[A Case of Advanced Gastric Cancer Treated with Conversion Surgery followed by Nivolumab Combination Chemotherapy].

The use of nivolumab as first-line therapy for unresectable advanced gastric cancer has now become a standard practice, and its efficacy has been established. This is the first report of a patient with advanced gastric cancer who underwent conversion surgery after first-line nivolumab combination chemotherapy. The patient was a 58-year-old woman. Her medical history included hypertension and dyslipidemia. She had advanced gastric cancer with extensive lymph node metastasis in the left supraclavicular fossa and around the abdominal aorta. After confirming the HER2-negative status and the PD-L1 CPS score to be ≥5, nivolumab was administered in combination with chemotherapy. After the treatment, she underwent a total gastrectomy with D2 dissection, combined splenectomy and pancreatic tail resection for adhesions, and para-aortic lymph node sampling as a conversion surgery. There was no obvious cancerous remnant in the resected specimen, and the pathological response was Grade 3. The patient was alive and recurrence-free at 4 months postoperatively.

Retrospective comparison of a weight-based dose every 2 weeks with a fixed dose every month: a real-life analysis of nivolumab in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Nivolumab was first authorized at a weight-based dose (WBD) of 3 mg/kg every two weeks (Q2W). Since 2017, a fixed dose (FD) regimen [first 240 mg Q2W and then 480 mg per month (Q4W)] was allowed. The objective of the study was to compare a WBD regimen and an FD regimen with regard to effectiveness and safety. We conducted a single-center, retrospective, real-life study of consecutive adult patients who had received a WBD of nivolumab or an FD of 480 mg Q4W. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The secondary endpoints were overall survival and cost of the treatment. In all, 342 patients were included: 71 in the WBD cohort and 271 in the FD cohort. Of these patients, 201 patients (59.6%) experienced an irAE, and 24 of these events were graded as ≥3. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in irAE occurrence between the two cohorts [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.54 (0.21-1.36), P  = 0.19]. The 12-month overall survival rate was significantly lower in the WBD cohort ( P  < 0.001). Switching from a fortnightly weight dose to a fixed monthly dose halves the cost of hospitalization. Our results did not show a significant difference between WBD and FD cohort in the occurrence of severe irAEs. However overall survival appeared to be significantly higher in FD group. Some clinical trials are investigating a hybrid dosing regimen in which a WBD is capped by an FD. The present results need to be confirmed in prospective studies.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus bevacizumab therapy improves the prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer in humanized mouse models.

BACKGROUND: The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-angiogenic agents has been proposed as a promising strategy to improve the outcome of advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, further investigation is warranted to elucidate the specific mechanisms underlying the effects of combination therapy and its potential as neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage TNBC. METHODS: In this study, we constructed humanized mouse models by engrafting the human immune system into severely immunodeficient mice and subsequently implanting TNBC cells into the model. The mice were treated with neoadjuvant combination therapy (bevacizumab combined with nivolumab), followed by in vivo imaging system to assess tumor recurrence and metastasis after surgery. The immune microenvironment of tumors was analyzed to investigate the potential mechanisms. Furthermore, we verified the impact of extending the interval before surgery or administering adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy on the prognosis of mice. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant combination therapy significantly inhibited tumor growth, prevented recurrence and metastasis by normalizing tumor vessels and inducing robust CD8+ T cell infiltration and activation in primary tumors (p < 0.001). In vivo experiments demonstrated that prolonging the interval before surgery or administering adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy did not enhance its efficacy. CONCLUSION: The preclinical study has demonstrated the therapeutic efficacy and mechanism of neoadjuvant combination therapy (nivolumab plus bevacizumab) in treating early TNBC.

Nivolumab for Patients With High-Risk Oral Leukoplakia: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Proliferative verrucous leukoplakia (PVL) is an aggressive oral precancerous disease characterized by a high risk of transformation to invasive oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), and no therapies have been shown to affect its natural history. A recent study of the PVL immune landscape revealed a cytotoxic T-cell-rich microenvironment, providing strong rationale to investigate immune checkpoint therapy. Objective: To determine the safety and clinical activity of anti-programmed cell death 1 protein (PD-1) therapy to treat high-risk PVL. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial was conducted from January 2019 to December 2021 at a single academic medical center; median (range) follow-up was 21.1 (5.4-43.6) months. Participants were a population-based sample of patients with PVL (multifocal, contiguous, or a single lesion ≥4 cm with any degree of dysplasia). Intervention: Patients underwent pretreatment biopsy (1-3 sites) and then received 4 doses of nivolumab (480 mg intravenously) every 28 days, followed by rebiopsy and intraoral photographs at each visit. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the change in composite score (size and degree of dysplasia) from before to after treatment (major response [MR]: >80% decrease in score; partial response: 40%-80% decrease). Secondary analyses included immune-related adverse events, cancer-free survival (CFS), PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, 9p21.3 deletion, and other exploratory immunologic and genomic associations of response. Results: A total of 33 patients were enrolled (median [range] age, 63 [32-80] years; 18 [55%] were female), including 8 (24%) with previously resected early-stage OSCC. Twelve patients (36%) (95% CI, 20.4%-54.8%) had a response by composite score (3 MRs [9%]), 4 had progressive disease (>10% composite score increase, or cancer). Nine patients (27%) developed OSCC during the trial, with a 2-year CFS of 73% (95% CI, 53%-86%). Two patients (6%) discontinued because of toxic effects; 7 (21%) experienced grade 3 to 4 immune-related adverse events. PD-L1 combined positive scores were not associated with response or CFS. Of 20 whole-exome sequenced patients, all 6 patients who had progression to OSCC after nivolumab treatment exhibited 9p21.3 somatic copy-number loss on pretreatment biopsy, while only 4 of the 14 patients (29%) who did not develop OSCC had 9p21.3 loss. Conclusions and Relevance: This immune checkpoint therapy precancer nonrandomized clinical trial met its prespecified response end point, suggesting potential clinical activity for nivolumab in high-risk PVL. Findings identified immunogenomic associations to inform future trials in this precancerous disease with unmet medical need that has been difficult to study. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03692325.

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Perioperative Nivolumab and Chemotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive a diagnosis of stage III disease. There is no current consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment for these patients. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (experimental group) or chemotherapy alone (control group), followed by surgery. Patients in the experimental group who had R0 resections received adjuvant treatment with nivolumab for 6 months. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival at 24 months and safety. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients underwent randomization; 57 were assigned to the experimental group and 29 were assigned to the control group. A pathological complete response occurred in 37% of the patients in the experimental group and in 7% in the control group (relative risk, 5.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 21.23; P = 0.02). Surgery was performed in 93% of the patients in the experimental group and in 69% in the control group (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.74). Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival at 24 months were 67.2% in the experimental group and 40.9% in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.88). Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival at 24 months were 85.0% in the experimental group and 63.6% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 11 patients in the experimental group (19%; some patients had events of both grades) and 3 patients in the control group (10%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC, perioperative treatment with nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response and longer survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADIM II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03838159; EudraCT number, 2018-004515-45.).

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.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results from CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

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.

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.

Neoadjuvant therapy gains FDA approval in non-small cell lung cancer.

Forde et al.1 reported on a randomized clinical trial (CheckMate 816) and showed that neoadjuvant therapy with nivolumab plus chemotherapy led to improved event-free survival and pathological complete response rate in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

First-in-Human Phase I/II ICONIC Trial of the ICOS Agonist Vopratelimab Alone and with Nivolumab: ICOS-High CD4 T-Cell Populations and Predictors of Response.

PURPOSE: The first-in-human phase I/II ICONIC trial evaluated an investigational inducible costimulator (ICOS) agonist, vopratelimab, alone and in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In phase I, patients were treated with escalating doses of intravenous vopratelimab alone or with nivolumab. Primary objectives were safety, tolerability, MTD, and recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Phase II enriched for ICOS-positive (ICOS+) tumors; patients were treated with vopratelimab at the monotherapy RP2D alone or with nivolumab. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and predictive biomarkers of response to vopratelimab were assessed. RESULTS: ICONIC enrolled 201 patients. Vopratelimab alone and with nivolumab was well tolerated; phase I established 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks as the vopratelimab RP2D. Vopratelimab resulted in modest objective response rates of 1.4% and with nivolumab of 2.3%. The prospective selection for ICOS+ tumors did not enrich for responses. A vopratelimab-specific peripheral blood pharmacodynamic biomarker, ICOS-high (ICOS-hi) CD4 T cells, was identified in a subset of patients who demonstrated greater clinical benefit versus those with no emergence of these cells [overall survival (OS), P = 0.0025]. A potential genomic predictive biomarker of ICOS-hi CD4 T-cell emergence was identified that demonstrated improvement in clinical outcomes, including OS (P = 0.0062). CONCLUSIONS: Vopratelimab demonstrated a favorable safety profile alone and in combination with nivolumab. Efficacy was observed only in a subset of patients with a vopratelimab-specific pharmacodynamic biomarker. A potential predictive biomarker of response was identified, which is being prospectively evaluated in a randomized phase II non-small cell lung cancer trial. See related commentary by Lee and Fong, p. 3633.

Phase IB Study of GITR Agonist Antibody TRX518 Singly and in Combination with Gemcitabine, Pembrolizumab, or Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: TRX518 is a mAb engaging the glucocorticoid-induced TNF receptor-related protein (GITR). This open-label, phase I study (TRX518-003) evaluated the safety and efficacy of repeated dose TRX518 monotherapy and in combination with gemcitabine, pembrolizumab, or nivolumab in advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TRX518 monotherapy was dose escalated (Part A) and expanded (Part B) up to 4 mg/kg loading, 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Parts C-E included dose-escalation (2 and 4 mg/kg loading followed by 1 mg/kg) and dose-expansion (4 mg/kg loading) phases with gemcitabine (Part C), pembrolizumab (Part D), or nivolumab (Part E). Primary endpoints included incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), serious adverse events (SAE), and pharmacokinetics. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and pharmacodynamics. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients received TRX518: 43 (Parts A+B), 30 (Part C), 26 (Part D), and 10 (Part E), respectively. A total of 67% of patients in Parts D+E had received prior anti-PD(L)1 or anti-CTLA-4. No DLTs, treatment-related SAEs, and/or grade 4 or 5 AEs were observed with TRX518 monotherapy. In Parts C-E, no DLTs were observed, although TRX518-related SAEs were reported in 3.3% (Part C) and 10.0% (Part E), respectively. Objective response rate was 3.2%, 3.8%, 4%, and 12.5% in Parts A+B, C, D, and E, respectively. TRX518 affected peripheral and intratumoral regulatory T cells (Treg) with different kinetics depending on the combination regimen. Responses with TRX518 monotherapy+anti-PD1 combination were associated with intratumoral Treg reductions and CD8 increases and activation after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: TRX518 showed an acceptable safety profile with pharmacodynamic activity. Repeated dose TRX518 monotherapy and in combination resulted in limited clinical responses associated with immune activation. See related commentary by Hernandez-Guerrero and Moreno, p. 3905.

Recurrent cervical cancer with PD-L1 amplification treated with nivolumab: A case enrolled in the BELIEVE trial.

Patients with cervical cancer benefiting from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are limited. Recently, PD-L1 amplification has been attracted attention as a reliable marker of ICIs. A 47-year-old woman with stage IIB cervical cancer experienced disease progression during postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer genomic profiling revealed that the tumor was microsatellite stable with PD-L1 amplification, therefore, nivolumab was administered by enrolling in the BELIEVE trial. Despite nivolumab treatment, remarkable disease progression was observed. At the beginning of nivolumab treatment, the patient already had multiple liver metastases with severe systemic inflammation as indicated by a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), both of which are negative predictive markers for ICI. Despite the presence of PD-L1 amplification, nivolumab was ineffective in cancer progression, which may be attributable to the presence of liver metastasis and high NLR. ICI is recommended to be administered at an early stage of cancer treatment to enhance its effectiveness.

Three-Year Follow-Up and Response-Survival Relationship of Nivolumab in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ATTRACTION-3).

PURPOSE: Limited long-term data are available on immune checkpoint inhibitor use in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). We report 3-year follow-up data from our study of nivolumab versus chemotherapy (paclitaxel or docetaxel) in patients with previously treated ESCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ATTRACTION-3 was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III trial. Overall survival (OS), time from randomization to death from any cause, was the primary endpoint. An exploratory subanalysis assessed OS according to the best overall response (BOR) with and without landmark at 4 months. RESULTS: Of the enrolled patients, 210 received nivolumab and 209 received chemotherapy. With a minimum follow-up of 36.0 months, OS was longer in the nivolumab versus the chemotherapy group (median, 10.9 vs. 8.5 months; HR, 0.79; P = 0.0264), with 3-year OS rates of 15.3% and 8.7%, respectively. The median OS was longer with nivolumab versus chemotherapy irrespective of the BOR (complete response/partial response: 19.9 vs. 15.4 months; stable disease: 17.4 vs. 8.8 months; and progressive disease: 7.6 vs. 4.2 months). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were reported in 40 patients (19.1%) in the nivolumab group and 133 patients (63.9%) in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab as second-line therapy demonstrated clinically meaningful long-term improvement in OS compared with chemotherapy in previously treated patients with advanced ESCC. The OS was consistently improved in the nivolumab group compared with the chemotherapy group regardless of BOR. Nivolumab was well tolerated over the 3-year follow-up. See related commentary by Yoon et al., p. 3173.

Efficacy of a Flat Low Dose of Nivolumab in Advanced Cancer: A Retrospective Case Series.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Immunotherapy with PD-1/PDL1 blocking monoclonal antibodies has improved survival compared to the standard-of-care chemotherapy for several malignancies at different stages of these malignancies. Due to several reasons, many cancer patients in medical need have no access to these drugs. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether a low dose of nivolumab could also lead to a therapeutic response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer were treated with a flat low dose of 10 mg of nivolumab IV every two weeks at no drug cost. RESULTS: Disease control was noted in nine of the 18 patients. Two patients achieved complete remission, two had prolonged partial remission, and five had stable disease, of these only two experienced adverse events. CONCLUSION: A flat low dose of nivolumab may have clinical activity and is a cheap therapeutic option in patients in medical need for whom standard-dose immune checkpoint inhibitors are not accessible for any reason.