EMPOWER-lung 1: A randomized, open-label, multi-national, phase III trial of cemiplimab, a human PD-1 monoclonal antibody, versus chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 50%

Background: Most patients (pts) with NSCLC present with advanced disease at diagnosis. Systemic therapy with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy regimens has been the standard first-line treatment for pts with advanced NSCLC whose tumours do not have EGFR, ALK, or ROS 1 mutations, but there is a need for effective treatments to improve long-term survival. With the recognition that NSCLC tumours express PD-L1, checkpoint inhibitors are being investigated in several clinical trials. There is currently only one PD-1 inhibitor approved as monotherapy in first-line treatment of NSCLC with PD-L1 expression ≥50%. In a phase 1 dose escalation and NSCLC expansion cohort, cemiplimab (REGN2810), a human monoclonal anti-PD-1, has demonstrated antitumour activity with an acceptable safety profile in anti-PD-1 naïve, pre-treated pts with NSCLC. Trial design: This is a randomised (1:1), multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study of cemiplimab versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in systemic treatment-naïve pts (≥18 years) with stage IIIB, IIIC or IV squamous or non-squamous NSCLC whose tumours express PD-L1 in ≥ 50% of tumour cells (NCT03088540)

Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057): 3-year update and outcomes in patients with liver metastases

Abstract Background Long-term data with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. Two phase III trials demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and a favorable safety profile with the anti-programmed death-1 antibody nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced squamous (CheckMate 017) and nonsquamous (CheckMate 057) NSCLC. We report results from ≥3 years' follow-up, including subgroup analyses of patients with liver metastases, who historically have poorer prognosis among patients with NSCLC. Patients and methods Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) until progression or discontinuation. The primary end point of each study was OS. Patients with baseline liver metastases were pooled across studies by treatment for subgroup analyses. Results After 40.3 months' minimum follow-up in CheckMate 017 and 057, nivolumab continued to show an OS benefit versus docetaxel: estimated 3-year OS rates were 17% [95% confidence interval (CI), 14% to 21%] versus 8% (95% CI, 6% to 11%) in the pooled population with squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Nivolumab was generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified. Of 854 randomized patients across both studies, 193 had baseline liver metastases. Nivolumab resulted in improved OS compared with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.91), consistent with findings from the overall pooled study population (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81). Rates of treatment-related hepatic adverse events (primarily grade 1–2 liver enzyme elevations) were slightly higher in nivolumab-treated patients with liver metastases (10%) than in the overall pooled population (6%). Conclusions After 3 years' minimum follow-up, nivolumab continued to demonstrate an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC. Similarly, nivolumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with liver metastases, and remained well tolerated. Clinical trial registration CheckMate 017: NCT01642004; CheckMate 057: NCT01673867

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P = 0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma

EMPOWER-lung 1: A randomized, open-label, multi-national, phase III trial of cemiplimab, a human PD-1 monoclonal antibody, versus chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 >= 50%

ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress -- DEC 13-16, 2018 -- Geneva, SWITZERLANDWOS: 000459294800115…European Soc Med Oncol, Japanese Soc Med OncolRegeneron Pharmaceutical Inc.; SanofiRegeneron Pharmaceutical Inc. and Sanofi

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

Background The 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. Methods Patients 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. Results Among 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. Conclusions NIVO+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 number NCT02231749

Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057): 3-year update and outcomes in patients with liver metastases

Abstract Background Long-term data with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. Two phase III trials demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and a favorable safety profile with the anti-programmed death-1 antibody nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced squamous (CheckMate 017) and nonsquamous (CheckMate 057) NSCLC. We report results from ≥3 years' follow-up, including subgroup analyses of patients with liver metastases, who historically have poorer prognosis among patients with NSCLC. Patients and methods Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) until progression or discontinuation. The primary end point of each study was OS. Patients with baseline liver metastases were pooled across studies by treatment for subgroup analyses. Results After 40.3 months' minimum follow-up in CheckMate 017 and 057, nivolumab continued to show an OS benefit versus docetaxel: estimated 3-year OS rates were 17% [95% confidence interval (CI), 14% to 21%] versus 8% (95% CI, 6% to 11%) in the pooled population with squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Nivolumab was generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified. Of 854 randomized patients across both studies, 193 had baseline liver metastases. Nivolumab resulted in improved OS compared with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.91), consistent with findings from the overall pooled study population (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81). Rates of treatment-related hepatic adverse events (primarily grade 1–2 liver enzyme elevations) were slightly higher in nivolumab-treated patients with liver metastases (10%) than in the overall pooled population (6%). Conclusions After 3 years' minimum follow-up, nivolumab continued to demonstrate an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC. Similarly, nivolumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with liver metastases, and remained well tolerated. Clinical trial registration CheckMate 017: NCT01642004; CheckMate 057: NCT01673867