scholarly journals Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma: analysis of Japanese patients in CheckMate 214 with extended follow-up

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Tsunenori Kondo ◽  
Go Kimura ◽  
Takamitsu Inoue ◽  
Yoshiaki Wakumoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Poor Risk ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) demonstrated superior efficacy over sunitinib (SUN) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in CheckMate 214, with a manageable safety profile. We report efficacy and safety with extended follow-up amongst Japanese patients. Methods CheckMate 214 patients received NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, then NIVO (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). This subgroup analysis assessed overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate/poor-risk and intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and safety (ITT patients). Results Of 550 and 546 patients randomized to NIVO+IPI and SUN, 38 and 34, respectively, were Japanese. Of these, 31 (NIVO+IPI) and 29 (SUN) patients were IMDC intermediate/poor-risk. In IMDC intermediate/poor-risk patients with 30 months’ minimum follow-up, there was a delayed trend in OS benefit with NIVO+IPI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19–1.59; P = 0.2670), and 24-month OS probability favoured NIVO+IPI (84%) versus SUN (76%). The ORR was 39% with NIVO+IPI and 31% with SUN (P = 0.6968). PFS was similar in both treatment arms (HR 1.17; 95% CI: 0.62–2.20; P = 0.6220). Efficacy in ITT patients was similar to IMDC intermediate/poor-risk patients. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse event incidence was lower with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (58 versus 91%). Conclusions Japanese patients with untreated aRCC in the NIVO+IPI arm had a numerically higher ORR and improved safety profile versus patients in the SUN arm. A delayed OS benefit appears to be emerging with NIVO+IPI. Longer follow-up is needed. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749?term=NCT02231749&rank=1 identifier: NCT02231749.

scholarly journals European Medicines Agency extension of indication to include the combination immunotherapy cancer drug treatment with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) for adults with intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. e000798
Author(s):  
Sahra Ali ◽  
Jorge Camarero ◽  
Paula van Hennik ◽  
Bjorg Bolstad ◽  
Maja Sommerfelt Grønvold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Poor Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Patients

On the 15 November 2018, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use adopted an extension to an existing indication for the use of nivolumab (Opdivo) in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy) for the first-line treatment of adult patients with intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The approval was based on results from the Pivotal CA209214 study, a randomised, open-label, phase III study, comparing nivolumab +ipilimumab with sunitinib in subjects≥18 years of age with previously untreated advanced RCC (not amenable for surgery or radiotherapy) or metastatic RCC, with a clear-cell component. A total of 1096 patients were randomised in the trial, of which 847 patients had intermediate/poor-risk RCC and received either nivolumab (n=425) in combination with ipilimumab administered every 3 weeks for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or sunitinib (n=422) administered orally for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off, every cycle. A statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) was observed in the nivolumab + ipilimumab group compared with the sunitinib group in intermediate/poor-risk subjects (HR 0.63 (99.8% CI 0.44 to 0.89); stratified log-rank 2-sided p-value<0.0001). The median OS was not reached for the nivolumab + ipilimumab group and was 25.95 months for the sunitinib group. The OS rates were 89.5% and 86.2% at 6 months, and 80.1% and 72.1% at 12 months in the nivolumab +ipilimumab and the sunitinib groups, respectively. K-M curves separated after approximately 3 months, favouring nivolumab + ipilimumab. This was not mirrored in the favourable-risk patients where no statistically significant difference was observed between nivolumab + ipilimumab and sunitinib in favourable-risk patients (HR 1.45 (descriptive 99.8% CI 0.51 to 4.12), p =0.2715).

scholarly journals Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. e001079 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Albiges ◽  
Nizar M Tannir ◽  
Mauricio Burotto ◽  
David McDermott ◽  
Elizabeth R Plimack ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
First Line

PurposeTo report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).MethodsPatients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory).ResultsOverall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN.ConclusionAfter long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety.Trial registration detailsClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.

scholarly journals Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e000891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J Motzer ◽  
Bernard Escudier ◽  
David F McDermott ◽  
Osvaldo Arén Frontera ◽  
Bohuslav Melichar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Poor Risk ◽  
Risk Patients

BackgroundThe extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up.MethodsPatients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory.ResultsAmong ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62–0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61–0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77–1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46–0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%–12.8% vs 1.4%–5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports.ConclusionsNIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months’ minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response.Trial registration numberNCT02231749.

Efficacy of nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with initial or late progression with nivolumab: Updated analysis of a tailored approach in advanced renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4576-4576
Author(s):  
Marc-Oliver Grimm ◽  
Emilio Esteban ◽  
Philippe Barthélémy ◽  
Manuela Schmidinger ◽  
Jonas Busch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Remission Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Poor Risk ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Tailored Approach

4576 Background: TITAN-RCC uses a tailored immunotherapy approach in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), starting with nivolumab (nivo) induction followed by nivo + ipilimumab (ipi) as immunotherapeutic “boost” in non-responders. Patients with initial partial or complete response (PR/CR) continued with nivo maintenance but received later “boosts” for progressive disease (PD). Here we report updated results focusing on the efficacy of nivo+ipi in patients with initial PD vs. initial responders with later PD. Methods: Patients with IMDC intermediate and poor risk advanced clear cell RCC were recruited between OCT 2016 and DEC 2018. Patients started with nivo 240 mg Q2W induction. Patients with early significant PD (week 8) or non-responders at week 16 received 2-4 nivo+ipi “boost” cycles. Responders (PR/CR) to nivo monotherapy continued with maintenance but could receive nivo+ipi for later PD. The primary endpoint is confirmed investigator assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST in first line (1L) and second line (2L). Secondary endpoints included activity of nivo monotherapy, remission rate with nivo+ipi “boost”, safety and overall survival (OS). Results: 109 1L and 98 2L (after TKI) patients were analyzed for efficacy. Median age was 65 years (range 20-87). 71 % were intermediate and 25 % poor risk. Confirmed ORR with nivo monotherapy was 28 % for 1L and 17 % for 2L. After a median follow-up of 12.8 months best overall response after nivo induction ± nivo+ipi was 36 % in 1L and 30 % in 2L. Of all patients, 38 received nivo+ipi for stable disease (SD) up to week 16, with 1 (3 %), 4 (11 %) and 26 (68 %) achieving CR, PR and SD, respectively. 28 patients in 1L and 43 in 2L were boosted with nivo+ipi for initial PD. Of these, 3 (11 %) and 8 (29 %) achieved PR and SD, respectively, in 1L, whereas 3 (7.0 %) achieved CR, 6 (14 %) PR and 13 (30 %) SD in 2L. 16 and 10 patients received “boosts” later than week 16 for PD during nivo maintenance in 1L and 2L, respectively. Thereof, 3 (19 %) achieved PR and 5 (31 %) SD in 1L, whereas 2 (20 %) achieved PR and 3 (30 %) SD in 2L. Progression-free survival was 6.3 months (95 % CI 3.7 – 10.1) and 3.7 months (95 % CI 2.0 - 4.5) in 1L and 2L, respectively. OS was 27.2 months (95 % CI 19.9 – not estimable (NE)) in 1L and 20.2 months (95 % CI 15.6 – NE) in 2L. Treatment-related adverse events will be presented. Conclusions: Our tailored approach with nivo+ipi “boosts” results in improved response rates compared to nivo monotherapy. Our updated analysis suggests that almost half of the patients receiving “boosts” for PD improve to either PR/CR (18 %) or SD (30 %), irrespective of initial or later progression with nivo. Clinical trial information: NCT02917772. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Follow-up guidelines after radical or partial nephrectomy for localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wassim Kassouf ◽  
Robert Siemens ◽  
Christopher Morash ◽  
Louis Lacombe ◽  
Michael Jewett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

scholarly journals Clinical and economic outcomes of treatment sequences for intermediate- to poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma

Immunotherapy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apoorva Ambavane ◽  
Shuo Yang ◽  
Michael B Atkins ◽  
Sumati Rao ◽  
Anshul Shah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Discrete Event ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Poor Risk ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Treatment Sequences

Aim: To assess the cost–effectiveness of treatment sequences for patients with intermediate- to poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed to estimate patients’ lifetime costs and survival. Efficacy inputs were derived from the CheckMate 214 and CheckMate 025 studies and network meta-analyses. Safety and cost data were obtained from the published literature. Results: The estimated average quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was the highest on nivolumab + ipilimumab-initiated sequences (3.6–5.3 QALYs) versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-initiated sequences (2.1–3.7 QALYs). Incremental cost per QALY gained for nivolumab + ipilimumab-initiated sequences was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 versus other sequences. Conclusion: Immuno-oncology combination therapy followed by TKIs is cost-effective versus TKI sequences followed by immuno-oncology or sequencing TKIs.

scholarly journals Quality of Life Outcomes for Cabozantinib Versus Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: METEOR Phase III Randomized Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 757-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cella ◽  
Bernard Escudier ◽  
Nizar M. Tannir ◽  
Thomas Powles ◽  
Frede Donskov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Bone Metastases ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose In the phase III METEOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01865747), 658 previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. The cabozantinib arm had improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with everolimus. Changes in quality of life (QoL), an exploratory end point, are reported here. Patients and Methods Patients completed the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) and the five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and throughout the study. The nine-item FKSI–Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), a subset of FKSI-19, was also investigated. Data were summarized descriptively and by repeated-measures analysis (for which a clinically relevant difference was an effect size ≥ 0.3). Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as the earlier of date of death, radiographic progressive disease, or ≥ 4-point decrease from baseline in FKSI-DRS. Results The QoL questionnaire completion rates remained ≥ 75% through week 48 in each arm. There was no difference over time for FKSI-19 Total, FKSI-DRS, or EQ-5D data between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms. Among the individual FKSI-19 items, cabozantinib was associated with worse diarrhea and nausea; everolimus was associated with worse shortness of breath. These differences are consistent with the adverse event profile of each drug. Cabozantinib improved TTD overall, with a marked improvement in patients with bone metastases at baseline. Conclusion In patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, relative to everolimus, cabozantinib generally maintained QoL to a similar extent. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib extended TTD overall and markedly improved TTD in patients with bone metastases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document