Efficacy and safety of nivolumab and irinotecan as third-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: A multi-institutional retrospective study.

Abstract

396 Background: Although nivolumab (NIVO) and irinotecan (IRI) are currently used as third- or later-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC), few direct comparisons between them have been available. The present study therefore aims to compare the efficacy and safety of NIVO with IRI and explore clinical factors that predict efficacy. Methods: Patients with AGC who underwent NIVO or IRI treatment between November 2016 and June 2018 at three institution were retrospectively examined, subsequently evaluating response rates (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). The main inclusion criteria were patients pretreated with fluoropyrimidines and taxanes, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) of 0–2, and no previous NIVO or IRI treatment. Results: A total of 71 and 61 patients received NIVO and IRI, respectively, with both groups having similar baseline characteristics, except for gender. Efficacies were as follows (NIVO/IRI): RR, 20%/6% (p = 0.17); median PFS, 1.6 months (m)/1.8 m (HR 0.93, p = 0.67); median OS, 6.4 m/6.4 m (HR 0.91, p = 0.61); 1-year survival rate, 24.9%/19.3% (p = 0.61), respectively. Interaction analysis found no significant interaction between drugs and various factors such as ECOG PS (p = 0.59) and neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio (p = 0.33) related to OS. Subsequent chemotherapy agents were administered to 32 patients (45%) in the NIVO group (17 patients out of them received IRI) and 36 patients (59%) in the IRI group (23 patients out of them received NIVO) (p = 0.12). NIVO tended to have lower grade 3 or more AEs than IRI, especially neutropenia (3% vs. 28%, respectively; p < 0.01) and febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 8%, respectively; p = 0.09), as well as neutropenia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, fatigue, and anorexia of any grade. Five patients developed immune-related adverse events in the NIVO group: pneumonitis (n = 1) and rash (n = 4). Conclusions: Although no remarkable differences in efficacy were found between NIVO and IRI for AGC, NIVO had a better safety profile compared to IRI. This study found no clinical factors that predicted efficacy.