Long-term outcomes among patients who respond within the first year to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy: A pooled analysis in 935 patients.

To investigate the predictive value of RECIST response within 3, 6, or 12 months on long-term survival, and explore differences between nivolumab+ipilimumab and nivolumab monotherapy, we analyzed pooled 5-year data of 935 responder and non-responder patients at various time points after treatment initiation in CheckMate 069, 066, and 067 studies. Treatment-naive advanced melanoma patients received nivolumab+ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy. To decrease immortal time bias, 3-, 6-, or 12-month overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) landmark analyses were performed. Association between characteristics and response was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Response rates at any time were 58 % (239/409) for nivolumab+ipilimumab and 44 % (230/526) for nivolumab monotherapy. In 12-month landmark analyses, 5-year OS rates for responders versus non-responders were 82 % versus 40 % with nivolumab+ipilimumab (HR=0.23 [95 % CI, 0.15-0.35]) and 76 % versus 32 % with nivolumab monotherapy (HR=0.22 [95 % CI, 0.16-0.31]). PFS rates were 83 % versus 32 % and 69 % versus 46 %, respectively. Similar strong associations between response at 3 and 6 months and 5-year OS and PFS were also observed with more than 70 % of the responses observed in the first 3 months. Response rates correlated with baseline LDH and PD-L1 status by multivariate analysis but the association between response and long-term survival was maintained in landmark analyses even among patients with high LDH and low PD-L1 expression. Clinical response evaluated in the first months of therapy is a strong predictor of long-term survival, even in patients with poor prognostic biomarkers.

Robert C ，Long GV ，Larkin J ，Wolchok JD ，Hassel JC ，Schadendorf D ，Hodi FS ，Lebbé C ，Grob JJ ，Hyngstrom JR ，Wagstaff J ，Chesney J ，Butler MO ，Bechter O ，Márquez-Rodas I ，Pavlick AC ，Durani P ，Pe Benito M ，Wang P ，Postow MA ，Ascierto PA ... -  《-》

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus carboplatin-based doublet as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer aged ≥70 years or with an ECOG performance status of 2 (GFPC 08-2015 ENERGY): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

Combined treatment with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has shown superiority over chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but data for older patients (aged ≥70 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1 or those with an ECOG performance status of 2 are scarce. We aimed to test the superiority of the PD-1 antibody nivolumab and the CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab over platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with NSCLC aged 70 years or older or with an ECOG performance status of 2. This open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 30 hospitals and cancer centres in France. Eligible patients had stage IV histologically proven NSCLC, with no known oncogenic alterations, and were either aged 70 years or older with ECOG performance status of 0-2 or younger than 70 years with an ECOG performance status of 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, using a computer-generated algorithm stratified by age (<70 vs ≥70 years), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), and histology (squamous vs non-squamous) to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve ≤700 mg] plus pemetrexed [500 mg/m2 intravenous infusion every 3 weeks] or carboplatin [on day 1; area under the curve ≤700 mg] plus paclitaxel [90 mg/m2 as intravenous infusion on days 1, 5, and 15, every 4 weeks]). The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. All efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients. Safety was analysed in the safety analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and who had at least one safety follow-up. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03351361. The trial was stopped early for futility on the basis of a pre-planned interim analysis after 33% of the expected events had occurred. Between Feb 12, 2018, and Dec 15, 2020, 217 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 216 patients were included in the final analysis, with 109 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 107 in the chemotherapy group; median age was 74 years (IQR 70-78). Median overall survival was 14·7 months (95% CI 8·0-19·7) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 9·9 months (7·7-12·3) in chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85 [95% CI 0·62-1·16]). Among patients aged 70 years or older with an ECOG performance status of 0-1 (median age 76 years [IQR 73-79]), median overall survival was longer in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the chemotherapy group: 22·6 months (95% CI 18·1-36·0) versus 11·8 months (8·9-20·5; HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·46-0·96]). Among patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 (median age 69 years [IQR 63-75]), median overall survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 1·4-4·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus 6·1 months (3·5-10·4) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·32 [95% CI 0·82-2·11]). No new safety signals were reported. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (28 [27%] of 103 patients) in the chemotherapy group and endocrine disorders (five [5%] of 105 patients), cardiac disorders (ten [10%] patients), and gastrointestinal disorders (11 [11%] patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. The study showed no benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination in the overall study population. As a result of early stopping, the trial was underpowered for primary and secondary endpoints; however, the finding of better survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with platinum doublet in the subgroup of older patients with NSCLC with an ECOG performance status of 0-1 warrants further study. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Léna H ，Greillier L ，Cropet C ，Bylicki O ，Monnet I ，Audigier-Valette C ，Falchero L ，Vergnenègre A ，Demontrond P ，Geier M ，Guisier F ，Hominal S ，Locher C ，Corre R ，Chouaid C ，Ricordel C ，GFPC 08–2015 ENERGY investigators ... -  《-》

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes in advanced or metastatic melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy: Findings from the CheckMate-067 study.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that predict survival in cancer patients have yet to be realized as practical tools for clinicians to make better treatment decisions. To identify such PROs in adults with advanced melanoma treated with immunotherapy, this study used 7.5-year follow-up data from CheckMate-067, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab. PRO data assessed using the European Organization of Research for the Treatment of Cancer Core-30 and EQ-5D-3L at baseline and during subsequent visits after treatment initiation were pooled across treatment arms. Associations between baseline PRO or change from baseline (CFB) scores with survival outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS], and melanoma-specific survival [MSS]) were examined using Cox proportional hazards models for PFS or OS and cause-specific hazard models for MSS. Baseline and CFB scores for most PRO domains, especially for physical functioning, global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), fatigue, and EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), were prognostic of all survival outcomes. Achieving meaningful improvement/maintenance of baseline PRO scores at 12 weeks following treatment initiation predicted better survival outcomes than with meaningful worsening from baseline. PROs at baseline and during treatment, particularly for physical functioning, GHS/QoL, fatigue, and EQ-VAS, were prognostic of survival outcomes. This knowledge may accelerate development of prognostic tools to manage treatment in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma who undergo immunotherapy.

Schadendorf D ，Lord-Bessen J ，Ejzykowicz F ，Shi L ，Yu P ，Srinivasan S ... -  《-》

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Microsatellite-Instability-High Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Patients with microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer have poor outcomes with standard chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown clinical benefit in nonrandomized studies of MSI-H or dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer and MSI-H or dMMR status according to local testing to receive, in a 2:2:1 ratio, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. The dual primary end points, assessed in patients with centrally confirmed MSI-H or dMMR status, were progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy and progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with nivolumab alone in patients regardless of previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. At this prespecified interim analysis, the first primary end point (involving nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy) was assessed. A total of 303 patients who had not previously received systemic treatment for metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab or chemotherapy; 255 patients had centrally confirmed MSI-H or dMMR tumors. At a median follow-up of 31.5 months (range, 6.1 to 48.4), progression-free survival outcomes (the primary analysis) were significantly better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy (P<0.001 for the between-group difference in progression-free survival, calculated with the use of a two-sided stratified log-rank test); 24-month progression-free survival was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 79) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with 14% (95% CI, 6 to 25) with chemotherapy. At 24 months, the restricted mean survival time was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 12.9) longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy, a finding consistent with the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 23% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in 48% of the patients in the chemotherapy group. Progression-free survival was longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients who had not previously received systemic treatment for MSI-H or dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 8HW ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04008030.).

Andre T ，Elez E ，Van Cutsem E ，Jensen LH ，Bennouna J ，Mendez G ，Schenker M ，de la Fouchardiere C ，Limon ML ，Yoshino T ，Li J ，Lenz HJ ，Manzano Mozo JL ，Tortora G ，Garcia-Carbonero R ，Dahan L ，Chalabi M ，Joshi R ，Goekkurt E ，Braghiroli MI ，Cil T ，Cela E ，Chen T ，Lei M ，Dixon M ，Abdullaev S ，Lonardi S ，CheckMate 8HW Investigators ... -  《-》

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor. We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021). We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)). Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses. We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty). In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).

Bryant A ，Hiu S ，Kunonga PT ，Gajjar K ，Craig D ，Vale L ，Winter-Roach BA ，Elattar A ，Naik R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》