Nivolumab and Ipilimumab as Maintenance Therapy in Extensive-Disease Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CheckMate 451

Nivolumab; Maintenance Therapy; Small-Cell Lung CancerNivolumab; Terapia de mantenimiento; Cáncer de pulmón de células pequeñasNivolumab; Teràpia de manteniment; Càncer de pulmó de cèl·lules petitesPURPOSE In extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC), response rates to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy are robust, but responses lack durability. CheckMate 451, a double-blind phase III trial, evaluated nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab monotherapy as maintenance therapy following first-line chemotherapy for ED-SCLC. METHODS Patients with ED-SCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and no progression after ≤ 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks for 12 weeks followed by nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks, nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks, or placebo for ≤ 2 years or until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. Secondary end points were hierarchically tested. RESULTS Overall, 834 patients were randomly assigned. The minimum follow-up was 8.9 months. OS was not significantly prolonged with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.12; P = .37; median, 9.2 v 9.6 months). The HR for OS with nivolumab versus placebo was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.02); the median OS for nivolumab was 10.4 months. Progression-free survival HRs versus placebo were 0.72 for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87) and 0.67 for nivolumab (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.81). A trend toward OS benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was observed in patients with tumor mutational burden ≥ 13 mutations per megabase. Rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were nivolumab plus ipilimumab (52.2%), nivolumab (11.5%), and placebo (8.4%). CONCLUSION Maintenance therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not prolong OS for patients with ED-SCLC who did not progress on first-line chemotherapy. There were no new safety signals

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, including patients with ECOG performance status 2 and other special populations: CheckMate 817

Antigen CTLA-4; Immunoteràpia; Neoplàsies pulmonarsAntígeno CTLA-4; Inmunoterapia; Neoplasias PulmonaresCTLA-4 antigen; Immunotherapy; Lung NeoplasmsBackground CheckMate 817, a phase 3B study, evaluated flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, in this research, we report on first-line treatment in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0–1 (cohort A) and special populations (cohort A1: ECOG PS 2; or ECOG PS 0–1 with untreated brain metastases, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, or controlled HIV infection). Methods Cohorts A and A1 received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3–4 and grade 5 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs; adverse events (AEs) deemed potentially immune-related, occurring <100 days of last dose, and treated with immune-modulating medication (except endocrine events)) and treatment-related select AEs (treatment-related AEs with potential immunological etiology requiring frequent monitoring/intervention, reported between first dose and 30 days after the last dose) in cohort A; efficacy endpoints were secondary/exploratory. In cohort A1, safety/efficacy assessment was exploratory. Results The most common grade 3–4 IMAEs were pneumonitis (5.1%), diarrhea/colitis (4.9%), and hepatitis (4.6%) in cohort A (N=391) and diarrhea/colitis (3.5%), hepatitis (3.5%), and rash (3.0%) in cohort A1 (N=198). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related select AEs were hepatic (5.9%), gastrointestinal (4.9%), and pulmonary (4.6%) events in cohort A and gastrointestinal (4.0%), skin (3.5%), and endocrine (3.0%) events in cohort A1. No grade 5 IMAEs or treatment-related select AEs occurred. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 (1.0%) and 3 (1.5%) patients in cohorts A and A1, respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.7% and 20.5%, respectively. Conclusions Flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was associated with manageable safety and durable efficacy in cohort A, consistent with data from phase 3 metastatic NSCLC studies. Special populations of cohort A1 including patients with ECOG PS 2 or ECOG PS 0–1 with untreated brain metastases had manageable treatment-related toxicity and clinically meaningful 3-year OS rate.This work was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb (Princeton, New Jersey, USA)

How Well Does the New Lung Cancer Staging System Predict for Local/Regional Recurrence After Surgery?: A Comparison of the TNM 6 and 7 Systems

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate how well the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) 6 and TNM 7 staging systems predict rates of local/regional recurrence (LRR) after surgery alone for non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for non-small cell lung cancer at Duke between 1995 and 2005 were reviewed. Those undergoing sublobar resections, with positive margins or involvement of the chest wall, or those who received any chemotherapy or radiation therapy (RT) were excluded. Disease recurrence at the surgical margin, or within ipsilateral hilar and/or mediastinal lymph nodes, was considered as a LRR. Stage was assigned based on both TNM 6 and TNM 7. Rates of LRR were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox regression analysis evaluated the hazard ratio of LRR by stage within TNM 6 and TNM 7. RESULTS: A total of 709 patients were eligible for the analysis. Median follow-up was 32 months. For all patients, the 5-year actuarial risk of LRR was 23%. Conversion from TNM 6 to TNM 7 resulted in 21% stage migration (upstaging in 13%; downstaging in 8%). Five-year rates of LRR for stages IA, IB, IIA, IIB, and IIIA disease using TNM 6 were 16%, 26%, 43%, 35%, and 40%, respectively. Using TNM 7, corresponding rates were 16%, 23%, 37%, 39%, and 30%, respectively. The hazard ratios for LRR were statistically different for IA and IB in both TNM 6 and 7 but were also different for IB and IIA in TNM 7. CONCLUSIONS: LRR risk increases monotonically for stages IA to IIB in the new TNM 7 system. This information might be valuable when designing future studies of postoperative RT

Safety and Efficacy of Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab in Patients With PD-L1-Low/Negative Recurrent or Metastatic HNSCC The Phase 2 CONDOR Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Dual blockade of programmed death ligand 1(PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) may overcome immune checkpoint inhibition. It is unknown whether dual blockade can potentiate antitumor activity without compromising safety in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) and low or no PD-L1 tumor cell expression. OBJECTIVE :To assess safety and objective response rate of durvalumab combined with tremelimumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The CONDOR study was a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of Durvalumab, Tremelimumab, and Durvalumab in Combination With Tremelimumab in Patients With R/M HNSCC. Eligibility criteria included PD-L1-low/negative disease that had progressed after 1 platinum-containing regimen in the R/M setting. Patients were randomized (N = 267) from April 15, 2015, to March 16, 2016, at 127 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. INTERVENTIONS: Durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) + tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks) for 4 cycles, followed by durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks), or durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) monotherapy, or tremelimumab (10 mg/kg every 4 weeks for 7 doses then every 12 weeks for 2 doses) monotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Safety and tolerability and efficacy measured by objective response rate. RESULTS: Among the 267 patients (220 men [82.4%]), median age (range) of patients was 61.0 (23-82) years. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (15.8%) treated with durvalumab + tremelimumab, 8 (12.3%) treated with durvalumab, and 11 (16.9%) treated with tremelimumab. Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 8 patients (6.0%) in the combination arm only. Objective response rate (95% CI) was 7.8% (3.78%1339%) in the combination arm (n =129), 9.2% (3.46%-19.02%) for durvalumab monotherapy (n = 65), and 1.6% (0.04%-8.53%) for tremelimumab monotherapy (n = 63); median overall survival (95% CI) for all patients treated was 7.6 (4.9-10.6), 6.0 (4.0-11.3), and 5.5 (3.9-7.0) months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with R/M HNSCC and low or no PD-Lt tumor cell expression, all 3 regimens exhibited a manageable toxicity profile. Durvalumab and durvalumab + tremelimumab resulted in clinical benefit, with minimal observed difference between the two. A phase 3 study is under way

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort

Abstract Introduction Nivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort. Methods Patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. Results Overall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8–7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1–8.3). Twenty-four–month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively. Conclusions Whereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy

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

Phase II Study of Arginine Deprivation Therapy With Pegargiminase in Patients With Relapsed Sensitive or Refractory Small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pre-clinical studies indicated that arginine-deprivation therapy using pegylated arginine deiminase (pegargiminase, ADI-PEG 20) may be effective in patients with argininosuccinate synthetase 1 (ASS1)-deficient small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled into either a 'sensitive' disease cohort (≥ 90 days response to first-line chemotherapy) or a 'refractory' disease cohort (progression while on chemotherapy or < 90 days afterwards or ≥ third-line treatment). Patients received weekly intramuscular pegargiminase, 320 IU/m2 (36.8 mg/m2), until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The primary endpoint was tumor response assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 with secondary endpoints including tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and January 2014, 22 patients were enrolled: 9 in the sensitive disease cohort and 13 in the refractory disease cohort. At a pre-planned interim analysis, the best overall response observed was stable disease in 2 patients in each cohort (18.2%). Owing to the lack of response and slow accrual in the sensitive disease cohort, the study was terminated early. Pegargiminase treatment was well-tolerated with no unexpected adverse events or discontinuations. CONCLUSION: Although pegargiminase monotherapy in SCLC failed to meet its primary endpoint of RECIST-confirmed responses, more recent molecular stratification, including MYC status, may provide new opportunities moving forward