8 Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: 8-year follow-up with analyses in favorable risk patients from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial
Abstract Background First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has provided substantial long-term survival benefits over sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in CheckMate 214. With a median follow-up of 8 years, the longest follow-up to date for any phase 3 trial of immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in patients with aRCC, we report survival, response per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and safety in all randomized patients (intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and in patients with International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable risk. Methods Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN 50 mg once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. Key study endpoints included overall survival (OS), IRRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (primary), ITT (secondary), and favorable-risk (exploratory) patients. Cancer-specific survival was evaluated in ITT patients by censoring all causes of death other than RCC. Post hoc exploratory analyses in patients with favorable risk were performed. Results With 8 years (99.1 months) median follow-up, OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN remained superior in ITT patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; Table). The HR for PFS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.88. ORR was higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (Table), with more complete responses (12% vs 3%) and a longer median duration of response (DOR) in the combination arm versus SUN. In patients with favorable risk, OS benefits were similar between arms (HR, 0.82; Table). The HR for PFS favored SUN (HR, 1.76). ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, yet more patients achieved complete responses (13% vs 6%, respectively) and median DOR was longer with NIVO+IPI. Median cancer-specific survival (95% CI) in ITT patients was 73.7 (62.8-91.2) months with NIVO+IPI versus 45.1 (37.8-53.3) months with SUN (HR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.59-0.82). In exploratory post hoc analyses of patients with favorable risk, 75/125 (60.0%) patients in the NIVO+IPI arm and 85/124 (68.5%) patients in the SUN arm died over 8 years of follow-up. Of these patients, 31 in the NIVO+IPI arm and 27 in the SUN arm died within 3 years of randomization; the primary reason for death was disease in either arm (71.0% and 85.2%, respectively). Furthermore, among 27 patients in the NIVO+IPI arm with favorable risk who died after disease progression within 3 years, 12 patients did not receive second-line systemic therapy. Beyond 3 years, only 2 of 43 patients who died after disease progression did not receive subsequent systemic therapy. Among all treated patients, incidence of any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events remained largely unchanged. No new drug-related deaths occurred in either arm since the previous database lock. Table Conclusions With a median follow-up up of 8 years, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate sustained survival and more durable response benefits versus SUN in the ITT population, including a further reduction in the risk of death with NIVO+IPI as measured by cancer-specific survival. Long-term exploratory data in patients with favorable risk have shown a steady improvement in the HR for OS, and a marked improvement in median DOR and complete response rates with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, thus contributing to the survival and response benefits reported in the ITT population. Furthermore, the disproportionate number of patients with favorable risk who died within 3 years of randomization after documented progression without receiving subsequent therapy may have affected the HR for OS in this patient population early on. NIVO+IPI offers the potential for positive long-term outcomes, regardless of IMDC risk, and with no emergence of new safety signals.
Authors
- Marc‐Oliver Grimm (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3084-8654)
- Yoshihiko Tomita (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7465-9591)
- Camillo Porta (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2412-1563)
- Brian I. Rini (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2212-080X)
- Elizabeth R. Plimack (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7618-0744)
- Chung‐Wei Lee (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3573-2506)
- Bernard Escudier (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4626-0479)
- Toni K. Choueiri (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9201-3217)
- Michael B. Atkins (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3901-9924)
- Nizar M. Tannir (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5559-8060)
- Robert John Motzer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6925-2327)
- Frede Donskov (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8449-863X)
- Heshani Desilva
- Mauricio Burotto (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7150-4033)
- Saby George (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0444-5870)
- Christian Kollmannsberger (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6329-761X)
- Ruiyun Jiang
- Hans J. Hammers (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6224-4559)
- David F. McDermott
- Viktor Federov
- Thomas Powles
Institutions
- National Health Service (GB)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Fox Chase Cancer Center (US)
- BC Cancer Agency (CA)
- Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb (Germany) (DE)
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- University of Pavia (IT)
- The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
- Cancer Research UK (GB)
- Institut Gustave Roussy (FR)
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
- Jena University Hospital (DE)
- Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center (US)
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center
- University College London (GB)
- Niigata University (JP)
- The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- The Oncologist
- Published
- 2024-08-05
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae181.026
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Renal cell carcinoma treatment
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.84