Justin Doan

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Nivolumab 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. METHODS We 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. RESULTS A 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. CONCLUSIONS Overall 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.)

Quality of life in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma given nivolumab versus everolimus in CheckMate 025: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND In 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. METHODS CheckMate 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. FINDINGS HRQoL 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). INTERPRETATION Nivolumab was associated with HRQoL improvement compared with everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Treatment Beyond Progression in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Nivolumab in CheckMate 025

BACKGROUND Response patterns to nivolumab differ from those seen with other approved targeted therapies. OBJECTIVE To investigate the efficacy of nivolumab in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who were treated beyond (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) RECIST progression. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a subgroup analysis of patients treated with nivolumab in the phase 3 CheckMate 025 study. Patients continuing to tolerate therapy and exhibiting investigator-assessed clinical benefit were eligible to be treated beyond RECIST progression (TBP) and received therapy for ≥4 wk after first progression; patients not treated beyond RECIST progression (NTBP) received 0 wk to <4 wk of therapy after progression. INTERVENTIONS Nivolumab 3mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 406 nivolumab-treated patients, 316 (78%) progressed by RECIST criteria. Of those who progressed, 48% were TBP, 52% were NTBP. Before being TBP, objective response rate (95% confidence interval) was 20% (14-28) and 14% (9-21) in patients TBP and NTBP, respectively. Differences in clinical characteristics assessed at first progression between patients TBP versus NTBP included better Karnofsky performance status, less deterioration in Karnofsky performance status, shorter time to response, lower incidence of new bone lesions, and improved quality of life. Postprogression, 13% of all patients TBP (20/153) had ≥30% tumor burden reduction including patients with preprogression and postprogression tumor measurements (n=142) and complete/partial response (28%, 8/29), stable disease (6%, 3/47), and progressive disease (14%, 9/66) as their best response before being TBP. Incidence of treatment-related adverse events in patients TBP was lower after (59%) versus before (71%) progression. Limitations included potential bias from the nonrandomized nature of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS A subset of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and RECIST progression experienced tumor reduction postprogression with nivolumab, and had an acceptable safety profile. Clinical judgment remains essential when switching therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01668784. PATIENT SUMMARY A subset of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and disease progression may continue to benefit from nivolumab treatment beyond progression as evidenced by tumor reduction postprogression and an acceptable safety profile.

Application of dynamic modeling for survival estimation in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Objective In oncology, extrapolation of clinical outcomes beyond trial duration is traditionally achieved by parametric survival analysis using population-level outcomes. This approach may not fully capture the benefit/risk profile of immunotherapies due to their unique mechanisms of action. We evaluated an alternative approach—dynamic modeling—to predict outcomes in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We compared standard parametric fitting and dynamic modeling for survival estimation of nivolumab and everolimus using data from the phase III CheckMate 025 study. Methods We developed two statistical approaches to predict longer-term outcomes (progression, treatment discontinuation, and survival) for nivolumab and everolimus, then compared these predictions against follow-up clinical trial data to assess their proximity to observed outcomes. For the parametric survival analyses, we selected a probability distribution based on its fit to observed population-level outcomes at 14-month minimum follow-up and used it to predict longer-term outcomes. For dynamic modeling, we used a multivariate Cox regression based on patient-level data, which included risk scores, and probability and duration of response as predictors of longer-term outcomes. Both sets of predictions were compared against trial data with 26- and 38-month minimum follow-up. Results Both statistical approaches led to comparable fits to observed trial data for median progression, discontinuation, and survival. However, beyond the trial duration, mean survival predictions differed substantially between methods for nivolumab (30.8 and 51.5 months), but not everolimus (27.2 and 29.8 months). Longer-term follow-up data from CheckMate 025 and phase I/II studies resembled dynamic model predictions for nivolumab. Conclusions Dynamic modeling can be a good alternative to parametric survival fitting for immunotherapies because it may help better capture the longer-term benefit/risk profile and support health-economic evaluations of immunotherapies.