Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS: Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS: The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069) we recruited patients from 19 specialist cancer centres in two countries (France and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for four doses. Subsequently, patients assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipilimumab alone received placebo every 2 weeks during this phase. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The study funder, patients, investigators, and study site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, which has been reported previously, was the proportion of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma achieving an investigator-assessed objective response. Overall survival was an exploratory endpoint and is reported in this Article. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01927419, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2013, and Feb 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients and enrolled 142, randomly assigning 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab alone. In each treatment group, one patient no longer met the study criteria following randomisation and thus did not receive study drug. At a median follow-up of 24·5 months (IQR 9·1-25·7), 2-year overall survival was 63·8% (95% CI 53·3-72·6) for those assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 53·6% (95% CI 38·1-66·8) for those assigned to ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43-1·26; p=0·26). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 51 (54%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nine (20%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were colitis (12 [13%] of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [11%]) in the combination group and diarrhoea (five [11%] of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two [4%]) in the ipilimumab alone group. Serious grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 (36%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (including colitis in ten [11%] of 94 patients, and diarrhoea in five [5%]) compared with four (9%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone (including diarrhoea in two [4%] of 46 patients, colitis in one [2%], and hypophysitis in one [2%]). No new types of treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this updated analysis. INTERPRETATION: Although follow-up of the patients in this study is ongoing, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab might lead to improved outcomes compared with first-line ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this population of patients. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861614. FINDINGS: From May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 9·5-12·7) with ipilimumab and 10·0 months (8·3-11·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 0·72-1·00; p=0·053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0·0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0-5 months was 1·46 (95% CI 1·10-1·95), for 5-12 months was 0·65 (0·50-0·85), and beyond 12 months was 0·60 (0·43-0·86). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 [16%] of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven [2%] of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 [11%] vs 35 [9%]), anaemia (40 [10%] vs 43 [11%]), and colitis (18 [5%] vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The effects of dutasteride or tamsulosin alone and in combination on storage and voiding symptoms in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): 4-year data from the Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin (CombAT) study.

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the effects of combined therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin on voiding and storage symptoms compared with those of dutasteride or tamsulosin alone, using 4-year data from the Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin (CombAT) study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Men (n = 4844) aged ≥ 50 years with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), a prostate volume of ≥ 30 mL, and a serum prostate-specific antigen level of 1.5-10 ng/mL. • CombAT was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group study. • Oral dutasteride (0.5 mg) or tamsulosin (0.4 mg) alone or in combination was taken daily for 4 years. • Mean changes from baseline in storage and voiding symptoms at 4 years were assessed using subscales of the International Prostate Symptom Score. RESULTS: • At 4 years, the mean reduction in the storage subscore was significantly greater in the combined therapy group vs the dutasteride (adjusted mean difference -0.43) and tamsulosin (adjusted mean difference -0.96) monotherapy groups (P < 0.001). • Also at 4 years, the mean reduction in the voiding subscore was significantly greater in the combined therapy group vs the dutasteride (adjusted mean difference -0.51) and tamsulosin (adjusted mean difference -1.60) monotherapy groups (P < 0.001). • The improvement in the storage subscore with combined therapy was significantly better (P < 0.001) than dutasteride and tamsulosin from 3 months and 12 months, respectively. Similarly, the improvement in the voiding subscore with combined therapy was significantly better than dutasteride (P < 0.001) and tamsulosin (P ≤ 0.006) from 3 months and 6 months, respectively. • Improvements in the storage and voiding symptom subscores with combined therapy were achieved irrespective of prostate volume, although in men with the highest baseline prostate volumes (≥ 58 mL), combined therapy was not better than dutasteride. CONCLUSIONS: • In men with a prostate volume of ≥ 30 mL, combined therapy with dutasteride plus tamsulosin provided better long-term (up to 4 years) control of both storage and voiding LUTS compared with tamsulosin monotherapy. • Combined therapy was better than dutasteride monotherapy in men with prostate volumes of ≥ 30 to < 58 mL, but not in men with a prostate volume of ≥ 58 mL.

Dutasteride and bicalutamide in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: the Therapy Assessed by Rising PSA (TARP) study rationale and design.

INTRODUCTION: Bicalutamide blocks androgen action in men with prostate cancer but has low affinity for the androgen receptor compared to dihydrotestosterone (DHT). Dutasteride, a dual 5-reductase inhibitor (5ARI), blocks the conversion of testosterone to DHT, reduces tumor volume and improves PSA in prostate cancer. Bicalutamide should be a more effective antiandrogen if it competes against intraprostatic testosterone, rather than DHT, for the androgen receptor. The Therapy Assessed by Rising PSA (TARP) study investigates dutasteride in combination with bicalutamide to prevent or delay disease progression in patients with castrate-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC) after initial androgen deprivation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This ongoing US and Canada multicenter trial with patients with rising PSAs while on a GnRH analogue are randomized to double-blind treatment with dutasteride 3.5 mg and bicalutamide 50 mg or placebo and bicalutamide 50 mg once daily. Inclusion criteria include three rising PSA levels despite a GnRH analogue or surgical castration, and no radiographic evidence of metastases. The entry PSA values must be 2.0 ng/ml-20.0 ng/ml and serum testosterone level < 50 ng/dl. The primary endpoint is time to disease progression determined by PSA, or radiographic progression. CONCLUSIONS: TARP will be the first study to evaluate the effects of dutasteride and an antiandrogen in patients failing GnRH analogue and help elucidate the potential role of a dual 5ARI in reducing the rate of progression in non-metastatic CRPC.