Ian M. Waxman

Nivolumab in Previously Untreated Melanoma without BRAF Mutation

BACKGROUND Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND 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. METHODS 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. RESULTS 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%). CONCLUSIONS 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.).

Nivolumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial

PURPOSE Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody that restores T-cell immune activity. This phase II trial assessed the antitumor activity, dose-response relationship, and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were randomly assigned (blinded ratio of 1:1:1) to nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the dose-response relationship as measured by progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS A total of 168 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab 0.3- (n = 60), 2- (n = 54), and 10-mg/kg (n = 54) cohorts. One hundred eighteen patients (70%) had received more than one prior systemic regimen. Median PFS was 2.7, 4.0, and 4.2 months, respectively (P = .9). Respective ORRs were 20%, 22%, and 20%. Median OS was 18.2 months (80% CI, 16.2 to 24.0 months), 25.5 months (80% CI, 19.8 to 28.8 months), and 24.7 months (80% CI, 15.3 to 26.0 months), respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was fatigue (24%, 22%, and 35%, respectively). Nineteen patients (11%) experienced grade 3 to 4 treatment-related AEs. CONCLUSION Nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile across the three doses studied in mRCC. No dose-response relationship was detected as measured by PFS. These efficacy and safety results in mRCC support study in the phase III setting.

Safety profile of nivolumab monotherapy: A pooled analysis of patients with advanced melanoma

Purpose We conducted a retrospective analysis to assess the safety profile of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma and describe the management of adverse events (AEs) using established safety guidelines. Patients and Methods Safety data were pooled from four studies, including two phase III trials, with patients who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks. We evaluated rate of treatment-related AEs, time to onset and resolution of select AEs (those with potential immunologic etiology), and impact of select AEs and suppressive immune-modulating agents (IMs) on antitumor efficacy. Results Among 576 patients, 71% (95% CI, 67% to 75%) experienced any-grade treatment-related AEs (most commonly fatigue [25%], pruritus [17%], diarrhea [13%], and rash [13%]), and 10% (95% CI, 8% to 13%) experienced grade 3 to 4 treatment-related AEs. No drug-related deaths were reported. Select AEs (occurring in 49% of patients) were most frequently skin related, GI, endocrine, and hepatic; grade 3 to 4 select AEs occurred in 4% of patients. Median time to onset of select AEs ranged from 5 weeks for skin to 15 weeks for renal AEs. Approximately 24% of patients received systemic IMs to manage select AEs, which in most cases resolved. Adjusting for number of doses, objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in patients who experienced treatment-related select AEs of any grade compared with those who did not. ORRs were similar in patients who did and patients who did not receive systemic IMs. Conclusion Treatment-related AEs with nivolumab monotherapy were primarily low grade, and most resolved with established safety guidelines. Use of IMs did not affect ORR, although treatment-related select AEs of any grade were associated with higher ORR, but no progression-free survival benefit.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated Beyond Progression: A Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Response patterns with immunotherapy may differ from those of other treatments. This warrants further investigation because some patients may benefit from continued immunotherapy beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined first progression. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and potential benefit of treatment with nivolumab, a programmed cell death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, beyond investigator-assessed first progression in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Subgroup analysis of a blinded, randomized, multicenter, phase 2 dose-ranging trial initiated May 31, 2011, including patients with clear-cell mRCC previously treated with antiangiogenic therapy. Data cutoffs for this subgroup analysis were May 15, 2013, for progression-free survival and objective response rate and March 5, 2014, for overall survival and duration of response. In this analysis, patients treated beyond first progression received their last dose of nivolumab more than 6 weeks after RECIST-defined progression, and patients not treated beyond first progression discontinued nivolumab before or at RECIST-defined progression. INTERVENTIONS Nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Safety and efficacy of nivolumab treatment. RESULTS Of 168 patients (median [range] age, 61 [37-81] years; 72% male) randomized to nivolumab, 154 experienced progression (36 were treated beyond first progression, 26 were treated beyond first progression for ≤6 weeks, and 92 were not treated beyond first progression), 13 were treated and did not experience progression, and 1 was not treated. Prior to first progression, the RECIST-defined objective response rate was 14% (5 patients) and 16% (15 patients), and median progression-free survival was 4.2 (95% CI, 2.8-5.5) and 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-3.9) months in patients treated and not treated beyond progression, respectively. Following initial progression, 25 (69%) patients treated beyond progression experienced subsequent tumor reduction or stabilization in target lesion size. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was higher in patients treated beyond progression (n = 29 [81%]) vs those not treated beyond progression (n = 61 [66%]); however, after adjusting for length of treatment exposure, incidence was lower in patients treated beyond progression (322.9 vs 518.7 incidence rate/100 patient-years for patients treated vs not treated beyond progression). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this subgroup analysis, a proportion of patients who continued treatment beyond RECIST-defined first progression demonstrated sustained reductions in tumor burden or stabilization in the size of target lesions, with an acceptable safety profile. Further analysis will help define the clinical benefit for patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab beyond progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01354431.

CheckMate 025 Randomized Phase 3 Study: Outcomes by Key Baseline Factors and Prior Therapy for Nivolumab Versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND The randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 025 study of nivolumab (n=410) versus everolimus (n=411) in previously treated adults (75% male; 88% white) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). OBJECTIVE To investigate which baseline factors were associated with OS and ORR benefit with nivolumab versus everolimus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Subgroup OS analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. INTERVENTION Nivolumab 3mg/kg every 2 wk or everolimus 10mg once daily. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The minimum follow-up was 14 mo. Baseline subgroup distributions were balanced between nivolumab and everolimus arms. Nivolumab demonstrated an OS improvement versus everolimus across subgroups, including Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups; age <65 and ≥65 yr; one and two or more sites of metastases; bone, liver, and lung metastases; number of prior therapies; duration of prior therapy; and prior sunitinib, pazopanib, or interleukin-2 therapy. The benefit with nivolumab versus everolimus was noteworthy for patients with poor MSKCC risk (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.70). The mortality rate at 12 mo for all subgroups was lower with nivolumab compared with everolimus. ORR also favored nivolumab. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events across subgroups was lower with nivolumab. Limitations include the post hoc analysis and differing sample sizes between groups. CONCLUSION The trend for OS and ORR benefit with nivolumab for multiple subgroups, without notable safety concerns, may help to guide treatment decisions, and further supports nivolumab as the standard of care in previously treated patients with aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated the impact of demographic and pretreatment features on survival benefit and tumor response with nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Survival benefit and response were observed for multiple subgroups, supporting the use of nivolumab as a new standard of care across a broad range of patients with previously treated aRCC. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01668784.

Nivolumab improved survival vs dacarbazine in patients with untreated advanced melanoma

The hazard ratio (HR) for death was 0.42 (99.79% CI 0.25–0.73; P < 0.0001) in favor of nivolumab, with 1year OS rate 73% (95% CI, 66%–79%) for nivolumab vs 42% (95% CI, 33%–51%) for dacarbazine. Median OS was not reached for nivolumab and was 10.8 months for dacarbazine. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.1 months for nivolumab and 2.2 months for dacarbazine (HR for death or progression 0.43, 95% CI 0.34–0.56; P < 0.0001). Objective response rate was 40% (84/210) vs 14% (29/208) for nivolumab and dacarbazine, respectively (P < 0.0001). Median duration of response was not reached for nivolumab and 6 months for dacarbazine. At the time of data cutoff, responses were ongoing in 86% (72/84) of nivolumab and 52% (15/29) of dacarbazine responders. PD-L1 positivity (using a 5% tumor cell surface staining cutoff) appeared to be associated with improved OS in the nivolumab arm (85% of PD-L1+ and 71% of PD-L1-/ indeterminate patients alive at the time of last followup). Both PD-L1+ and PD-L1-/indeterminate patients receiving nivolumab had improved OS vs dacarbazine (un-stratified HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.15–0.60 in PD-L1+ patients; 0.48, 95% CI, 0.32–0.71 in PD-L1-/indeterminate patient, both in favor of the nivolumab arm). The most common nivolumab-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related grade 3–4 AEs were reported in 12% vs 18% of patients receiving nivolumab vs dacarbazine, respectively. AEs led to discontinuation in 7% and 12% of dacarbazinevs nivolumab-treatment patients, respectively. Conclusions Compared to dacarbazine, nivolumab significantly improved OS and PFS in previously untreated patients with BRAF wild-type metastatic melanoma with an acceptable safety profile.

Effect of nivolumab on health-related quality of life in patients with treatment-naïve advanced melanoma: results from the phase III CheckMate 066 study

In patients with advanced melanoma in the CheckMate 066 study, baseline health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with nivolumab was maintained over time, with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in some exploratory analyses, and no HRQoL improvements with dacarbazine. Added to the survival benefit of nivolumab, the benefit-to-risk ratio favors nivolumab over dacarbazine.

Evaluation of Immunogenicity of Nivolumab Monotherapy and Its Clinical Relevance in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors

Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody targeting the programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) receptor that blocks interactions between PD‐1 and its ligands on tumor cells to prevent T‐cell exhaustion in patients with cancer. It has demonstrated efficacy in multiple tumor types, including melanoma, non‐small‐cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. This analysis assessed the immunogenicity of nivolumab and its impact on pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy in patients with solid tumors enrolled in 6 clinical studies. The incidence and prevalence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were determined by validated electrochemiluminescence assays in samples collected during nivolumab treatment and up to 100 days after the last dose. Confirmed positive samples from the 6 studies were also tested for presence of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Among 1086 nivolumab‐treated patients, 138 patients (12.7%) were ADA positive (relative to baseline), only 3 (0.3%) of whom were persistently positive for ADA, and 9 (0.8%) were NAb positive at 1 time point. The presence of ADAs was not associated with hypersensitivity, infusion reactions, or loss of efficacy and had minimal impact on nivolumab clearance. Additionally, the presence of NAbs was not associated with loss of efficacy. In conclusion, immunogenicity of nivolumab is not clinically meaningful.

Erratum to "CheckMate 025 Randomized Phase 3 Study: Outcomes by Key Baseline Factors and Prior Therapy for Nivolumab Versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma" [Eur Urol 2017;72:962-71]

a Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA; e Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, USA; f Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA; University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; i Fondazione Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy; j Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Hospital Universitario 12 De Octubre, Madrid, Spain; Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia; Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki University Central Hospital Cancer Center, Helsinki, Finland; o South West Wales Cancer Institute and Swansea University College of Medicine, Swansea, UK; University Hospital Essen of University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; Chiba Cancer Center, Chiba, Japan; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA