Dataset Information

Exploration of predictors of benefit from nivolumab monotherapy for patients with pretreated advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: post hoc subanalysis from the ATTRACTION-2 study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The phase 3 ATTRACTION-2 study demonstrated that nivolumab monotherapy was superior to placebo for patients with pretreated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer, but early progression of tumors in some patients was of concern.

Methods

This post hoc analysis statistically explored the baseline characteristics of the ATTRACTION-2 patients and extracted a single-factor and double-factor combinations associated with early disease progression or early death. In the extracted patient subgroups, the 3-year restricted mean survival times of progression-free survival and overall survival were compared between the nivolumab and placebo arms.

Results

Two single factors (age and peritoneal metastasis) were extracted as independent predictors of early progression, but none of them, as a single factor, stratified patients into two subgroups with significant differences in restricted mean survival time. In contrast, two double-factor combinations (serum sodium level and white blood cell count; serum sodium level and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio) stratifying patients into two subgroups with significant differences in the restricted mean survival time were extracted. Additional exploratory analysis of a triple-factor combination showed that patients aged < 60 years with peritoneal metastasis and low serum sodium levels (approximately 7% of all patients) might receive less benefit from nivolumab, and patients aged ≥ 60 years with no peritoneal metastasis and normal serum sodium levels might receive higher benefit.

Conclusions

A combination of age, peritoneal metastasis, and serum sodium level might predict benefit from nivolumab as salvage therapy in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer patients, especially less benefit for patients having all three risk factors.

SUBMITTER: Kang YK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8732926 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Nivolumab is approved as an option for third- or later-line treatment of advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer in several countries after ATTRACTION-2. To further improve the therapeutic efficacy of first-line therapy, exploration of a nivolumab-chemotherapy combination is warranted. In part 1 (phase II) of ATTRACTION-4, the safety and efficacy of nivolumab combined with S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOX) as first-line therapy for unresectable advanced or recurrent human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative G/GEJ cancer were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Patients were randomized (1 : 1) to receive nivolumab (360?mg intravenously every 3?weeks) plus SOX (S-1, 40?mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14?days followed by 7?days off; oxaliplatin, 130?mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3?weeks) or CapeOX (capecitabine, 1000?mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14?days followed by 7?days off; oxaliplatin, 130?mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3?weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. RESULTS:Of 40 randomized patients, 39 (nivolumab plus SOX, 21; nivolumab plus CapeOX, 18) and 38 (21 and 17, respectively) comprised the safety and efficacy populations, respectively. Most frequent (>10%) grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (14.3%) in the nivolumab plus SOX group, and neutropenia (16.7%), anemia, peripheral sensory neuropathy, decreased appetite, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and nausea (11.1% each) in the nivolumab plus CapeOX group. No treatment-related death occurred. Objective response rate was 57.1% (95% confidence interval 34.0-78.2) with nivolumab plus SOX and 76.5% (50.1-93.2) with nivolumab plus CapeOX. Median overall survival was not reached (NR) in both groups. Median progression-free survival was 9.7?months (5.8-NR) and 10.6?months (5.6-12.5), respectively. CONCLUSION:Nivolumab combined with SOX/CapeOX was well tolerated and demonstrated encouraging efficacy for unresectable advanced or recurrent HER2-negative G/GEJ cancer. ATTRACTION-4 has proceeded to part 2 (phase III) to compare nivolumab plus SOX/CapeOX versus placebo plus SOX/CapeOX. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID:NCT02746796.

Project description:Background:Monoclonal 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. Methods:Patient-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. Results:The 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. Conclusions:The 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).