Cargando…

Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese subgroup analysis from the CheckMate 025 study

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the phase III CheckMate 025 study (minimum follow-up: 14 months). We report efficacy and safety in the global and Japanese pop...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tomita, Yoshihiko, Fukasawa, Satoshi, Shinohara, Nobuo, Kitamura, Hiroshi, Oya, Mototsugu, Eto, Masatoshi, Tanabe, Kazunari, Kimura, Go, Yonese, Junji, Yao, Masahiro, Motzer, Robert J., Uemura, Hirotsugu, McHenry, M. Brent, Berghorn, Elmer, Ozono, Seiichiro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896687/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28419248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyx049
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Nivolumab improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the phase III CheckMate 025 study (minimum follow-up: 14 months). We report efficacy and safety in the global and Japanese populations (minimum follow-up: 26 months). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or everolimus 10-mg tablet orally once daily. Primary endpoint: OS, key secondary endpoints: ORR, progression-free survival and safety. RESULTS: Of 410 (nivolumab) and 411 (everolimus) patients, 37 (9%) and 26 (6%), respectively, were Japanese. Median OS for the global population was 26.0 months (nivolumab) and 19.7 months (everolimus; hazard ratio 0.73 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61–0.88]; P = 0.0006), with medians not reached for Japanese patients. ORR for the global population was 26% (nivolumab) versus 5% (everolimus; odds ratio 6.13; 95% CI: 3.77–9.95); ORR for Japanese patients: 43% versus 8% (odds ratio 9.14; 95% CI: 1.76–88.33). In Japanese patients, any-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 78% (Grade 3–4, 19%; most common, anemia [5%]) treated with nivolumab and 100% (Grade 3–4, 58%; most common, hypertriglyceridemia [12%]) treated with everolimus; the most common with nivolumab was diarrhea (19%) and with everolimus was stomatitis (77%). Quality of life was stable in the nivolumab arm. CONCLUSIONS: With >2 years of follow-up, Japanese patients had a higher response rate with nivolumab versus everolimus that was more pronounced yet consistent with the global population, with median OS not reached, and a favorable safety profile.