Dataset Information

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma: analysis of Japanese patients in CheckMate 214 with extended follow-up.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) demonstrated superior efficacy over sunitinib (SUN) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in CheckMate 214, with a manageable safety profile. We report efficacy and safety with extended follow-up amongst Japanese patients. METHODS:CheckMate 214 patients received NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, then NIVO (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). This subgroup analysis assessed overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate/poor-risk and intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and safety (ITT patients). RESULTS:Of 550 and 546 patients randomized to NIVO+IPI and SUN, 38 and 34, respectively, were Japanese. Of these, 31 (NIVO+IPI) and 29 (SUN) patients were IMDC intermediate/poor-risk. In IMDC intermediate/poor-risk patients with 30 months' minimum follow-up, there was a delayed trend in OS benefit with NIVO+IPI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-1.59; P = 0.2670), and 24-month OS probability favoured NIVO+IPI (84%) versus SUN (76%). The ORR was 39% with NIVO+IPI and 31% with SUN (P = 0.6968). PFS was similar in both treatment arms (HR 1.17; 95% CI: 0.62-2.20; P = 0.6220). Efficacy in ITT patients was similar to IMDC intermediate/poor-risk patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event incidence was lower with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (58 versus 91%). CONCLUSIONS:Japanese patients with untreated aRCC in the NIVO+IPI arm had a numerically higher ORR and improved safety profile versus patients in the SUN arm. A delayed OS benefit appears to be emerging with NIVO+IPI. Longer follow-up is needed. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749?term=NCT02231749&rank=1?identifier:?NCT02231749.

SUBMITTER: Tomita Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6978670 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma: analysis of Japanese patients in CheckMate 214 with extended follow-up.

Tomita Yoshihiko Y Kondo Tsunenori T Kimura Go G Inoue Takamitsu T Wakumoto Yoshiaki Y Yao Masahiro M Sugiyama Takayuki T Oya Mototsugu M Fujii Yasuhisa Y Obara Wataru W Motzer Robert J RJ Uemura Hirotsugu H

Japanese journal of clinical oncology 20200101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) demonstrated superior efficacy over sunitinib (SUN) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in CheckMate 214, with a manageable safety profile. We report efficacy and safety with extended follow-up amongst Japanese patients.<h4>Methods</h4>CheckMate 214 patients received NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, then NIVO (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle ...[more]

PMID: 31633185

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).Methods: Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3?mg/kg) plus IPI (1?mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3?mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50?mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory).Results: Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95%?CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95%?CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95%?CI) of response ?4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN.Conclusion: After long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety.Trial registration details: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.

Project description:In the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 wk for four doses, then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 wk) had superior efficacy over sunitinib (50 mg once daily, 4 wk on, 2 wk off) in patients with untreated International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma; the benefits were sustained through extended follow-up. To better characterize the association between outcomes and IMDC risk in CheckMate 214, we completed a post hoc analysis (n = 1051) of efficacy by the number of IMDC risk factors. The investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 were evaluated. ORR with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was consistent across zero to six IMDC risk factors, whereas with sunitinib it decreased with increasing number of risk factors. Benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in terms of ORR (40-44% vs 16-38%), OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50-0.72), and PFS (HR 0.44-0.86) were consistently observed in subgroups with one, two, three, or four to six IMDC risk factors (p < 0.05 for treatment × no. of risk factors interaction). These results demonstrate the benefit of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib across all intermediate-risk and poor-risk groups, regardless of the number of IMDC risk factors. PATIENT SUMMARY: This report from the CheckMate 214 study describes a consistent efficacy benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab over first-line sunitinib in all groups of patients with intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, regardless of the number of risk factors they had before starting treatment. We conclude that there is a benefit of first-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab for all intermediate-risk patients, including those with one or two risk factors, and for all poor-risk patients, independent of the number of risk factors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the ongoing phase 3, CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with intermediate or poor risk, previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be used to further describe the benefit-risk profile of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. METHODS:In the phase 3, randomised, controlled, CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by risk status into favourable, intermediate, and poor risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), and EuroQol five dimensional three level (EQ-5D-3L) instruments. The coprimary endpoints of the trial, reported previously, were overall survival, progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients who had an objective response in those categorised as at intermediate or poor risk. PROs in all randomised participants were assessed as an exploratory endpoint; here we report this exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but is now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS:Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 847 (77%) were at intermediate or poor risk and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=425) or sunitinib (n=422). Median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 23·0-27·4). PROs were more favourable with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib throughout the first 103 weeks after baseline, with mean change from baseline at week 103 for FKSI-19 total score being 4·00 (95% CI 1·91 to 6·09) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -3·14 (-6·03 to -0·25) for sunitinib (p<0·0001), and for FACT-G total score being 4·77 (1·73 to 7·82) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -4·32 (-8·54 to -0·11) for sunitinib (p=0·0005). Significant differences were also seen for four of five FKSI-19 domains (disease-related symptoms, physical disease-related symptoms, treatment side-effects, and functional wellbeing) and FACT-G physical and functional wellbeing domains. However, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups at week 103 in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue rating scale (VAS) scores, with mean change from baseline to week 103 of 10·07 (95% CI 4·35 to 15·80) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6·40 (-1·36 to 14·16) for sunitinib (p=0·45). Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab reduced risk of deterioration in FKSI-19 total score (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·46-0·63), FACT-G total score (0·63, 0·52-0·75), and EQ-5D-3L VAS score (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63-0·89) and UK utility scores (0·67, 0·57-0·80). INTERPRETATION:Nivolumab plus ipilimumab leads to fewer symptoms and better HRQoL than sunitinib in patients at intermediate or poor risk with advanced renal cell carcinoma. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL. FUNDING:Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Project description:PURPOSE:CheckMate 032 is an open-label, multicohort study that includes patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy every 2 weeks (NIVO3), nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (NIVO3+IPI1), or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (NIVO1+IPI3). We report on the expanded NIVO1+IPI3 cohort and extended follow-up for the NIVO3 and NIVO3+IPI1 cohorts. METHODS:Patients with platinum-pretreated mUC were enrolled in this phase I/II multicenter study to receive NIVO3, NIVO3+IPI1, or NIVO1+IPI3 until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, including duration of response. RESULTS:Seventy-eight patients were treated with NIVO3 (minimum follow-up, 37.7 months), 104 with NIVO3+IPI1 (minimum follow-up, 38.8 months), and 92 with NIVO1+IPI3 (minimum follow-up, 7.9 months). Objective response rate was 25.6%, 26.9%, and 38.0% in the NIVO3, NIVO3+IPI1, and NIVO1+IPI3 arms, respectively. Median duration of response was more than 22 months in all arms. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 (26.9%), 32 (30.8%), and 36 (39.1%) patients treated with NIVO3, NIVO3+IPI1, and NIVO1+IPI3, respectively. Grade 5 treatment-related pneumonitis occurred in one patient each in the NIVO3 and NIVO3+IPI1 arms. CONCLUSION:With longer follow-up, NIVO3 demonstrated sustained antitumor activity alone and in combination with ipilimumab. NIVO1+IPI3 provided the greatest antitumor activity of all regimens, with a manageable safety profile. This result not only supports additional study of NIVO1+IPI3 in mUC, but demonstrates the potential benefit of immunotherapy combinations in this disease.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS:We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS:A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS:Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Project description:PurposeMetastatic esophagogastric cancer treatments after failure of second-line chemotherapy are limited. Nivolumab demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) versus placebo in Asian patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancers. We assessed the safety and efficacy of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Western patients with chemotherapy-refractory esophagogastric cancers.Patients and methodsPatients with locally advanced or metastatic chemotherapy-refractory gastric, esophageal, or gastroesophageal junction cancer from centers in the United States and Europe received nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The primary end point was objective response rate. The association of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status with response and survival was also evaluated.ResultsOf 160 treated patients (59 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, 49 with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, 52 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg), 79% had received two or more prior therapies. At the data cutoff, investigator-assessed objective response rates were 12% (95% CI, 5% to 23%), 24% (95% CI, 13% to 39%), and 8% (95% CI, 2% to 19%) in the three groups, respectively. Responses were observed regardless of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status. With a median follow-up of 28, 24, and 22 months across the three groups, 12-month progression-free survival rates were 8%, 17%, and 10%, respectively; 12-month OS rates were 39%, 35%, and 24%, respectively. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 17%, 47%, and 27% of patients in the three groups, respectively.ConclusionNivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity, durable responses, encouraging long-term OS, and a manageable safety profile in patients with chemotherapy-refractory esophagogastric cancer. Phase III studies evaluating nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in earlier lines of therapy for esophagogastric cancers are underway.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS:In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS:Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS:The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

Project description:ImportanceMost patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed with advanced disease not eligible for potentially curative therapies; therefore, new treatment options are needed. Combining nivolumab with ipilimumab may improve clinical outcomes compared with nivolumab monotherapy.ObjectiveTo assess efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced HCC who were previously treated with sorafenib.Design, setting, and participantsCheckMate 040 is a multicenter, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 study. In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab cohort, patients were randomized between January 4 and September 26, 2016. Treatment group information was blinded after randomization. Median follow-up was 30.7 months. Data cutoff for this analysis was January 2019. Patients were recruited at 31 centers in 10 countries/territories in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced HCC (with/without hepatitis B or C) previously treated with sorafenib. A total of 148 patients were randomized (50 to arm A and 49 each to arms B and C).InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1:1 to either nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm A); nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm B); or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks (arm C).Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary end points were safety, tolerability, and objective response rate. Duration of response was also measured (investigator assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1).ResultsOf 148 total participants, 120 were male (81%). Median (IQR) age was 60 (52.5-66.5). At data cutoff (January 2019), the median follow-up was 30.7 months (IQR, 29.9-34.7). Investigator-assessed objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 20%-47%) in arm A, 27% (95% CI, 15%-41%) in arm B, and 29% (95% CI, 17%-43%) in arm C. Median (range) duration of response was not reached (8.3-33.7+) in arm A and was 15.2 months (4.2-29.9+) in arm B and 21.7 months (2.8-32.7+) in arm C. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in 46 of 49 patients (94%) in arm A, 35 of 49 patients (71%) in arm B, and 38 of 48 patients (79%) in arm C; there was 1 treatment-related death (arm A; grade 5 pneumonitis).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had manageable safety, promising objective response rate, and durable responses. The arm A regimen (4 doses nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks) received accelerated approval in the US based on the results of this study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658878.

Project description:ImportanceRecently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsA Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresLife-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.ResultsNivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY).Conclusions and relevanceIn this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

Dataset Information

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma: analysis of Japanese patients in CheckMate 214 with extended follow-up.

Publications

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma: analysis of Japanese patients in CheckMate 214 with extended follow-up.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets