Rapid identification of inflammatory arthritis and associated adverse events following immune checkpoint therapy: a machine learning approach.

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA) poses a major clinical challenge to ICI therapy for cancer, with 13% of cases halting ICI therapy and ICI-IA being difficult to identify for timely referral to a rheumatologist. The objective of this study was to rapidly identify ICI-IA patients in clinical data and assess associated immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and risk factors. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of the electronic health records (EHRs) of 89 patients who developed ICI-IA out of 2451 cancer patients who received ICI therapy at Northwestern University between March 2011 to January 2021. Logistic regression and random forest machine learning models were trained on all EHR diagnoses, labs, medications, and procedures to identify ICI-IA patients and EHR codes indicating ICI-IA. Multivariate logistic regression was then used to test associations between ICI-IA and cancer type, ICI regimen, and comorbid irAEs. Results: Logistic regression and random forest models identified ICI-IA patients with accuracies of 0.79 and 0.80, respectively. Key EHR features from the random forest model included ICI-IA relevant features (joint pain, steroid prescription, rheumatoid factor tests) and features suggesting comorbid irAEs (thyroid function tests, pruritus, triamcinolone prescription). Compared to 871 adjudicated ICI patients who did not develop arthritis, ICI-IA patients had higher odds of developing cutaneous (odds ratio [OR]=2.66; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.63-4.35), endocrine (OR=2.09; 95% CI 1.15-3.80), or gastrointestinal (OR=2.88; 95% CI 1.76-4.72) irAEs adjusting for demographics, cancer type, and ICI regimen. Melanoma (OR=1.99; 95% CI 1.08-3.65) and renal cell carcinoma (OR=2.03; 95% CI 1.06-3.84) patients were more likely to develop ICI-IA compared to lung cancer patients. Patients on nivolumab+ipilimumab were more likely to develop ICI-IA compared to patients on pembrolizumab (OR=1.86; 95% CI 1.01-3.43). Discussion: Our machine learning models rapidly identified patients with ICI-IA in EHR data and elucidated clinical features indicative of comorbid irAEs. Patients with ICI-IA were significantly more likely to also develop cutaneous, endocrine, and gastrointestinal irAEs during their clinical course compared to ICI therapy patients without ICI-IA.

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.

CD8+ T cells sustain antitumor response by mediating crosstalk between adenosine A2A receptor and glutathione/GPX4.

Antitumor responses of CD8+ T cells are tightly regulated by distinct metabolic fitness. High levels of glutathione (GSH) are observed in the majority of tumors, contributing to cancer progression and treatment resistance in part by preventing glutathione peroxidase 4-dependent (GPX4-dependent) ferroptosis. Here, we show the necessity of adenosine A2A receptor (A2AR) signaling and the GSH/GPX4 axis in orchestrating metabolic fitness and survival of functionally competent CD8+ T cells. Activated CD8+ T cells treated ex vivo with simultaneous inhibition of A2AR and lipid peroxidation acquire a superior capacity to proliferate and persist in vivo, demonstrating a translatable means to prevent ferroptosis in adoptive cell therapy. Additionally, we identify a particular cluster of intratumoral CD8+ T cells expressing a putative gene signature of GSH metabolism (GMGS) in association with clinical response and survival across several human cancers. Our study addresses a key role of GSH/GPX4 and adenosinergic pathways in fine-tuning the metabolic fitness of antitumor CD8+ T cells.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

Immune Assessment Today: Optimizing and Standardizing Efforts to Monitor Immune Responses in Cancer and Beyond.

As part of a symposium, current and former directors of Immune Monitoring cores and investigative oncologists presented insights into the past, present and future of immune assessment. Dr. Gnjatic presented a classification of immune monitoring technologies ranging from universally applicable to experimental protocols, while emphasizing the need for assay harmonization. Dr. Obeng discussed physiologic differences among CD8 T cells that align with anti-tumor responses. Dr. Lyerly presented the Soldano Ferrone lecture, commemorating the passionate tumor immunologist who inspired many, and covered a timeline of monitoring technology development and its importance to immuno-oncology. Dr. Sonabend presented recent achievements in glioblastoma treatment, accentuating the range of monitoring techniques that allowed him to refine patient selection for clinical trials. Dr. Guevara-Patiño focused on hypoxia within the tumor environment and stressed that T cell viability is not to be confused with functionality. Dr. Butterfield accentuated monitoring of dendritic cell metabolic (dys)function as a determinant for tumor vaccine success. Lectures were interspersed with select abstract presentations. To summarize the concepts, Dr. Maecker from Stanford led an informative forum discussion, pointing towards the future of immune monitoring. Immune monitoring continues to be a guiding light towards effective immunotherapeutic strategies.

Nivolumab + Tacrolimus + Prednisone ± Ipilimumab for Kidney Transplant Recipients With Advanced Cutaneous Cancers.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related mortality rates among kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are high, but these patients have largely been excluded from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors because of immunosuppression and risk of treatment-related allograft loss (TRAL). We conducted a prospective clinical trial testing nivolumab (NIVO) + tacrolimus (TACRO) + prednisone (PRED) ± ipilimumab (IPI) in KTR with advanced cutaneous cancers. METHODS: Adult KTR with advanced melanoma or basal, cutaneous squamous, or Merkel cell carcinomas were eligible. Immunosuppression was standardized to TACRO (serum trough 2-5 ng/mL) + PRED 5 mg once daily. Patients then received NIVO 480 mg IV once every 4 weeks. The primary composite end point was partial or complete (tumor) response (CR) or stable disease per RECIST v1.1 without allograft loss at 16W. Patients with progressive disease (PD) could receive IPI 1 mg/kg IV + NIVO 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO. Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) levels were measured approximately once every 2 weeks as a potential predictor of allograft rejection. RESULTS: Among eight evaluable patients, none met the trial's primary end point. All eight patients experienced PD on NIVO + TACRO + PRED; TRAL occurred in one patient. Six patients then received IPI + NIVO + TACRO + PRED. Best overall responses: two CR (one with TRAL) and four PD (one with TRAL). In total, 7 of 8 pre-NIVO tumor biopsies contained a paucity of infiltrating immune cells. In total, 2 of 5 on-NIVO biopsies demonstrated moderate immune infiltrates; both patients later experienced a CR to IPI + NIVO. In 2 of 3 patients with TRAL, dd-cfDNA elevations occurred 10 and 15 days before increases in serum creatinine. CONCLUSION: In most KTR with advanced skin cancer, TACRO + PRED provides insufficient allograft protection and compromises immune-mediated tumor regression after administration of NIVO ± IPI. Elevated dd-cfDNA levels can signal treatment-related allograft rejection earlier than rises in serum creatinine.

Summary of Research: Adjuvant Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Placebo for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial.

This is a summary of a research article reporting Part A of the CheckMate 914 study (NCT03138512; EudraCT 2016-004502-34). Following surgery to remove renal cell carcinoma (RCC), people with a high risk of the cancer returning received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (adjuvant therapy) or placebo to see if this risk was reduced. The results of this study showed that the risk of RCC returning or death was not changed with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment compared with placebo. In addition, people treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had more side effects compared with people treated with placebo (89% versus 57%).

Ipilimumab with or without nivolumab in PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade refractory metastatic melanoma: a randomized phase 2 trial.

In this randomized phase 2 trial, blockade of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) with continuation of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma who had received front-line anti-PD-1 or therapy against programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and whose tumors progressed was tested in comparison with CTLA-4 blockade alone. Ninety-two eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, or ipilimumab alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included the difference in CD8 T cell infiltrate among responding and nonresponding tumors, objective response rate, overall survival and toxicity. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival over ipilimumab (hazard ratio = 0.63, 90% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41-0.97, one-sided P = 0.04). Objective response rates were 28% (90% CI = 19-38%) and 9% (90% CI = 2-25%), respectively (one-sided P = 0.05). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% and 35% of patients, respectively, which is consistent with the known toxicity profile of these regimens. The change in intratumoral CD8 T cell density observed in the present analysis did not reach statistical significance to support the formal hypothesis tested as a secondary endpoint. In conclusion, primary resistance to PD-1 blockade therapy can be reversed in some patients with the combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03033576 .

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) checkpoint inhibitor resistance definitions: efforts to harmonize terminology and accelerate immuno-oncology drug development.

The need for solid clinical definitions of resistance to programmed death 1 or its ligand (PD-(L)1) inhibitors for clinical trial design was identified as a priority by the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC). Broad consensus efforts have provided definitions for primary and secondary resistance and resistance after stopping therapy for both single-agent PD-(L)1 inhibitors and associated combinations. Validation of SITC's definitions is critical and requires field-wide data sharing and collaboration. Here, in this commentary, we detail current utility and incorporation of SITC's definitions and discuss the next steps both the society and the field must take to further advance immuno-oncology drug development.

New Approaches to Targeted Therapy in Melanoma.

It was just slightly more than a decade ago when metastatic melanoma carried a dismal prognosis with few, if any, effective therapies. Since then, the evolution of cancer immunotherapy has led to new and effective treatment approaches for melanoma. However, despite these advances, a sizable portion of patients with advanced melanoma have de novo or acquired resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. At the same time, therapies (BRAF plus MEK inhibitors) targeting the BRAFV600 mutations found in 40-50% of cutaneous melanomas have also been critical for optimizing management and improving patient outcomes. Even though immunotherapy has been established as the initial therapy in most patients with cutaneous melanoma, subsequent effective therapy is limited to BRAFV600 melanoma. For all other melanoma patients, driver mutations have not been effectively targeted. Numerous efforts are underway to target melanomas with NRAS mutations, NF-1 LOF mutations, and other genetic alterations leading to activation of the MAP kinase pathway. In this era of personalized medicine, we will review the current genetic landscape, molecular classifications, emerging drug targets, and the potential for combination therapies for non-BRAFV600 melanoma.

Endocrine side effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have increasingly been the mainstay of treatment for numerous malignancies. However, due to their association with autoimmunity, ICIs have resulted in a variety of side effects that involve multiple organs including the endocrine system. In this review article, we describe our current understanding of the autoimmune endocrinopathies as a result of the use of ICIs. We will review the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of the most commonly encountered endocrinopathies, including thyroiditis, hypophysitis, Type 1 diabetes, adrenalitis, and central diabetes insipidus.

Overall Survival and Updated Results for Sunitinib Compared With Interferon Alfa in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A randomized, phase III trial demonstrated superiority of sunitinib over interferon alfa (IFN-α) in progression-free survival (primary end point) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Final survival analyses and updated results are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred fifty treatment-naïve patients with metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off dosing schedule or to IFN-α 9 MU subcutaneously thrice weekly. Overall survival was compared by two-sided log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Progression-free survival, response, and safety end points were assessed with updated follow-up. RESULTS: Median overall survival was greater in the sunitinib group than in the IFN-α group (26.4 v 21.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.821; 95% CI, 0.673 to 1.001; P = .051) per the primary analysis of unstratified log-rank test (P = .013 per unstratified Wilcoxon test). By stratified log-rank test, the HR was 0.818 (95% CI, 0.669 to 0.999; P = .049). Within the IFN-α group, 33% of patients received sunitinib, and 32% received other vascular endothelial growth factor-signaling inhibitors after discontinuation from the trial. Median progression-free survival was 11 months for sunitinib compared with 5 months for IFN-α (P < .001). Objective response rate was 47% for sunitinib compared with 12% for IFN-α (P < .001). The most commonly reported sunitinib-related grade 3 adverse events included hypertension (12%), fatigue (11%), diarrhea (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%). CONCLUSION: Sunitinib demonstrates longer overall survival compared with IFN-α plus improvement in response and progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. The overall survival highlights an improved prognosis in patients with RCC in the era of targeted therapy.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2022, Naples, December 1st-3rd, 2022.

The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1-3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate.

Phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in treatment-naïve patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort B).

BACKGROUND: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of nivolumab monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) and the efficacy of nivolumab/ipilimumab salvage therapy in patients with tumors unresponsive to initial nivolumab monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible patients with treatment-naïve nccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completion of 96 weeks of treatment (Part A). Patients with PD prior to, or stable disease (SD) at 48 weeks (prolonged SD) were potentially eligible to receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (Part B). Patients were required to submit tissue from a metastatic lesion obtained within 12 months prior to study entry and prior to Part B for correlative studies. RESULTS: 35 patients with nccRCC were enrolled: 19 (54%) had papillary, 6 (17%) had chromophobe and 10 (29%) had unclassified histology. At median follow-up of 22.9 months, RECIST-defined objective response rate (ORR) was 5 of 35 (14.3% 95% CI 4.8% to 30.3%) (complete response (CR) 2 (5.7%) and partial response (PR) 3 (8.6%)). ORR by histology was: papillary-1/19 (5%); chromophobe-1/6 (17%); and unclassified-3/10 (30%). Nine patients (26%) had tumors with sarcomatoid features with 3 (33%) (2 unclassified and 1 papillary) responding. ORR was 0/18, 3/11 (27%) and 2/6 (33%) for patients with tumor progammed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of <5%, ≥5% or not measured, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 4.0 (2.7-4.3) months. Two of five responders have progressed. Thirty-two patients had PD or prolonged SD and therefore, were potentially eligible for salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (Part B), but 15 patients did not enroll due to grade 2-3 toxicity (6) on nivolumab, symptomatic disease progression (5), or other reasons including no biopsy tissue (4). In the 17 Part B patients, there was one PR (6%) (unclassified/non-sarcomatoid). Grade >3 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 7/35 (20%) on nivolumab and 7/17 (41%) on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab with one patient experiencing sudden death. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy has limited activity in treatment-naïve nccRCC with most responses (4 of 5) seen in patients with sarcomatoid and/or unclassified tumors. Toxicity is consistent with prior nivolumab studies. Salvage treatment with nivolumab/ipilimumab was provided in half of these patients with minimal activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03117309.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) consensus definitions for resistance to combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors with targeted therapies.

Immunotherapy offers deep and durable disease control to some patients, but many tumors do not respond to treatment with single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). One strategy to enhance responses to immunotherapy is via combinations with signal transduction inhibitors, such as antiangiogenic therapies, which not only directly target cancer cells but also could potentially favorably modulate the tumor immune microenvironment. Combination strategies with ICIs have demonstrated enhanced antitumor activity compared with tumor-targeted or antiangiogenic therapy alone in randomized trials in a variety of solid tumor settings, leading to regulatory approval from the US Food and Drug Administration and agencies in other countries for the treatment of endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite improved survival and response rates for some patients when antiangiogenic or targeted therapies are administered with ICIs, many patients continue to progress after combination treatment and urgently need new strategies to address this manifestation of resistance to immunotherapy. Previously, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) published consensus definitions for resistance to single-agent anti-PD-(L)1. To provide guidance for clinical trial design and to support analyses of emerging molecular and immune profiling data surrounding mechanisms of resistance to ICI-based combinations, SITC convened a follow-up workshop in 2021 to develop consensus definitions for resistance to multiagent ICI combinations. This manuscript reports the consensus clinical definitions for combinations of anti-PD-(L)1 ICIs and targeted therapies. Definitions for resistance to ICIs in combination with chemotherapy and with other ICIs will be published in companion volumes to this paper.

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

Survival, Durable Tumor Remission, and Long-Term Safety in Patients With Advanced Melanoma Receiving Nivolumab.

PURPOSE: Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) is an inhibitory receptor expressed by activated T cells that downmodulates effector functions and limits the generation of immune memory. PD-1 blockade can mediate tumor regression in a substantial proportion of patients with melanoma, but it is not known whether this is associated with extended survival or maintenance of response after treatment is discontinued. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced melanoma (N = 107) enrolled between 2008 and 2012 received intravenous nivolumab in an outpatient setting every 2 weeks for up to 96 weeks and were observed for overall survival, long-term safety, and response duration after treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Median overall survival in nivolumab-treated patients (62% with two to five prior systemic therapies) was 16.8 months, and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 62% and 43%, respectively. Among 33 patients with objective tumor regressions (31%), the Kaplan-Meier estimated median response duration was 2 years. Seventeen patients discontinued therapy for reasons other than disease progression, and 12 (71%) of 17 maintained responses off-therapy for at least 16 weeks (range, 16 to 56+ weeks). Objective response and toxicity rates were similar to those reported previously; in an extended analysis of all 306 patients treated on this trial (including those with other cancer types), exposure-adjusted toxicity rates were not cumulative. CONCLUSION: Overall survival following nivolumab treatment in patients with advanced treatment-refractory melanoma compares favorably with that in literature studies of similar patient populations. Responses were durable and persisted after drug discontinuation. Long-term safety was acceptable. Ongoing randomized clinical trials will further assess the impact of nivolumab therapy on overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo for localised renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy (CheckMate 914): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective adjuvant therapy for patients with resected localised renal cell carcinoma represents an unmet need, with surveillance being the standard of care. We report results from part A of a phase 3, randomised trial that aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 CheckMate 914 trial enrolled patients with localised clear cell renal cell carcinoma who were at high risk of relapse after radical or partial nephrectomy between 4-12 weeks before random assignment. Part A, reported herein, was done in 145 hospitals and cancer centres across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks for 12 doses plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) intravenously every 6 weeks for four doses, or matching placebo, via an interactive response technology system. The expected treatment period was 24 weeks, and treatment could be continued until week 36, allowing for treatment delays. Randomisation was stratified by TNM stage and nephrectomy (partial vs radical). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival according to masked independent central review; safety was a secondary endpoint. Disease-free survival was analysed in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population); exposure, safety, and tolerability were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (all-treated population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138512. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2017, and March 16, 2021, 816 patients were randomly assigned to receive either adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (405 patients) or placebo (411 patients). 580 (71%) of 816 patients were male and 236 (29%) patients were female. With a median follow-up of 37·0 months (IQR 31·3-43·7), median disease-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and was 50·7 months (95% CI 48·1 to not estimable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·71-1·19; p=0·53). The number of events required for the planned overall survival interim analysis was not reached at the time of the data cutoff, and only 61 events occurred (33 in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 28 in the placebo group). 155 (38%) of 404 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 42 (10%) of 407 patients who received placebo had grade 3-5 adverse events. All-cause adverse events of any grade led to discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 129 (32%) of 404 treated patients and of placebo in nine (2%) of 407 treated patients. Four deaths were attributed to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and no deaths were attributed to treatment with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not improve disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with localised renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. Our study results do not support this regimen for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.