Cargando…

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial

PURPOSE: To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). METHODS: Patients with aRCC wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Albiges, Laurence, Tannir, Nizar M, Burotto, Mauricio, McDermott, David, Plimack, Elizabeth R, Barthélémy, Philippe, Porta, Camillo, Powles, Thomas, Donskov, Frede, George, Saby, Kollmannsberger, Christian K, Gurney, Howard, Grimm, Marc-Oliver, Tomita, Yoshihiko, Castellano, Daniel, Rini, Brian I, Choueiri, Toni K, Saggi, Shruti Shally, McHenry, M Brent, Motzer, Robert J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7703447/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33246931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-001079
_version_ 1783616640506658816
author Albiges, Laurence
Tannir, Nizar M
Burotto, Mauricio
McDermott, David
Plimack, Elizabeth R
Barthélémy, Philippe
Porta, Camillo
Powles, Thomas
Donskov, Frede
George, Saby
Kollmannsberger, Christian K
Gurney, Howard
Grimm, Marc-Oliver
Tomita, Yoshihiko
Castellano, Daniel
Rini, Brian I
Choueiri, Toni K
Saggi, Shruti Shally
McHenry, M Brent
Motzer, Robert J
author_facet Albiges, Laurence
Tannir, Nizar M
Burotto, Mauricio
McDermott, David
Plimack, Elizabeth R
Barthélémy, Philippe
Porta, Camillo
Powles, Thomas
Donskov, Frede
George, Saby
Kollmannsberger, Christian K
Gurney, Howard
Grimm, Marc-Oliver
Tomita, Yoshihiko
Castellano, Daniel
Rini, Brian I
Choueiri, Toni K
Saggi, Shruti Shally
McHenry, M Brent
Motzer, Robert J
author_sort Albiges, Laurence
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). METHODS: Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory). RESULTS: Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. CONCLUSION: After long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7703447
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77034472020-12-09 Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial Albiges, Laurence Tannir, Nizar M Burotto, Mauricio McDermott, David Plimack, Elizabeth R Barthélémy, Philippe Porta, Camillo Powles, Thomas Donskov, Frede George, Saby Kollmannsberger, Christian K Gurney, Howard Grimm, Marc-Oliver Tomita, Yoshihiko Castellano, Daniel Rini, Brian I Choueiri, Toni K Saggi, Shruti Shally McHenry, M Brent Motzer, Robert J ESMO Open Original Research PURPOSE: To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). METHODS: Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory). RESULTS: Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. CONCLUSION: After long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7703447/ /pubmed/33246931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-001079 Text en © Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, any changes made are indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Research
Albiges, Laurence
Tannir, Nizar M
Burotto, Mauricio
McDermott, David
Plimack, Elizabeth R
Barthélémy, Philippe
Porta, Camillo
Powles, Thomas
Donskov, Frede
George, Saby
Kollmannsberger, Christian K
Gurney, Howard
Grimm, Marc-Oliver
Tomita, Yoshihiko
Castellano, Daniel
Rini, Brian I
Choueiri, Toni K
Saggi, Shruti Shally
McHenry, M Brent
Motzer, Robert J
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial
title Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial
title_full Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial
title_fullStr Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial
title_full_unstemmed Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial
title_short Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial
title_sort nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase iii checkmate 214 trial
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7703447/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33246931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-001079
work_keys_str_mv AT albigeslaurence nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT tannirnizarm nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT burottomauricio nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT mcdermottdavid nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT plimackelizabethr nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT barthelemyphilippe nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT portacamillo nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT powlesthomas nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT donskovfrede nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT georgesaby nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT kollmannsbergerchristiank nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT gurneyhoward nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT grimmmarcoliver nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT tomitayoshihiko nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT castellanodaniel nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT rinibriani nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT choueiritonik nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT saggishrutishally nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT mchenrymbrent nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial
AT motzerrobertj nivolumabplusipilimumabversussunitinibforfirstlinetreatmentofadvancedrenalcellcarcinomaextended4yearfollowupofthephaseiiicheckmate214trial