Ipilimumab Research Articles

LBA71 First-line nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (uMPM): 4-year update from CheckMate 743

In the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 743 study (NCT02899299), NIVO + IPI significantly prolonged OS vs chemo in pts with uMPM. Identifying pts with uMPM who could benefit from immunotherapy is an unmet need. Here, we report clinical results and exploratory biomarker analyses from CheckMate 743 at 4y minimum follow-up (min f/u). Pts with previously untreated uMPM, stratified by histology and sex, were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W) for up to 2 y, or chemo (Q3W) for ≤ 6 cycles. Primary endpoint (EP) was OS; secondary EPs included PFS and ORR; exploratory EPs were safety and biomarker analyses. OS was assessed by baseline (BL) soluble mesothelin (sMESO) levels (high, mid, low by ELISA-based assay) and MPM-specific tumor suppressor mutations (TP53, BAP1, SETD2, NF2, LATS2 using whole-exome sequencing). At 47.5-month min f/u (database lock [DBL] 6 May 2022), NIVO + IPI continued to show OS benefit vs chemo with 4y OS rates of 16.8% vs 10.7%; 4y PFS rates were 9.0% vs 0%, respectively (Table). High (vs low or mid) BL sMESO level was associated with shorter OS in both arms; NIVO + IPI showed a trend of improved OS vs chemo across BL sMESO levels (HRs [95% CI], high: 0.72 [0.53–0.98], mid: 0.77 [0.56–1.06], low: 0.77 [0.56–1.05], respectively). OS favored NIVO + IPI vs chemo for both wild-type (HRs = 0.67–0.72) and MPM-specific tumor suppressor mutation subgroups (HRs = 0.41–0.55), except SETD2 mutation (HR = 1.37). Consistent with the prior DBL, the most common grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events with NIVO + IPI were hepatitis (5%), diarrhea/colitis (4%), and rash (3%).Table: LBA71Efficacy outcomes with NIVO + IPI vs chemoNIVO + IPI (n = 303)Chemo (n = 302)OSMedian (95% CI), moHR (95% CI) vs chemo4y OS rate (95% CI), %18.1 (16.8–21.0)0.73 (0.61–0.87)16.8 (12.7–21.5)14.1 (12.4–16.3)-10.7 (7.5–14.7)4y PFSa rate (95% CI), %9.0 (5.2–14.1)– cORRa (95% CI), %39.3 (33.7–45.0)44.4 (38.7–50.2)Median DORa,b (95% CI), mo11.6 (8.2–16.8)6.8 (5.6–7.1)aPer blinded independent central review;bCalculated in patients with a response (NIVO + IPI, n = 119; chemo, n = 134);cAll pts either had disease progression or were censored by month 39. DOR, duration of response; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival. Open table in a new tab aPer blinded independent central review; bCalculated in patients with a response (NIVO + IPI, n = 119; chemo, n = 134); cAll pts either had disease progression or were censored by month 39. DOR, duration of response; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival. With 4y min f/u, NIVO + IPI continued to provide long-term, durable OS benefit vs chemo in pts with uMPM. No new safety signals were seen. High BL sMESO levels were prognostic for poor OS. OS benefit with NIVO + IPI vs chemo was generally observed regardless of MPM-specific tumor suppressor mutations.

797P Relapse-free survival (RFS) update and first translational analyses of DONIMI, a study testing personalized neoadjuvant domatinostat, nivolumab (NIVO) and ipilimumab (IPI) in stage III melanoma patients (pts) based on the interferon-gamma signature (IFN-γ sign) algorithm

In stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant (neoadj) IPI + NIVO induces high pathologic response rates (pRR 72-78%), which is associated with long-term RFS. Pts with a low baseline IFN-γ sign are less likely to respond (pRR 55%). Domatinostat (DOM), a class I histone deacetylase inhibitor, increased intratumoral T cell infiltration and the IFN-γ sign expression in melanoma. DONIMI tests neoadj combinations of NIVO ± IPI with DOM stratified according to the IFN-γ sign of baseline biopsies in stage IIIB-D nodal melanoma.

820P Nivolumab (NIVO) +/- relatlimab (RELA) or ipilimumab (IPI) for patients (pts) with advanced treatment-naïve or -refractory basal cell carcinoma (BCC)

Standard therapies for pts with locally-advanced or metastatic BCC (aBCC) include hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HHi), limited by tolerability, and 2nd-line (2L) anti-PD-1, limited by suboptimal response rates (∼20-30%). 1L anti-PD-1 efficacy data are limited to case reports, and anti-LAG-3 data have not been reported in BCC. The current study tests NIVO (anti-PD-1) alone in treatment-naïve and HHi-experienced pts, and NIVO+RELA (anti-LAG-3) or NIVO+IPI (anti-CTLA-4) in anti-PD-1-refractory aBCC (NCT03521830). The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Treatment-naïve and HHi-experienced pts with aBCC received NIVO 480 mg IV q4 weeks (W) for ≤48W. Pts with stable disease (SD) at ≥36W or progressive disease (PD) on anti-PD-1 received NIVO 480 mg + RELA 480 or 960 mg IV q4W x 12, or NIVO 240 mg + IPI 1 mg/kg IV q3W x 4 then NIVO 480mg q4W x 7. H&E-stained tumor biopsy specimens taken 2-12W after treatment initiation or regimen change were scored for % residual viable tumor (RVT) [Stein, et al. Ann Oncol, 2019]. 24 pts (5 metastatic) were enrolled 12/2018 – 3/2022, 22 of whom were evaluable. Pts received NIVO (n=15; 10 treatment-naïve), NIVO+RELA (n=8), or NIVO+IPI (n=1). Median follow-up was 9.9 mo (range 1.8 - 38.4). Toxicities associated with each regimen were consistent with previous experience. Complete or partial response (CR, PR) to NIVO was observed in 5/10 (50%) and 1/5 (20%) pts in the 1L and 2L settings, respectively. 9 pts had SD (median duration 8 mo). 6 evaluable pts received NIVO+RELA; PD (n=1), SD (n=4), PR (n=1, 0% RVT at 4W; this pt had SD >48W on 1L NIVO). One pt who received NIVO+IPI after HHi and NIVO had PD. No responses were seen in 5 pts with metastatic BCC regardless of cohort. In 14/15 pts who received NIVO or NIVO+RELA and underwent tumor biopsy at ≤12W, ≤35% RVT was associated with PR or CR. 1L NIVO demonstrated an ORR of 50% among 10 pts with aBCC. NIVO+RELA mediated tumor regression in 1/6 anti-PD-1-refractory pts. ≤35% RVT in on-treatment biopsy was associated with response and warrants further exploration as a predictive biomarker. These preliminary findings in this ongoing trial support testing NIVO+RELA in treatment-naïve pts with aBCC.

791MO Clinical and tumor characteristics of patients (pts) with recurrence after pathologic response upon neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI) + nivolumab (NIVO) in stage III melanoma

Pathologic (path) response (resp) is an excellent surrogate marker for long-term recurrence-free survival after neoadjuvant (neoadj) IPI + NIVO in stage III melanoma. Few resp pts develop recurrence of disease, and their clinical characteristics and mechanisms of tumor immune escape are unknown.

520MO Safety and efficacy of nivolumab (NIVO) ± ipilimumab (IPI) in patients (pts) with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer (R/M Cx Ca) in checkmate 358

Anti–PD–1–based treatment (tx) is approved in 1st (1L)– and 2nd (2L)–line settings for programmed death ligand 1 (PD–L1)+ R/M Cx Ca; however, objective response rate (ORR) with single–agent tx is <15% (Chung et al SGO 2021 abstract). Here, we report safety and efficacy of NIVO ± IPI in pts with R/M Cx Ca in CheckMate 358 (NCT02488759), a phase 1/2 study of NIVO and NIVO–based combinations in virus–associated solid tumors.

1049P Clinical outcomes in patients (pts) with tumor PD-L1 < 1% with first-line (1L) nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) + 2 cycles of chemotherapy (chemo) vs chemo alone for metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC): Results from CheckMate 9LA

First-line immunotherapy-based regimens have limited efficacy in pts with mNSCLC and tumor PD-L1 < 1%. A high unmet medical need remains in mNSCLC, particularly in pts with squamous (SQ) mNSCLC or baseline brain metastasis (BM). In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), 1L NIVO + IPI + 2 cycles of chemo showed long-term, durable benefit vs chemo in pts with mNSCLC, regardless of tumor PD-L1 status. Here we report an exploratory analysis of efficacy and safety in pts with tumor PD-L1 < 1% by histology or the presence of BM.

784O Adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) alone or in combination with ipilimumab (IPI) versus placebo in stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (NED): Overall survival (OS) results of IMMUNED, a randomized, double-blind multi-center phase II DeCOG trial

The phase 2 study IMMUNED demonstrated significantly longer relapse-free survival (RFS) of NIVO alone or in combination with IPI compared to placebo in stage IV melanoma patients (pts) with NED after surgery or radiotherapy (Zimmer L, et al; Lancet 2020; 395:1558-68). Final RFS and first and final OS data are presented.

MA06.05 Consolidation Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Nivolumab Alone Following Concurrent Chemoradiation for Patients with Unresectable Stage III NSCLC

The PACIFIC trial demonstrated that a year of consolidation PD-(L)1 inhibition following concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) for unresectable stage III NSCLC improves overall survival (OS). The optimal duration of consolidation IO therapy in this setting is undefined. Studies in metastatic NSCLC demonstrate that combination PD-(L)1/CTLA-4 inhibition improves OS over chemotherapy alone. This trial evaluated the use of combination Nivolumab (N) plus Ipilimumab (IPI) or N alone for up to 6 months in unresectable stage III NSCLC after concurrent CRT.

EP08.01-029 NIVIPI-BRAIN, A Phase II Study of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab Combined with Chemotherapy for Patients with NSCLC and Synchronous Brain Metastases

Brain metastases (BM) are a common complication in cancer patients and have major impact on quality of life and prognosis. Chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has significant efficacy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have untreated brain metastases. In the CheckMate-9LA, nivolumab (NIVO) was combined with ipilimumab (IPI) and 2 cycles of chemotherapy and achieved high intracranial efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC with previously treated BM. This combination was not previously assessed in patients with NSCLC and untreated BM.

Adverse Events Induced by Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab Monotherapy among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed to examine treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) for combination of nivolumab (NIVO) and ipilimumab (IPI) compared to NIVO monotherapy among cancer patients. We searched several databases to identify relevant RCTs. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model. In fourteen RCTs included in the study, we found that compared to NIVO monotherapy, combination NIVO + IPI increased the risk of any grade (Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.11), and grade 3 or 4 (RR = 1.95) TRAEs. Compared to NIVO, NIVO + IPI had higher risk for any grade colitis (RR = 4.52), pneumonitis (RR = 3.06), and diarrhea (RR = 1.68).

P29-1 LIGHT-NING: An observational study of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without chemotherapy for 1st line NSCLC in Japan

Based on the efficacy and safety data in patients (pts) with previously-untreated advanced NSCLC in the CheckMate 9LA and CheckMate 227 trials, first-line nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) with or without 2 cycles of chemotherapy was approved in Japan on November 27, 2020, as the first combination therapy with an anti-CTLA-4 agent for NSCLC. Since detailed information regarding efficacy and safety with the combinations is limited in Japanese pts with NSCLC, we conducted this study to assess effectiveness and safety of NIVO plus IPI with or without chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice.

Abstract CT119: A randomized, double-blind phase 2 evaluation of the anti-IL-8 monoclonal antibody BMS-986253 + nivolumab + ipilimumab vs nivolumab + ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma that progressed on/after anti-PD-(L)1 therapy

Abstract Purpose: This phase 1/2 trial evaluates the novel immunotherapy BMS-986253 in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (NCT03400332). Interleukin-8 (IL-8) is an immunosuppressive chemokine often elevated in the serum of patients with cancer. High serum IL-8 concentration is associated with poor prognoses and resistance to immunotherapies, including anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents (Schalper et al. Nat Med 2020;26:688). The addition of anti-IL-8 therapy to anti-PD-1 nivolumab (NIVO) and anti-CTLA-4 ipilimumab (IPI) may sensitize patients with high serum IL-8 levels to immune checkpoint inhibition. BMS-986253, a fully human IgG1 anti-IL-8 monoclonal antibody, in combination with NIVO ± IPI is under investigation in a phase 1/2 trial of patients with advanced solid tumors. Initial results from part 1 indicate BMS-986253 + NIVO was well tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities (Davar et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020;8. Abstract 394). Preliminary antitumor activity was observed, including partial responses in 5 of 28 patients with melanoma that had progressed on or after prior anti-PD-(L)1 therapy, a population with high unmet medical need. Part 2 is a randomized, double-blind phase 2 study comparing the efficacy of BMS-986253 in combination with NIVO + IPI vs NIVO + IPI in patients with advanced melanoma that progressed on or after prior anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. Trial Design: Patients eligible for part 2 have histologically confirmed, unresectable, stage III/IV melanoma, have progressed on or after anti-PD-(L)1 treatment, had an anti-PD-(L)1 agent as their most recent therapy, and have not received anti-CTLA-4 treatment. PD-L1 and BRAFV600 mutation status (wild-type and BRAF mutations permitted) must be documented, and serum IL-8 levels will be measured at screening. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive BMS-986253 + NIVO + IPI or placebo + NIVO + IPI and stratified by serum IL-8 level, BRAF V600E status, and lactate dehydrogenase level. The dose and frequency of BMS-986253, NIVO, and IPI will be determined by part 1 data. Treatment with BMS-986253 or placebo and NIVO will continue ≤ 3 years or until disease progression or intolerance. The primary objective is to compare progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1 between treatment arms in patients with baseline serum IL-8 levels &amp;gt; 10 pg/mL. Secondary objectives include PFS by BICR in all randomized patients, overall response rates by BICR per RECIST v1.1, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetic profile, immunogenicity of BMS-986253, and associations of baseline factors with response. Recruitment will continue until ≈170 patients are enrolled. Citation Format: Matteo Simonelli, Emiliano Calvo, Diwakar Davar, Jason Melear, Donald Richards, Matthew Dallos, Martin Gutierrez, Victor Moreno, Thomas Marron, Sylvie Rottey, Angela Orcurto, Susana Barriga, Jessy Fan, Elizabeth Gibson, Santanu Dutta, Vivek Arora, Ignacio Melero. A randomized, double-blind phase 2 evaluation of the anti-IL-8 monoclonal antibody BMS-986253 + nivolumab + ipilimumab vs nivolumab + ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma that progressed on/after anti-PD-(L)1 therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT119.

Abstract CT022: CheckMate 848: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors of high tumor mutational burden

Abstract High tumor mutational burden assessed in tissue biopsies (tTMB-H) or blood (bTMB-H) is associated with clinical efficacy in patients treated with immunotherapies. CheckMate 848 (NCT03668119) is a prospective phase 2 study of nivolumab (NIVO) with or without ipilimumab (IPI) in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors that are tTMB-H or bTMB-H (≥ 10 mutations/megabase) who were immunotherapy-naive and refractory to standard local therapies. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in patients with tTMB-H or bTMB-H, assessed by FoundationOne® CDx-based and Clinical Trial Assays (Foundation Medicine), respectively. The study was not powered to compare NIVO + IPI vs NIVO. We present the interim and final analyses for the tTMB-H and bTMB-H cohorts, respectively (≥ 12 months follow-up, database lock June 2021). Of 1954 screened patients, 212 were randomized 2:1 to NIVO 240 mg Q2W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W or NIVO 480 mg Q4W for ≤ 24 months, and 201 (135 tTMB-H; 147 bTMB-H) were refractory to standard therapies. Of &amp;gt; 40 tumor types, colorectal (10.8%), small-cell lung (7.5%), breast (7.1%), and uterine (7.1%) were the most common. ORR and survival outcomes with NIVO + IPI were improved in patients with tTMB-H. The responses were independent of bTMB-H status in the tTMB-H cohort but improved with tTMB-H status in the bTMB-H cohort (Table). The safety profile of NIVO + IPI was manageable, and clinical outcomes with NIVO were comparable with previous studies. The impact of TMB cutoff, PD-L1 expression, and microsatellite instability were explored. In conclusion, NIVO + IPI demonstrated clinical efficacy with a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors that are tTMB-H or bTMB-H and refractory to standard therapies, with increased efficacy observed in patients with tTMB-H. NIVO + IPI tTMB-H cohort bTMB-H cohorta Patients, n (%)b,c 68 (32.1) 80 (37.7) Number of prior treatments, median (range) 2 (0–7) 2 (1–9) ORR, n (%)c, 95% CI 24 (35.3), 24.1–47.8 18 (22.5), 13.9–33.2 ORR in patients with bTMB-H by tTMBc: &amp;lt; 10 mut/Mb (n = 31), n (%), 95% CI NA 3 (9.7), 2.0–25.8 ≥ 10 mut/Mb (n = 39), n (%), 95% CI NA 13 (33.3), 19.1–50.2 ≥ 10 to &amp;lt; 16 mut/Mb (n = 18), n (%), 95% CI NA 3 (16.7), 3.6–41.4 ≥ 16 mut/Mb (n = 21), n (%), 95% CI NA 10 (47.6), 25.7–70.2 ORR in patients with tTMB-H by bTMBc: &amp;lt; 10 mut/Mb (n = 20), n (%), 95% CI 7 (35.0), 15.4–59.2 NA ≥ 10 mut/Mb (n = 43), n (%), 95% CI 16 (37.2), 23.0–53.3 NA ≥ 10 to &amp;lt; 16 mut/Mb (n = 12), n (%), 95% CI 3 (25.0), 5.5–57.2 NA ≥ 16 mut/Mb (n = 31), n (%), 95% CI 13 (41.9), 24.5–60.9 NA Percentage of responders (≥ 9 months) (95% CI) 91 (68–98) 88 (61–97) Median PFS, months (95% CI)c 4.1 (2.8–11.3) 2.8 (2.3–3.0) Median OS, months (95% CI)c 14.5 (7.7–NE) 8.5 (5.8–10.5) aThe bTMB cohort was randomized prior to December 20, 2019. bOut of 212 randomized patients; data presented in this table are from patients who were refractory to standard therapies. cMinimum follow-up 12 months. bTMB, blood tumor mutational burden; NA, not applicable; NE, not evaluable; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; tTMB, tissue tumor mutational burden. Citation Format: Michael Schenker, Mauricio Burotto, Martin Richardet, Tudor Ciuleanu, Anthony Goncalves, Neeltje Steeghs, Patrick Schöffski, Paolo A. Ascierto, Michele Maio, Iwona Lugowska, Lorena Lupinacci, Alexandra Leary, Jean-Pierre Delord, Julieta Grasselli, David S. Tan, Jennifer E. Friedmann, Jacqueline Vuky, Marina Tschaika, Ruta Slepetis, Georgia D. Kollia, Misena Pacius, Ning Huang, Parul Doshi, Jonathan Baden, Massimo Di Nicola. CheckMate 848: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors of high tumor mutational burden [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT022.

Five-year survival outcomes with nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) versus chemotherapy (chemo) as first-line (1L) treatment for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Results from CheckMate 227.

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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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]

First-line (1L) nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) + 2 cycles of chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo alone (4 cycles) in patients (pts) with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): 3-year update from CheckMate 9LA.

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]

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Aim This economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) plus two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) compared with four cycles of PDC as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC in the United States (US). Methods A partitioned survival model was constructed with three mutually exclusive health states: progression free, progressed disease, and death. The analysis was conducted from a US healthcare payer perspective, using a time horizon of 25 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Survival outcomes from CheckMate 9LA were extrapolated with longer follow-up data from CheckMate 227 Part 1 (NIVO + IPI) and validated against data from other relevant clinical trials and real-world registries. Health-related quality of life utility values were derived from EQ-5D-3L data collected in CheckMate 9LA. US-specific costs (2020 dollars) were used for disease management; drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring; end-of-life care; adverse events; and subsequent treatments. Model outcomes included life years (LYs) gained, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for NIVO + IPI + PDC versus PDC. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Results NIVO + IPI + PDC was associated with higher projected health benefits than PDC, including gains in LYs (3.71 vs 1.89) and QALYs (2.86 vs 1.37), and higher costs ($317,581 vs $119,909). The ICER was $132,960/QALY gained. NIVO + IPI + PDC had a 78–100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000–$250,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in key parameters. Limitations The inherent limitation in extrapolating clinical trial data was mitigated using data from the more mature CheckMate 227 Part 1 trial and validating the outcomes against data from other relevant trials and real-world registries. Conclusion NIVO + IPI + PDC (two cycles) provides a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC that is cost-effective within a range considered acceptable in the US.

IMMU-08. Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in pediatric patients with high-grade CNS malignancies: efficacy, safety, biomarker, and pharmacokinetic results from Checkmate 908

Abstract BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding checkpoint inhibitor efficacy for pediatric CNS malignancies. METHODS: CheckMate 908 is an open-label, sequential-arm, phase 1b/2 study investigating nivolumab (NIVO) and NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI) in 5 cohorts of pediatric patients previously treated with standard-of-care (NCT03130959). Patients received NIVO-3mg/kg Q2W or NIVO-3mg/kg + IPI-1mg/kg Q3W (4 doses) followed by NIVO-3mg/kg Q2W. Primary endpoints included OS (newly diagnosed DIPG) and PFS (other CNS cohorts); secondary endpoints included other efficacy metrics/safety. Exploratory endpoints included pharmacokinetics/biomarker analyses. Comparisons between treatments/cohorts were not planned. RESULTS: At data cutoff (13-Jan-2021), 166 patients received NIVO (n=85) or NIVO+IPI (n=81) at median (m) ages of 10.0yrs (range, 1-21) and 11.0yrs (1-21), respectively. In newly diagnosed DIPG, mOS (80% CI) was 11.7mos (10.3-16.5) with NIVO (n=23) and 10.8mos (9.1-15.8) with NIVO+IPI (n=22). In recurrent/progressive HGG, mPFS (80% CI) was 1.7mos (1.4-2.7) with NIVO (n=16) and 1.3mos (1.2-1.5) with NIVO+IPI (n=15). In relapsed/resistant medulloblastoma, mPFS (80% CI) was 1.4mos (1.2-1.4) with NIVO (n=15) and 2.8mos (1.5-4.5) with NIVO+IPI (n=15). In relapsed/resistant ependymoma, mPFS (80% CI) was 1.4mos (1.4-2.6) with NIVO (n=12) and 4.6mos (1.4-5.4) with NIVO+IPI (n=10). In other recurrent/progressive CNS tumors, mPFS (95% CI) was 1.2mos (1.1-1.3) with NIVO (n=19) and 1.6mos (1.3-3.5) with NIVO+IPI (n=19). Median treatment duration was 2.1mos (range, 0-41.7+ [NIVO]/0-29.6+ [NIVO+IPI]). Grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 14.1% (NIVO) and 27.2% (NIVO+IPI) of patients. NIVO and IPI first dose trough concentrations were lower in youngest and lowest-weight patients. Baseline tumor PD-L1 expression was not associated with survival. Tumor mutational burden was high in 1 patient (NIVO+IPI) with HGG (OS=11.0mos). CONCLUSIONS: NIVO±IPI demonstrated no clinical benefit in pediatric patients with high-grade CNS malignancies, consistent with available historical data. The safety profiles were manageable.

Efficacy of ipilimumab 3mg/kg following progression on low dose ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma.

e21533 Background: Anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitors, such as ipilimumab (IPI), are commonly used in melanoma management. Whilst a clear dose-toxicity relationship exists, and a dose-response relationship is seen with monotherapy in people with anti PD-1 antibody-naïve melanoma, there is no data on the outcomes of patients who progress following low dose IPI and are subsequently treated with standard dose IPI. We conducted a multicentre, retrospective review to assess the efficacy of this strategy. Methods: Patients with resected stage III, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma who received low dose IPI (&lt; 3mg/kg) with an anti-PD1 antibody in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant or metastatic setting with recurrence (neo/adjuvant) or progressive disease (metastatic) as best response, who then received standard dose IPI (3mg/kg, IPI3) alone or in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody were eligible. IPI dose, frequency and best investigator-assessed RECIST response were collected. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results: 36 patients from 8 centres; 27 (75%) male, BRAF V600 mutant (18, 50%). All patients received low dose IPI with an anti-PD1 antibody, 18 (50%) in the neo/adjuvant and 18 (50%) in the metastatic setting; 15 (42%) received IPI 1mg/kg every 6 weeks, 13 (36%) IPI 1mg/kg every 3 weeks, 3 (8%) IPI 50mg every 6 weeks or 100mg every 12 weeks respectively, and 2 (6%) IPI 1mg/kg every 8 weeks. 23 (64%) received &gt;1 intervening line of systemic therapy prior to IPI3. The most common intervening therapy was BRAF/MEK inhibitors; 14/23 (61%) as 2nd line treatment, 4/8 (50%) as 3rd line treatment, and all progressed. All patients received standard dose IPI3 for unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma; median age 60 (29-78), 18 (50%) had M1d disease, 32 (89%) ECOG 0-1, 18 (50%) normal lactate dehydrogenase. 35 (97%) received IPI3 with nivolumab and 1 received single agent IPI3. 15 (42%) received 4 cycles of IPI3. The most common reason for IPI3 cessation was progressive disease (16, 44%). The response rate to IPI3 following progression on low dose IPI was 9/36 (25%); the disease control rate was 12/36 (33%). After a median follow up of 22 months (95% CI: 15-27 months), the median PFS and OS were not reached in patients who responded;1-year PFS and OS were 73% and 100% respectively. 13/36 (36%) had grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events (irAE). In 3/36 (8%), the same irAE was observed at low dose IPI and IPI3, and 1 patient had the same irAE (rash) at a higher grade with IPI3 compared to low dose IPI. Conclusions: Standard dose IPI3 following progression on low dose IPI has clinical activity.This is a reasonable treatment strategy for patients who progress on low dose IPI and provides further evidence of a dose-response relationship for IPI. Further research is needed to manage resistance to IPI with anti-PD1.

Long-term survival in advanced melanoma for patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in CheckMate 067.

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]

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

NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit vs chemo in previously untreated patients with advanced ESCC in the phase 3 CheckMate 648 study. We report expanded results from the primary analysis, including factors associated with the timing of the onset of treatment effect. Patients 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 patients 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 patients. Duration of response (DOR) per BICR and PFS2 (time from randomization to progression after subsequent systemic therapy, initiation of second subsequent systemic therapy, or death) per investigator were exploratory endpoints. Among all patients 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 at 13-month minimum follow-up. ORR (95% CI) was 47% (42–53) with NIVO + chemo, 28% (23–33) with NIVO + IPI, and 27% (22–32) with chemo. More responders with NIVO + chemo or NIVO + IPI vs chemo had prolonged DOR (≥12 months; 39%, 48%, and 23%, respectively). Piecewise HRs of overall survival between treatment arms and factors associated with delayed onset of effect of NIVO + IPI relative to chemo-based regimens will be presented. The majority of treatment-related adverse events with potential immunologic etiology (select TRAEs) were grade 1 or 2, and grade 3/4 events occurred in ≤ 6% of patients with NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI. Select TRAEs of any grade occurred within a median of 5 to 31 weeks with NIVO + chemo and 4 to 12 weeks with NIVO + IPI across organ categories. Nonendocrine select TRAEs resolved in most patients in the NIVO + chemo (57% to 91%) and NIVO + IPI (63% to 95%) groups across organ categories with the use of established management algorithms (median time to resolution, 2 to 17 weeks and 3 to 12 weeks, respectively). NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI demonstrated favorable PFS2 and a higher proportion of patients with prolonged DOR vs chemo, along with acceptable safety profiles. These results provide further support for each regimen as a new potential first-line standard therapy in advanced ESCC.