Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Case report: Durable complete response of a mucosal melanoma of the rectum after neoadjuvant immunotherapy with ipilimumab plus nivolumab.

Melanoma causes the majority of skin cancer-related deaths. Despite novel therapy options, metastatic melanoma still has a poor prognosis. Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy has been shown to prolong overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma, but mucosal melanomas respond less favorably compared to melanomas of cutaneous origin. We report on a patient with a mucosal melanoma of the rectum diagnosed in June 2020. Since a surgical intervention in order to achieve a tumor-free situation would have required an amputation of the rectum, a neo-adjuvant systemic immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab was initiated. As restaging and colonoscopy after four doses of this combination immunotherapy showed a partial response, the patient decided against the pre-planned surgery and a maintenance therapy with nivolumab was started. Repeated colonoscopy showed a complete response after four doses of nivolumab. After ongoing ICI therapy with nivolumab and no evidence of tumor relapse, immunotherapy was stopped in July 2022 after nearly 2 years of continuous treatment. The patient remained tumor-free during further follow-up. Neo-adjuvant immunotherapy is getting more explored in advanced melanoma. By administering ICI therapy before surgical resection of an essentially operable tumor, a stronger and more diverse immunological response is supposed to be achieved. Our reported case demonstrates that this approach could also be effective in mucosal melanoma despite of its generally lower response to immunotherapy.

Perioperative Nivolumab in Resectable Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy significantly improves outcomes in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Perioperative treatment (i.e., neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy) with nivolumab may further improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned adults with resectable stage IIA to IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 1 year. The primary outcome was event-free survival according to blinded independent review. Secondary outcomes were pathological complete response and major pathological response according to blinded independent review, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: At this prespecified interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.4 months), the percentage of patients with 18-month event-free survival was 70.2% in the nivolumab group and 50.0% in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or recurrence, abandoned surgery, or death, 0.58; 97.36% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.81; P<0.001). A pathological complete response occurred in 25.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 4.7% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 6.64; 95% CI, 3.40 to 12.97); a major pathological response occurred in 35.4% and 12.1%, respectively (odds ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.48 to 6.49). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32.5% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 25.2% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative treatment with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer event-free survival than chemotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC. No new safety signals were observed. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 77T ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04025879.).

Comparison of target agent treatment strategies for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare 7 newer immunotherapies and targeted therapies for platinum-resistant relapsed ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases for phase III trials involving platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRrOC) patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy in combination with chemotherapy. The quality of the included trials was assessed using the GRADE method. The primary outcome of comparison was progression-free survival, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: This analysis included 7 randomized phase III controlled trials, encompassing 2485 PRrOC patients. Combining bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and lurbinectedin demonstrated statistically significant differences in progression-free survival compared to all other regimens of interest. However, no statistically significant differences were observed in the overall survival. Nivolumab and mirvetuximab exhibited fewer serious adverse events than the other regimens of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy and lurbinectedin monotherapy has significant efficacy in patients with PRrOC. For patients with PRrOC who have exhausted treatment options, nivolumab and mirvetuximab may be considered as alternatives because of their better safety profiles.

Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial: early discontinuation of nivolumab upon achieving a complete or partial response in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab - study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma presenting with poor prognostic factors are usually treated with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), consisting of ipilimumab and nivolumab. This combination therapy is associated with severe immune related adverse events (irAEs) in about 60% of patients. In current clinical practice, patients are usually treated with ICIs for up to two years or until disease progression or the occurrence of unacceptable AEs. The incidence of irAEs gradually increases with duration of treatment. While durable tumour responses have been observed after early discontinuation of treatment, no consensus has been reached on optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of ICIs is safe in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy. METHODS: The Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 80 patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy of ipilimumab-nivolumab and have a complete or partial response (CR/PR) according to RECIST v1.1 will be included to early discontinue maintenance therapy with anti-PD-1. The primary endpoint is the rate of ongoing response at 12 months after start of ICI. Secondary endpoints include ongoing response at 24 months, disease control at different time points, melanoma specific and overall survival, the incidence of irAEs and health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: From a medical, healthcare and economic perspective, overtreatment should be prevented and shorter treatment duration of ICIs is preferred. If early discontinuation of ICIs is safe for patients who are treated with the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab, the treatment duration of nivolumab could be shortened in patients with a favourable tumour response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05652673, registration date: 08-12-2022.

Distinct autoantibody profiles across checkpoint inhibitor types and toxicities.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in combination. To understand the effects of different ICI categories, we characterized changes in circulating autoantibodies in patients enrolled in the E4412 trial (NCT01896999) of brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus ipilimumab, BV plus nivolumab, or BV plus ipilimumab-nivolumab for Hodgkin Lymphoma. Cycle 2 Day 1 (C2D1) autoantibody levels were compared to pre-treatment baseline. Across 112 autoantibodies tested, we generally observed increases in ipilimumab-containing regimens, with decreases noted in the nivolumab arm. Among 15 autoantibodies with significant changes at C2D1, all nivolumab cases exhibited decreases, with more than 90% of ipilimumab-exposed cases showing increases. Autoantibody profiles also showed differences according to immune-related adverse event (irAE) type, with rash generally featuring increases and liver toxicity demonstrating decreases. We conclude that dynamic autoantibody profiles may differ according to ICI category and irAE type. These findings may have relevance to clinical monitoring and irAE treatment.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in advanced cancers (excluding melanoma): a systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I2). RESULTS: Nine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi. CONCLUSIONS: Combining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers.

Adverse events of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab plus cabozantinib: a real-world pharmacovigilance study.

BACKGROUND: No head-to-head clinical trials have compared the differences in adverse events (AEs) between nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). AIM: We analysed the two largest real-world databases, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's VigiBase, to elucidate the differences in AEs between NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO. METHOD: In total, 40,376 and 38,022 records were extracted from FAERS and VigiBase, and 193 AEs were analysed. The reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence interval were calculated using a disproportionality analysis (NIVO-CABO/NIVO-IPI). RESULTS: The reported numbers of immune-related AEs, including myocarditis, colitis, and hepatitis, were significantly higher with NIVO-IPI (ROR = 0.18 for FAERS and 0.13 for VigiBase). Contrarily, the reported numbers of other AEs, including gastrointestinal disorders (ROR = 2.68 and 2.92) and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (ROR = 2.94 and 3.55), considered to be potentiated by the combination of NIVO and CABO, were higher with NIVO-CABO. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to the selection and clinical management of NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO, which minimizes the risk of AEs for individual patients with mRCC by considering distinctive differences in the AE profiles.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.

BACKGROUND: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort. METHODS: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

[A Case of Advanced Gastric Cancer Treated with Conversion Surgery followed by Nivolumab Combination Chemotherapy].

The use of nivolumab as first-line therapy for unresectable advanced gastric cancer has now become a standard practice, and its efficacy has been established. This is the first report of a patient with advanced gastric cancer who underwent conversion surgery after first-line nivolumab combination chemotherapy. The patient was a 58-year-old woman. Her medical history included hypertension and dyslipidemia. She had advanced gastric cancer with extensive lymph node metastasis in the left supraclavicular fossa and around the abdominal aorta. After confirming the HER2-negative status and the PD-L1 CPS score to be ≥5, nivolumab was administered in combination with chemotherapy. After the treatment, she underwent a total gastrectomy with D2 dissection, combined splenectomy and pancreatic tail resection for adhesions, and para-aortic lymph node sampling as a conversion surgery. There was no obvious cancerous remnant in the resected specimen, and the pathological response was Grade 3. The patient was alive and recurrence-free at 4 months postoperatively.

Real-world evidence of efficacy of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus chemotherapy as initial treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: For advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), combination therapies including a PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy or a PD-1 inhibitor, CTLA-4 inhibitor, and chemotherapy are standard first-line options. However, data directly comparing these regimens are lacking. This study compared the efficacy of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (CP) against nivolumab plus ipilimumab and chemotherapy (CNI) in a real-world setting. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study, we compared the efficacy and safety of CP and CNI as first-line therapies in 182 patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary outcomes included the response rate (RR) and safety profiles. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models were utilized for data analysis, adjusting for confounding factors such as age, gender, and PD-L1 expression. RESULTS: In this study, 160 patients received CP, while 22 received CNI. The CP group was associated with significantly better PFS than the CNI group (median 11.7 vs. 6.6 months, HR 0.56, p = 0.03). This PFS advantage persisted after propensity score matching to adjust for imbalances. No significant OS differences were observed. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred comparably, but immune-related adverse events were numerically more frequent in the CNI group. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, CP demonstrated superior PFS compared with CNI. These findings can inform treatment selection in advanced NSCLC.

The effect of a single dose of nivolumab prior to isolated limb perfusion for patients with in-transit melanoma metastases: An interim analysis of a phase Ib/II randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (NivoILP trial).

OBJECTIVE: ILP has shown to achieve high response rates in patients with melanoma ITM. Possibly there is a synergistic mechanism of action of ILP and anti-PD1. The aim of this trial was to investigate the safety and efficacy of adding a single dose of systemic anti-PD1 to isolated limb perfusion (ILP) for patients with melanoma in-transit metastases (ITM). METHODS: In this placebo controlled double-blind phase Ib/II trial, patients with melanoma ITM were randomized 1:1 to either a single systemic dose of nivolumab or placebo one day prior to ILP. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate at three months, and safety in terms of incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included. AEs of any grade occurred in 90% of patients in the nivolumab arm and in 80% in the placebo arm within three months after ILP. Grade 3 AEs were reported in 40% and 30% respectively, most commonly related to wound infection, wound dehiscence, or skin necrosis. There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs reported. The CR rate was 75% in the nivolumab arm and 60% in the placebo arm. The 1-year local progression-free rate was 86% in the nivolumab arm and 67% in the placebo arm. The 1-year OS was 100% in both arms. CONCLUSION: For patients with melanoma ITM, the addition of a single systemic dose of nivolumab the day before ILP is considered safe and feasible with promising efficacy. Accrual will continue in a phase 2 trial.

Neoadjuvant Dual Checkpoint Inhibitors vs Anti-PD1 Therapy in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM. Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered. Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Annual melanoma incidence in the US is escalating. OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive evaluation of nivolumab alone or with ipilimumab for advanced melanoma treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, extending until August 2023. A range of outcomes were evaluated, encompassing overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), adverse events (both any and serious), complete response rate, mortality rate, and recurrence rate in patients with advanced melanoma. RESULTS: This analysis was conducted on seven relevant studies, involving 2,885 patients. The baseline characteristics of both groups were found to be comparable across all outcomes, with the exception of tumor size. The pooled analysis did not reveal any significant disparities, except for PFS, where the nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment group demonstrated a significantly longer PFS compared to the nivolumab group. However, there was a notable discrepancy in any adverse events (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.96, 3.69; p < 0.00001) and serious adverse events (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.88, 4.49, p < 0.00001) between the two groups, suggesting that the safety profile of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was inferior. CONCLUSIONS: Given diversity and potential biases, oncologists should base immunotherapy decisions on professional expertise and patient characteristics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023453484.

Retrospective comparison of a weight-based dose every 2 weeks with a fixed dose every month: a real-life analysis of nivolumab in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Nivolumab was first authorized at a weight-based dose (WBD) of 3 mg/kg every two weeks (Q2W). Since 2017, a fixed dose (FD) regimen [first 240 mg Q2W and then 480 mg per month (Q4W)] was allowed. The objective of the study was to compare a WBD regimen and an FD regimen with regard to effectiveness and safety. We conducted a single-center, retrospective, real-life study of consecutive adult patients who had received a WBD of nivolumab or an FD of 480 mg Q4W. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The secondary endpoints were overall survival and cost of the treatment. In all, 342 patients were included: 71 in the WBD cohort and 271 in the FD cohort. Of these patients, 201 patients (59.6%) experienced an irAE, and 24 of these events were graded as ≥3. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in irAE occurrence between the two cohorts [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.54 (0.21-1.36), P  = 0.19]. The 12-month overall survival rate was significantly lower in the WBD cohort ( P  < 0.001). Switching from a fortnightly weight dose to a fixed monthly dose halves the cost of hospitalization. Our results did not show a significant difference between WBD and FD cohort in the occurrence of severe irAEs. However overall survival appeared to be significantly higher in FD group. Some clinical trials are investigating a hybrid dosing regimen in which a WBD is capped by an FD. The present results need to be confirmed in prospective studies.

Extending the dosing intervals of nivolumab: model-based simulations in unselected cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Reducing nivolumab dose intensity could increase patients' life quality and decrease the financial burden while maintaining efficacy. The aims of this study were to develop a population PK model of nivolumab based on data from unselected metastatic cancer patients and to simulate extended-interval regimens allowing to maintain minimal effective plasma concentrations (MEPC). METHODS: Concentration-time data (992 plasma nivolumab concentrations, 364 patients) were modeled using a two-compartment model with linear elimination clearance in Monolix software. Extended-interval regimens allowing to maintain steady-state trough concentrations (Cmin,ss) above the MEPC of 2.5 mg/L or 1.5 mg/L in >90% of patients were simulated. RESULTS: Increasing 3-times the dosing interval from 240 mg every two weeks (Q2W) to Q6W and 2-times from 480 mg Q4W to Q8W resulted in Cmin,ss above 2.5 mg/L in 95.8% and 95.4% of patients, respectively. 240 mg Q8W and 480 mg Q10W resulted in Cmin,ss above 1.5 mg/L in 91.0% and 91.8% of patients, respectively. Selection of a 240 mg Q6W regimen would decrease by 3-fold the annual treatment costs compared to standard regimen of 240 mg Q2W (from 78,744€ to 26,248€ in France). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials are warranted to confirm the non-inferiority of extended-interval compared to standard regimen.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus bevacizumab therapy improves the prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer in humanized mouse models.

BACKGROUND: The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-angiogenic agents has been proposed as a promising strategy to improve the outcome of advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, further investigation is warranted to elucidate the specific mechanisms underlying the effects of combination therapy and its potential as neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage TNBC. METHODS: In this study, we constructed humanized mouse models by engrafting the human immune system into severely immunodeficient mice and subsequently implanting TNBC cells into the model. The mice were treated with neoadjuvant combination therapy (bevacizumab combined with nivolumab), followed by in vivo imaging system to assess tumor recurrence and metastasis after surgery. The immune microenvironment of tumors was analyzed to investigate the potential mechanisms. Furthermore, we verified the impact of extending the interval before surgery or administering adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy on the prognosis of mice. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant combination therapy significantly inhibited tumor growth, prevented recurrence and metastasis by normalizing tumor vessels and inducing robust CD8+ T cell infiltration and activation in primary tumors (p < 0.001). In vivo experiments demonstrated that prolonging the interval before surgery or administering adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy did not enhance its efficacy. CONCLUSION: The preclinical study has demonstrated the therapeutic efficacy and mechanism of neoadjuvant combination therapy (nivolumab plus bevacizumab) in treating early TNBC.

Real-world outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japanese patients: data with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up data regarding treatment outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma as a first-line therapy are limited in real-world Japanese populations. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of 56 advanced renal cell carcinoma patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with a follow-up of at least 3 years. Survival, tumour response and adverse event profiles were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients (73%) were histopathologically diagnosed with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and 34 (61%) were categorized into the International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk group. The median follow-up period was 34.4 months. Regarding an effectiveness profile, median progression-free survival, time to treatment failure and overall survival were 9.01, 12.5 and 49.0 months, respectively. Objective response was observed in 27 patients (48%), including eight patients with complete response (14%), and the median duration of response was 30.8 months. Multivariate analyses showed that clear-cell histology was an independent factor of longer overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.23, P = 0.0013). Regarding safety profiles, adverse events of any grade and those with grade ≥3 developed in 40 (71%) and 25 patients (45%), respectively. Median time to adverse event development was 1.68 months. Treatment was interrupted in 28 patients (50%), and corticosteroid administration was needed in 25 (45%). CONCLUSION: The 3-year follow-up data showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy exhibited a feasible effectiveness in real-world Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Accordingly, the high risk of adverse event development, which often requires treatment withdrawal and corticosteroid administration, should be considered.

Prognostic outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving second-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor following first-line immune-oncology combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the prognostic outcomes in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI following first-line IO combination therapy. METHODS: This study retrospectively included 243 mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI after first-line IO combination therapy: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 189, IO-IO group) and either pembrolizumab plus axitinib or avelumab plus axitinib (n = 54, IO-TKI group). Oncological outcomes between the two groups were compared, and prognostication systems were developed for these patients. RESULTS: In the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, the objective response rates to second-line TKI were 34.4% and 25.9% (p = 0.26), the median PFS periods were 9.7 and 7.1 months (p = 0.79), and the median OS periods after the introduction of second-line TKI were 23.1 and 33.5 months (p = 0.93), respectively. Among the several factors examined, non-CCRCC, high CRP, and low albumin levels were identified as independent predictors of both poor PFS and OS by multivariate analyses. It was possible to precisely classify the patients into 3 risk groups regarding both PFS and OS according to the positive numbers of the independent prognostic factors. Furthermore, the c-indices of this study were superior to those of previous systems as follows: 0.75, 0.64, and 0.61 for PFS prediction and 0.76, 0.70, and 0.65 for OS prediction by the present, IMDC, and MSKCC systems, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the prognostic outcomes after introducing second-line TKI between the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups, and the histopathology, CRP and albumin levels had independent impacts on the prognosis in mRCC patients receiving second-line TKI, irrespective of first-line IO combination therapies.