4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      First-line (1L) nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) + 2 cycles of chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo alone (4 cycles) in patients (pts) with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): 3-year update from CheckMate 9LA.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          LBA9026

          Background: In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), 1L NIVO + IPI combined with 2 cycles of chemo was shown to provide survival benefit vs chemo alone in pts with metastatic NSCLC. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety with a 3-year minimum follow-up, as well as exploratory biomarker analyses from this study. Methods: Adults with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, no known sensitizing EGFR/ ALK alterations, and ECOG performance status ≤ 1 were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 360 mg Q3W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W + 2 cycles of chemo (n = 361) or 4 cycles of chemo alone (n = 358). Pts were stratified by tumor PD-L1 expression, sex, and histology. Pts with non-squamous (NSQ) NSCLC in the chemo-alone arm could receive pemetrexed maintenance. Assessments included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). For all pts with NSQ NSCLC and with tissue evaluable for mutational analysis (n = 313), the FoundationOne CDxTM assay was used to identify mutant (mut) or wild type (wt) KRAS and STK11 genes. Exploratory assessments included evaluation of OS and PFS with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo by mutation status and safety. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 36.1 mo (database lock: Feb 15, 2022), pts continued to derive long-term, durable OS benefit with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo (HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62–0.87]); 3-y OS rates were 27% vs 19%. Clinical benefit with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was observed in all randomized pts and across most subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression level (Table) or histology. In an exploratory analysis in pts evaluable for mutations including KRAS and STK11, OS appeared to be improved with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo (median OS, 16.3 vs 13.1 mo). Similar trends of prolonged OS with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo were also seen in pts with or without KRAS mutation (median OS, mut: 19.2 vs 13.5 mo; wt: 15.6 vs 12.7 mo) or STK11 mutation (mut: 13.8 vs 10.7 mo; wt: 17.8 vs 13.9 mo), respectively. Additional efficacy outcomes will be presented. No new safety signals were identified with extended follow-up. Conclusions: With a 3-year minimum follow-up, 1L NIVO + IPI + chemo demonstrated long-term, durable efficacy benefit vs chemo in pts with metastatic NSCLC. Survival benefit of NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was observed regardless of KRAS and STK11 mutation status. Clinical trial information: NCT03215706. [Table: see text]

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Journal of Clinical Oncology
          JCO
          American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
          0732-183X
          1527-7755
          June 10 2022
          June 10 2022
          : 40
          : 17_suppl
          : LBA9026
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain;
          [2 ]Institutul Oncologic Prof Dr Ion Chiricuta and University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iuliu Hatieganu, Cluj-Napoca, Romania;
          [3 ]Unidad de Gestión Clínica Intercentros de Oncología Médica, Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, IBIMA, Málaga, Spain;
          [4 ]University Hospital of Nantes and INSERM, CRCINA, Nantes, France;
          [5 ]Jilin Cancer Hospital, Changchun, China;
          [6 ]Saitama Cancer Center, Kitaadachi-Gun, Japan;
          [7 ]Instituto Medico Rio Cuarto SA, Córdoba, Argentina;
          [8 ]Fundacion Arturo Lopez Perez, Santiago, Chile;
          [9 ]Asklepios Lung Clinic, Munich-Gauting, Germany;
          [10 ]Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Porto Alegre, Brazil;
          [11 ]Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland;
          [12 ]N.N.Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation;
          [13 ]St. John of God Hospital Murdoch, Perth, Australia;
          [14 ]Instituto Jalisciense De Cancerología, Guadalajara, Mexico;
          [15 ]Shanghai Lung Cancer Center, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University, Shanghai, China;
          [16 ]Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Australia;
          [17 ]The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH;
          [18 ]Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ;
          [19 ]Airway Research Center North, German Center for Lung Research, LungClinic, Grosshansdorf, Germany;
          Article
          10.1200/JCO.2022.40.17_suppl.LBA9026
          1434e143-3da5-4102-9dd5-bc3d3bd5120d
          © 2022
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article