Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Distinct autoantibody profiles across checkpoint inhibitor types and toxicities.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in combination. To understand the effects of different ICI categories, we characterized changes in circulating autoantibodies in patients enrolled in the E4412 trial (NCT01896999) of brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus ipilimumab, BV plus nivolumab, or BV plus ipilimumab-nivolumab for Hodgkin Lymphoma. Cycle 2 Day 1 (C2D1) autoantibody levels were compared to pre-treatment baseline. Across 112 autoantibodies tested, we generally observed increases in ipilimumab-containing regimens, with decreases noted in the nivolumab arm. Among 15 autoantibodies with significant changes at C2D1, all nivolumab cases exhibited decreases, with more than 90% of ipilimumab-exposed cases showing increases. Autoantibody profiles also showed differences according to immune-related adverse event (irAE) type, with rash generally featuring increases and liver toxicity demonstrating decreases. We conclude that dynamic autoantibody profiles may differ according to ICI category and irAE type. These findings may have relevance to clinical monitoring and irAE treatment.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in advanced cancers (excluding melanoma): a systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I2). RESULTS: Nine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi. CONCLUSIONS: Combining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.

BACKGROUND: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort. METHODS: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Annual melanoma incidence in the US is escalating. OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive evaluation of nivolumab alone or with ipilimumab for advanced melanoma treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, extending until August 2023. A range of outcomes were evaluated, encompassing overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), adverse events (both any and serious), complete response rate, mortality rate, and recurrence rate in patients with advanced melanoma. RESULTS: This analysis was conducted on seven relevant studies, involving 2,885 patients. The baseline characteristics of both groups were found to be comparable across all outcomes, with the exception of tumor size. The pooled analysis did not reveal any significant disparities, except for PFS, where the nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment group demonstrated a significantly longer PFS compared to the nivolumab group. However, there was a notable discrepancy in any adverse events (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.96, 3.69; p < 0.00001) and serious adverse events (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.88, 4.49, p < 0.00001) between the two groups, suggesting that the safety profile of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was inferior. CONCLUSIONS: Given diversity and potential biases, oncologists should base immunotherapy decisions on professional expertise and patient characteristics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023453484.

Neoadjuvant Dual Checkpoint Inhibitors vs Anti-PD1 Therapy in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM. Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered. Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Prognostic outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving second-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor following first-line immune-oncology combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the prognostic outcomes in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI following first-line IO combination therapy. METHODS: This study retrospectively included 243 mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI after first-line IO combination therapy: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 189, IO-IO group) and either pembrolizumab plus axitinib or avelumab plus axitinib (n = 54, IO-TKI group). Oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared, and prognostication systems were developed for these patients. RESULTS: In the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, the objective response rates to second-line TKI were 34.4% and 25.9% (p = 0.26), the median PFS periods were 9.7 and 7.1 months (p = 0.79), and the median OS periods after the introduction of second-line TKI were 23.1 and 33.5 months (p = 0.93), respectively. Among the several factors examined, non-CCRCC, high CRP, and low albumin levels were identified as independent predictors of both poor PFS and OS by multivariate analyses. It was possible to precisely classify the patients into 3 risk groups regarding both PFS and OS according to the positive numbers of the independent prognostic factors. Furthermore, the c-indices of this study were superior to those of previous systems as follows: 0.75, 0.64, and 0.61 for PFS prediction and 0.76, 0.70, and 0.65 for OS prediction by the present, IMDC, and MSKCC systems, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the prognostic outcomes after introducing second-line TKI between the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, and the histopathology, CRP and albumin levels had independent impacts on the prognosis in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI, irrespective of first-line IO combination therapies.

Real-world outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japanese patients: data with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up data regarding treatment outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma as a first-line therapy are limited in real-world Japanese populations. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of 56 advanced renal cell carcinoma patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with a follow-up of at least 3 years. Survival, tumour response and adverse event profiles were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients (73%) were histopathologically diagnosed with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and 34 (61%) were categorized into the International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk group. The median follow-up period was 34.4 months. Regarding an effectiveness profile, median progression-free survival, time to treatment failure and overall survival were 9.01, 12.5 and 49.0 months, respectively. Objective response was observed in 27 patients (48%), including eight patients with complete response (14%), and the median duration of response was 30.8 months. Multivariate analyses showed that clear-cell histology was an independent factor of longer overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.23, P = 0.0013). Regarding safety profiles, adverse events of any grade and those with grade ≥3 developed in 40 (71%) and 25 patients (45%), respectively. Median time to adverse event development was 1.68 months. Treatment was interrupted in 28 patients (50%), and corticosteroid administration was needed in 25 (45%). CONCLUSION: The 3-year follow-up data showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy exhibited a feasible effectiveness in real-world Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Accordingly, the high risk of adverse event development, which often requires treatment withdrawal and corticosteroid administration, should be considered.

Correlation between tumor size change and outcome in a rare cancer immunotherapy basket trial.

BACKGROUND: RECIST criteria for progressive disease, partial response, and complete response, reflecting +20%, -30%, and -100% tumor size changes, respectively, are critical outcome variables in oncology clinical trials. Herein, we evaluated post-immunotherapy tumor size change correlation with outcomes. METHODS: We used a unique clinical trial data resource, a multicenter basket trial in patients with rare solid tumors treated with nivolumab (anti-PD-1) and ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) between 2017 and 2023 (National Cancer Institute/Southwest Oncology Group-sponsored DART trial [NCT02834013]) (open at 1083 sites at its peak). Outcome associations were evaluated by survival analysis techniques including Martingale residuals. RESULTS: In 638 evaluable patients, we found strong linear relationships between percent change in tumor measurement up to a 40%-50% increase and progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (both Cox regression P < .001; landmark analyses based on day 65). Pearson R correlation between survival estimates and tumor change category were -0.94, -0.89, and -0.89 (PFS) and -0.84, -0.90, and -0.90 (OS) for median, 6-month (PFS), and 1-year (OS) and for 1-year (PFS) and 2-year (OS) estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Percent change in tumor measurement per RECISTv1.1 (the sum of longest dimensions of target lesions) has a linear association with PFS and OS up to a 40% to 50% increase in tumor measurement in this cohort of patients with rare cancers who received combination immune checkpoint blockade. Quantitative first scan tumor measurement changes include important information to evaluate the potential efficacy of a therapy beyond the proportion of patients who achieve an objective response.

Postmarketing surveillance of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in Japanese patients with unresectable malignant melanoma.

Although malignant melanoma is relatively rare in Japan, it is often diagnosed at a later stage than in Western countries. Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed death 1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4, respectively. Owing to their complementary anticancer effects, nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy (N + I) has been studied and approved for treating malignant melanoma in various countries including Japan. Real-world postmarketing surveillance was implemented to record treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with N + I following its approval in Japan. Patients were eligible for registration if they had unresectable malignant melanoma and started N + I between September 2018 and August 2019. The observation period was 13 weeks from starting N + I. Only safety information was collected and evaluated. The final case report form lock was March 2021. Overall, 173 patients (median age, 66.0 years; performance status 0-1, 88.4%; skin: 53.2%; mucosal: 32.4%) were eligible for the analyses. Overall, 34.1% of patients completed 4 doses of N + I. N + I was discontinued by 63.0% (due to adverse events in 67.9% and disease progression/death in 22.9%). Any grade and grade ≥3 TRAEs were reported in 73.41% and 52.02%, respectively. TRAEs in ≥10 patients were hepatic function abnormal (any grade/grade ≥3: 23.12%/13.29%), pyrexia (10.40%/0.58%), diarrhea (9.25%/2.89%), rash (8.67%/0.58%), hypophysitis (5.78%/5.20%), interstitial lung disease (5.78%/2.89%), and liver disorder (5.78%/4.62%). TRAEs were classified as recovered (36.99% of patients), recovering (44.51%), unrecovered (13.29%), recovered with sequelae (2.31%), and death (1.73%). Overall, 24 of 34 patients (70.59%) with gastrointestinal-related and 53 of 65 (81.54%) liver-related TRAEs received treatment, such as a steroid with/without an immunosuppressant; most patients recovered within 1 to 2 months. In conclusion, this postmarketing surveillance of N + I in patients with unresectable malignant melanoma revealed no new safety concerns compared with results of prior studies. Immune-related TRAEs were generally manageable by appropriate treatment including a steroid.

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Nivolumab Alone for Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: The Phase 2 CheckMate 714 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There remains an unmet need to improve clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). Objective: To evaluate clinical benefit of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in patients with R/M SCCHN. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CheckMate 714, double-blind, phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted at 83 sites in 21 countries between October 20, 2016, and January 23, 2019. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and had platinum-refractory or platinum-eligible R/M SCCHN and no prior systemic therapy for R/M disease. Data were analyzed from October 20, 2016 (first patient, first visit), to March 8, 2019 (primary database lock), and April 6, 2020 (overall survival database lock). Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously [IV] every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks) or nivolumab (3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) plus placebo for up to 2 years or until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or consent withdrawal. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response between treatment arms by blinded independent central review in the population with platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN. Exploratory end points included safety. Results: Of 425 included patients, 241 (56.7%; median age, 59 [range, 24-82] years; 194 males [80.5%]) had platinum-refractory disease (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 159; nivolumab, n = 82) and 184 (43.3%; median age, 62 [range, 33-88] years; 152 males [82.6%]) had platinum-eligible disease (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 123; nivolumab, n = 61). At primary database lock, the ORR in the population with platinum-refractory disease was 13.2% (95% CI, 8.4%-19.5%) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 18.3% (95% CI, 10.6%-28.4%) with nivolumab (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95.5% CI, 0.33-1.43; P = .29). Median duration of response for nivolumab plus ipilimumab was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 11.0 months to NR) vs 11.1 months (95% CI, 4.1 months to NR) for nivolumab. In the population with platinum-eligible disease, the ORR was 20.3% (95% CI, 13.6%-28.5%) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 29.5% (95% CI, 18.5%-42.6%) with nivolumab. The rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab were 15.8% (25 of 158) vs 14.6% (12 of 82) in the population with platinum-refractory disease and 24.6% (30 of 122) vs 13.1% (8 of 61) in the population with platinum-eligible disease. Conclusions and Relevance: The CheckMate 714 randomized clinical trial did not meet its primary end point of ORR benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with an acceptable safety profile. Research to identify patient subpopulations in R/M SCCHN that would benefit from nivolumab plus ipilimumab over nivolumab monotherapy is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02823574.

An Enhancer Demethylator Phenotype Converged to Immune Dysfunction and Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinomas.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCC). Although analyses of transcriptome, genetic alterations, and the tumor microenvironment (TME) have shed light into mechanisms of response and resistance to these agents, the role of epigenetic alterations in this process remains fully unknown. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We investigated the methylome of six ccRCC cohorts as well as one cell line dataset. Of note, we took advantage of the BIONIKK trial aiming to tailor treatments according to Paris Descartes 4-gene expression subgroups, and performed Illumina EPIC profiling for 46 samples related to patients treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab, and 17 samples related to patients treated with sunitinib. RESULTS: A group of tumors associated with enhancer demethylation was discovered, namely TED. TED was associated with tumors with sarcomatoid differentiation and poor clinical outcome. TED harbored TET1 promoter demethylation, activated the gene expression signature of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and IL6/JAK/STAT3 pathways, and displayed a TME characterized by both immune activation and suppressive populations, fibroblast infiltration, and endothelial depletion. In addition, TED was a predictive factor of resistance to the combination of first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab in the BIONIKK clinical trial. Finally, TED was associated with activation of specific regulons, which we also found to be predictive of resistance to immunotherapy in an independent cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We report on the discovery of a novel epigenetic phenotype associated with resistance to ICIs that may pave the way to better personalizing patients' treatments. See related commentary by Zhou and Kim, p. 1170.

Clinical outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Real-world data from a Japanese multicenter retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Although nivolumab plus ipilimumab has become a standard treatment regimen for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), its efficacy in non-clear cell carcinoma (nccRCC) has not been fully examined. In the current study, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in nccRCC compared with ccRCC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 22 patients with metastatic and/or locally advanced unresectable nccRCC who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a first-line therapy and compared them with 107 patients with ccRCC. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity were compared between the nccRCC and ccRCC groups. RESULTS: The histology of nccRCC included eight papillary, six unclassified, three chromophobe, two collecting duct carcinoma, and three other subtypes. Best objective response in nccRCC patients included three complete responses and five partial responses, resulting in an ORR of 36%, while that in ccRCC patients was 50% (p = 0.22). With a median follow-up of 11.9 months, OS was significantly shorter in patients with nccRCC than in those with ccRCC (median 20.8 months vs. not reached, p = 0.04), while there was no significant difference in PFS (median 6.3 vs. 10.8 months, p = 0.21). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 14 (64%) nccRCC patients and 81 (76%) ccRCC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab demonstrated modest clinical efficacy in patients with nccRCC compared with patients with ccRCC, suggesting it could be a therapeutic option for metastatic nccRCC patients.

Nivolumab Combination Therapy in Advanced Esophageal Squamous-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: First-line chemotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma results in poor outcomes. The monoclonal antibody nivolumab has shown an overall survival benefit over chemotherapy in previously treated patients with advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus the monoclonal antibody ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor-cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 1% or greater and then in the overall population (all randomly assigned patients). RESULTS: A total of 970 patients underwent randomization. At a 13-month minimum follow-up, overall survival was significantly longer with nivolumab plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone, both among patients with tumor-cell PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater (median, 15.4 vs. 9.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.54; 99.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.80; P<0.001) and in the overall population (median, 13.2 vs. 10.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.74; 99.1% CI, 0.58 to 0.96; P = 0.002). Overall survival was also significantly longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients with tumor-cell PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater (median, 13.7 vs. 9.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.64; 98.6% CI, 0.46 to 0.90; P = 0.001) and in the overall population (median, 12.7 vs. 10.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.78; 98.2% CI, 0.62 to 0.98; P = 0.01). Among patients with tumor-cell PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater, a significant progression-free survival benefit was also seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.65; 98.5% CI, 0.46 to 0.92; P = 0.002) but not with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 was 47% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, 32% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and 36% with chemotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Both first-line treatment with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and first-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma, with no new safety signals identified. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 648 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03143153.).

Ipilimumab alone or in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed or relapsed on PD-1 blockade: clinical outcomes and translational biomarker analyses.

BACKGROUND: There are no validated biomarkers that can aid clinicians in selecting who would best benefit from anticytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 monotherapy versus combination checkpoint blockade in patients with advanced melanoma who have progressive disease after programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade. METHODS: We conducted a randomized multicenter phase II trial in patients with advanced melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1 mg/kg of nivolumab plus 3 mg/kg of ipilimumab or 3 mg/kg of ipilimumab every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Patients were stratified by histological subtype and prior response to PD-1 therapy. The primary clinical objective was overall response rate by week 18. Translational biomarker analyses were conducted in patients with blood and tissue samples. RESULTS: Objective responses were seen in 5 of 9 patients in the ipilimumab arm and 2 of 10 patients in the ipilimumab+nivolumab arm; disease control rates (DCRs) (66.7% vs 60.0%) and rates of grade 3-4 adverse events (56% vs 50%) were comparable between arms. In a pooled analysis, patients with clinical benefit (CB), defined as Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response or progression-free for 6 months, showed increased circulating CD4+ T cells with higher polyfunctionality and interferon gamma production following treatment. Tumor profiling revealed enrichment of NRAS mutations and activation of transcriptional programs associated with innate and adaptive immunity in patients with CB. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma that previously progressed on PD-1 blockade, objective responses were seen in both arms, with comparable DCRs. Findings from biomarker analyses provided hypothesis-generating signals for validation in future studies of larger patient cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02731729.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

Perioperative nivolumab monotherapy versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma has high recurrence rates after surgery; however, there are no approved standard-of-care neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies. Immunotherapy has been shown to improve survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma; we therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of perioperative immunotherapy in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this single-centre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial, patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 240 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 2 weeks (for up to three doses before surgery at 6 weeks) followed in the adjuvant phase by 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks for 2 years, or 240 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 2 weeks (for up to three doses before surgery) plus one dose of 1 mg/kg of ipilimumab intravenously concurrently with the first preoperative dose of nivolumab, followed in the adjuvant phase by 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 2 years plus 1 mg/kg of ipilimumab intravenously every 6 weeks for up to four cycles. Patients were randomly assigned to the treatment groups by use of block randomisation with a random block size. The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with an overall response, time to progression, and progression-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03222076) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Oct 30, 2017, and Dec 3, 2019, 30 patients were enrolled and 27 were randomly assigned: 13 to nivolumab and 14 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3-4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were increased alanine aminotransferase (three [23%] of 13 patients on nivolumab vs seven [50%] of 14 patients on nivolumab plus ipilimumab) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (three [23%] vs seven [50%]). No patients in either group had their surgery delayed due to grade 3 or worse adverse events. Seven of 27 patients had surgical cancellations, but none was due to treatment-related adverse events. Estimated median progression-free survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 1·47-not estimable [NE]) with nivolumab and 19·53 months (2·33-NE) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·31-2·54); median time to progression was 9·4 months (95% CI 1·47-NE) in the nivolumab group and 19·53 months (2·33-NE) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·31-2·54). In an exploratory analysis, three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumour area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. INTERPRETATION: Perioperative nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab appears to be safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Our findings support further studies of immunotherapy in the perioperative setting in hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and the US National Institutes of Health.

A PD-1/PD-L1 Proximity Assay as a Theranostic Marker for PD-1 Blockade in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Less than 50% of patients with melanoma respond to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1), and this treatment can induce severe toxicity. Predictive markers are thus needed to improve the benefit/risk ratio of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Baseline tumor parameters such as programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, CD8+ T-cell infiltration, mutational burden, and various transcriptomic signatures are associated with response to ICI, but their predictive values are not sufficient. Interaction between PD-1 and its main ligand, PD-L1, appears as a valuable target of anti-PD-1 therapy. Thus, instead of looking at PD-L1 expression only, we evaluated the predictive value of the proximity between PD-1 and its neighboring PD-L1 molecules in terms of response to anti-PD-1 therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: PD-1/PD-L1 proximity was assessed by proximity ligation assay (PLA) on 137 samples from two cohorts (exploratory n = 66 and validation n = 71) of samples from patients with melanoma treated with anti-PD-1±anti-CTLA-4. Additional predictive biomarkers, such as PD-L1 expression (MELscore), CD8+ cells density, and NanoString RNA signature, were also evaluated. RESULTS: A PD-1/PD-L1 PLA model was developed to predict tumor response in an exploratory cohort and further evaluated in an independent validation cohort. This score showed higher predictive ability (AUC = 0.85 and 0.79 in the two cohorts, respectively) for PD-1/PD-L1 PLA as compared with other parameters (AUC = 0.71-0.77). Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer in patients with high PLA values (P = 0.00019 and P < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The proximity between PD-1 and PD-L1, easily assessed by this PLA on one formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded section, appears as a new biomarker of anti-PD-1 efficacy.