Dataset Information

Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel in Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Two-Year Outcomes From Two Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trials (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057).

ABSTRACT: Purpose Nivolumab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor, prolonged overall survival compared with docetaxel in two independent phase III studies in previously treated patients with advanced squamous (CheckMate 017; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01642004) or nonsquamous (CheckMate 057; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01673867) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report updated results, including a pooled analysis of the two studies. Methods Patients with stage IIIB/IV squamous (N = 272) or nonsquamous (N = 582) NSCLC and disease progression during or after prior platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). Minimum follow-up for survival was 24.2 months. Results Two-year overall survival rates with nivolumab versus docetaxel were 23% (95% CI, 16% to 30%) versus 8% (95% CI, 4% to 13%) in squamous NSCLC and 29% (95% CI, 24% to 34%) versus 16% (95% CI, 12% to 20%) in nonsquamous NSCLC; relative reductions in the risk of death with nivolumab versus docetaxel remained similar to those reported in the primary analyses. Durable responses were observed with nivolumab; 10 (37%) of 27 confirmed responders with squamous NSCLC and 19 (34%) of 56 with nonsquamous NSCLC had ongoing responses after 2 years' minimum follow-up. No patient in either docetaxel group had an ongoing response. In the pooled analysis, the relative reduction in the risk of death with nivolumab versus docetaxel was 28% (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.84), and rates of treatment-related adverse events were lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (any grade, 68% v 88%; grade 3 to 4, 10% v 55%). Conclusion Nivolumab provides long-term clinical benefit and a favorable tolerability profile compared with docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC.

SUBMITTER: Horn L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6075826 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel in Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Two-Year Outcomes From Two Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trials (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057).

Horn Leora L Spigel David R DR Vokes Everett E EE Holgado Esther E Ready Neal N Steins Martin M Poddubskaya Elena E Borghaei Hossein H Felip Enriqueta E Paz-Ares Luis L Pluzanski Adam A Reckamp Karen L KL Burgio Marco A MA Kohlhäeufl Martin M Waterhouse David D Barlesi Fabrice F Antonia Scott S Arrieta Oscar O Fayette Jérôme J Crinò Lucio L Rizvi Naiyer N Reck Martin M Hellmann Matthew D MD Geese William J WJ Li Ang A Blackwood-Chirchir Anne A Healey Diane D Brahmer Julie J Eberhardt Wilfried E E WEE

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20171012 35

Purpose Nivolumab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor, prolonged overall survival compared with docetaxel in two independent phase III studies in previously treated patients with advanced squamous (CheckMate 017; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01642004) or nonsquamous (CheckMate 057; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01673867) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report updated results, including a pooled analysis of the two studies. Methods Patients with stage IIIB/IV squamous (N = 272) or non ...[more]

PMID: 29023213

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew effective treatments exist for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma that has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy.MethodsIn this phase 1/2, multicentre, open-label study, we enrolled patients (age ≥18 years) with urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder, or urethra at 16 sites in Finland, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Patients were not selected by PD-L1 expression, but tumour PD-L1 membrane expression was assessed retrospectively. Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression or treatment discontinuation because of unacceptable toxicity or other protocol-defined reasons, whichever occurred later. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All patients who received at least one dose of the study drug were included in the analyses. We report an interim analysis of this ongoing trial. CheckMate 032 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01928394.FindingsBetween June 5, 2014, and April 24, 2015, 86 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma were enrolled in the nivolumab monotherapy group and 78 received at least one dose of treatment. At data cutoff (March 24, 2016), the minimum follow-up was 9 months (median 15·2 months, IQR 12·9-16·8). A confirmed investigator-assessed objective response was achieved in 19 (24·4%, 95% CI 15·3-35·4) of 78 patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (22%) of 78 patients; the most common were elevated lipase (four [5%]), elevated amylase (three [4%]), and fatigue, maculopapular rash, dyspnoea, decreased lymphocyte count, and decreased neutrophil count (two [3%] each). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (46%) of 78 patients and eight (10%) had a serious adverse event judged to be treatment related. Two (3%) of 78 patients discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (grade 4 pneumonitis and grade 4 thrombocytopenia) and subsequently died.InterpretationNivolumab monotherapy was associated with a substantial and durable clinical response and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. These data support further investigation of nivolumab monotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma.FundingBristol-Myers Squibb.

Project description:Purpose Until recently, limited options existed for patients with advanced melanoma who experienced disease progression while receiving treatment with ipilimumab. Here, we report the coprimary overall survival (OS) end point of CheckMate 037, which has previously shown that nivolumab resulted in more patients achieving an objective response compared with chemotherapy regimens in ipilimumab-refractory patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 expression, BRAF status, and best prior cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy response, then randomly assigned 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (ICC; dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or carboplatin area under the curve 6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). Patients were treated until they experienced progression or unacceptable toxicity, with follow-up of approximately 2 years. Results Two hundred seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (99% treated) and 133 to ICC (77% treated). More nivolumab-treated patients had brain metastases (20% v 14%) and increased lactate dehydrogenase levels (52% v 38%) at baseline; 41% of patients treated with ICC versus 11% of patients treated with nivolumab received anti-programmed death 1 agents after randomly assigned therapy. Median OS was 16 months for nivolumab versus 14 months for ICC (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95.54% CI, 0.73 to 1.24); median progression-free survival was 3.1 months versus 3.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95.1% CI, 0.78 to 1.436). Overall response rate (27% v 10%) and median duration of response (32 months v 13 months) were notably higher for nivolumab versus ICC. Fewer grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in patients on nivolumab (14% v 34%). Conclusion Nivolumab demonstrated higher, more durable responses but no difference in survival compared with ICC. OS should be interpreted with caution as it was likely impacted by an increased dropout rate before treatment, which led to crossover therapy in the ICC group, and by an increased proportion of patients in the nivolumab group with poor prognostic factors.

Project description:BackgroundFor patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, sorafenib is the only approved drug worldwide, and outcomes remain poor. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of nivolumab, a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with or without chronic viral hepatitis.MethodsWe did a phase 1/2, open-label, non-comparative, dose escalation and expansion trial (CheckMate 040) of nivolumab in adults (≥18 years) with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with or without hepatitis C or B (HCV or HBV) infection. Previous sorafenib treatment was allowed. A dose-escalation phase was conducted at seven hospitals or academic centres in four countries or territories (USA, Spain, Hong Kong, and Singapore) and a dose-expansion phase was conducted at an additional 39 sites in 11 countries (Canada, UK, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan). At screening, eligible patients had Child-Pugh scores of 7 or less (Child-Pugh A or B7) for the dose-escalation phase and 6 or less (Child-Pugh A) for the dose-expansion phase, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less. Patients with HBV infection had to be receiving effective antiviral therapy (viral load <100 IU/mL); antiviral therapy was not required for patients with HCV infection. We excluded patients previously treated with an agent targeting T-cell costimulation or checkpoint pathways. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 0·1-10 mg/kg every 2 weeks in the dose-escalation phase (3+3 design). Nivolumab 3 mg/kg was given every 2 weeks in the dose-expansion phase to patients in four cohorts: sorafenib untreated or intolerant without viral hepatitis, sorafenib progressor without viral hepatitis, HCV infected, and HBV infected. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability for the escalation phase and objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1) for the expansion phase. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01658878.FindingsBetween Nov 26, 2012, and Aug 8, 2016, 262 eligible patients were treated (48 patients in the dose-escalation phase and 214 in the dose-expansion phase). 202 (77%) of 262 patients have completed treatment and follow-up is ongoing. During dose escalation, nivolumab showed a manageable safety profile, including acceptable tolerability. In this phase, 46 (96%) of 48 patients discontinued treatment, 42 (88%) due to disease progression. Incidence of treatment-related adverse events did not seem to be associated with dose and no maximum tolerated dose was reached. 12 (25%) of 48 patients had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events. Three (6%) patients had treatment-related serious adverse events (pemphigoid, adrenal insufficiency, liver disorder). 30 (63%) of 48 patients in the dose-escalation phase died (not determined to be related to nivolumab therapy). Nivolumab 3 mg/kg was chosen for dose expansion. The objective response rate was 20% (95% CI 15-26) in patients treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg in the dose-expansion phase and 15% (95% CI 6-28) in the dose-escalation phase.InterpretationNivolumab had a manageable safety profile and no new signals were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Durable objective responses show the potential of nivolumab for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.FundingBristol-Myers Squibb.

Project description:BackgroundNivolumab has been approved in China as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) via weight-based infusion, based on the CheckMate 078 study. We investigated the safety and efficacy of 240 mg flat-dose nivolumab in patients with advanced NSCLC, including those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation/ALK receptor tyrosine kinase (ALK) translocation due to high prevalence in China.MethodsCheckMate 870 was a single-arm, open-label, phase IIIb trial in Asian (primarily Chinese) patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC. Patients received flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence and severity of treatment-related select adverse events (TRsAEs) in non-HBV patients; secondary and exploratory endpoints included severity of high-grade TRsAEs in HBV-infected patients, and safety, efficacy and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the whole population.ResultsOut of 404 patients enrolled, 400 received treatment. Median (standard deviation) age was 60.5 (8.68) years and the majority were male (78.5%). At a median follow-up of 37.6 months, no Grade 5 TRsAEs were reported, and the frequency of Grade 3-4 TRsAEs was low (0.0-5.9%) in non-HBV and HBV NSCLC patients. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in all treated patients were 14.7 (12.3-18.1) and 3.6 (2.3-3.8) months, respectively. Median OS was 14.2 (12.3-18.1) and 22.3 (10.0-NA) months for non-HBV and HBV-infected patients, 19.3 (11.2-31.7) and 13.7 (11.5-18.1) months for EGFR-positive and wild-type subgroups, and 19.3 (12.9-23.5) and 13.3 (10.9-17.7) months for those with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ⩾1% and <1%, respectively. No notable changes from baseline were observed in PROs throughout the study.ConclusionNivolumab 240 mg infusion Q2W was well tolerated, efficacious, and maintained health status and quality of life in Asian patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC regardless of HBV, EGFR, or PD-L1 status.

Project description:Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy.We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ?18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients.Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65).Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events.Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Project description:BackgroundIn the phase 3 CheckMate 025 study, previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab had an overall survival benefit compared with those assigned to everolimus. We aimed to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between treatment groups in this trial.MethodsCheckMate 025 was an open-label study done at 146 oncology centres in 24 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment between Oct 22, 2012, and March 11, 2014. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1, block size of four) to receive nivolumab every 2 weeks or everolimus once per day. The study was stopped early at the planned interim analysis in July, 2015, because the study met its primary endpoint. A protocol amendment permitted patients in the everolimus group to cross over to nivolumab treatment. All patients not on active study therapy are being followed up for survival. At the interim analysis, HRQoL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) and European Quality of Life (EuroQol)-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Prespecified endpoints were to assess, in each treatment group, disease-related symptom progression rate based on the FKSI-DRS and changes in reported global health outcomes based on the EQ-5D. Other endpoints were post hoc. We calculated the proportion of FKSI-DRS questionnaires completed using the number of patients with non-missing data at baseline and at least one post-baseline visit. We defined FKSI-DRS completion as completion of five or more of the nine items in the questionnaire; otherwise data were treated as missing. FKSI-DRS symptom index score was prorated for missing items. We made no adjustments for missing EQ-5D data. We used descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses, including mixed-effects model repeated-measures, for between group comparisons. Analyses were powered according to the original study protocol, and we analysed FKSI-DRS and EQ-5D data for all patients who underwent randomisation and had a baseline assessment and at least one post-baseline assessment. CheckMate 025 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01668784.FindingsHRQoL data were collected at baseline for 362 (88%) of 410 patients in the nivolumab group and 344 (84%) of 411 patients in the everolimus group. The mean difference in FKSI-DRS scores between the nivolumab and everolimus groups was 1·6 (95% CI 1·4-1·9; p<0·0001) with descriptive statistics and 1·7 (1·2-2·1; p<0·0001) with mixed-effects model repeated-measures analysis. In terms of FKSI-DRS score, more patients had a clinically meaningful (ie, an increase of at least 2 points from baseline) HRQoL improvement with nivolumab (200 [55%] of 361 patients) versus everolimus (126 [37%] of 343 patients; p<0·0001). Median time to HRQoL improvement was shorter in patients given nivolumab (4·7 months, 95% CI 3·7-7·5) than in patients given everolimus (median not reached, NE-NE).InterpretationNivolumab was associated with HRQoL improvement compared with everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.FundingBristol-Myers Squibb.

Project description:BackgroundMetastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colorectal cancer has a poor prognosis after treatment with conventional chemotherapy and exhibits high levels of tumour neoantigens, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes, and checkpoint regulators. All of these features are associated with the response to PD-1 blockade in other tumour types. Therefore, we aimed to study nivolumab, a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients with dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer.MethodsIn this ongoing, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic colorectal cancer locally assessed as dMMR/MSI-H from 31 sites (academic centres and hospitals) in eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and the USA). Eligible patients had progressed on or after, or been intolerant of, at least one previous line of treatment, including a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin or irinotecan. Patients were given 3 mg/kg nivolumab every 2 weeks until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal from study. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). All patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in all analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02060188.FindingsOf the 74 patients who were enrolled between March 12, 2014, and March 16, 2016, 40 (54%) had received three or more previous treatments. At a median follow-up of 12·0 months (IQR 8·6-18·0), 23 (31·1%, 95% CI 20·8-42·9) of 74 patients achieved an investigator-assessed objective response and 51 (69%, 57-79) patients had disease control for 12 weeks or longer. Median duration of response was not yet reached; all responders were alive, and eight had responses lasting 12 months or longer (Kaplan-Meier 12-month estimate 86%, 95% CI 62-95). The most common grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were increased concentrations of lipase (six [8%]) and amylase (two [3%]). 23 (31%) patients died during the study; none of these deaths were deemed to be treatment related by the investigator.InterpretationNivolumab provided durable responses and disease control in pre-treated patients with dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer, and could be a new treatment option for these patients.FundingBristol-Myers Squibb.

Project description:ObjectivesThe non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV multicohort CheckMate 920 trial explored the safety and efficacy with a less frequent, but continual nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) dosing regimen (cohort 1) to determine whether this modification could potentially retain efficacy benefits while improving on the manageable safety profile previously observed with this combination in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).SettingPatients were enrolled from 48 largely community-based sites in the USA.Participants106 patients with previously untreated, predominantly clear cell aRCC received treatment.InterventionsPatients received NIVO 6 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg on day 1 of the first week of each 8-week cycle; the combination alternated with NIVO 480 mg monotherapy on day 1 of the fifth week of each 8-week cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or study end. The maximum treatment duration was 2 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence of high-grade (grade 3/4 and grade 5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) within 100 days of the last dose. Select secondary endpoints included time to onset and resolution of high-grade IMAEs, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events and the overall survival (OS) were the exploratory endpoints.ResultsThe most common grade 3/4 IMAEs were diarrhoea/colitis (7.5%) and rash (6.6%) and no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, with a minimum follow-up of 28.5 months. The median PFS was 4.8 (95% CI 3.0 to 8.3) months, the ORR in evaluable patients (n=96) was 34.4% (95% CI 25.0 to 44.8), and the median OS was not reached (95% CI 24.8 months to not estimable).ConclusionsWhile no new safety signals were reported with less frequent, but continual NIVO+IPI dosing in CheckMate 920, the modified regimen was not associated with clinical benefits relative to the approved NIVO+IPI dose. These results support the continued use of the currently approved NIVO+IPI combination dosing schedule for patients with aRCC.Trial registration numberNCT02982954.

Dataset Information

Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel in Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Two-Year Outcomes From Two Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trials (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057).

Publications

Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel in Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Two-Year Outcomes From Two Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trials (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets