4.7 Article

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

Journal

CANCER
Volume 128, Issue 11, Pages 2085-2097

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34180

Keywords

advanced renal cell carcinoma; CheckMate 214; dual checkpoint inhibition; durable response; long-term follow-up; nivolumab plus ipilimumab; phase 3

Categories

Funding

  1. Bristol Myers Squibb
  2. Ono Pharmaceutical Company Limited
  3. National Institutes of Health [P30 CA016672]
  4. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant [P30 CA008748]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study assessed the efficacy and survival rates of the combination therapy of nivolumab (NIVO) and ipilimumab (IPI) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The results showed that the NIVO+IPI group maintained the benefits in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response compared to the monotherapy with sunitinib (SUN). The conditional survival estimates also indicated better outcomes with NIVO+IPI.
Background Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Methods Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. Results The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade >= 3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. Conclusions Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available