glandular metastases and those receiving baseline corticosteroids. Moreover, effectiveness was observed irrespective of prior nephrectomy and line of treatment. No new safety signals were identified; TRAEs of any grade were reported in 32.0% of patients, grade ≥3 and serious TRAEs in 11.1% each, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation in 8.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results of the ongoing WITNESS study confirm the real-world effectiveness and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated patients with aRCC. Treatment benefits were similar to those observed in the pivotal phase III CheckMate 025 randomized clinical trial, despite a broader, real-life study population.

Immunomodulatory effects of antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma models: Impact on following anti-PD-1 treatments.

The approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), introducing several ICI-based combinations as the new standard of care for affected patients. Nonetheless, monotherapy with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as pazopanib or sunitinib, still represents a first-line treatment option for selected patients belonging to the favorable risk group according to the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) model. After TKI monotherapy, the main second-line option is represented by ICI monotherapy with the anti-Programmed Death Receptor 1(PD-1) nivolumab. To date, the expected clinical outcomes are similar with pazopanib or sunitinib and there is no clear indication for selecting one TKI over the other. Moreover, their impact on subsequent ICI treatment outcomes is not well defined, yet. Based on these premises, we investigated the immunomodulatory activity of these drugs in vitro and in vivo.Both TKIs induced Programmed Cell Death Ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and soluble PD-L1 release in RCC cells, and hampered T cell activation, reducing cytokine production and the proportion of activated T cells. Nevertheless, in a syngeneic co-culture system with peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and tumor cells, incubation with anti-PD-1 antibody following TKIs treatment significantly restored T cell function, potentiating the cytotoxic effects against tumor cells. Pazopanib and sunitinib followed by anti-PD-1 antibody produced a comparable inhibition of tumor growth in a RCC syngeneic mouse model. Our findings suggest that pazopanib and sunitinib, showing similar immunomodulatory effects, may have a comparable impact on the subsequent effectiveness of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade.

Nivolumab plus relatlimab in patients with previously treated microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase II CheckMate 142 study.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, including nivolumab, have demonstrated long-term survival benefit in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). PD-1 and lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) are distinct immune checkpoints that are often co-expressed on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and contribute to tumor-mediated T-cell dysfunction. Relatlimab is a LAG-3 inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in combination with nivolumab in patients with melanoma. Here, we present the results from patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC treated with nivolumab plus relatlimab in the CheckMate 142 study. METHODS: In this open-label, phase II study, previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC received nivolumab 240 mg plus relatlimab 160 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 50 previously treated patients received nivolumab plus relatlimab. With median follow-up of 47.4 (range 43.9-49.2) months, investigator-assessed ORR was 50% (95% CI 36% to 65%) and disease control rate was 70% (95% CI 55% to 82%). The median time to response per investigator was 2.8 (range 1.3-33.1) months, and median duration of response was 42.7 (range 2.8-47.0+) months. The median progression-free survival per investigator was 27.5 (95% CI 5.3 to 43.7) months with a progression-free survival rate at 3 years of 38%, and median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17.2 months to not estimable), with a 56% overall survival rate at 3 years. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were diarrhea (24%), asthenia (16%), and hypothyroidism (12%). Grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were reported in 14% of patients, and TRAEs of any grade leading to discontinuation were observed in 8% of patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus relatlimab provided durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated in previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02060188.

Unveiling the altered metabolic pathways induced by nivolumab in non-small cell lung cancer via GC-MS metabolomics approach coupled with multivariate analysis.

This research investigates the effects of the immunotherapeutic agent nivolumab on the metabolism of lung cancer cells (NCI-H1975) using GC-MS metabolomic profiling. Multivariate analysis such as unsupervised PCA and supervised OPLS-DA along with univariate analysis and pathway analysis were employed to explore the metabolomic data and identify altered metabolic pathways induced by nivolumab treatment. The study revealed distinct metabolic alterations in cancer cells, linked to proliferative and survival advantages, such as enhanced glycolysis, increased glutaminolysis, and modified amino acid metabolism. Key findings indicate elevated levels of glycolysis-related metabolites (glycine, alanine, pyruvate, and lactate) and TCA cycle intermediates (succinate, fumarate, malate) in cancer cells, with a significant decrease following nivolumab treatment. Additionally, lower levels of aspartic acid and citrate in cancer cells imply altered nucleotide synthesis and fatty acid production essential for tumor growth. Treatment with nivolumab also reduced oleic acid levels, indicative of its effect on disrupted lipid metabolism. Our research shows nivolumab's potential to modify metabolic pathways involved in lung cancer progression, suggesting its dual role in cancer therapy: as an immune response modulator and a metabolic pathway disruptor.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO + CABO) was approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) based on superiority versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 months median survival follow-up per database lock date); efficacy benefit was maintained with an extended 32.9 months of median survival follow-up. We report updated efficacy and safety after 44.0 months of median survival follow-up in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and additional subgroup analyses, including outcomes by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve aRCC received NIVO 240 mg every 2 weeks plus CABO 40 mg once daily or SUN 50 mg for 4 weeks (6-week cycles), until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (maximum NIVO treatment, 2 years). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Overall, 323 patients were randomised to NIVO + CABO and 328 to SUN. Median PFS was improved with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [16.6 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.71]; median OS favoured NIVO + CABO versus SUN (49.5 versus 35.5 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87). ORR (95% CI) was higher with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [56% (50% to 62%) versus 28% (23% to 33%)]; 13% versus 5% of patients achieved complete response, and median duration of response was 22.1 months versus 16.1 months, respectively. PFS and OS favoured NIVO + CABO over SUN across intermediate, poor and intermediate/poor IMDC risk subgroups; higher ORR and complete response rates were seen with NIVO + CABO versus SUN regardless of IMDC risk subgroup. Any-grade (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% (67%) versus 93% (55%) of patients treated with NIVO + CABO versus SUN. CONCLUSIONS: After extended follow-up, NIVO + CABO maintained survival and response benefits; safety remained consistent with previous follow-ups. These results continue to support NIVO + CABO as a first-line treatment for aRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177.

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%

Evaluation of the cyclic single-chain Fv antibody derived from nivolumab by biophysical analyses and in vitro cell-based bioassay.

Single-chain Fv (scFv) is a recombinant small antibody in which a polypeptide linker connects the variable regions of the light chain (VL) and the heavy chain (VH). The practical use of scFv, however, has been prevented by its tendency to aggregate due to interchain VL-VH interactions. We recently developed a cyclic scFv whose N-terminus and C-terminus were connected by protein ligation techniques. Biophysical comparisons between cyclic and linear scFv have been conducted, but cell biological evaluations remain unexplored. Here we studied the properties of cyclic and linear scFv derived from nivolumab. Biophysical studies revealed that the thermal stability was not changed but that the antigen-binding activity was approximately 3-fold higher as a result of circularization. A cell-based PD-1/PD-L1 interaction inhibitory assay revealed that the biological activity of scFv was markedly higher in the circularized form. In addition, biophysical analysis of scFv proteins incubated in the presence of serum revealed that circularization suppressed the decrease in antigen-binding activity. It could be assumed that circularization of scFv improved stability in the presence of serum, which in turn would suggest the applicability of cyclic scFv as a biopharmaceutical format.

Treatment-free survival outcomes from the phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A).

BACKGROUND: As part of a partitioned survival analysis, treatment-free survival (TFS) can characterize the overall survival time patients spend between the cessation of immunotherapy and the start of subsequent therapy; both with and without toxicity. Significant TFS was reported for the nivolumab/ipilimumab arms of the CheckMate 067 and 214 trials for patients with advanced melanoma or renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), respectively, where immunotherapy was often halted for toxicity rather than a predefined treatment endpoint. We therefore sought to assess TFS in the HCRN GU16-260 trial, which was designed to reduce toxicity and cap immunotherapy duration. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 128 patients with clear-cell aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab monotherapy for up to 2 years. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab for up to 1 year was provided to eligible patients with disease progression at any point or stable disease at 48 weeks (29% of patients). TFS was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for a time from registration to protocol therapy cessation and for a time from registration to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated from 36-month mean times. The time on or off protocol treatment with grade 3+treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was also captured. RESULTS: At 36 months from enrollment, 68.3% of patients were alive: 96.8% of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable-risk patients and 56.6% of those with intermediate/poor-risk, respectively. The 36-month mean time on protocol therapy was 11.5 months including 0.6 months with grade 3+TRAEs (16.0 months for favorable-risk patients and 9.6 months for intermediated/poor-risk patients). The 36-month mean TFS for the whole population was 9.4 months (12.9 months including 1.5 months with grade 3+TRAEs for favorable-risk and 8.0 months including 1.0 months with grade 3+TRAEs for intermediate/poor-risk). At 36 months, 65.6% of favorable-risk patients and 27.1% of intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive and subsequent systemic treatment-free. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy with salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in non-responders is an active treatment approach in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC and, similar to nivolumab/ipilimumab in CheckMate 214, results in substantial TFS and toxicity-free TFS. TFS was greatest in patients with favorable-risk disease, supporting the use of an immunotherapy-only regimen in this population.

Pseudoprogression in a patient with metastatic melanoma treated with PD-1 and LAG-3 inhibition.

Pseudoprogression encapsulates a process of temporary radiographic growth followed by subsequent regression of metastatic melanoma lesions in response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), such as the combination of anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 therapy. This occurs in approximately 5-10% of ICB-treated patients, but has not yet been described in the context of novel combination therapies. Here, we report a case of an 89-year-old patient with metastatic melanoma to the liver, lung and lymph nodes, who underwent treatment with Opdualag (combining anti-PD-1 nivolumab and anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 relatlimab ICBs), and developed pseudoprogression after two cycles of therapy. The patient experienced a radiographic increase in liver metastatic lesion size, but was found to have a subsequent reduction in these lesions. The patient has been on therapy for 18 months without evidence of disease progression and continues to be clinically well-appearing.

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab with and without nivolumab for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: phase 2 results from the CheckMate 9X8 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan and a biologic agent. Immunotherapy may enhance antitumor activity in combination with standard therapies in patients with mCRC. Here, we present phase 2 results of nivolumab plus standard-of-care therapy (SOC; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/bevacizumab) versus SOC in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC (CheckMate 9X8). METHODS: CheckMate 9X8 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with unresectable mCRC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab 240 mg plus SOC or SOC alone every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included PFS by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response, and time to response, all by BICR and investigator assessments; overall survival; and safety. Preplanned exploratory biomarker analyses were also performed. RESULTS: From February 2018 through April 2019, 310 patients were enrolled, of which 195 patients were randomized to nivolumab plus SOC (n=127) or SOC (n=68). At 21.5-month minimum follow-up, PFS with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance; median PFS by BICR was 11.9 months in both arms (HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.23); p=0.30). Higher PFS rates after 12 months (18 months: 28% vs 9%), higher ORR (60% vs 46%), and durable responses (median 12.9 vs 9.3 months) were observed with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 75% versus 48% of patients; no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The CheckMate 9X8 trial investigating first-line nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in patients with mCRC did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS by BICR. Nivolumab plus SOC showed numerically higher PFS rates after 12 months, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC alone, with acceptable safety. Further investigation to identify subgroups of patients with mCRC that may benefit from nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in the first-line setting is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03414983.

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.