Dataset Information

A Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) Analysis of Nivolumab Versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC).

ABSTRACT:

Background

This analysis compared quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST) between nivolumab and everolimus among previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma enrolled in the phase III CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784).

Materials and methods

At 45-month follow-up, overall survival (OS) was partitioned into 3 health states: TWiST, time with grade ≥ 3 toxicity (TOX), and time after progression (REL). Mean Q-TWiST was determined by multiplying each state's duration with its utility (TWiST, 1.0; TOX, 0.5; REL, 0.5). Relative Q-TWiST gains (calculated as Q-TWiST difference divided by everolimus OS) of ≥ 10% were predefined as clinically important. Immuno-oncology-specific sensitivity analyses considered 4 alternative progression definitions: Tumor size increase ≥ 25% from nadir; treatment discontinuation; ≥ 2-point reduction from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms scores; and a composite definition. A scenario incorporating grade ≥ 2 toxicities was tested.

Results

Compared with everolimus, nivolumab was associated with a significant Q-TWiST improvement of 3.3 months (P < .001). In all sensitivity analyses, nivolumab was associated with Q-TWiST gains (relative gain %) ranging from 3.3 months (14.4%) to 4.8 months (20.9%).

Conclusions

Nivolumab is associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful gain in quality-adjusted OS versus everolimus among previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

SUBMITTER: Shah R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8262523 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe lenvatinib (LEN) plus everolimus (EVE) combination demonstrated improved progression-free survival over everolimus alone in a phase 2 trial (Study-205).ObjectiveTo compare quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST) between LEN + EVE and EVE alone among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following one prior antiangiogenic therapy.Design setting and participantsThis was a post hoc analysis of Study-205.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisSurvival time was partitioned into three mutually exclusive health states: time with grade 3/4 toxicity (TOX); time before disease progression and without grade 3/4 toxicity (TWiST); and time after disease progression (REL). The mean time in each state was weighted by utility measures and summed to calculate Q-TWiST. Nonparametric bootstrapping generated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the base case, utility for TWiST, TOX, and REL was assigned as 1.0, 0.5, and 0.5, respectively. Sensitivity analyses applied alternative utility values for REL, TOX, and TWiST. A relative gain in Q-TWiST of ≥10% and ≥15% has been established as clinically important and clearly clinically important, respectively.Results and limitationsPatients receiving LEN + EVE (n = 51) had a significant mean Q-TWiST gain of 3.7 mo (14.7 vs 11.0 mo; 95% CI for difference 1.3-6.3), with a relative gain of 24% compared to EVE alone. In a sensitivity analysis using alternative utility values for TWiST (varied from 0.55 to 0.9) with utility set to 0.5 for both TOX and REL, the relative Q-TWiST gain was maintained (ranging from 11.0% to 21.2%; all significant) across varying utility values. Limitations include the sample size, the absence of utility estimates, and the length of adverse events from the trial.ConclusionsLEN + EVE showed a significant and clearly clinically important improvement in quality-adjusted survival time versus EVE alone.Patient summaryPatients with advanced kidney cancer who had received other previous treatments experienced a clearly clinically important improvement in quality survival time when treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus compared to everolimus alone.

Project description:Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment.A total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety.The median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.002), which met the prespecified criterion for superiority (P?0.0148). The objective response rate was greater with nivolumab than with everolimus (25% vs. 5%; odds ratio, 5.98 [95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72]; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% of the patients receiving nivolumab and in 37% of the patients receiving everolimus; the most common event with nivolumab was fatigue (in 2% of the patients), and the most common event with everolimus was anemia (in 8%).Among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 025 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01668784.).

Project description:BackgroundCPX-351 (United States: Vyxeos®; Europe: Vyxeos® Liposomal), a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio, is approved by the US FDA and the EMA for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia or acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes. In a pivotal phase 3 study that evaluated 309 patients aged 60 to 75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary acute myeloid leukemia, CPX-351 significantly improved median overall survival versus conventional 7 + 3 chemotherapy (cytarabine continuous infusion for 7 days plus daunorubicin for 3 days), with a comparable safety profile. A Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis of the phase 3 study was performed to compare survival quality between patients receiving CPX-351 versus conventional 7 + 3 after 5 years of follow-up.MethodsPatients were randomized 1:1 between December 20, 2012 and November 11, 2014 to receive induction with CPX-351 or 7 + 3. Survival time for each patient was partitioned into 3 health states: TOX (time with any grade 3 or 4 toxicity or prior to remission), TWiST (time in remission without relapse or grade 3 or 4 toxicity), and REL (time after relapse). Within each treatment arm, Q-TWiST was calculated by adding the mean time spent in each health state weighted by its respective quality-of-life, represented by health utility. The relative Q-TWiST gain, calculated as the difference in Q-TWiST between treatment arms divided by the mean survival of the 7 + 3 control arm, was determined in order to evaluate results in the context of other Q-TWiST analyses.ResultsThe relative Q-TWiST gain with CPX-351 versus 7 + 3 was 53.6% in the base case scenario and 39.8% among responding patients. Across various sensitivity analyses, the relative Q-TWiST gains for CPX-351 ranged from 48.0 to 57.6%, remaining well above the standard clinically important difference threshold of 15% for oncology.ConclusionsThis post hoc analysis demonstrates that CPX-351 improved quality-adjusted survival, further supporting the clinical benefit in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Trial registration This trial was registered on September 28, 2012 at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01696084 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01696084 ) and is complete.

Project description:PurposeThis study estimated time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) with niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS) in the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.Patients and methodsMean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated for niraparib and RS by fitting parametric survival distributions to Kaplan-Meier data for 553 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation-gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts. Mean time with toxicity was estimated based on the area under the Kaplan-Meier curve for symptomatic grade 2 or greater fatigue, nausea, and vomiting adverse events (AEs). Time with toxicity was the number of days a patient experienced an AE post-random assignment and before disease progression. TWiST was estimated as the difference between mean PFS and time with toxicity. Uncertainty was explored using alternative PFS estimates and considering all symptomatic grade 2 or greater AEs.ResultsIn the gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean PFS benefit of 3.23 years and 1.44 years, respectively, and a mean time with toxicity of 0.28 years and 0.10 years, respectively, compared with RS. Hence, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean TWiST benefit of 2.95 years and 1.34 years, respectively, compared with RS, which is equivalent to more than four-fold and two-fold increases in mean TWiST between niraparib and RS in the gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts, respectively. This TWiST benefit was consistent across all sensitivity analyses, including modeling PFS over 5-, 10-, and 15-year time horizons.ConclusionPatients who were treated with niraparib compared with RS experienced increased mean TWiST. Thus, patients who were treated with niraparib in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial experienced more time without symptoms or symptomatic toxicities compared with control.

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 .).

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known.MethodsIn this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point.ResultsOverall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib.ConclusionsNivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

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.