A Prospective, Phase 1 Trial of Nivolumab, Ipilimumab, and Radiotherapy in Patients with Advanced Melanoma.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
Preclinical data suggest that radiotherapy (RT) is beneficial in combination with immune checkpoint blockade. Clinical trials have explored RT with single-agent immune checkpoint blockade, but no trials have reported RT with the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab.Patients and methods
We conducted a phase 1 study of patients with stage IV melanoma receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab with two different dose-fractionation schemes of RT. Patients had at least one melanoma metastasis that would benefit from palliative RT and one metastasis that would not be irradiated. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and extracranial RT with a dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions was administered in Cohort A, and then 27 Gy in 3 fractions was administered in Cohort B. The primary outcome was safety.Results
Twenty patients were treated (10 in each cohort). The rates of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events in Cohort A and B were 40% and 30%, respectively. There were no grade ?3 adverse events attributed to RT. Patients responded to treatment outside of the irradiated volume (Cohort A 5/10; Cohort B 1/9). No evaluable patients had progression of irradiated metastases. Immunologic changes were seen in the peripheral blood with increases in T-cell receptor diversity in some responding patients.Conclusions
RT with nivolumab and ipilimumab was safe compared with historical data of nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Immunologic effects were observed in the peripheral blood. Randomized studies are ongoing to assess whether RT increases the efficacy of nivolumab and ipilimumab.
SUBMITTER: Postow MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7959513 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Prospective, Phase 1 Trial of Nivolumab, Ipilimumab, and Radiotherapy in Patients with Advanced Melanoma.
Postow Michael A MA Knox Susan J SJ Goldman Debra A DA Elhanati Yuval Y Mavinkurve Vikram V Wong Phillip P Halpenny Darragh D Reddy Sunil K SK Vado Kenya K McCabe Danielle D Ramirez Kristen Aufiero KA Macri Mary M Schwarzenberger Paul P Ricciardi Toni T Ryan Aileen A Venhaus Ralph R Momtaz Parisa P Shoushtari Alexander N AN Callahan Margaret K MK Chapman Paul B PB Wolchok Jedd D JD Subrahmanyam Priyanka B PB Maecker Holden T HT Panageas Katherine S KS Barker Christopher A CA
Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 20200323 13
<h4>Purpose</h4>Preclinical data suggest that radiotherapy (RT) is beneficial in combination with immune checkpoint blockade. Clinical trials have explored RT with single-agent immune checkpoint blockade, but no trials have reported RT with the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We conducted a phase 1 study of patients with stage IV melanoma receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab with two different dose-fractionation schemes of RT. Patients had at least one melanoma ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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: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:Sitravatinib is an immunomodulatory tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can improve responses when combined with immune checkpoint therapy (ICT). We conducted a phase I trial to determine the optimal dose of triplet therapy with sitravatinib plus nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 22 previously untreated patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). The primary endpoint was safety. The addition of even a low sitravatinib dose of 35 mg daily to nivolumab 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg resulted in high frequency of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Subsequent dose reduction of ipilimumab to 0.7 mg/kg in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg allowed safe escalation of sitravatinib up to 100 mg daily. Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Overall, the triplet combination in the dose-finding setting achieved an ORR of 45.5%, DCR of 86.4%, and a median PFS of 14.5 months with 72.7% of patients alive after a median follow-up of 15.7 months. Single-cell RNA-seq performed in longitudinally collected tumor biopsies from 12 patients treated with the triplet therapy identified a tumor cell-specific epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT)-like program associated with treatment resistance and poor outcomes in patients of this trial and in patients of the TCGA ccRCC cohort. Within the tumor microenvironment (TME), the emergence of treatment resistance was characterized by a transition from cytotoxic to exhausted T cell state and enrichment for M2-like myeloid cells. The observed changes in gene expression dynamics and cellular states in tumor cell and TME may help inform future strategies to optimize ICT efficacy.
2024-11-26 | GSE264586 | GEO
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:Metastatic uveal melanoma (UM) remains challenging to treat, with objective response rates to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) much lower than in primary cutaneous melanoma (CM). Besides a lower mutational burden, the overall immune-excluded tumor microenvironment of UM might contribute to the poor response rate. We therefore aimed at targeting deficiency in argininosuccinate synthase 1, which is a key metabolic feature of UM. This study aimed at investigating safety and tolerability of a triple combination consisting of ipilimumab and nivolumab immunotherapy and the metabolic therapy ADI-PEG 20. 9 patients were enrolled in this pilot study. The combination therapy was safe and tolerable with absence of immune related adverse events (irAE) of special interest but with 4 of 9 patients experiencing a CTCAE grade 3 AE. No objective responses were observed. All except one patient developed anti-drug antibodies (ADA) within a month of treatment initiation and therefore did not maintain arginine depletion. Further, an IFNg-dependent inflammatory signature was observed in metastatic lesions in patients pre-treated with ICB compared with patients with no pretreatment. Multiplex immunohistochemistry demonstrated variable presence of tumor infiltrating CD8 lymphocytes and PD-L1 expression at baseline in metastases.
2022-05-13 | GSE202687 | GEO
Project description:ImportanceTreatment-free survival (TFS) represents an alternative time-to-event end point, accurately characterizing time spent free of systemic therapy, providing a more patient-centric view of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimens. There remains a lack of studies evaluating TFS outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma who are receiving immunotherapy, especially outside of the clinical trial setting.ObjectiveTo evaluate TFS outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy outside of a clinical trial setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2020, was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Data analysis was performed in August 2022.ExposuresPatients received standard-of-care, first-line ICI therapy treatment regimens including single-agent nivolumab, single-agent pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab-nivolumab.Main outcomes and measuresTreatment-free survival was defined as the difference in the 36-month restricted mean survival time between 2 conventional survival end points: (1) time from treatment initiation to ICI cessation, death, or censoring at last follow-up and (2) time from treatment initiation to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, death, or censoring at last follow-up.ResultsA total of 316 patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line nivolumab (n = 51; median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-78 years]; 31 men [60.8%]), pembrolizumab (n = 158; median age, 69 years [IQR, 60-78 years]; 112 men [70.9%]), or combination nivolumab-ipilimumab (n = 107; median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-60 years]; 72 men [67.3%]) were included. Treatment groups were similar with regard to sex, primary tumor location, and presence of metastasis, although patients receiving combination nivolumab-ipilimumab had a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, were younger, and were more likely to be BRAF V600E positive than those receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.0 months]) compared with nivolumab (8.9 months [95% CI, 4.4-13.5 months]) and pembrolizumab (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-13.8 months]). During the 36-month follow-up interval, patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab spent 34.4% of their time (12.4 of 36 months) not receiving systemic anticancer treatments compared with 30.8% (11.1 of 36 months) and 24.7% (8.9 of 36 months) of the time for the pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment groups, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy suggests that TFS represents a patient-centric, informative end point. Patients treated with combination nivolumab-ipilimumab spent more time alive and free from systemic anticancer therapy than those treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone.
| S-EPMC10290253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS:We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS:At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).
| S-EPMC5706778 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5474305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMonoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage.MethodsPatient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period.ResultsThe total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively.ConclusionsThe total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies).
| S-EPMC6610852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) is approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma in several countries. We conducted a phase IIIb/IV study (CheckMate 511) to determine if nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) improves the safety profile of the combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Patients (N = 360) age 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO3+IPI1 or NIVO1+IPI3 once every 3 weeks for four doses. After 6 weeks, all patients received NIVO 480 mg once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was a comparison of the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) between groups. Secondary end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The study was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy end points. RESULTS:At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 AEs was 34% with NIVO3+IPI1 versus 48% with NIVO1+IPI3 ( P = .006). In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 50.6% in the NIVO1+IPI3 group, with complete responses in 15.0% and 13.5% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 8.9 months in the NIVO1+IPI3 group. Median overall survival was not reached in either group. CONCLUSION:The CheckMate 511 study met its primary end point, demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs with NIVO3+IPI1 versus NIVO1+IPI3. Descriptive analyses showed that there were no meaningful differences between the groups for any efficacy end point, although longer follow up may help to better characterize efficacy outcomes.
| S-EPMC6455714 | biostudies-literature