The efficacy and safety of first-line metastatic melanoma treatment with ipilimumab + nivolumab versus nivolumab in a real-world setting.

Abstract

The Checkmate 067 randomized controlled trial, published in 2015, demonstrated improved progression-free survival and numerically, although not statistically, superior overall survival for ipilimumab + nivolumab. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of nivolumab to ipilimumab + nivolumab as first-line treatment for metastatic melanoma in a real-world setting. Patients were prospectively included in the French Melbase cohort from 2013 to 2022. Eligible patients were those in first-line treatment for stage-IIIc or -IV melanoma, undergoing immunotherapy with nivolumab or ipilimumab + nivolumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 36 months. The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival at 36 months, best radiological response, and safety analyses. We conducted a propensity score using the IPTW method to overcome the various confounding factors and also a subgroup analysis (brain metastasis, LDH levels, and BRAF mutation status). A total of 406 patients were treated with nivolumab, and 416 with ipilimumab + nivolumab. Overall survival at 36 months was higher in the ipilimumab + nivolumab group (57.1%, ([95%CI 50.7-64.2]) than in the nivolumab group (46.6% [95%CI 41.6-52.1]), HR 1.4[1.1;1.8]. Progression-free survival at 36 months was significantly improved in the ipilimumab + nivolumab group (42.3%) compared to the nivolumab group (21.9%), with a HR 1.6[1.4;1.9]. The objective response rate was similar for the two groups (44%). The overall incidence of side effects was comparable (82 vs. 84%), and severe toxicity (grade ≥ 3) was more frequent, though not significantly so, in the ipilimumab + nivolumab arm (29% vs. 41%). Our results are consistent with those from the Checkmate 067 study, except for the objective response rate and the incidence of toxicities, which proved to be lower in our analysis.