A plain language summary of the CheckMate 649 study: nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone for untreated advanced or metastatic cancer of the stomach or esophagus.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the 1-year results of a clinical research study known as CheckMate 649 published in The Lancet in June 2021. The 2-year results on the participants' health and overall quality of life from the same study are in a second publication in Nature in March 2022. Until recently, chemotherapy was the only first treatment option for people with advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma who had not been treated before. Patients receiving chemotherapy lived on average for less than 1 year. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that works by activating a person's immune system to fight back against cancer cells. The goal of CheckMate 649 was to find out if the combination of nivolumab and chemotherapy would help patients with advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma live longer and without their cancer getting worse. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Results from the final analysis are reported here. Of 1581 people who took part in the study, 789 received nivolumab and chemotherapy and 792 received chemotherapy. Researchers found that, on average, participants who received nivolumab and chemotherapy lived longer overall than those who received chemotherapy alone. The length of time participants lived without their cancer getting worse was also longer on average with nivolumab and chemotherapy than chemotherapy treatment alone. However, more participants in the nivolumab and chemotherapy group had side effects than those in the chemotherapy group. The three most common side effects in both types of treatment were nausea (urge to vomit), diarrhea and peripheral neuropathy. Participants who received nivolumab and chemotherapy had a lower risk of their cancer symptoms worsening and reported that they were 'less bothered' from side effects of treatment than those receiving chemotherapy alone. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The nivolumab and chemotherapy combination is considered a new standard treatment option and is approved in several countries as a treatment for adults who have not been treated before for their advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal cancer based on results from CheckMate 649. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02872116 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab in gastro-oesophageal cancer.

Standard first-line chemotherapy results in disease progression and death within one year in most patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma1-4. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated superior overall survival versus chemotherapy at 12-month follow-up in gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction or oesophageal adenocarcinoma in the randomized, global CheckMate 649 phase 3 trial5 (programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score ≥5 and all randomized patients). On the basis of these results, nivolumab plus chemotherapy is now approved as a first-line treatment for these patients in many countries6. Nivolumab and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab have distinct but complementary mechanisms of action that contribute to the restoration of anti-tumour T-cell function and induction of de novo anti-tumour T-cell responses, respectively7-11. Treatment combining 1 mg kg-1 nivolumab with 3 mg kg-1 ipilimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful anti-tumour activity with a manageable safety profile in heavily pre-treated patients with advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer12. Here we report both long-term follow-up results comparing nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone and the first results comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy alone from CheckMate 649. After the 24.0-month minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥5 (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.81) and all randomized patients (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.71, 0.88). Overall survival in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 5 for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy alone did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. No new safety signals were identified. Our results support the continued use of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as standard first-line treatment for advanced gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma has a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year. We aimed to evaluate first-line programmed cell death (PD)-1 inhibitor-based therapies in gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. We report the first results for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 649), we enrolled adults (≥18 years) with previously untreated, unresectable, non-HER2-positive gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 29 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 while all three groups were open) via interactive web response technology (block sizes of six) to nivolumab (360 mg every 3 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks) plus chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks or leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin every 2 weeks), nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy alone. Primary endpoints for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were OS or progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review, in patients whose tumours had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of five or more. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02872116. FINDINGS: From March 27, 2017, to April 24, 2019, of 2687 patients assessed for eligibility, we concurrently randomly assigned 1581 patients to treatment (nivolumab plus chemotherapy [n=789, 50%] or chemotherapy alone [n=792, 50%]). The median follow-up for OS was 13·1 months (IQR 6·7-19·1) for nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 11·1 months (5·8-16·1) for chemotherapy alone. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significant improvements in OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [98·4% CI 0·59-0·86]; p<0·0001) and PFS (HR 0·68 [98 % CI 0·56-0·81]; p<0·0001) versus chemotherapy alone in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of five or more (minimum follow-up 12·1 months). Additional results showed significant improvement in OS, along with PFS benefit, in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of one or more and all randomly assigned patients. Among all treated patients, 462 (59%) of 782 patients in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 341 (44%) of 767 patients in the chemotherapy alone group had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (≥25%) were nausea, diarrhoea, and peripheral neuropathy across both groups. 16 (2%) deaths in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and four (1%) deaths in the chemotherapy alone group were considered to be treatment-related. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor to show superior OS, along with PFS benefit and an acceptable safety profile, in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in previously untreated patients with advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, or oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard first-line treatment for these patients. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: ELOQUENT-2 follow-up and post-hoc analyses on progression-free survival and tumour growth.

The randomized phase III ELOQUENT-2 study (NCT01239797) evaluated the efficacy and safety of elotuzumab + lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ELd) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Ld) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 30% versus Ld (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70). Median time from diagnosis was 3·5 years. We present extended 3-year follow-up data. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and interim overall survival (OS). Exploratory post-hoc analyses included impact of time from diagnosis and prior lines of therapy on PFS, and serum M-protein dynamic modelling. ORR was 79% (ELd) and 66% (Ld) (P = 0·0002). ELd reduced the risk of disease progression/death by 27% versus Ld (HR 0·73; P = 0·0014). Interim OS demonstrated a trend in favour of ELd (P = 0·0257); 1-, 2- and 3-year rates with ELd versus Ld were: 91% versus 83%, 73% versus 69% and 60% versus 53%. In patients with ≥ median time from diagnosis and one prior therapy, ELd resulted in a 53% reduction in the risk of progression/death versus Ld (HR 0·47). Serum M-protein dynamic modelling showed slower tumour regrowth with ELd. Adverse events were comparable between arms. ELd provided a durable and clinically relevant improvement in efficacy, with minimal incremental toxicity.

Elotuzumab Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody targeting signaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7), showed activity in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1b-2 study in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients to receive either elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and the overall response rate. Final results for the coprimary end points are reported on the basis of a planned interim analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 321 patients were assigned to the elotuzumab group and 325 to the control group. After a median follow-up of 24.5 months, the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year in the elotuzumab group was 68%, as compared with 57% in the control group; at 2 years, the rates were 41% and 27%, respectively. Median progression-free survival in the elotuzumab group was 19.4 months, versus 14.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the elotuzumab group, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall response rate in the elotuzumab group was 79%, versus 66% in the control group (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the two groups were lymphocytopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, and pneumonia. Infusion reactions occurred in 33 patients (10%) in the elotuzumab group and were grade 1 or 2 in 29 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received a combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone had a significant relative reduction of 30% in the risk of disease progression or death. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01239797.).

Brivanib as adjuvant therapy to transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomized phase III trial.

UNLABELLED: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the current standard of treatment for unresectable intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Brivanib, a selective dual inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor signaling, may improve the effectiveness of TACE when given as an adjuvant to TACE. In this multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, 870 patients with TACE-eligible HCC were planned to be randomly assigned (1:1) after the first TACE to receive either brivanib 800 mg or placebo orally once-daily. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included time to disease progression (TTDP; a composite endpoint based on development of extrahepatic spread or vascular invasion, deterioration of liver function or performance status, or death), time to extrahepatic spread or vascular invasion (TTES/VI), rate of TACE, and safety. Time to radiographic progression (TTP) and objective response rate were exploratory endpoints. The trial was terminated after randomization of 502 patients (brivanib, 249; placebo, 253) when two other phase III studies of brivanib in advanced HCC patients failed to meet OS objectives. At termination, median follow-up was approximately 16 months. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no improvement in OS with brivanib versus placebo (median, 26.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 19.1 to not reached] vs. 26.1 months [19.0-30.9]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.66-1.23]; log-rank P=0.5280). Brivanib improved TTES/VI (HR, 0.64 [95% CI: 0.45-0.90]), TTP (0.61 [0.48-0.77]), and rate of TACE (0.72 [0.61-0.86]), but not TTDP (0.94 [0.72-1.22]) versus placebo. Most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included hyponatremia (brivanib, 18% vs. placebo, 5%) and hypertension (13% vs. 3%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, brivanib as adjuvant therapy to TACE did not improve OS.

Ixabepilone plus capecitabine in advanced breast cancer patients with early relapse after adjuvant anthracyclines and taxanes: a pooled subset analysis of two phase III studies.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with rapid disease relapse after neo/adjuvant chemotherapy including anthracyclines and taxanes have limited treatment options and their efficacy is marginal. Two phase III studies compared ixabepilone plus capecitabine vs. capecitabine alone as first-line treatment in MBC patients pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes in the neo/adjuvant setting. Here we report the efficacy and safety of these treatments in a prespecified subset of patients whose disease relapsed within 12 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 1973 patients across two studies, 293 relapsed within 12 months of neo/adjuvant treatment and received ixabepilone plus capecitabine (n = 149) or capecitabine alone (n = 144) as first-line chemotherapy for MBC. Analysis included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: In 293 patients, ixabepilone plus capecitabine, as compared to capecitabine alone, increased PFS (median: 5.6 months vs. 2.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; p < 0.0001), ORR (46% vs. 24%) and OS (median: 15.1 months vs. 12.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.84; p = 0.208). Major toxicities of this regimen included neuropathy, neutropenia and hand-foot syndrome, but were manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer with early relapse following neo/adjuvant treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes may benefit from ixabepilone plus capecitabine. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00080301 and NCT00082433.).

Randomized phase III trial of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether the combination of ixabepilone plus capecitabine improved overall survival (OS) compared with capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,221 patients with MBC previously treated with anthracycline and taxanes were randomly assigned to ixabepilone (40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule) given every 21 days. The trial was powered to detect a 20% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) for death. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in OS between the combination and capecitabine monotherapy arm, the primary end point (median, 16.4 v 15.6 months; HR = 0.9; 95% CI, 078 to 1.03; P = .1162). The arms were well balanced with the exception of a higher prevalence of impaired performance status (Karnofsky performance status 70% to 80%) in the combination arm (32% v 25%). In a secondary Cox regression analysis adjusted for performance status and other prognostic factors, OS was improved for the combination (HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .0231). In 79% of patients with measurable disease, the combination significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median, 6.2 v 4.2 months; HR = 0.79; P = .0005) and response rate (43% v 29%; P < .0001). Grade 3 to 4 neuropathy occurred in 24% treated with the combination, but was reversible. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed a previous trial demonstrating improved PFS and response for the ixabepilone-capecitabine combination compared with capecitabine alone, although this did not result in improved survival.

Phase I/II study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine in anthracycline-pretreated/resistant and taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose, and efficacy of the epothilone B analogue ixabepilone plus capecitabine in anthracycline-pretreated/ resistant and taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 106 patients were enrolled. The study consisted of a dose-escalation phase (phase I) and a tumor response rate evaluation phase (phase II). Seventy-four patients were treated in phase I with schedule A (ixabepilone 40 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 plus capecitabine 1650-2000 mg/m2 on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle) or schedule B (ixabepilone 8-10 mg/m2 on days 1-3 plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m2 on days 1-14 of a 21- day cycle). RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in the 8/1650 mg/m2 and 10/1650 mg/m2 cohorts; 1 of 30 patients in the 40/1650 mg/m2 cohort and 2 of 30 patients in the 40/2000 mg/m2 cohort had a DLT consisting of grade 3 plantar-palmar erythrodysesthesia (PPE). The 40/2000 mg/m2 dose was defined as the MTD for schedule A, and a total of 62 patients were treated for the phase II portion of the trial, which examined tumor response. The objective response rate was 30%, median time-to-response was 6 weeks, median duration of response was 6.9 months, and median progression-free survival was 3.8 months. Grade 3/4 treatment-related events in phase II included fatigue (34%), PPE (34%), myalgia (23%), nausea (16%), peripheral neuropathy (19%), and diarrhea/vomiting (10%). Grades 3/4 neutropenia (69%) and leukopenia (55%) were managed primarily by dose reduction/treatment interruption. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone plus capecitabine demonstrated clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with anthracycline-pretreated/resistant and taxane-resistant MBC. Ixabepilone was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of resistant/refractory locally advanced or MBC.

Phase II clinical trial of ixabepilone (BMS-247550), an epothilone B analog, in patients with taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Ixabepilone (BMS-247550) is an epothilone analog that optimizes the properties of naturally occurring epothilone B. Natural epothilones and their analogs promote tumor cell death by binding to tubulin and stabilizing microtubules, causing apoptosis. This international phase II trial assessed the activity of ixabepilone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that was resistant to taxane therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MBC patients, who had experienced disease progression while receiving or within 4 months of taxane therapy (6 months if adjuvant taxane only), and who had a taxane as their last regimen, received ixabepilone (1- or 3-hour infusion of 50 mg/m(2) or 3-hour infusion of 40 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks). RESULTS: Of 49 patients treated with 40 mg/m(2) ixabepilone during 3 hours, 35 (73%) had experienced disease progression within 1 month of their last taxane dose. The response rate was 12% (95% CI, 4.7% to 26.5%). All responses (n = 6) were partial; five of six patients had not responded to prior taxane therapy. In responders, the median response duration was 10.4 months. In 20 patients (41%), stable disease was the best outcome. Median time to progression was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.2 months); median survival was 7.9 months. For treated patients across all cohorts (intent-to-treat population), the response rate was also 12% (eight of 66). Treatment-related adverse events in the study were manageable and primarily grade 1/2. Treatment-related neuropathy was mostly sensory and mild to moderate. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone (40 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks) demonstrates promising antitumor activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with taxane-resistant MBC.