Non-comparative, open-label, international, multicenter phase I/II study of nivolumab (NIVO) ± ipilimumab (IPI) in patients (pts) with recurrent/metastatic merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) (CheckMate 358).

Abstract

9506 Background: MCC is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is often upregulated in MCC and blockade of PD-L1 or its receptor, PD-1, has improved survival for patients with metastatic MCC. Anti–PD-1 combined with anti–CTLA-4 has been reported to improve outcomes over anti–PD-1 monotherapy (NCT03071406; Kim S et al., Lancet 2022), however further investigation is needed. CheckMate 358 (NCT02488759) assessed NIVO ± IPI in 2 non-randomized MCC cohorts. Methods: Eligible pts had recurrent or metastatic MCC, ≤ 2 prior therapies, ECOG performance status (PS) 0–1, and no prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Pts were eligible regardless of PD-(L)1 status. Pts received NIVO 240 mg Q2W or NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W for ≤ 24 months (m) or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Imaging was conducted Q8W in year 1 and Q12W thereafter. Planned sample sizes were 23 pts for NIVO and 40 pts for NIVO + IPI. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: 68 pts received NIVO (n = 25) or NIVO + IPI (n = 43) with ≥ 24 m follow-up (median: NIVO, 62.5 m; NIVO + IPI, 24.4 m). In the NIVO arm, median age was 66 yrs (range, 27–88), 10 (40.0%) pts had ECOG PS of 1, and 15 (60.0%) were treatment-naive. In the NIVO + IPI arm, median age was 70 yrs (range, 48–85), 27 (62.8%) pts had ECOG PS of 1, and 33 (76.7%) were treatment-naive. Treatment duration was 15.8 m in the NIVO arm, and 7.9 m for NIVO and 6.0 m for IPI in the NIVO + IPI arm. Efficacy and safety outcomes are summarized in the table. ORR was 60.0% (95% CI, 38.7–78.9) in the NIVO arm and 58.1% (95% CI, 42.1–73.0) in the NIVO + IPI arm. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression (NIVO, 28.0%; NIVO + IPI, 32.6%) or study-drug toxicity (NIVO, 20.0%; NIVO + IPI, 25.6%). There was 1 study drug-related death in each arm (NIVO, pneumonitis; NIVO + IPI, gastrointestinal motility disorder). Conclusions: Both NIVO and NIVO + IPI show durable clinical efficacy in advanced MCC. While the non-randomized trial design limits comparisons between the arms, results do not suggest additional efficacy benefit with IPI added to NIVO. Higher incidence of grade 3/4 TRAEs observed in the combination arm could have resulted in shorter treatment duration. Clinical trial information: NCT02488759 . [Table: see text]