Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Existing Immunotherapies in Patients with PD-L1-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ando K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7409193 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Existing Immunotherapies in Patients with PD-L1-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Ando Koichi K Kishino Yasunari Y Homma Tetsuya T Kusumoto Sojiro S Yamaoka Toshimitsu T Tanaka Akihiko A Ohmori Tohru T Ohnishi Tsukasa T Sagara Hironori H
Cancers 20200715 7
No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy and safety of nivolumab (Niv) plus ipilimumab (Ipi) combination therapy (Niv+Ipi) and existing regimens with immunotherapies approved as first-line treatment in patients with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted a network meta-analysis of four relevant Phase Ⅲ trials to compare the efficacy and safety of Niv+Ipi, pembrolizumab (Pem) plus platinum-based chemo ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N-I) or pembrolizumab (PEM) is associated with survival improvement as chemotherapy-free, first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and positive programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). However, no direct comparison data exist between these two regimens to inform clinical decisions. Therefore, we performed indirect comparison for N-I versus PEM using frequentist methods. RESULTS:Three randomized trials (KEYNOTE-024, KEYNOTE-042, and CheckMate 227) involving 2372 patients were included. For patients with tumor PD-L1 level of ?1%, pooled meta-analyses showed that both N-I and PEM improved overall survival (OS) relative to chemotherapy (N-I: hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97; PEM: HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.93); whereas only N-I significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (N-I: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96; PEM: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94-1.21). Neither N-I nor PEM was associated with improved objective response rate (ORR) compared with chemotherapy (N-I: relative risk [RR] 1.20, 95% CI 0.98-1.46; PEM: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.23). Indirect comparisons showed that N-I was associated with longer PFS than PEM (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.95). However, N-I was not superior to PEM in terms of OS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77-1.24) and ORR (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89-1.52). N-I showed a less favorable toxicity profile relative to PEM (all grade adverse events: RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17-1.40). CONCLUSIONS:N-I and PEM provide comparable OS benefit for PD-L1-positive NSCLC. N-I further improves PFS relative to PEM but at meaningful cost of toxicities.
| S-EPMC7240850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNivolumab 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsOverall 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 .).
| S-EPMC5972549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes.Patients and methodsPatients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated.ResultsMedian OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF-wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed.ConclusionThese 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.
| S-EPMC8718224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with melanoma, ipilimumab (an antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4]) prolongs overall survival, and nivolumab (an antibody against the programmed death 1 [PD-1] receptor) produced durable tumor regression in a phase 1 trial. On the basis of their distinct immunologic mechanisms of action and supportive preclinical data, we conducted a phase 1 trial of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma.MethodsWe administered intravenous doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone every 3 weeks for 4 doses (concurrent regimen). The combined treatment was subsequently administered every 12 weeks for up to 8 doses. In a sequenced regimen, patients previously treated with ipilimumab received nivolumab every 2 weeks for up to 48 doses.ResultsA total of 53 patients received concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and 33 received sequenced treatment. The objective-response rate (according to modified World Health Organization criteria) for all patients in the concurrent-regimen group was 40%. Evidence of clinical activity (conventional, unconfirmed, or immune-related response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks) was observed in 65% of patients. At the maximum doses that were associated with an acceptable level of adverse events (nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight and ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram), 53% of patients had an objective response, all with tumor reduction of 80% or more. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 53% of patients in the concurrent-regimen group but were qualitatively similar to previous experience with monotherapy and were generally reversible. Among patients in the sequenced-regimen group, 18% had grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy and the objective-response rate was 20%.ConclusionsConcurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab had a manageable safety profile and provided clinical activity that appears to be distinct from that in published data on monotherapy, with rapid and deep tumor regression in a substantial proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01024231.).
| S-EPMC5698004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCheckpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma, yielding long-term survival in a considerable proportion of the patients. Yet, 40-60% of patients do not achieve a long-term benefit from such therapy, emphasizing the urgent need to identify biomarkers that can predict response to immunotherapy and guide patients for the best possible treatment. Here, we exploited an unsupervised machine learning approach to identify potential inflammatory cytokine signatures from liquid biopsies, which could predict response to immunotherapy in melanoma.MethodsWe studied a cohort of 77 patients diagnosed with unresectable advanced-stage melanoma undergoing treatment with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or pembrolizumab. Baseline and on-treatment plasma samples were tested for levels of PD-1, PD-L1, IFNγ, IFNβ, CCL20, CXCL5, CXCL10, IL6, IL8, IL10, MCP1, and TNFα and analyzed by Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) dimension reduction method and k-means clustering analysis.ResultsInterestingly, using UMAP analysis, we found that treatment-induced cytokine changes measured as a ratio between baseline and on-treatment samples correlated significantly to progression-free survival (PFS). For patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab we identified a group of patients with superior PFS that were characterized by significantly higher baseline-to-on-treatment increments of PD-1, PD-L1, IFNγ, IL10, CXCL10, and TNFα compared to patients with worse PFS. Particularly, a high PD-1 increment was a strong individual predictor for superior PFS (HR = 0.13; 95% CI 0.034-0.49; p = 0.0026). In contrast, decreasing levels of IFNγ and IL6 and increasing levels of CXCL5 were associated with superior PFS in the pembrolizumab group, although none of the cytokines were individually predictors for PFS.ConclusionsIn short, our study demonstrates that a high increment of PD-1 is associated with superior PFS in advanced-stage melanoma patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. In contrast, decreasing levels of IFNγ and IL6, and increasing levels of CXCL5 are associated with response to pembrolizumab. These results suggest that using serial samples to monitor changes in cytokine levels early during treatment is informative for treatment response.
| S-EPMC9322974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab has unquestionable benefit over nivolumab monotherapy in advanced melanoma, currently no summative analyses have compared the combination with nivolumab monotherapy for advanced cancers other than melanoma.ObjectiveTo examine whether the addition of ipilimumab to standard-dose nivolumab safely improves clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancers other than melanoma.Data sourcesElectronic databases (PubMed, EBSCO Information Services, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for studies of standard-dose nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in the treatment of advanced cancers other than melanoma published from database inception to October 31, 2022.Study selectionEight studies (total patients, 1727; nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 854; nivolumab monotherapy group, 873) met the selection criteria. Patients had squamous cell lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death ligand 1 level of 1% or higher, small cell lung cancer, pleural mesothelioma, urothelial carcinoma, esophagogastric carcinoma, sarcoma, or glioblastoma multiforme.Data extraction and synthesisFor comparison of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes, estimation of log(hazard ratios [HRs]) and SEs was initially performed for OS and PFS of each included study based on summary statistics extracted from individual Kaplan-Meier curves. Inverse-variance weighting was then used to compute pooled HRs (95% CIs). For comparison of dichotomous data (treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events and discontinuations), odds ratios (ORs) were used, and the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to estimate pooled ORs (95% CIs).ResultsTreatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was not associated with improvement in OS over treatment with nivolumab alone (pooled HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06; P = .36), with 4 of the 8 studies having numerically lower median OS with the combination. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy was associated with marginal, but not clinically meaningful, improvement in PFS over nivolumab alone (pooled HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.98; P = .02). The combination was associated with substantially higher treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (pooled OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.47-2.31; P < .001) and treatment-related discontinuations (pooled OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.44-2.65; P < .001). This finding was recapitulated in meta-analyses of individual grade 3 to 4 adverse events of hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, pneumonitis, endocrine dysfunction, dermatitis, fatigue.Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis of 8 advanced cancers other than melanoma, the differences detected in OS and PFS between nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab were not clinically meaningful (even though statistical significance was detected in PFS). Treatment-related higher-grade toxicity and discontinuations were substantially higher with the combination therapy. The data indicate that investigations of anti-programmed death 1 (PD1) plus anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) therapies in any nonmelanoma advanced cancer should be conducted along with anti-PD1 monotherapy to ensure that the net effect of the addition of anti-CTLA-4 to anti-PD1 can be clearly established for that cancer and setting and that unnecessary CTLA-4 inhibition with related toxic effects (both clinical and financial) can be avoided.
| S-EPMC10472261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere now exist several viable first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, making the choice of initial therapy difficult. Considering metrics other than patient factors may be necessary to select the most appropriate therapy. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the three combination therapies currently approved in treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma-nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), pembrolizumab + axitinib (PA), and avelumab + axitinib (AA)-from a US payer perspective.Patients and methodsOur analysis was performed based on previously obtained data derived from progression-free survival and overall survival curves from CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, and JAVELIN Renal 101.ResultsThe total costs of each treatment were found to be $437,556.12 for NI, $450,597.15 for PA, and $542,882.34 for AA, with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values of 4.04, 3.77, and 2.95 for each combination, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NI versus PA was ($47,504.73/QALY); for NI versus AA, it was ($96,533.11/QALY); for PA versus AA, it was ($113,015.87/QALY). Net health benefit scaled against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was positive for NI versus PA at 0.36 and versus AA at 1.79, and this index was also positive for PA versus AA at 1.43, indicating that the additional value of these therapies versus their alternatives is greater than the extra cost.ConclusionNI was found to be the most cost-effective treatment option compared with the other considered therapies. PA was found to be cost effective compared to AA. When patient factors such as social issues and pre-existing conditions do not dictate their first-line therapy, clinicians may use this additional information to make financially conscious choices.
| S-EPMC9643032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab is approved in several jurisdictions (United States, European Union, Canada) for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. CheckMate 218 is a North American expanded-access program (eap) of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report safety and survival outcomes for the Canadian cohort in the eap.MethodsEligible patients were those 18 years of age or older with unresectable stage iii or iv melanoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no prior anti-PD-1 or anti-ctla-4 therapy. Patients were treated with nivolumab 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 cycles (induction phase); they then continued with nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (maintenance phase) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a maximum of 48 weeks, whichever occurred first. Safety and overall survival (os) data were collected.ResultsOf 194 patients enrolled, 174 were treated, and 51% continued on nivolumab maintenance. Median follow-up was 12.9 months. All-grade and grades 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 98% and 60% of patients respectively and led to treatment discontinuation in 40% and 28% of patients. Two treatment-related deaths were reported. The 12- and 18-month os rates were 80% [95% confidence interval (ci): 73% to 86%] and 76% (95% ci: 67% to 82%) respectively.ConclusionsIn this Canadian population, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated a safety profile and survival outcomes consistent with phase ii and iii clinical trial data.
| S-EPMC7467793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Salivary gland cancers (SGCs) are rare, aggressive cancers without effective treatments when metastasized. We conducted a phase 2 trial evaluating nivolumab (nivo, anti-PD-1) and ipilimumab (ipi, anti-CTLA-4) in 64 patients with metastatic SGC enrolled in two histology-based cohorts (32 patients each): adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC; cohort 1) and other SGCs (cohort 2). The primary efficacy endpoint (≥4 objective responses) was met in cohort 2 (5/32, 16%) but not in cohort 1 (2/32, 6%). Treatment safety/tolerability and progression-free survival (PFS) were secondary endpoints. Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥3 occurred in 24 of 64 (38%) patients across both cohorts, and median PFS was 4.4 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.4, 8.3) and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.8, 5.3) for cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. We present whole-exome, RNA and T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing data from pre-treatment and on-treatment tumors and immune cell flow cytometry and TCR sequencing from peripheral blood at serial timepoints. Responding tumors universally demonstrated clonal expansion of pre-existing T cells and mutational contraction. Responding ACCs harbored neoantigens, including fusion-derived neoepitopes, that induced T cell responses ex vivo. This study shows that nivo+ipi has limited efficacy in ACC, albeit with infrequent, exceptional responses, and that it could be promising for non-ACC SGCs, particularly salivary duct carcinomas. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03172624 .
| S-EPMC11293616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeCombination of antiprogrammed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) plus anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 (anti-CTLA-4) immunotherapy shows greater response rates (RRs) than anti-PD-1 antibody alone in melanoma, but RR after initial anti-PD-1 and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody progression awaits robust investigation. Anti-CTLA-4 antibody alone after anti-PD-1/L1 antibody progression has a historical RR of 13%. We report the results of the first prospective clinical trial evaluating ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus pembrolizumab following progression on anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.MethodsPatients with advanced melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1/L1 antibody as immediate prior therapy (including non-anti-CTLA-4 antibody combinations) were eligible. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by pembrolizumab monotherapy. The primary end point was RR by irRECIST. After 35 patients, the trial met the primary end point and was expanded to enroll a total of 70 patients to better estimate the RR.ResultsPrior treatments included 60 on anti-PD-1 antibody alone and 10 on anti-PD-1/L1 antibody-based combinations. Thirteen patients had progressed in the adjuvant setting. The median length of prior treatment with anti-PD-1/L1 antibody was 4.8 months. Response assessments included five complete and 15 partial responses, making the irRECIST RR 29% among the entire trial population. The median progression-free survival was 5.0 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months. The median duration of response was 16.6 months. There was no difference in median time on prior anti-PD1/L1 or time to PD1 + CTLA4 initiation between responders and nonresponders. Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events occurred in 27% of patients. Responses occurred in PD-L1-negative, non-T-cell-inflamed, and intermediate tumor phenotypes.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first prospective study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus low-dose ipilimumab after anti-PD-1/L1 immunotherapy failure, demonstrating significant antitumor activity and tolerability.
| S-EPMC8376314 | biostudies-literature