34 research outputs found

    First-line, fixed-duration nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab in clinically diverse patient populations with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma: Checkmate 401

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: To address the paucity of data in patients with historically poor outcomes, we conducted the single-arm phase IIIb CheckMate 401 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy in clinically diverse patient populations with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg (240 mg following a protocol amendment) once every 2 weeks for ≀ 24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3-5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), brain metastasis status, and melanoma subtype. RESULTS: In total, 533 patients received at least one dose of study drug. Grade 3-5 select TRAEs affecting the GI (16%), hepatic (15%), endocrine (11%), skin (7%), renal (2%), and pulmonary (1%) systems occurred in the all-treated population; similar incidence rates were observed across all subgroups. At 21.6 months\u27 median follow-up, 24-month OS rates were 63% in the all-treated population, 44% in the ECOG PS 2 subgroup (including patients with cutaneous melanoma only), 71% in the brain metastasis subgroup, 36% in the ocular/uveal melanoma subgroup, and 38% in the mucosal melanoma subgroup. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy was tolerable in patients with advanced melanoma and poor prognostic characteristics. Efficacy was similar between the all-treated population and patients with brain metastases. Reduced efficacy was observed in patients with ECOG PS 2, ocular/uveal melanoma, and/or mucosal melanoma, highlighting the continued need for novel treatment options for these difficult-to-treat patients

    First-Line, Fixed-Duration Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Followed by Nivolumab in Clinically Diverse Patient Populations With Unresectable Stage III or IV Melanoma: CheckMate 401

    Full text link
    PURPOSE To address the paucity of data in patients with historically poor outcomes, we conducted the single-arm phase IIIb CheckMate 401 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy in clinically diverse patient populations with advanced melanoma. METHODS Treatment-naive patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg (240 mg following a protocol amendment) once every 2 weeks for ≀24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3-5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), brain metastasis status, and melanoma subtype. RESULTS In total, 533 patients received at least one dose of study drug. Grade 3-5 select TRAEs affecting the GI (16%), hepatic (15%), endocrine (11%), skin (7%), renal (2%), and pulmonary (1%) systems occurred in the all-treated population; similar incidence rates were observed across all subgroups. At 21.6 months' median follow-up, 24-month OS rates were 63% in the all-treated population, 44% in the ECOG PS 2 subgroup (including patients with cutaneous melanoma only), 71% in the brain metastasis subgroup, 36% in the ocular/uveal melanoma subgroup, and 38% in the mucosal melanoma subgroup. CONCLUSION Nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy was tolerable in patients with advanced melanoma and poor prognostic characteristics. Efficacy was similar between the all-treated population and patients with brain metastases. Reduced efficacy was observed in patients with ECOG PS 2, ocular/uveal melanoma, and/or mucosal melanoma, highlighting the continued need for novel treatment options for these difficult-to-treat patients

    Correlation of EGFR expression, gene copy number and clinicopathological status in NSCLC

    Get PDF
    Background: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) targeting therapies are currently of great relevance for the treatment of lung cancer. For this reason, in addition to mutational analysis immunohistochemistry (IHC) of EGFR in lung cancer has been discussed for the decision making of according therapeutic strategies. The aim of this study was to obtain standardization of EGFR-expression methods for the selection of patients who might benefit of EGFR targeting therapies. Methods: As a starting point of a broad investigation, aimed at elucidating the expression of EGFR on different biological levels, four EGFR specific antibodies were analyzed concerning potential differences in expression levels by Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and correlated with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis and clinicopathological data. 206 tumor tissues were analyzed in a tissue microarray format employing immunohistochemistry with four different antibodies including Dako PharmDx kit (clone 2-18C9), clone 31G7, clone 2.1E1 and clone SP84 using three different scoring methods. Protein expression was compared to FISH utilizing two different probes. Results: EGFR protein expression determined by IHC with Dako PharmDx kit, clone 31G7 and clone 2.1E1 (≀ 0.05) correlated significantly with both FISH probes independently of the three scoring methods; best correlation is shown for 31G7 using the scoring method that defined EGFR positivity when ≄ 10% of the tumor cells show membranous staining of moderate and severe intensity (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Overall, our data show differences in EGFR expression determined by IHC, due to the applied antibody. Highest concordance with FISH is shown for antibody clone 31G7, evaluated with score B (p = 0.001). On this account, this antibody clone might by utilized for standard evaluation of EGFR expression by IHC

    Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus placebo in patients with resected stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (IMMUNED): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

    No full text
    Background Nivolumab and ipilimumab, alone or in combination, are widely used immunotherapeutic treatment options for patients with advanced-ie, unresectable or metastatic-melanoma. This criterion, however, excludes patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus a placebo in this patient population. Methods We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial in 20 German academic medical centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after surgery or radiotherapy. Key exclusion criteria included uveal or mucosal melanoma, previous therapy with checkpoint inhibitors, and any previous immunosuppressive therapy within the 30 days before study drug administration. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a central, interactive, online system, to the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (1 mg/kg of intravenous nivolumab every 3 weeks plus 3 mg/kg of intravenous ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks), nivolumab monotherapy group (3 mg/kg of intravenous nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab-matching placebo during weeks 1-12), or double-matching placebo group. The primary endpoint was the recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The results presented in this report reflect the prespecified interim analysis of recurrence-free survival after 90 events had been reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02523313, and is ongoing. Findings Between Sept 2, 2015, and Nov 20, 2018, 167 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=56), nivolumab (n=59), or placebo (n=52). As of July 2, 2019, at a median follow-up of 28.4 months (IQR 17.7-36.8), median recurrence-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, whereas median recurrence-free survival was 12.4 months (95% CI 5.3-33.3) in the nivolumab group and 6.4 months (3.3-9.6) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for recurrence for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo group was 0.23 (97.5% CI 0.12-0.45; p<0.0001), and for the nivolumab group versus placebo group was 0.56 (0.33-0.94; p=0.011). In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 75% (95% CI 61.0-84.9) and at 2 years was 70% (55.1-81.0); in the nivolumab group, 1-year recurrence-free survival was 52% (38.1-63.9) and at 2 years was 42% (28.6-54.5); and in the placebo group, this rate was 32% (19.8-45.3) at 1 year and 14% (5.9-25.7) at 2 years. Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 71% (95% CI 57-82) of patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and in 27% (16-40) of those in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade led to treatment discontinuation in 34 (62%) of 55 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and seven (13%) of 56 in the nivolumab group. Three deaths from adverse events were reported but were considered unrelated to the study treatment. Interpretation Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab increased recurrencefree survival significantly compared with placebo in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. The rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in both active treatment groups were higher than the rates reported in previous pivotal trials done in advanced melanoma with measurable disease. Copyright (c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

    Prognostic factors and outcomes in metastatic uveal melanoma treated with programmed cell death-1 or combined PD-1/cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibition

    No full text
    Background: Uveal melanoma (UM) is an ocular malignancy with high potential for metastatic spread. In contrast to cutaneous melanoma, immunotherapy has not yet shown convincing efficacy in patients with UM. Combined immune checkpoint blockade with checkpoint programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and checkpoint cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibition has not been systematically assessed for UM to date. Patients and methods: Patients with metastatic UM treated with either PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy or combined PD-1 inhibitor and ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) were included from 20 German skin cancer centres. Records from 96 cases were analysed for treatment outcomes. Clinical and blood parameters associated with overall survival (OS) or treatment response were identified with multivariate Cox regression and binary logistic regression. Results: Eighty-six patients were treated with PD-1 inhibitors only (n = 54 for pembrolizumab, n = 32 for nivolumab) with a centrally confirmed response rate of 4.7%. Median OS was 14 months for pembrolizumab-treated and 10 months for nivolumab-treated patients (p = 0.765). Fifteen patients were treated with combined immune checkpoint blockade with partial response observed in two cases. Median OS was not reached in this group. Multivariate Cox regression identified Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (p = 0.002), elevated serum levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (p = 0.002) and C-reactive protein (CRP) (p = 0.001), and a relative eosinophil count (REC) <1.5% (p = 0.002) as independent risk factors for poor survival. Patients with elevated CRP and LDH and a REC <1.5% were at highest risk for disease progression and death (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Blood markers predict survival in metastatic UM treated with immune checkpoint blockade. Normal serum levels of LDH and CRP and a high REC may help identify patients with better prognosis. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
    corecore