Real-world comparison of survival with nivolumab (NIVO) + relatlimab (RELA) vs NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI) in advanced melanoma.

9522 Background: Durable clinical benefit has been achieved with nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI), including an overall survival (OS) of 49% and a melanoma-specific survival (MSS) of 56%, with median MSS not reached (NR) at 6.5-y minimum follow-up. Here we report sustained efficacy outcomes at 7.5 y. Methods: Patients (pts) with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 and stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage to receive NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg for 4 doses Q3W, followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W (n = 314); NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo (n = 316); or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo (n = 315) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS with NIVO + IPI or NIVO alone versus IPI. Results: With a minimum follow-up of 7.5 y, median OS remained stable at 72.1 mo (NIVO + IPI), 36.9 mo (NIVO), and 19.9 mo (IPI); median MSS was NR, 49.4 mo, and 21.9 mo, respectively (Table). While the objective response rate remained stable at 58% (NIVO + IPI), 45% (NIVO), and 19% (IPI), median duration of response had now been reached for NIVO at 90.8 mo and remains NR and 19.2 mo for NIVO + IPI and IPI, respectively. Subsequent systemic therapy was received by 36%, 49%, and 66% of NIVO + IPI-, NIVO-, and IPI-treated patients, respectively, and median time to that therapy was NR (95% CI, 45.9–NR), 24.7 mo (16.0–38.7), and 8.0 mo (6.5–8.7). Of patients alive at 7.5 y, 106/138 (77%, NIVO + IPI), 80/115 (70%, NIVO), and 27/60 (45%, IPI) were off treatment and had never received subsequent systemic therapy. No change to the safety summary was observed with additional follow-up; updated health-related quality of life data will be reported. Of the 10 new deaths since the 6.5-y follow-up (ie, 5 NIVO + IPI; 3 NIVO; 2 IPI), none were treatment-related; 4 were due to melanoma progression; 1 was due to an unknown cause; and 5 were due to other causes, but not associated with a COVID diagnosis. Conclusions: The 7.5-y follow-up continues to demonstrate the durability of responses with NIVO + IPI and an ongoing survival plateau. A substantial difference in median OS and MSS between patients treated with NIVO + IPI or NIVO was observed in descriptive analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT04540705. [Table: see text]

9523 Background: NIVO and IPI are approved as monotherapy and in combination for treatment of MEL. These treatments are associated with select (potentially immune-related) adverse events (AEs) of the GI tract, most commonly diarrhea and colitis. We describe the management of GI toxicity in patients (pts) treated with NIVO+IPI or IPI from phase II (CheckMate 069) and III (CheckMate 067) trials. Methods: Pts received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W x 4, followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W until progression or unacceptable toxicity, or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W x 4, followed by placebo. Minimum follow-up was 2 yrs for CheckMate 069 and 18 months for CheckMate 067. Results: Of 407 pts treated with NIVO+IPI, 195 (48%) experienced any grade select GI AEs, and of 357 pts treated with IPI, 132 (37%) experienced any grade select GI AEs. Grade 3/4 select GI AEs were reported in 67 (16%) pts treated with NIVO+IPI and in 41 (11%) pts treated with IPI; median time to onset was 7.1 weeks (range 0.9-48.9) with NIVO+IPI and 7.3 weeks (range 0.6-14.9) with IPI. To manage these AEs, immune-modulating medications (IMM) were used in 61/67 (91%) pts in the NIVO+IPI group and in 41/41 (100%) in the IPI group. Corticosteroids (CS) were used in 61/67 (91%) and 41/41 (100%) pts, and infliximab (IFX) was used in 21/67 (31%) and 14/41 (34%) pts in the NIVO+IPI and IPI groups, respectively. In the NIVO+IPI group, the resolution rate of grade 3/4 select GI AEs was 96%, 97%, and 95% with a median time to resolution of 3.3, 3.0, and 3.9 weeks in all treated pts, CS, and CS+IFX managed pts, respectively; 88%, 92%, and 79% resolved with a median time to resolution of 3.9, 2.4, and 7.8 weeks in the IPI group, respectively. Objective response rates (ORR) were unchanged in the presence of any grade select GI AEs, or by using CS or CS+IFX (Table). Conclusions: NIVO+IPI or IPI alone is associated with a high incidence of GI select AEs, but most are effectively managed by IMMs, which do not appear to inhibit tumor response. Clinical trial information: NCT01844505; NCT01927419. [Table: see text]

Background: NIVO plus IPI improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) vs IPI alone in the phase II CheckMate 069 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials of treatment-naive patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL). Here, we report the first OS results from CheckMate 067. Methods: Treatment-naïve patients (N=945) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W, NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo, or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by PD-L1 status (<5% vs ≥5%), BRAF mutation status, and M-stage. Co-primary endpoints are PFS and OS in the NIVO-containing arms vs IPI. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 28 months, median OS has not been reached in the NIVO+IPI or NIVO groups, and was 20.0 months for IPI (hazard ratio [HR]: NIVO+IPI vs IPI, 0.55; P<0.0001; NIVO vs IPI, 0.63; P<0.0001). In descriptive analyses, the relative risk of death in the NIVO+IPI group was reduced by 12% compared with the NIVO group (HR=0.88); 2-year OS rates were 64%, 59% and 45% for NIVO+IPI, NIVO, and IPI, respectively. Consistent OS results favoring NIVO+IPI over NIVO were observed across subgroups (HR ~0.88, including M1c and LDH). In pts with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥5%, median OS appeared comparable between NIVO+IPI and NIVO. Median duration of response has not yet been reached with NIVO+IPI, and was 31.1 months for NIVO and 18.2 months for IPI. The safety profile remained similar to the initial report, with grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs in the NIVO+IPI, NIVO, and IPI groups of 58%, 21% and 28%, respectively.NR=not reached. Conclusions: Both NIVO+IPI and NIVO significantly improved OS vs IPI alone. In descriptive analyses, NIVO+IPI appeared to provide favorable survival outcomes over NIVO alone, including across clinically relevant subgroups. Median OS, mo (95% CI)NIVO+IPINIVOIPIITTNRNR (29.1-NR)20.0 (17.1-24.6)M1c30.5 (19.4-NR)23.4 (16.5-32.3)15.0 (11.5-17.7)LDH >ULN17.4 (10.7-NR)15.0 (11.7-23.4)10.9 (8.4-13.1)BRAF MutantNRNR (26.4-NR)24.6 (17.9-31.0)PD-L1 ≥5%NRNR28.9 (18.1-NR)PD-L1 <5%NR (31.8-NR)NR (23.1-NR)18.5 (13.7-22.5) Citation Format: James Larkin, Vanna Chiarion-Sileni, Rene Gonzalez, Piotr Rutkowski, Jean-Jacques Grob, C. Lance Cowey, Christopher D. Lao, Dirk Schadendorf, Pier Francesco Ferrucci, Michael Smylie, Reinhard Dummer, Andrew Hill, John Haanen, Michele Maio, Grant McArthur, Dana Walker, Linda Rollin, Christine Horak, F. Stephen Hodi, Jedd D. Wolchok. Overall survival (OS) results from a phase III trial of nivolumab (NIVO) combined with ipilimumab (IPI) in treatment-naïve patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT075. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT075

9506 Background: In the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial, a durable and sustained clinical benefit was achieved with nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) and NIVO alone vs IPI at 5-y of follow-up (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS] rates: 52%, 44%, 26% and 36%, 29%, 8%, respectively). Here we report 6.5-y efficacy and safety outcomes. Methods: Eligible pts with previously untreated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio and stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. Pts received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg for 4 doses Q3W followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W (n = 314), NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo (n = 316), or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo (n = 315) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints were PFS and OS with NIVO + IPI or NIVO vs IPI. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), descriptive efficacy assessments of NIVO + IPI vs NIVO alone, and safety. Results: With a minimum follow-up of 6.5 y, median OS was 72.1 mo with NIVO + IPI, 36.9 mo with NIVO, and 19.9 mo with IPI (table). Median time from randomization to subsequent systemic therapy was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 59.6–NR) with NIVO + IPI, 25.2 mo (95% CI, 16.0–43.2) with NIVO, and 8.0 mo (95% CI, 6.5–8.7) with IPI; 36%, 49%, and 66% of pts, respectively, received any subsequent systemic therapy. Median treatment-free interval (which excluded pts who discontinued follow-up prior to initiation of subsequent systemic therapy) was 27.6 mo (range, 0–83.0), 2.3 mo (range, 0.2–81.6), and 1.9 mo (range, 0.1–81.9) with NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI, respectively. Of the pts alive and in follow-up, 112/138 (81%; NIVO + IPI), 84/114 (74%; NIVO), and 27/63 (43%; IPI) were off treatment and never received subsequent systemic therapy; 7, 8, and 0 pts, respectively, were still on treatment. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 59% of NIVO + IPI-treated pts, 24% of NIVO-treated pts, and 28% of IPI-treated pts. Since the 5-y analysis, no new safety signals were observed and no additional treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions: This 6.5-y analysis represents the longest follow-up from a phase 3 melanoma trial in the modern checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy and targeted therapy era. The results show durable improved outcomes with NIVO + IPI and NIVO vs IPI in pts with advanced melanoma. We observed improvement in OS, PFS, and ORR with NIVO + IPI over NIVO alone. Clinical trial information: NCT01844505. [Table: see text]

Background: Blockade of the immune checkpoints PD-1 and CTLA-4 each results in improved overall survival in patients (pts) with metastatic melanoma using monotherapy. In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, dual inhibition of these pathways by nivolumab (NIVO) and ipilimumab (IPI) demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity. Methods: Treatment-naïve pts with advanced melanoma were randomized (double-blind) 2:1 to IPI 3 mg/kg combined with either NIVO 1 mg/kg (NIVO+IPI combination group) or placebo (PBO; IPI alone group) every 3 weeks (Q3W) for 4 doses, followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg or PBO, respectively, Q2W until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF wild-type (WT) pts. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), ORR in BRAF V600 mutation-positive (MT) pts, and safety. Results: In BRAF WT pts, ORR was 60% (43/72) in the NIVO+IPI group vs 11% (4/37) in the IPI group (P<0.0001); complete response reported in 12 (17%) and 0 pts, respectively. Median change in target lesions was 57% reduction for NIVO+IPI vs 4% increase for IPI alone. Median duration of response was not reached in either group. In BRAF WT pts, median PFS was 8.9 months for NIVO+IPI; 4.7 months for IPI (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.71; P = 0.0012). Similar results for ORR and PFS favoring the combination were observed in BRAF MT pts (Table). A higher rate of drug-related grade 3-4 adverse events was observed in the NIVO+IPI group compared to IPI (Table), leading to more frequent discontinuation. Pts who discontinued NIVO+IPI due to study drug toxicity had a 67% response rate; most continue to respond. Immune-mediated AEs were manageable by standard treatment interventions, and the majority resolved with immune-modulating medication. Conclusion: NIVO+IPI significantly improved ORR and PFS compared to IPI alone in treatment-naïve pts with advanced melanoma, and had a manageable safety profile. Efficacy (evaluated in all randomized patients)BRAF WTBRAF WTBRAF MTNIVO+IPIIPINIVO+IPIIPIRandomized patients, N72372310ORR,% (95% CI)59.7 (47.5-71.1)a10.8 (3.0-25.4)a43.5 (23.2-65.5)0 (0-30.8)Best overall response, n (%)Complete response12 (16.7)04 (17.4)0Partial response31 (43.1)4 (10.8)6 (26.1)0Stable disease10 (13.9)12 (32.4)5 (21.7)2 (20.0)Progressive disease10 (13.9)16 (43.2)5 (21.7)7 (70.0)Median PFS, mo (95% CI)8.9 (7.0, NE)4.7 (2.8, 5.3)7.4 (2.8, NE)2.7 (0.99, 5.4)HR, (95% CI)0.40 (0.22-0.71) P = 0.00120.33 (0.1, 0.9)bSafety (evaluated in all treated patients)Patients reporting AE, n (%)NIVO+IPI (N = 94)IPI (N = 46)Any GradeGrade 3-4Any GradeGrade 3-4Treatment-related AEs86 (91.5)48 (51.1)42 (91.3)9 (19.6)aP<0.0001; estimated odds ratio for objective response 12.23 (95% CI, 3.69-51.40)bDue to the small sample size in the BRAF MT subgroup, no P-value is provided NE = not estimable Citation Format: F. Stephen Hodi, Michael A. Postow, Jason Chesney, Anna C. Pavlick, Caroline Robert, Kenneth Grossmann, David McDermott, Gerald Linette, Nicolas Meyer, Jeffrey Giguere, Sanjiv S. Agarwala, Montaser Shaheen, Marc S. Ernstoff, David R. Minor, April Salama, Matthew H. Taylor, Linda Rollin, Christine Horak, Paul Gagnier, Jedd D. Wolchok. Improved clinical response in patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab compared to ipilimumab alone. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 2860. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-2860

LBA67 - Adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab (NIVO) alone or in combination with ipilimumab (IPI) versus placebo in stage IV melanoma patients with no evidence of disease (NED): A randomized, double-blind phase II trial (IMMUNED)

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]

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

4O Nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) versus chemotherapy (chemo) as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) in CheckMate 227 part 1: Efficacy by KRAS, STK11, and KEAP1 mutation status

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]

O-3 Nivolumab (NIVO) plus chemotherapy (chemo) or ipilimumab (IPI) vs chemo as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): Expanded efficacy and safety analyses from CheckMate 648

3503 Background: NIVO + IPI demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) vs chemo in patients (pts) with previously untreated MSI-H/dMMR mCRC in the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 8HW study (NCT04008030). We report expanded efficacy analysis from the prespecified interim analysis of NIVO + IPI vs chemo in the 1L setting. Methods: Pts with unresectable or mCRC and MSI-H/dMMR status by local testing were enrolled across different lines of therapy and randomized 2:2:1 to NIVO (240 mg) + IPI (1 mg/kg) Q3W (4 doses, then NIVO 480 mg Q4W), NIVO (240 mg) Q2W (6 doses, then NIVO 480 mg Q4W), or chemo ± targeted therapies; treatments continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (all arms) or for up to 2 years (NIVO ± IPI arms). In pts with blinded independent central review (BICR)–documented progression with chemo, crossover to NIVO + IPI was permitted. Dual primary endpoints were PFS by BICR per RECIST v1.1 for NIVO + IPI vs chemo (1L) and NIVO + IPI vs NIVO (all lines) in pts with centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. PFS2 (time from randomization to progression after subsequent systemic therapy, initiation of second subsequent systemic therapy, or death) was a key exploratory endpoint. Results: Among 303 pts randomized to NIVO + IPI (n = 202) or chemo (n = 101), 171 pts in the NIVO + IPI arm and 84 pts in the chemo arm had centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR. At 31.5-months (mo) median follow-up (range 6.1–48.4), NIVO + IPI demonstrated superior PFS vs chemo (HR 0.21; 97.91% CI 0.13–0.35; P < 0.0001). Subsequent systemic therapy was received by 20 (12%) and 57 (68%) pts in the NIVO + IPI and chemo arms, respectively. In the chemo arm, 56 (67%) pts received subsequent immunotherapy (39 [46%] crossed over to NIVO + IPI on study; 17 [20%] received non-study immunotherapy). Median PFS2 was not reached (NR) with NIVO + IPI and 29.9 mo with chemo (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.17–0.44; Table). Any grade and grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) are presented (Table). Treatment-related deaths were reported for 2 pts in the NIVO + IPI arm. Conclusions: Clinical benefit with 1L NIVO + IPI vs chemo was maintained after subsequent therapy, as shown by improved PFS2 in pts with centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. No new safety concerns were identified with NIVO + IPI. These results further support NIVO + IPI as a standard-of-care 1L treatment option for pts with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT04008030 . [Table: see text]

LBA1 Background: The results of a phase I study in MEL suggested complementary clinical activity with NIVO (a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor) plus IPI (a CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitor). Here, we report the results of a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial designed to evaluate NIVO combined with IPI or NIVO alone vs IPI alone in MEL. Methods: Treatment-naïve pts (N = 945) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO 1 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W, NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo, or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and M-stage. Co-primary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS) (reported here) and overall survival (pts continue to be followed). Secondary endpoints include objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 and safety. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 9 months, NIVO + IPI and NIVO alone significantly improved PFS and ORR vs IPI (Table). Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 55.0%, 16.3%, and 27.3% of pts in the NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI arms, respectively (most commonly diarrhea [9.3%, 2.2%, 6.1%], increased lipase [8.6%, 3.5%, 3.9%], increased alanine aminotransferase [8.3%, 1.3%, 1.6%], and colitis [7.7%, 0.6%, 8.7%]). Drug-related AEs led to discontinuation in 36.4%, 7.7%, and 14.8% of pts in the NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI arms, with 0, 1, and 1 drug-related deaths, respectively. Efficacy outcomes by PD-L1 status will also be presented. Conclusions: NIVO + IPI and NIVO alone had superior clinical activity vs IPI alone. The results with NIVO + IPI and NIVO alone further suggest complementary activity of the two agents. There were no new safety signals or drug-related deaths observed with the combination. Clinical trial information: NCT01844505. [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

9533 Background: We previously reported a 3-year overall survival (OS) rate of 63% with NIVO+IPI concurrent therapy in the initial phase I dose-escalation study for the combination, conducted in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma. Here, we report OS after 5 years of overall study follow-up and assess survival rates after stopping treatment. Methods: Adults with previously treated or untreated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, received NIVO + IPI Q3W × 4 as mg/kg in one of the following cohorts: (1) NIVO 0.3 + IPI 3; (2) NIVO 1 + IPI 3; (2a) NIVO 3 + IPI 1; (3) NIVO 3 + IPI 3; (8) NIVO 1 + IPI 3. Cohorts 1-3 received maintenance with NIVO Q3W × 4, then NIVO + IPI Q12W × 8 at assigned doses; cohort 8 received NIVO Q2W for up to 96 weeks. Patients were followed for the primary endpoint of safety and the secondary endpoints of response and progression-free survival for up to 2.5 years, then for the survival exploratory endpoint for up to an additional 3 years, for a maximum study participation of 5.5 years. Results: At a median follow-up of 43.1 months (range 0.9-76.7) in all cohorts (N = 94), the 4- and 4.5-year OS rates were both 57% (95% CI: 47, 67). The 4-year OS rates for pts with normal (n = 58) versus elevated LDH (n = 36) were 62% (48, 74) versus 49% (32, 65); for pts with wild-type (n = 66) and mutant (n = 24) BRAF tumors, 4-year OS rates were 54% (41, 65) and 61% (38, 77), respectively. Following the last dose of study drug (for any reason), overall post-treatment 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 74% (64, 82), 65% (55, 74), and 56% (46, 66), respectively; in pts who discontinued due to study drug toxicity (n = 32), post-treatment 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 84% (66, 93), 75% (55, 86), and 65% (45, 79), respectively, and in pts who discontinued for disease progression (n = 30), these were 52% (33, 68), 34% (18, 51), and 24% (11, 41), respectively. Conclusions: This updated analysis from study CA209-004 showed favorable survival outcomes with NIVO+IPI, regardless of BRAF or LDH status, and provided evidence of long-term survival following discontinuation of treatment in pts with advanced melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT01024231.