Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results from CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

Real-world outcomes of systemic therapy in locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

Aim: Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma were evaluated. Methods: Adults receiving their first systemic therapy for unresectable, locally advanced or recurrent/metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma from 4 September 2014 to 30 June 2017, were evaluated. The primary end point was real-world overall response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or physician assessment. Time-to-event outcomes were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 51 eligible patients, the median age was 76 years, 80% were male and 65% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1. The most common regimens were cetuximab (51%) and carboplatin + paclitaxel (22%). Median real-world overall response rate ranged from 9.8% per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors to 43.1% when supplemented by physician assessment. Median overall survival was 10.7 months, and median time to next treatment was 7.5 months. Conclusion: Survival in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma was short. Real-world overall response rate was lower with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors than physician assessment.

This study looked at chemotherapy treatments and responses in patients receiving treatment for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, a type of skin cancer. Patients had advanced and metastatic cancer that could not be cured by radiation or surgery. Most of the patients were white males, and their median age was 76 years. About two-thirds of the patients in the study had their original cancer in the head and neck, and in most patients (approximately 80%), the cancer had spread, mostly to the lungs or lymph nodes. Half of the patients in the study were treated with cetuximab, and about a quarter received platinum chemotherapy or other cetuximab-based treatment. The study examined how response to treatment may be measured in clinical care and clinical trials. Response to treatment and length of survival were short: patients responded to treatment for a median of 9 months and survived for a median of 10.7 months.

Real-world clinical outcomes with first-line avelumab in locally advanced/metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma in the USA: SPEAR-Merkel.

Aim: To assess clinical outcomes in patients with locally advanced (la) or metastatic (m) Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) initiating first-line (1L) avelumab in a USA community oncology setting. Materials & methods: Adults with laMCC or mMCC initiating 1L avelumab were identified from The US Oncology Network electronic health record database and chart review. Results: Median overall survival and progression-free survival were not reached in laMCC (n = 9) vs 20.2 and 10.0 months in mMCC (n = 19); response rates were similar (66.7% vs 63.2%). Conclusion: This is the first study to show clinical benefit in patients with laMCC receiving 1L avelumab in a US real-world setting. Response rates in patients with mMCC were consistent with pivotal trials.

Lay abstract Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. Because MCC progresses quickly, many patients have a poor prognosis. Avelumab is a type of drug that helps the patient's immune system to fight cancer. Avelumab was the first such drug approved by the US FDA for treating metastatic MCC based on the results of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 clinical trial. In SPEAR-Merkel, we studied how MCC patients with locally advanced as well as metastatic disease responded when they were treated with first-line avelumab in a real-world setting. These patients were from oncology practices in communities throughout the USA. Overall response rates in SPEAR-Merkel were comparable between patients with locally advanced and metastatic MCC. Importantly, we found that these patients experienced survival benefit similar to patients in the JAVELIN Merkel 200 (part B) study and other real-world studies.

Pembrolizumab Utilization and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Advanced Melanoma in the US Community Oncology Setting: An Updated Analysis.

Favorable outcomes have been observed with pembrolizumab among patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials; however, limited evidence exists on the long-term efficacy in the real-world setting. This was an updated, retrospective observational study of adult patients with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma who initiated pembrolizumab (in any line of therapy) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, in The US Oncology Network and were followed through December 31, 2019 [median follow-up: 18.2 mo (range: 0.1-63.1 mo)]. Study data were sourced from electronic health records. Patient demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics were assessed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate overall survival (OS), time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, physician-assessed time to tumor progression, and physician-assessed progression-free survival (rwPFS). Independent risk factors for OS and rwPFS were identified with multivariable Cox regression models. Of the 303 study-eligible patients, 119, 131, and 53 received pembrolizumab in the first-line, second-line, and third-line or beyond setting, respectively. Median OS across the study population was 29.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 20.3-49.7] and was the longest among those who received first-line pembrolizumab [42.8 mo (95% CI: 24.8-not reached)]. Median rwPFS across the study population was 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.0-7.6) and 8.1 months (95% CI: 4.6-14.4) among those who received first-line pembrolizumab. In the multivariable analyses for OS, increased age, worsening performance status, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, brain metastases, and pembrolizumab use in later lines were significantly associated a worse prognosis.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously reported results from the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial showed a significant improvement in objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this report is to provide 4-year updated efficacy and safety data from this study. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III or stage IV melanoma, known BRAFV600 mutation status, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus placebo, or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The patients, investigators, study site staff, and study funder were masked to the study drug administered. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of May 10, 2018. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844505. FINDINGS: Between July 3, 2013, and March 31, 2014, 945 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=314), nivolumab (n=316), or ipilimumab (n=315). Median follow-up was 46·9 months (IQR 10·9-51·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·0 months (10·5-51·4) in the nivolumab group, and 18·6 months (7·6-49·5) in the ipilimumab group. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months from the date that the final patient was enrolled and randomised, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 38·2-not reached) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·9 months (28·3-not reached) in the nivolumab group, and 19·9 months (16·9-24·6) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for death for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·54 (95% CI 0·44-0·67; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·65 (0·53-0·79; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·7-19·3) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 6·9 months (5·1-10·2) in the nivolumab group, and 2·9 months (2·8-3·2) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·42 (95% CI 0·35-0·51; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·53 (0·44-0·64; p<0·0001). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 185 (59%) of 313 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 70 (22%) of 313 who received nivolumab, and 86 (28%) of 311 who received ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were diarrhoea in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (29 [9%] of 313) and in the nivolumab group (nine [3%] of 313) and colitis in the ipilimumab group (23 [7%] of 311); the most common grade 4 adverse event in all three groups was increased lipase (15 [5%] of 313 in the combination group, ten [3%] of 313 in the nivolumab group, and four [1%] of 311 in the ipilimumab group). Serious adverse events were not analysed for the 4-year follow-up. In total for the study, there were four treatment-related deaths: two in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (one cardiomyopathy and one liver necrosis), one in the nivolumab group (neutropenia), and one in the ipilimumab group (colon perforation). No additional treatment-related deaths have occurred since the previous (3-year) analysis. INTERPRETATION: The results of this analysis at 4 years of follow-up show that a durable, sustained survival benefit can be achieved with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.