First-line nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) plus two cycles of chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo alone (4 cycles) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Two-year update from CheckMate 9LA.

9016 Background: 1L NIVO + IPI was shown to provide durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit vs chemo regardless of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC in CheckMate 227 Part 1 (NCT02477826); 3-year OS rates were 33% vs 22% in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67–0.93]) and 34% vs 15% in pts with PD-L1 < 1% (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51–0.81]). Here we report updated results from the study with 4 years’ minimum follow-up. Methods: Adults with previously untreated stage IV / recurrent NSCLC, no known EGFR/ ALK alterations , and ECOG performance status ≤ 1 were enrolled; pts were stratified by squamous (SQ) and non-squamous (NSQ) histology. Pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (n = 1189) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), NIVO alone (240 mg Q2W), or chemo. Pts with PD-L1 < 1% (n = 550) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive NIVO + IPI, NIVO (360 mg Q3W) + chemo, or chemo. OS with NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% was the primary endpoint. Results: With minimum follow-up of 49.4 months (database lock, Feb 18, 2021), pts were at least 2 years beyond the protocol-specified end of immunotherapy treatment. Pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% continued to show durable benefit with NIVO + IPI vs chemo (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65–0.90]); 4-year OS rates were 29% (NIVO + IPI), 21% (NIVO), and 18% (chemo). At 4 years, 14% (NIVO + IPI), 10% (NIVO), and 4% (chemo) remained progression free. Among responders, 34%, 30%, and 7% remained in response, respectively. In an exploratory analysis in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 4-year OS rates were 37% (NIVO + IPI), 26% (NIVO), and 20% (chemo). In pts with PD-L1 < 1%, OS HR for NIVO + IPI vs chemo was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.51–0.81); 4-year OS rates were 24% (NIVO + IPI), 13% (NIVO + chemo) and 10% (chemo). At 4 years, 12% (NIVO + IPI), 7% (NIVO + chemo), and 0% (chemo) remained progression free. Among responders, 31%, 13%, and 0% remained in response, respectively. Among pts who progressed on NIVO + IPI vs chemo, 7% vs 40% (PD-L1 ≥ 1%), and 9% vs 33% (PD-L1 < 1%), received subsequent immunotherapy. Benefit with NIVO + IPI vs chemo was observed for both SQ and NSQ histology (Table). With long-term follow-up, no new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: With 4 years’ minimum follow-up, 1L NIVO + IPI continued to provide durable, long-term OS benefit vs chemo in pts with advanced NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology. Clinical trial information: NCT02477826. [Table: see text]

LBA9026 Background: In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), 1L NIVO + IPI combined with 2 cycles of chemo was shown to provide survival benefit vs chemo alone in pts with metastatic NSCLC. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety with a 3-year minimum follow-up, as well as exploratory biomarker analyses from this study. Methods: Adults with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, no known sensitizing EGFR/ ALK alterations, and ECOG performance status ≤ 1 were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 360 mg Q3W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W + 2 cycles of chemo (n = 361) or 4 cycles of chemo alone (n = 358). Pts were stratified by tumor PD-L1 expression, sex, and histology. Pts with non-squamous (NSQ) NSCLC in the chemo-alone arm could receive pemetrexed maintenance. Assessments included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). For all pts with NSQ NSCLC and with tissue evaluable for mutational analysis (n = 313), the FoundationOne CDxTM assay was used to identify mutant (mut) or wild type (wt) KRAS and STK11 genes. Exploratory assessments included evaluation of OS and PFS with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo by mutation status and safety. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 36.1 mo (database lock: Feb 15, 2022), pts continued to derive long-term, durable OS benefit with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo (HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62–0.87]); 3-y OS rates were 27% vs 19%. Clinical benefit with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was observed in all randomized pts and across most subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression level (Table) or histology. In an exploratory analysis in pts evaluable for mutations including KRAS and STK11, OS appeared to be improved with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo (median OS, 16.3 vs 13.1 mo). Similar trends of prolonged OS with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo were also seen in pts with or without KRAS mutation (median OS, mut: 19.2 vs 13.5 mo; wt: 15.6 vs 12.7 mo) or STK11 mutation (mut: 13.8 vs 10.7 mo; wt: 17.8 vs 13.9 mo), respectively. Additional efficacy outcomes will be presented. No new safety signals were identified with extended follow-up. Conclusions: With a 3-year minimum follow-up, 1L NIVO + IPI + chemo demonstrated long-term, durable efficacy benefit vs chemo in pts with metastatic NSCLC. Survival benefit of NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was observed regardless of KRAS and STK11 mutation status. Clinical trial information: NCT03215706. [Table: see text]

LBA9025 Background: In CheckMate 227 part 1 (NCT02477826), 1L NIVO + IPI demonstrated long-term, durable survival benefit vs platinum-doublet chemo in patients (pts) with metastatic NSCLC regardless of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level. Here we present the longest reported follow-up (5 y) of a phase 3 trial of 1L combination immunotherapy in metastatic NSCLC. Methods: Adults with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, no known EGFR/ ALK alterations , and an ECOG performance status ≤ 1 were enrolled and stratified by histology. Pts with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), NIVO (240 mg Q2W), or chemo. Pts with tumor PD-L1 < 1% were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO + IPI, NIVO (360 mg Q3W) + chemo, or chemo. Pts were treated until progression, toxicity, or ≤ 2 y for immunotherapy. Assessments included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and a novel efficacy endpoint, treatment-free interval. Treatment-free interval was measured in pts who discontinued study therapy (for any reason including treatment completion) and was defined as the time from last study dose to start of subsequent systemic therapy or death, whichever occurred first. Results: Minimum follow-up was 61.3 mo (database lock, Feb 15, 2022). In pts with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% (N = 1189), continued long-term OS benefit was seen with NIVO + IPI vs chemo (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.66–0.91]); 5-y OS rates were 24% (NIVO + IPI), 17% (NIVO), and 14% (chemo). OS benefit also continued in pts with tumor PD-L1 < 1% (N = 550) for NIVO + IPI vs chemo (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52–0.81]); 5-y OS rates were 19% (NIVO + IPI), 10% (NIVO + chemo), and 7% (chemo). Clinical benefit with NIVO + IPI vs chemo was observed across additional efficacy endpoints in the overall population and in pts alive at 5 y (table). PFS, ORR, and DOR with NIVO and NIVO + chemo will be presented. Among pts alive at 5 y in the NIVO + IPI group, 66% (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 64% (PD-L1 < 1%) remained treatment-free ≥ 3 y after discontinuing study therapy; median (range) duration of NIVO ± IPI therapy was 17.7 (0-25.5) mo (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 9.5 (0-25.1) mo (PD-L1 < 1%). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: With a 5-y minimum follow-up, NIVO + IPI continues to provide long-term, durable clinical benefit vs chemo in previously untreated pts with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression. NIVO + IPI led to increased 5-y survivorship; the majority of these pts were treatment-free for ≥ 3 y post-treatment discontinuation. Clinical trial information: NCT02477826. [Table: see text]

Introduction: Checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated activity in brain lesions in several tumor types, including NSCLC. CheckMate 227 Part 1 (NCT02477826) met its two independent co-primary endpoints, including improved overall survival (OS) for NIVO + IPI vs histology-based chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 1%. Benefit was also observed in pts with PD-L1 < 1%. Eligible pts included those with treated, asymptomatic brain metastases (mets). Here we present a post-hoc analysis of efficacy and safety in pts with and without baseline (BL) brain mets. Methods: Eligible pts were chemo-naive, with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and ECOG PS 0–1. Pts with treated brain mets who were asymptomatic for ≥ 2 wks prior to randomization were eligible; corticosteroids equivalent to ≤ 10 mg of prednisone daily were permitted if stable or decreasing for ≥ 2 wks prior to randomization. Pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (n = 1189) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W, NIVO 240 mg Q2W, or chemo; pts with PD-L1 < 1% (n = 550) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W, NIVO 360 mg Q3W + chemo, or chemo. Pts were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or ≤ 2 y of immunotherapy. Results: BL characteristics were generally similar between pts with and without BL brain mets, except that a greater proportion of pts with BL brain mets were < 65 years of age and had non-squamous histology. Efficacy data are shown in the Table. Any-grade nervous system adverse events were reported in 46% of pts with BL brain mets treated with NIVO + IPI and 42% of those treated with chemo, most were grade 1–2. Conclusion: In this post-hoc analysis of pts with advanced NSCLC, NIVO + IPI appeared to provide similar benefit in pts with and without BL brain mets. No new safety signals were identified. Table.Efficacy by baseline brain metastases in CheckMate 227 Part 1Patients with baseline brain metastasesPatients without baseline brain metastasesNIVO + IPI (n = 69)Chemo (n = 66)NIVO + IPI (n = 514)Chemo (n = 517)OS, median (95% CI), mo18.8 (9.2-29.4)13.7 (10.5-16.2)17.1 (15.3-19.9)13.9 (11.8-15.3)HR (95% CI)0.57 (0.38-0.85)0.76 (0.66-0.88)1-y rates, %575962542-y rates, %44264030PFS,a median (95% CI), mo5.4 (3.1-8.6)5.8 (4.3-8.0)4.9 (4.1-5.7)5.4 (4.5-5.6)HR (95% CI)0.79 (0.52-1.19)0.81 (0.70-0.93)1-y rates, %382132172-y rates, %227206ORR,a %33263328DOR,a median (95% CI), mo24.9 (11.3-NR)8.4 (4.2-13.9)19.6 (15.5-28.6)5.8 (4.8-6.9)1-y rates, %724065262-y rates, %5384610Minimum follow-up was 29.3 mo.aPer BICR. BICR, blinded independent central review; CI, confidence interval; chemo, chemotherapy; DOR, duration of response; HR, hazard ratio; IPI, ipilimumab; mo, month; NIVO, nivolumab; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; y, year. Citation Format: Hossein Borghaei, Adam Pluzanski, Reyes Bernabe Caro, Mariano Provencio, Sjaak Burgers, Enric Carcereny, Keunchil Park, Aurelia Alexandru, Lorena Lupinacci, Randeep Sangha, Judith Raimbourg, Alain Vergnenegre, Konstantinos Syrigos, Fabrice Barlesi, Norbert Frickhofen, Ang Li, Ravi Kasinathan, Luis Paz-Ares. Nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) as first-line (1L) treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases: Results from CheckMate 227 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT221.

392 Background: NIVO + chemo demonstrated clinically meaningful survival benefit and an acceptable safety profile vs chemo in previously untreated Chinese pts with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC from CheckMate 649, consistent with the overall study population. 1L NIVO + chemo is currently approved for pts with advanced non-HER2+ GC/GEJC/EAC in China and other countries. We report 5-y results of NIVO + chemo vs chemo in Chinese pts from CheckMate 649. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced or metastatic, non-HER2+ GC/GEJC/EAC were enrolled regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Randomized pts received NIVO + chemo, NIVO + ipilimumab, or chemo. Dual primary endpoints for NIVO + chemo vs chemo were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5. Results: 208 Chinese pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo or chemo. At 61-month (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate OS and PFS benefit vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and all randomized pts (Table). 5-y OS rate was 24% with NIVO + chemo vs 8% with chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and 20% vs 7% in all randomized pts. Objective response rate (ORR) was higher and responses were more durable with NIVO + chemo vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and all randomized pts (Table). No new safety signals were identified with longer follow-up. Conclusions: NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful long-term survival benefit, more durable responses, and acceptable safety vs chemo in Chinese pts after 5 y of follow-up, consistent with earlier reports and with the overall study population of pts with advanced non-HER2+ GC/GEJC/EAC. These results further support NIVO + chemo as a standard 1L treatment option for Chinese pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116 . Efficacy PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 All randomized NIVO + chemo(n = 75) Chemo (n = 81) NIVO + chemo (n = 99) Chemo (n = 109) mOS (95% CI), mo 15.5(11.9–21.1) 9.6(8.0–12.1) 14.3(11.5–16.5) 10.3(8.1–12.1) HR (95% CI) 0.57 (0.40–0.82) 0.63 (0.46–0.85) mPFS a (95% CI), mo 8.5(6.0–14.0) 4.3(4.1–6.5) 8.3(6.2–12.4) 5.6(4.2–6.8) HR (95% CI) 0.51 (0.34–0.76) 0.57 (0.41–0.80) ORR a,b (95% CI), % 68 (56–79) 48 (36–60) 66 (55–76) 45 (35–56) mDOR a,c (95% CI), mo 12.5 (7.2–23.4) 6.9 (3.9–8.5) 12.5 (7.2–17.7) 5.6 (4.4–8.3) a Per BICR. b In pts with measurable target lesions at baseline. c In responders. DOR, duration of response; m, median.

9501 Background: NIVO + IPI was shown to improve overall survival (OS) and durability of response vs chemo in 1L advanced NSCLC in CheckMate 227 Part 1, regardless of PD-L1 expression. We hypothesized that a limited course of chemo combined with NIVO + IPI could provide rapid disease control while building on the durable OS benefit seen with dual PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibition. CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706) is a phase 3 randomized study evaluating NIVO + IPI + 2 cycles chemo vs chemo in 1L stage IV/recurrent NSCLC. Methods: Adults with tx-naive, histologically confirmed stage IV/recurrent NSCLC, ECOG performance status 0–1, and no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 360 mg Q3W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W + chemo (2 cycles) (n = 361) or chemo (4 cycles) alone (n = 358), stratified by PD-L1 (< 1% vs ≥ 1%), sex, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous). Chemo was based on histology. Pts with non-squamous NSCLC in the chemo-only arm could receive optional pemetrexed maintenance. Pts were treated with immunotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for 2 y. The primary endpoint was OS; the interim analysis using Lan–DeMets alpha spending function with O’Brien–Fleming boundary was planned at ~80% information fraction (ie, after observing ~322 total events). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability. Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced across arms. At a preplanned interim analysis (minimum follow-up 8.1 mo), OS was significantly prolonged with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo (HR 0.69, 96.71% CI: 0.55–0.87; P = 0.0006); statistically significant improvements in PFS and ORR were seen. With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 mo), NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo continued to provide longer OS; median 15.6 vs 10.9 mo (HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.55–0.80); 1-y OS rates were 63 vs 47%. Clinical benefit was consistent across all efficacy measures in key subgroups including by PD-L1 and histology. Grade 3–4 tx-related adverse events were reported in 47 vs 38% of pts in the NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo arms, respectively. Conclusions: CheckMate 9LA met its primary endpoint: a statistically significant improvement in OS was observed with NIVO + NSCLC-optimized IPI + a limited course of chemo vs chemo (4 cycles) in 1L advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were reported. Clinical trial information: NCT03215706 .

318 Background: NIVO + chemo demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS) and an acceptable safety profile vs chemo in previously untreated Chinese pts from CheckMate 649, consistent with the overall study population with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. 1L NIVO + chemo is approved for advanced GC/GEJC/EAC in multiple countries, including China. We report 4-yr results of NIVO + chemo vs chemo in Chinese pts from CheckMate 649. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced or metastatic, non-HER2+ GC/GEJC/EAC were enrolled regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Randomized pts received NIVO (360 mg Q3W or 240 mg Q2W) + chemo (XELOX Q3W or FOLFOX Q2W), NIVO + ipilimumab, or chemo. Dual primary endpoints for NIVO + chemo vs chemo were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5. Results: 208 Chinese pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo or chemo. At 49-month (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate OS and PFS benefit vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and in all randomized pts (Table). The 4-yr OS rate was 25% with NIVO + chemo vs 11% with chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and 21% vs 9% in all randomized pts. Objective response rate (ORR; 95% CI) per BICR in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 who had measurable lesions at baseline was 68% (56–79) with NIVO + chemo vs 48% (36–60) with chemo; corresponding ORR in all randomized pts was 66% (55–76) and 45% (35–56). Responses were more durable with NIVO + chemo vs chemo both in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 (median duration of response [mDOR; 95% CI] 12.5 mo [7.2–23.4] vs 6.9 mo [3.9–8.5]) and in all randomized pts (mDOR [95% CI] 12.5 mo [7.2–17.7] vs 5.6 mo [4.4–8.3]). No new safety signals were identified (Table). Conclusions: After 4 yrs of follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful survival benefit and more durable responses vs chemo in Chinese pts, with an acceptable safety profile. These results are consistent with previous reports and with the overall study population with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC and further support NIVO + chemo as a standard 1L treatment option for Chinese pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116 . [Table: see text]

353 Background: NIVO + chemo demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS) and an acceptable safety profile vs chemo in previously untreated Chinese pts from CheckMate 649, consistent with the overall study population with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. Results from CheckMate 649 led to approval of 1L NIVO + chemo in multiple countries, including China. We report 3-year follow-up results in Chinese pts. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced or metastatic, non-HER2-positive GC/GEJC/EAC were enrolled regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Randomized pts received NIVO (360 mg Q3W or 240 mg Q2W) + chemo (XELOX Q3W or FOLFOX Q2W), NIVO + ipilimumab, or chemo. Dual primary endpoints for NIVO + chemo vs chemo were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5. Results: 208 Chinese pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo or chemo. At 37 month (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful improvement in OS and PFS vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and in all randomized pts. The 36-mo OS rate was 31% with NIVO + chemo vs 11% with chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and 26% vs 9% in all randomized pts, respectively. Objective response rate (ORR) (95% CI) per BICR in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 who had measurable lesions at baseline was 68% (56-79) with NIVO + chemo and 48% (36-60) with chemo, and in all randomized patients was 66% (55-76) and 45% (35-56), respectively. Responses were more durable with NIVO + chemo vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, with median duration of response (mDOR) (95% CI) of 12.5 mo (7.2-23.4) vs 6.9 mo (3.9-8.5); in all randomized pts, mDOR was 12.5 mo (7.2-17.7) vs 5.6 mo (4.4-8.3), respectively. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: After 3 years of follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful survival benefit and durable objective responses vs chemo in Chinese pts, with an acceptable safety profile, consistent with the overall study population with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. These results further support NIVO + chemo as a 1L treatment option for Chinese pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116 . [Table: see text]

LBA4001 Background: NIVO demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) vs chemo in previously treated patients (pts) with ESCC (ATTRACTION-3). We report OS and progression-free survival (PFS) from CheckMate 648, the first global phase III study to evaluate both an immuno-oncology (I-O)/chemo combination and an I-O/I-O combination in advanced ESCC. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent or metastatic ESCC were enrolled regardless of tumor cell PD-L1 expression. Pts were randomized to NIVO (240 mg Q2W) + chemo (fluorouracil + cisplatin Q4W), NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), or chemo alone. Primary endpoints for both comparisons were OS and PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. Hierarchically tested secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in all randomized pts. Results: 970 pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo, NIVO + IPI, and chemo arms (49% with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%). With 13 months (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI led to statistically significant improvement in OS vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and all randomized pts (Table). Statistically significant PFS benefit was also observed for NIVO + chemo vs chemo (HR 0.65 [98.5% CI 0.46–0.92]; P = 0.0023) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. PFS in NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. The objective response rate (per BICR) was 53% (NIVO + chemo), 35% (NIVO + IPI), and 20% (chemo) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and in all randomized pts was 47%, 28%, and 27%, respectively; longer median (95% CI) duration of response was observed vs chemo for pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%: 8.4 (6.9–12.4), 11.8 (7.1–27.4), and 5.7 (4.4–8.7) mo and for all randomized pts: 8.2 (6.9–9.7), 11.1 (8.3–14.0), and 7.1 (5.7–8.2) mo, respectively. No new safety signals were identified (Table). Conclusions: NIVO plus chemo and NIVO plus IPI both demonstrated superior OS vs chemo, along with durable objective responses and acceptable safety, in pts with advanced ESCC, and each represents a potential new 1L treatment option. Clinical trial information: NCT03143153. [Table: see text]

LBA4_PR - Nivolumab (NIVO) + low-dose ipilimumab (IPI) vs platinum-doublet chemotherapy (chemo) as first-line (1L) treatment (tx) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): CheckMate 227 part 1 final analysis

122MO Nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) as first-line (1L) treatment (tx) for patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) and baseline (BL) brain metastases (mets): Intracranial and systemic outcomes from CheckMate 227 Part 1

4035 Background: NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit vs chemo in previously untreated patients (pts) with advanced ESCC in the phase 3 CheckMate 648 study. We report expanded results from the primary analysis with 13-month (mo) minimum follow-up. Methods: Pts with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC were randomized to NIVO (240 mg Q2W) + chemo (fluorouracil + cisplatin Q4W), NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), or chemo. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 1%. Secondary endpoints planned for hierarchical testing included OS, PFS, and objective response rate (ORR) per BICR in all randomized pts. Duration of response (DOR) per BICR and PFS2 per investigator (time from randomization to progression after subsequent systemic therapy, initiation of second subsequent systemic therapy, or death) were exploratory endpoints. Results: Among all pts randomized to NIVO + chemo (n = 321), NIVO + IPI (n = 325), or chemo (n = 324), PFS2 favored NIVO + chemo (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54–0.77) and NIVO + IPI (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62–0.88) vs chemo. ORR (95% CI) was 47% (42–53), 28% (23–33), and 27% (22–32), respectively. More responders with NIVO + chemo or NIVO + IPI vs chemo had prolonged DOR (≥12 mo; 39%, 48%, and 23%, respectively). Efficacy data by tumor cell PD-L1 and PD-L1 combined positive score will be presented. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events with potential immunologic etiology (select TRAEs) occurred in ≤ 6% of pts with NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI, and non-endocrine select TRAEs resolved in 57%–95% of pts across organ categories (Table). Conclusions: NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI demonstrated favorable PFS2 and a higher proportion of pts with prolonged DOR vs chemo, as well as acceptable safety profiles. These results provide further support for each regimen as a new potential 1L standard of care in advanced ESCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03143153. [Table: see text]

398 Background: At 4-y follow-up, 1L NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) benefit vs chemo with acceptable safety in patients (pts) with advanced non-HER2+ GC/GEJC/EAC from CheckMate 649. We report efficacy and safety results of NIVO + chemo vs chemo at 5-y follow-up. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced or metastatic, non-HER2+ GC/GEJC/EAC were enrolled, regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Pts were randomized to NIVO (360 mg Q3W or 240 mg Q2W) + chemo (XELOX Q3W or FOLFOX Q2W), NIVO + ipilimumab, or chemo. Primary endpoints for NIVO + chemo vs chemo were OS and PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5. Results: Pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo (n = 789) or chemo (n = 792). NIVO + chemo continued to show OS and PFS benefit vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1, and all randomized pts at 60-month (mo) minimum follow-up (Table). OS rates at 60-mo were higher with NIVO + chemo vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1, and all randomized pts (Table), and OS benefit with NIVO + chemo continued to be observed in most prespecified subgroups. Objective response rates (ORRs) were higher and responses were more durable with NIVO + chemo vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1, and all randomized pts (Table). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: These results represent the first report of 5-y follow-up for anti–PD-1 + chemo combination therapy in GC/GEJC/EAC to our knowledge. NIVO + chemo continued to provide sustained long-term survival vs chemo with an acceptable safety profile after 5 y of follow-up. These data continue to support the use of NIVO + chemo as a standard 1L treatment for advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116 . Efficacy PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 All randomized NIVO + chemo(n = 473) Chemo (n = 482) NIVO + chemo (n = 641) Chemo (n = 656) NIVO + chemo (n = 789) Chemo (n = 792) mOS (95% CI), mo 14.4 (13.1–16.2) 11.1 (10.1–12.1) 13.8 (12.4–14.8) 11.4 (10.7–12.3) 13.7 (12.4–14.5) 11.6 (10.9–12.5) HR (95% CI) 0.71 (0.61–0.81) 0.76 (0.67–0.85) 0.79 (0.71–0.88) 60-mo OS rate (95% CI), % 16 (12–19) 6 (4–9) 13 (11–16) 5 (4–7) 12 (10–14) 6 (4–8) mPFS a (95% CI), mo 8.3 (7.0–9.4) 6.1 (5.6–6.9) 7.5 (7.0–8.5) 6.9 (6.2–7.1) 7.8 (7.1–8.6) 6.9 (6.7–7.2) HR (95% CI) 0.71 (0.61–0.82) 0.77 (0.68–0.87) 0.79 (0.71–0.89) ORR a,b (95% CI), % 60 (55–65) 45 (40–50) 60 (55–64) 46 (42–51) 58 (54–62) 46 (42–50) mDOR a,c (95% CI), mo 9.6 (8.3–12.4) 7.0 (5.7–8.0) 8.6 (7.9–10.5) 6.9 (5.8–7.6) 8.5 (7.7–9.9) 6.9 (5.9–7.6) a Per BICR. b In pts with measurable target lesions at baseline. c In all measurable responders. DOR, duration of response; m, median.

291 Background: NIVO + chemo demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit vs chemo and an acceptable safety profile in previously untreated patients (pts) with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC, leading to approvals in multiple countries including the US. NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful improvement in efficacy after 2 years of follow-up. We present efficacy and safety analyses from NIVO + chemo vs chemo from the 3-year follow-up of CheckMate 649. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC were enrolled, regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Pts with known HER2-positive status were excluded. Randomized pts received NIVO (360 mg Q3W or 240 mg Q2W) + chemo (XELOX Q3W or FOLFOX Q2W), NIVO + ipilimumab, or chemo. Dual primary endpoints for NIVO + chemo vs chemo were OS and PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5. Results: 581 pts were concurrently randomized to NIVO + chemo or chemo. With 36-month (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate OS and PFS benefit vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and all randomized pts. The objective response rate (ORR) per BICR in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 who had measurable lesions at baseline was 60% (95% CI 55–65) with NIVO + chemo vs 45% (95% CI 40–50) with chemo; in all randomized pts, ORR per BICR was 58% (95% CI 54–62) with NIVO + chemo vs 46% (95% CI 42–50) with chemo. Responses were more durable with NIVO + chemo vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 (median [m] duration of response [mDOR] 9.6 mo [95% CI 8.2–12.4] vs 7.0 mo [95% CI 5.6–7.9], respectively) and in all randomized pts (mDOR 8.5 mo [95% CI 7.7–9.9] vs 6.9 mo [95% CI 5.8–7.2], respectively). OS benefit with NIVO + chemo was observed across most prespecified subgroups. No new safety signals were identified. A summary of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) is shown here. Conclusions: After 3 years of follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful long-term survival benefit with an acceptable safety profile, further supporting its use as a standard 1L treatment in previously untreated pts with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116 . [Table: see text]

4025 Background: NIVO + chemo demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit vs chemo and acceptable safety in previously untreated patients (pts) with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC, leading to approvals in multiple countries including the US. NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful improvement in efficacy after 2 years of follow-up. We present efficacy and safety analyses from NIVO + chemo vs chemo from the 3-year follow-up of CheckMate 649. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC were enrolled, regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, excluding pts with known HER2-positive status. Pts were randomized to NIVO (360 mg Q3W or 240 mg Q2W) + chemo (XELOX Q3W or FOLFOX Q2W), NIVO + ipilimumab, or chemo. Primary endpoints for NIVO + chemo vs chemo were OS and PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5. Results: 1581 pts were concurrently randomized to NIVO + chemo or chemo. With 36-month (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate OS and PFS benefit vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 and all randomized pts. The objective response rate (ORR) per BICR in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 who had measurable lesions at baseline was 60% (95% CI 55–65) with NIVO + chemo vs 45% (95% CI 40–50) with chemo; in all randomized pts, ORR per BICR was 58% (95% CI 54–62) with NIVO + chemo vs 46% (95% CI 42–50) with chemo. Responses were more durable with NIVO + chemo vs chemo in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 (median [m] duration of response [mDOR] 9.6 mo [95% CI 8.2–12.4] vs 7.0 mo [95% CI 5.6–7.9], respectively) and in all randomized pts (mDOR 8.5 mo [95% CI 7.7–9.9] vs 6.9 mo [95% CI 5.8–7.2], respectively). OS benefit with NIVO + chemo was observed across most prespecified subgroups. No new safety signals were identified. A summary of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) is shown in the Table. Additional analyses will be presented. Conclusions: After 3 years of follow-up, NIVO + chemo continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful long-term survival benefit with acceptable safety, further supporting its use as a standard 1L treatment in previously untreated pts with advanced GC/GEJC/EAC. Clinical trial information: NCT02872116 . [Table: see text]