9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Two-year overall survival rates from a randomised phase 2 trial evaluating the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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.

          Summary

          Background

          Previously reported results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials showed a significant improvement in the rate of objective response and progression-free survival with nivolumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody) vs ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. To our knowledge, this is the first report of overall survival data from a randomised, controlled trial evaluating the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.

          Methods

          In this phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069), 142 patients aged ≥18 years with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg or placebo, respectively, every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was done by an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The primary endpoint (previously reported) was the rate of investigator-assessed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type melanoma. Overall survival was an exploratory endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, where safety was evaluated in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01927419, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients.

          Findings

          Between September 16, 2013, and February 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients, randomly allocating 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab (72 [76%] and 37 [79%] patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors, respectively). At a median follow-up of 24 months, overall survival rates in all randomized patients were 63·8% (95% CI 53·3–72·6) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 53·6% (95% CI 38·1–66·8) for ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43–1·26; p=0.26). Grade 3–4 adverse events related to nivolumab plus ipilimumab were reported in 51 [54%] of 94 patients vs 9 [20%] of 46 patients related to ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events in the combination group were colitis (12 [13%] of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (10 [11%]), and for ipilimumab alone, were diarrhoea (five [11%] of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two [4%]). Serious grade 3–4 adverse events related to nivolumab plus ipilimumab were reported in 34 [36%] of 94 patients vs 4 [9%] of 46 patients related to ipilimumab alone, which included colitis (10 [11%]) and diarrhoea (5 [5%]) in the combination group and diarrhoea (2 [4%]), colitis (1 [2%]), and hypophysitis (1[2%]) in the ipilimumab alone group.

          Interpretation

          While follow-up of the patients continues, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab may lead to a higher overall survival rate vs first-line ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this patient population.

          Funding

          Bristol-Myers Squibb.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          100957246
          27004
          Lancet Oncol
          Lancet Oncol.
          The Lancet. Oncology
          1470-2045
          1474-5488
          30 September 2017
          09 September 2016
          November 2016
          07 October 2017
          : 17
          : 11
          : 1558-1568
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
          [2 ]University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
          [3 ]New York University, New York, NY, USA
          [4 ]Gustave Roussy, INSERM U981, Villejuif-Paris-Sud, France
          [5 ]Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
          [6 ]Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
          [7 ]Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
          [8 ]Institut Universitaire du Cancer, Toulouse, France
          [9 ]Greenville Health System Cancer Institute, Greenville, SC, USA
          [10 ]St Luke’s Cancer Center and Temple University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
          [11 ]University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
          [12 ]Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA
          [13 ]California Pacific Center for Melanoma Research, San Francisco, CA, USA
          [14 ]Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
          [15 ]Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
          [16 ]Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA
          [17 ]Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
          Author notes
          Corresponding author: F Stephen Hodi, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA, Stephen_Hodi@ 123456dfci.harvard.edu , Phone: 617-632-4715, Fax: 617-632-6727
          [*]

          Indicates author is a full professor.

          JDW and MAP contributed equally to this study.

          Article
          PMC5630525 PMC5630525 5630525 nihpa909326
          10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30366-7
          5630525
          27622997
          Categories
          Article

          Comments

          Comment on this article