Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

Biomarker analysis from CheckMate 214: nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial demonstrated higher response rates and improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line therapy for advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). An unmet need exists to identify patients with RCC who are most likely to benefit from treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. METHODS: In exploratory analyses, pretreatment levels of programmed death ligand 1 were assessed by immunohistochemistry. Genomic and transcriptomic biomarkers (including tumor mutational burden and gene expression signatures) were also investigated. RESULTS: Biomarkers previously associated with benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor-containing regimens in RCC were not predictive for survival in patients with RCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Analysis of gene expression identified an association between an inflammatory response and progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS: The exploratory analyses reveal relationships between molecular biomarkers and provide supportive data on how the inflammation status of the tumor microenvironment may be important for identifying predictive biomarkers of response and survival with combination immunotherapy in patients with RCC. Further validation may help to provide biomarker-driven precision treatment for patients with RCC.

First-line Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib in Patients Without Nephrectomy and With an Evaluable Primary Renal Tumor in the CheckMate 214 Trial.

We present an exploratory post hoc analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in a subgroup of 108 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, a population under-represented in clinical trials. Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized to NIVO+IPI every 3 wk for four doses followed by NIVO monotherapy, or sunitinib every day for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and primary tumor shrinkage were assessed. PFS and ORR were assessed per independent radiology review committee using RECIST version 1.1. With minimum study follow-up of 4 yr for intent-to-treat patients, OS favored NIVO+IPI (n = 53) over sunitinib (n = 55; hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.0) among patients without prior nephrectomy. ORR was higher (34% vs 15%; p = 0.0041) and median duration of response was longer with NIVO+IPI versus sunitinib (20.5 vs 14.1 mo); the best overall response was partial response in either arm. A ≥30% reduction in the diameter of intact target renal tumors was achieved in 35% of patients with NIVO+IPI versus 20% with sunitinib. Safety was consistent with the global study population. In conclusion, in patients with aRCC without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, NIVO+IPI showed survival benefits and renal tumor reduction versus sunitinib. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02231749. PATIENT SUMMARY: In an exploratory analysis of a large global trial (CheckMate 214), we observed positive outcomes (both survival and tumor response to treatment) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in a subgroup of patients with advanced kidney cancer who did not undergo removal of their primary kidney tumor. This subset of patients represents a population that has not been studied in clinical trials and for whom outcomes with new immunotherapy combination regimens are not yet known. We conclude that treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab offers these patients a survival benefit versus sunitinib, consistent with that observed in the overall study, as well as a notable kidney tumor reduction.

Mechanoethology: The Physical Mechanisms of Behavior.

Research that integrates animal behavior theory with mechanics-including biomechanics, physiology, and functional morphology-can reveal how organisms accomplish tasks crucial to their fitness. Despite the insights that can be gained from this interdisciplinary approach, biomechanics commonly neglects a behavioral context and behavioral research generally does not consider mechanics. Here, we aim to encourage the study of "mechanoethology," an area of investigation intended to encompass integrative studies of mechanics and behavior. Using examples from the literature, including papers in this issue, we show how these fields can influence each other in three ways: (1) the energy required to execute behaviors is driven by the kinematics of movement, and mechanistic studies of movement can benefit from consideration of its behavioral context; (2) mechanics sets physical limits on what behaviors organisms execute, while behavior influences ecological and evolutionary limits on mechanical systems; and (3) sensory behavior is underlain by the mechanics of sensory structures, and sensory systems guide whole-organism movement. These core concepts offer a foundation for mechanoethology research. However, future studies focused on merging behavior and mechanics may reveal other ways by which these fields are linked, leading to further insights in integrative organismal biology.

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in First-line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population.See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

PURPOSE: To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). METHODS: Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory). RESULTS: Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. CONCLUSION: After long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.

Final Analysis of the Ipilimumab Versus Placebo Following Radiotherapy Phase III Trial in Postdocetaxel Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Identifies an Excess of Long-term Survivors.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 trial CA184-043 evaluated radiotherapy to bone metastases followed by Ipilimumab or placebo in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had received docetaxel previously. In a prior analysis, the trial's primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]) was not improved significantly. OBJECTIVE: To report the final analysis of OS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 799 patients were randomized to receive a single dose of radiotherapy to one or more bone metastases followed by either Ipilimumab (n = 399) or placebo (n = 400). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. Prespecified and exploratory subset analyses based on Kaplan-Meier/Cox methodology were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During an additional follow-up of approximately 2.4 yr since the primary analysis, 721/799 patients have died. Survival analysis showed crossing of the curves at 7-8 mo, followed by persistent separation of the curves beyond that point, favoring the ipilimumab arm. Given the lack of proportional hazards, a piecewise hazard model showed that the hazard ratio (HR) changed over time: the HR was 1.49 (95% confidence interval 1.12, 1.99) for 0-5 mo, 0.66 (0.51, 0.86) for 5-12 mo, and 0.66 (0.52, 0.84) beyond 12 mo. OS rates were higher in the ipilimumab versus placebo arms at 2 yr (25.2% vs 16.6%), 3 yr (15.3% vs 7.9%), 4 yr (10.1% vs 3.3%), and 5 yr (7.9% vs. 2.7%). Disease progression was the most frequent cause of death in both arms. In seven patients (1.8%) in the ipilimumab arm and one (0.3%) in the placebo arm, the primary cause of death was reported as study drug toxicity. No long-term safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this preplanned long-term analysis, OS favored ipilimumab plus radiotherapy versus placebo plus radiotherapy for patients with postdocetaxel mCRPC. OS rates at 3, 4, and 5 yr were approximately two to three times higher in the ipilimumab arm. PATIENT SUMMARY: After longer follow-up, survival favored the group of men who received ipilimumab, with overall survival rates being two to three times higher at 3 yr and beyond.

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the CheckMate 374 advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients received prior treatment regimens (1-2 antiangiogenic; 0-3 systemic) with progression on/after last treatment and ≤ 6 months of enrollment. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤ 24 months or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients had advanced predominantly ccRCC; 75.3% received only 1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. After a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 0.4-26.9 months), no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, and 9.3% of patients reported grade 3/4 IMAEs (hepatitis, 4.1%; diabetes mellitus, 2.1%; nephritis and renal dysfunction, 1.0%; rash, 1.0%; adrenal insufficiency, 1.0%). The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.8%-32.3%). Three patients had a complete response; 19 had partial responses. The median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.5 months). The median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.4 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the safety and efficacy of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W flat-dose monotherapy for previously treated advanced ccRCC and adds to previous safety and efficacy data using the 3 mg/kg Q2W dose.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

BACKGROUND: The open-label phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 374. METHODS: Eligible patients received 0 to 3 prior systemic therapies. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤24 months or until confirmed progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty-four patients had advanced nccRCC (papillary [n = 24], chromophobe [n = 7], unclassified [n = 8], other [n = 5]); 34.1% received ≥1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. With median follow-up of 11 (range, 0.4-27) months, no all-cause grade 3-5 IMAEs or treatment-related grade 5 adverse events were reported. ORR was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-27.4), with 1 complete response (chromophobe) and 5 partial responses (papillary [n = 2], chromophobe [n = 1], collecting duct [n = 1], and unclassified [n = 1] histology). Median PFS was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-5.4). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 9.2-not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: Safety of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was consistent with previous results. Clinically meaningful efficacy was observed with responses in several histologies, supporting nivolumab as a treatment option for patients with advanced nccRCC, a patient population with high unmet need.

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.

The Strategy of Predator Evasion in Response to a Visual Looming Stimulus in Zebrafish (Danio rerio).

A diversity of animals survive encounters with predators by escaping from a looming visual stimulus. Despite the importance of this behavior, it is generally unclear how visual cues facilitate a prey's survival from predation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to understand how the visual angle subtended on the eye of the prey by the predator affects the distance of adult zebrafish (Danio rerio) from predators. We performed experiments to measure the threshold visual angle and mathematically modeled the kinematics of predator and prey. We analyzed the responses to the artificial stimulus with a novel approach that calculated relationships between hypothetical values for a threshold-stimulus angle and the latency between stimulus and response. These relationships were verified against the kinematic responses of zebrafish to a live fish predator (Herichthys cyanoguttatus). The predictions of our model suggest that the measured threshold visual angle facilitates escape when the predator's approach is slower than approximately twice the prey's escape speed. These results demonstrate the capacity and limits to how the visual angle provides a prey with the means to escape a predator.

Una diversidad de animales sobrevive a los encuentros con los depredadores al escapar de un inminente estímulo visual. A pesar de la importancia de este comportamiento, generalmente no está claro cómo las señales visuales facilitan la supervivencia de una presa de la depredación. Por lo tanto, el objetivo del presente estudio fue comprender cómo el ángulo visual que el depredador subtiende en el ojo de la presa afecta la distancia del pez cebra adulto (Danio rerio) de los depredadores. Realizamos experimentos para medir el ángulo visual del umbral y modelamos matemáticamente la cinemática del depredador y la presa. Analizamos las respuestas al estímulo artificial con un enfoque novedoso que calculaba las relaciones entre los valores hipotéticos para un ángulo umbral-estímulo y la latencia entre el estímulo y la respuesta. Estas relaciones se verificaron contra las respuestas cinemáticas del pez cebra a un depredador de peces vivos (Herichthys cyanoguttatus). Las predicciones de nuestro modelo sugieren que el ángulo visual del umbral medido facilita el escape cuando el enfoque del depredador es más lento que aproximadamente el doble de la velocidad de escape de la presa. Estos resultados demuestran la capacidad y los límites de cómo el ángulo visual proporciona a una presa los medios para escapar de un depredador.

Efficacy of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab According to Number of IMDC Risk Factors in CheckMate 214.

In the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 wk for four doses, then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 wk) had superior efficacy over sunitinib (50 mg once daily, 4 wk on, 2 wk off) in patients with untreated International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma; the benefits were sustained through extended follow-up. To better characterize the association between outcomes and IMDC risk in CheckMate 214, we completed a post hoc analysis (n = 1051) of efficacy by the number of IMDC risk factors. The investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 were evaluated. ORR with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was consistent across zero to six IMDC risk factors, whereas with sunitinib it decreased with increasing number of risk factors. Benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in terms of ORR (40-44% vs 16-38%), OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50-0.72), and PFS (HR 0.44-0.86) were consistently observed in subgroups with one, two, three, or four to six IMDC risk factors (p < 0.05 for treatment × no. of risk factors interaction). These results demonstrate the benefit of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib across all intermediate-risk and poor-risk groups, regardless of the number of IMDC risk factors. PATIENT SUMMARY: This report from the CheckMate 214 study describes a consistent efficacy benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab over first-line sunitinib in all groups of patients with intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, regardless of the number of risk factors they had before starting treatment. We conclude that there is a benefit of first-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab for all intermediate-risk patients, including those with one or two risk factors, and for all poor-risk patients, independent of the number of risk factors.

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.

Five-Year Survival and Correlates Among Patients With Advanced Melanoma, Renal Cell Carcinoma, or Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Nivolumab.

IMPORTANCE: Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits programmed cell death 1, is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treating advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other malignancies. Data on long-term survival among patients receiving nivolumab are limited. OBJECTIVES: To analyze long-term overall survival (OS) among patients receiving nivolumab and identify clinical and laboratory measures associated with tumor regression and OS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a secondary analysis of the phase 1 CA209-003 trial (with expansion cohorts), which was conducted at 13 US medical centers and included 270 patients with advanced melanoma, RCC, or NSCLC who received nivolumab and were enrolled between October 30, 2008, and December 28, 2011. The analyses were either specified in the original protocol or included in subsequent protocol amendments that were implemented between 2008 and 2012. Statistical analysis was performed from October 30, 2008, to November 11, 2016. INTERVENTION: In the CA209-003 trial, patients received nivolumab (0.1-10.0 mg/kg) every 2 weeks in 8-week cycles for up to 96 weeks, unless they developed progressive disease, achieved a complete response, experienced unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrew consent. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Safety and activity of nivolumab; OS was a post hoc end point with a minimum follow-up of 58.3 months. RESULTS: Of 270 patients included in this analysis, 107 (39.6%) had melanoma (72 [67.3%] male; median age, 61 [range, 29-85] years), 34 (12.6%) had RCC (26 [76.5%] male; median age, 58 [range, 35-74] years), and 129 (47.8%) had NSCLC (79 [61.2%] male; median age, 65 [range, 38-85] years). Overall survival curves showed estimated 5-year rates of 34.2% among patients with melanoma, 27.7% among patients with RCC, and 15.6% among patients with NSCLC. In a multivariable analysis, the presence of liver (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.83; P = .02) or bone metastases (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.93; P = .04) was independently associated with reduced likelihood of survival at 5 years, whereas an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.43-5.27; P = .003) was independently associated with an increased likelihood of 5-year survival. Overall survival was significantly longer among patients with treatment-related AEs of any grade (median, 19.8 months; 95% CI, 13.8-26.9 months) or grade 3 or more (median, 20.3 months; 95% CI, 12.5-44.9 months) compared with those without treatment-related AEs (median, 5.8 months; 95% CI, 4.6-7.8 months) (P < .001 for both comparisons based on hazard ratios). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nivolumab treatment was associated with long-term survival in a subset of heavily pretreated patients with advanced melanoma, RCC, or NSCLC. Characterizing factors associated with long-term survival may inform treatment approaches and strategies for future clinical trial development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00730639.

Context-dependent scaling of kinematics and energetics during contests and feeding in mantis shrimp.

Measurements of energy use, and its scaling with size, are critical to understanding how organisms accomplish myriad tasks. For example, energy budgets are central to game theory models of assessment during contests and underlie patterns of feeding behavior. Clear tests connecting energy to behavioral theory require measurements of the energy use of single individuals for particular behaviors. Many species of mantis shrimp (Stomatopoda: Crustacea) use elastic energy storage to power high-speed strikes that they deliver to opponents during territorial contests and to hard-shelled prey while feeding. We compared the scaling of strike kinematics and energetics between feeding and contests in the mantis shrimp Neogonodactylus bredini We filmed strikes with high-speed video, measured strike velocity and used a mathematical model to calculate strike energy. During contests, strike velocity did not scale with body size but strike energy scaled positively with size. Conversely, while feeding, strike velocity decreased with increasing size and strike energy did not vary according to body size. Individuals most likely achieved this strike variation through differential compression of their exoskeletal spring prior to the strike. Post hoc analyses found that N. bredini used greater velocity and energy when striking larger opponents, yet variation in prey size was not accompanied by varying strike velocity or energetics. Our estimates of energetics inform prior tests of contest and feeding behavior in this species. More broadly, our findings elucidate the role behavioral context plays in measurements of animal performance.

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 .).

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: The CheckMate 016 Study.

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.