Dataset Information

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically improved outcomes for nononcogene-addicted NSCLC, monotherapy with programmed cell death protein-1 (PD1) inhibition has been associated with low efficacy in the EGFR-mutant setting. Given the potential for synergism with combination checkpoint blockade, we designed a trial to test the activity of combination nivolumab (N)-ipilimumab (NI) in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Methods

This is a randomized phase 2 study (NCT03091491) of N versus NI combination in EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-resistant NSCLC, with crossover permitted on disease progression. The primary end point was the objective response rate, and the secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ICI after EGFR TKI.

Results

Recruitment ceased owing to futility after 31 of 184 planned patients were treated. A total of 15 patients received N and 16 received NI combination. There were 16 patients (51.6%) who had programmed death-ligand (PDL1) 1 greater than or equal to 1%, and 15 (45.2%) harbored EGFR T790M. Five patients derived clinical benefits from ICI with one objective response (objective response rate 3.2%), and median progression-free survival was 1.22 months (95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.35) for the overall cohort. None of the four patients who crossed over achieved salvage response by NI. PDL1 and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were not able to predict ICI response. Rates of all grade immune-related adverse events were similar (80% versus 75%), with only two grade 3 events.

Conclusions

Immune checkpoint inhibition is ineffective in EGFR TKI-resistant NSCLC. Whereas a small subgroup of EGFR-mutant NSCLC may be immunogenic and responsive to ICI, better biomarkers are needed to select appropriate patients.

SUBMITTER: Lai GGY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9679031 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

Lai Gillianne G Y GGY Yeo Jia Chi JC Jain Amit A Zhou Siqin S Pang Mengyuan M Alvarez Jacob J S JJS Sim Ngak Leng NL Tan Aaron C AC Suteja Lisda L Lim Tze Wei TW Guo Yu Amanda YA Shen Meixin M Saw Stephanie P L SPL Rohatgi Neha N Yeong Joe P S JPS Takano Angela A Lim Kiat Hon KH Gogna Apoorva A Too Chow Wei CW Da Zhuang Kun K Tan Wan Ling WL Kanesvaran Ravindran R Ng Quan Sing QS Ang Mei Kim MK Rajasekaran Tanujaa T Wang Lanying L Toh Chee Keong CK Lim Wan-Teck WT Tam Wai Leong WL Tan Sze Huey SH Skanderup Anders M J AMJ Tan Eng-Huat EH Tan Daniel S W DSW

JTO clinical and research reports 20220921 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically improved outcomes for nononcogene-addicted NSCLC, monotherapy with programmed cell death protein-1 (PD1) inhibition has been associated with low efficacy in the EGFR-mutant setting. Given the potential for synergism with combination checkpoint blockade, we designed a trial to test the activity of combination nivolumab (N)-ipilimumab (NI) in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a randomized phase 2 study (NCT ...[more]

PMID: 36426287

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeCombination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy.Patients and methodsIn a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety.ResultsA total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated.ConclusionCombination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Project description:BackgroundHepatocellular carcinoma has high recurrence rates after surgery; however, there are no approved standard-of-care neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies. Immunotherapy has been shown to improve survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma; we therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of perioperative immunotherapy in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.MethodsIn this single-centre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial, patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 240 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 2 weeks (for up to three doses before surgery at 6 weeks) followed in the adjuvant phase by 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks for 2 years, or 240 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 2 weeks (for up to three doses before surgery) plus one dose of 1 mg/kg of ipilimumab intravenously concurrently with the first preoperative dose of nivolumab, followed in the adjuvant phase by 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 2 years plus 1 mg/kg of ipilimumab intravenously every 6 weeks for up to four cycles. Patients were randomly assigned to the treatment groups by use of block randomisation with a random block size. The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with an overall response, time to progression, and progression-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03222076) and is completed.FindingsBetween Oct 30, 2017, and Dec 3, 2019, 30 patients were enrolled and 27 were randomly assigned: 13 to nivolumab and 14 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3-4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were increased alanine aminotransferase (three [23%] of 13 patients on nivolumab vs seven [50%] of 14 patients on nivolumab plus ipilimumab) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (three [23%] vs seven [50%]). No patients in either group had their surgery delayed due to grade 3 or worse adverse events. Seven of 27 patients had surgical cancellations, but none was due to treatment-related adverse events. Estimated median progression-free survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 1·47-not estimable [NE]) with nivolumab and 19·53 months (2·33-NE) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·31-2·54); median time to progression was 9·4 months (95% CI 1·47-NE) in the nivolumab group and 19·53 months (2·33-NE) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·31-2·54). In an exploratory analysis, three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumour area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.InterpretationPerioperative nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab appears to be safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Our findings support further studies of immunotherapy in the perioperative setting in hepatocellular carcinoma.FundingBristol Myers Squibb and the US National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundMonoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage.MethodsPatient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period.ResultsThe total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively.ConclusionsThe total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies).

Project description:BackgroundIn a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma.MethodsIn this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors.ResultsAmong patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication.ConclusionsThe objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

Dataset Information

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets