This is an archive of papers published by the staff and faculty of Fox Chase Cancer Center. For questions about content, please contact Talbot Research Library
Last updated on
Motzer RJ , Rini BI , McDermott DF , Aren Frontera O , Hammers HJ , Carducci MA , Salman P , Escudier B , Beuselinck B , Amin A , Porta C , George S , Neiman V , Bracarda S , Tykodi SS , Barthelemy P , Leibowitz-Amit R , Plimack ER , Oosting SF , Redman B , Melichar B , Powles T , Nathan P , Oudard S , Pook D , Choueiri TK , Donskov F , Grimm MO , Gurney H , Heng DYC , Kollmannsberger CK , Harrison MR , Tomita Y , Duran I , Grunwald V , McHenry MB , Mekan S , Tannir NM
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct;20(10) :1370-1385
PMID: 31427204 URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31427204
AbstractBACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32.4 months [IQR 13.4-36.3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35.6-not estimable] vs 26.6 months [22.1-33.4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.66 [95% CI 0.54-0.80], p<0.0001), progression-free survival (median 8.2 months [95% CI 6.9-10.0] vs 8.3 months [7.0-8.8]; HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.65-0.90], p=0.0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0.0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37.9 months [32.2-not estimable]; HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.59-0.86], p=0.0003), progression-free survival (median 9.7 months [95% CI 8.1-11.1] vs 9.7 months [8.3-11.1]; HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.73-0.98], p=0.027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0.015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.
Notes1474-5488 Motzer, Robert J Rini, Brian I McDermott, David F Aren Frontera, Osvaldo Hammers, Hans J Carducci, Michael A Salman, Pamela Escudier, Bernard Beuselinck, Benoit Amin, Asim Porta, Camillo George, Saby Neiman, Victoria Bracarda, Sergio Tykodi, Scott S Barthelemy, Philippe Leibowitz-Amit, Raya Plimack, Elizabeth R Oosting, Sjoukje F Redman, Bruce Melichar, Bohuslav Powles, Thomas Nathan, Paul Oudard, Stephane Pook, David Choueiri, Toni K Donskov, Frede Grimm, Marc-Oliver Gurney, Howard Heng, Daniel Y C Kollmannsberger, Christian K Harrison, Michael R Tomita, Yoshihiko Duran, Ignacio Grunwald, Viktor McHenry, M Brent Mekan, Sabeen Tannir, Nizar M CheckMate 214 investigators Journal Article England Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct;20(10):1370-1385. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30413-9. Epub 2019 Aug 16.