Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib: 5-year results from CheckMate 040.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated promising clinical activity and durable responses in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the CheckMate 040 study at 30.7-month median follow-up. Here, we present 5-year results from this cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to arm A [nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)] or arm B [nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)], each followed by nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, or arm C (nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q6W). The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) per RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were randomized across treatment arms. At 60-month minimum follow-up (62.6-month median follow-up), the ORR was 34% (n = 17), 27% (n = 13), and 29% (n = 14) in arms A, B, and C, respectively. The median DOR was 51.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.6 months-not estimable (NE)], 15.2 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE), and 21.7 months (95% CI 4.2 months-NE), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was 22.2 months (34/50; 95% CI 9.4-54.8 months) in arm A, 12.5 months (38/49; 95% CI 7.6-16.4 months) in arm B, and 12.7 months (40/49; 95% CI 7.4-30.5 months) in arm C; 60-month OS rates were 29%, 19%, and 21%, respectively. In an exploratory analysis of OS by response (6-month landmark), the median OS was meaningfully longer for responders versus nonresponders for all arms. No new safety signals were identified with longer follow-up. There were no new discontinuations due to immune-mediated adverse events since the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the primary analysis, the arm A regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful responses and long-term survival benefit, with no new safety signals in patients with advanced HCC following sorafenib treatment, further supporting its use as a second-line treatment in these patients.

Safety and efficacy of multi-target TKI combined with nivolumab in check-point inhibitor-refractory patients with advanced NSCLC: a prospective, single-arm, two-stage study.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represents a major unmet medical need in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition may reverse a suppressive microenvironment and recover sensitivity to subsequent ICIs. METHODS: This phase Ib/IIa, single-arm study, comprised dose-finding (Part A) and expansion (Part B) cohorts. Patients with ICIs-refractory NSCLC were enrolled to receive anlotinib (a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor) orally (from days 1 to 14 in a 21-day cycle) and nivolumab (360 mg every 3 weeks, intravenously) on a 21-day treatment cycle. The first 21-day treatment cycle was a safety observation period (phase Ib) followed by a phase II expansion cohort. The primary objectives were recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D, part A), safety (part B), and objective response rate (ORR, part B), respectively. RESULTS: Between November 2020 and March 2022, 34 patients were screened, and 21 eligible patients were enrolled (6 patients in Part A). The RP2D of anlotinib is 12 mg/day orally (14 days on and 7 days off) and nivolumab (360 mg every 3 weeks). Adverse events (AEs) of any cause and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were reported in all treated patients. Two patients (9.5%) experienced grade 3 TRAE. No grade 4 or higher AEs were observed. Serious AEs were reported in 4 patients. Six patients experienced anlotinib interruption and 4 patients experienced nivolumab interruption due to TRAEs. ORR and disease control rate (DCR) was 19.0% and 76.2%, respectively. Median PFS and OS were 7.4 months (95% CI, 4.3-NE) and 15.2 months (95% CI, 12.1-NE), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that anlotinib combined with nivolumab shows manageable safety and promising efficacy signals. Further studies are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04507906 August 11, 2020.

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.).

Prognostic impact of FAN score in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

FAN score is reportedly associated with prognostic outcomes in patients with urothelial carcinoma being treated with immune check point inhibitors. However, the prognostic impact of pre-treatment FAN score in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab remains unclear. We retrospectively evaluated the association between pre-treatment FAN score and prognostic outcomes in 154 patients with metastatic RCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The pre-treatment FAN score was '0' in 56 patients (36%), '1' in 60 patients (40%), '2' in 37 patients (24%) and '3' in one patient (1%). Progression-free survival was not significantly different between patients with different FAN scores, but second progression-free survival (PFS2), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly different. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, FAN score ≥ 2 was a significant predictor of poor PFS2 (vs. FAN score 0, HR: 2.43, 95% CI 1.21-4.87, P = 0.01), poor CSS (vs. FAN score 0, HR: 2.71, 95% CI 1.13-6.47, P = 0.02) and poor OS (vs. FAN score 0, HR: 2.42, 95% CI 1.11-5.25, P = 0.02). High pre-treatment FAN score could be a significant independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic RCC.

First-Line Nivolumab and Relatlimab Plus Chemotherapy for Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: The Phase II RELATIVITY-060 Study.

PURPOSE: Open-label phase II study (RELATIVITY-060) to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, plus relatlimab, a lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3)-blocking antibody, plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (GC) or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). METHODS: Patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab + relatlimab (fixed-dose combination) + chemotherapy or nivolumab + chemotherapy. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review [BICR]) in patients whose tumors had LAG-3 expression ≥1%. RESULTS: Of 274 patients, 138 were randomly assigned to nivolumab + relatlimab + chemotherapy and 136 to nivolumab + chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 11.9 months. In patients with LAG-3 expression ≥1%, BICR-assessed ORR (95% CI) was 48% (38 to 59) in the nivolumab + relatlimab + chemotherapy arm and 61% (51 to 71) in the nivolumab + chemotherapy arm; median progression-free survival (95% CI) by BICR was 7.0 months (5.8 to 8.4) versus 8.3 months (6.9 to 12.1; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41 [95% CI, 0.97 to 2.05]), and median overall survival (95% CI) was 13.5 months (11.9 to 19.1) versus 16.0 months (10.9 to not estimable; HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.54]), respectively. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 69% and 61% of all treated patients, and 42% and 36% of patients discontinued because of any-grade TRAEs in the nivolumab + relatlimab + chemotherapy and nivolumab + chemotherapy arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: RELATIVITY-060 did not meet its primary end point of improved ORR in patients with LAG-3 expression ≥1% when relatlimab was added to nivolumab + chemotherapy compared with nivolumab + chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to address whether adding anti-LAG-3 to anti-PD-1 plus chemotherapy can benefit specific GC/GEJC patient subgroups.

Capmatinib plus nivolumab in pretreated patients with EGFR wild-type advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Dysregulated MET is an established oncogenic driver in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MET signaling may also suppress anticancer immune responses. Concomitant MET inhibition with capmatinib (a MET inhibitor) synergistically enhanced the efficacy of immunotherapies in murine cancer models, regardless of tumor dependency to MET signaling. Here, we report results of a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of capmatinib plus nivolumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) in patients with EGFR wild-type advanced NSCLC, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients were allocated into high-MET or low-MET groups according to MET expression determined by immunohistochemistry, MET gene copy number as assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization, and presence of MET exon 14 skipping mutation, then received capmatinib 400 mg, oral, twice daily in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was met in both the high-MET (N = 16) and low-MET (N = 30) groups. In the high-MET and low-MET groups, respectively, the estimated mean 6-month PFS rate (95 % credible interval) by Bayesian analysis was 68.9 % (48.5-85.7) and 50.9 % (35.6-66.4). The Kaplan-Meier median PFS (95 % CI) was 6.2 months (3.5-19.2) and 4.2 months (1.8-7.4). The overall response rate (95 % CI) was 25.0 % (7.3-52.4) and 16.7 % (5.6-34.7). Most frequent treatment-related adverse events (≥30 % any grade, N = 46) were nausea (52.2 %), peripheral edema (34.8 %), and increased blood creatinine (30.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: Capmatinib plus nivolumab showed clinical activity and manageable safety in pretreated patients with advanced EGFR wild-type NSCLC, independent of MET status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323126.

Comparison of Cabozantinib and Axitinib as Second-line Therapy After Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Analysis of Retrospective Real-world Data.

BACKGROUND: To date, no studies have compared the treatment outcomes of second-line therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line treatments in patients with metastatic ccRCC who previously received immune-oncology combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment were identified among 243 patients with RCC treated between August 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022 at 34 institutions belonging to the Japanese Urological Oncology Group. Patients were assessed for treatment outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and incidence rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients treated with cabozantinib and 60 treated with axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC were identified. The median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 11.0 months (9.0-16.0) with cabozantinib and 9.5 months (6.0-13.0) with axitinib. The ORRs were 37.5% (cabozantinib) and 38.3% (axitinib). The rates of any-grade AEs and grade ≥3 AEs were 79.2% (cabozantinib) versus 63.3% (axitinib; P = .091) and 35.4% (cabozantinib) versus 23.3% (axitinib; P = .202), respectively. In the poor-risk group, PFS was longer in the cabozantinib group than in the axitinib group (P = .033). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and axitinib were comparable. In the poor-risk group, cabozantinib was more effective than axitinib. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of second-line treatment options after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment in patients with metastatic ccRCC.

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.

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.

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.

Site-Specific Differences of Eligibility for Adjuvant Immunotherapy Among Urothelial Carcinoma Patients Treated With Radical Surgery: Results From a Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The CheckMate274 trial has reported enhanced disease-free survival rates in patients with stage pT3-4/ypT2-4 or pN+ urothelial carcinoma (UC) undergoing adjuvant nivolumab therapy. This study compares prognostic differences between urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 719 patients with UC who underwent radical surgery, stratifying to patients at stage pT3-4 and/or pN+ without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or at ypT2-4 and/or ypN+ with NAC (potential candidates for adjuvant immunotherapy), and to those who were not candidates for adjuvant immunotherapy. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to assess oncological outcomes, particularly nonurothelial tract recurrence-free survival (NUTRFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Risk factors were identified by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier curves showed significantly lower NUTRFS, CSS, and OS for potential adjuvant immunotherapy candidates than for noncandidates in each UCB and UTUC group. NUTRFS, CSS, and OS did not differ significantly between adjuvant immunotherapy candidates with UBC or UTUC. Trends were similar among patients ineligible for adjuvant immunotherapy. Pathological T stage (pT3-4 or ypT2-4), pathological N stage, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were independent predictors of oncological outcomes on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The criteria for adjuvant immunotherapy candidates from the CheckMate 274 trial can also effectively stratify UC patients after radical surgery. Substantial clinical significance is attached to LVI status as well as to pathological T and N status, suggesting that LVI status should be considered when selecting suitable candidates for adjuvant immunotherapy.

Beyond T cell toxicity - Intrathecal chemokine CXCL13 indicating B cell involvement in immune-related adverse events following checkpoint inhibition: A two-case series and literature review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to raise awareness of a role of B cells in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-associated neurological immune-related adverse events (nirAE). METHODS: A systematic literature review was made, with case observations of a melanoma and a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient who developed ICI-associated nirAE with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings indicating B cell involvement. RESULTS: Two patients receiving ipilimumab/nivolumab for melanoma and chemotherapy/pembrolizumab for NSCLC developed nirAE in the form of myocarditis/myositis/myasthenia gravis overlap syndrome (triple M) and cerebellitis plus longitudinal transverse myelitis (c-LETM), respectively. Intrathecal inflammation with chemokine C-X-C motif ligand (CXCL13) elevation was present in both patients; the triple M case had acetylcholine receptor antibodies, antititin reactivity, altered CD4/CD8 T cell ratio in blood, and depressed programmed death-1 (PD-1) expression on CSF T cells; the c-LETM case showed intrathecal antibody production and plasma cells. Both patients insufficiently responded to first-line treatment. The NSCLC case improved upon administration of B cell-depleting therapy with rituximab, whereas the melanoma patient died before escalation therapy was initiated. Literature research revealed one additional ICI-associated LETM case with intrathecal CXCL13 elevation, three cases with ICI-associated aquaporin-4 antibody neuromyelitis spectrum disorder, and evidence of B cell-mediated toxicity based on antibody-mediated immune pathologies in ICI-associated immune-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The case observations highlight the plethora of uncertainties in diagnosis and treatment of ICI-associated nirAE, exemplify the heterogeneity of immune mechanisms involved, and suggest a role of B cells, which may be underdiagnosed. Intrathecal CXCL13 may serve as a biomarker of B cell involvement in nirAE, supported by intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis, presence of plasma cells, and/or recruitment of cognate immune cells.

[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.

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.