Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: Extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial

Laurence Albiges*, Nizar M. Tannir, Mauricio Burotto, David McDermott, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Philippe Barthélémy, Camillo Porta, Thomas Powles, Frede Donskov, Saby George, Christian K. Kollmannsberger, Howard Gurney, Marc Oliver Grimm, Yoshihiko Tomita, Daniel Castellano, Brian I. Rini, Toni K. Choueiri, Shruti Shally Saggi, M. Brent McHenry, Robert J. Motzer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

32 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-Term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Methods Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-To-Treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory). Results Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. Conclusion After long-Term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety. Trial registration details ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere001079
JournalESMO Open
Volume5
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 27 Nov 2020
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Funding This work was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb (Princeton, New Jersey) and ONO Pharmaceutical Company Ltd (Osaka, Japan). Authors received no financial support or compensation for publication of this manuscript. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center is supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant P30 CA016672). Patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were supported in part by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant (Core Grant, number P30 CA008748).

Funding Information:
1Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France 2Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA 3Bradford Hill Clinical Research Center, Santiago, Chile 4Division of Medical Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 5Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 6Department of Hematology and Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA 7Medical Oncology Unit, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France 8ICANS, Strasbourg, France 9University of Bari 'A. Moro', Bari, Italy 10Department of Urology, Barts Cancer Institute, Royal Free NHS Trust, London, UK 11Queen Mary University of London, London, UK 12Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark 13Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA 14Department of Medicine, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 15Department of Medical Oncology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia 16Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 17Department of Urology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Thüringen, Germany 18Niigata University Faculty of Medicine Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan 19Medical Oncology Service, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain 20Division of Hematology Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA 21Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 22Department of Clinical Trials, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA 23Department of Biostatistics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA 24Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA Acknowledgements The patients and families who made this study possible. The clinical study teams who participated in the study. The study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. All authors contributed to and approved the presentation; writing and editorial assistance was provided by Rachel Lieberman, PhD, of Parexel, funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dako, an Agilent Technologies, Inc company, for collaborative development of the PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx assay (Santa Clara, California). Bristol Myers Squibb (Princeton, New Jersey) and ONO Pharmaceutical Company Ltd (Osaka, Japan).

Funding Information:
Competing interests LA reports consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Ipsen, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Merck, Amgen, Astellas and Exelixis; and other fees from Corvus Pharmaceuticals and Peloton Therapeutics. NMT reports research funding from BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Pfizer, Novartis, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Takeda, Epizyme and Eisai Medical Research; consulting and advisory fees from BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai Medical Research, Ipsen, Lilly Oncology, Neoleukin Therapeutics, Surface Oncology, ONO Pharmaceutical and Oncorena; and travel accommodations and expenses from BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai Medical Research, Ipsen, Lilly Oncology, Neoleukin Therapeutics, Surface Oncology, ONO Pharmaceutical and Oncorena. MB reports advisory and speaker fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. DM reports research funding from BMS, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Alkermes and Prometheus Laboratories; consulting or advisory fees from BMS, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Exelixis, Novartis, X4 Pharma, Array BioPharma, Peloton Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Jounce Therapeutics, Alkermes and Lilly; and other fees from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. ERP reports research funding (institutional) from BMS, AstraZeneca, Merck, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer and Astellas; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, Clovis, Exelixis, Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Flatiron Health, Infinity Pharma and McKesson; fees for development of educational presentations from BMS and Merck; and US Patent Application No. 14/588,503. PB reports consulting or advisory fees from BMS, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Ipsen, Roche and Janssen Cilag; travel accommodations and expenses from Amgen; and honoraria from Astellas Pharma. CP reports consulting or advisory fees from BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen Eusa, Eisai and General Electric; speaker fees from BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eusa, Eisai, General Electric, Janssen and AstraZeneca; research funding from Pfizer; expert testimony fees from Pfizer and Eusa; and travel accommodations and expenses from Roche. TP reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck/MSD, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck/MSD, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai and Roche; research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck/MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson and Eisai; and travel accommodations and expenses from Roche, Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca and Ipsen. FD reports research funding (institutional) from MSD, Pfizer and Ipsen. SG reports research funding from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Corvus, Pfizer, Acceleron, Merck, Agensys, Seattle Genetics, Calithera, Immunomedics, Corvus and Eisai; and consulting or advisory fees from Bayer, BMS, Exelixis, Corvus, Genentech, Sanofi/Genzyme, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Merck and EMD Serono. CKK reports advisory board fees from Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eisai, Roche, Merck and BMS; and lecture fees from Pfizer, Ipsen, Eisai and BMS. HG reports advisory board fees from Pfizer, Astellas, Ipsen, Roche and BMS. M-OG reports research funding from Novartis, BMS and Intuitive Surgical; advisory fees from Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Bayer HealthCare, Astellas, Intuitive Surgical, AstraZeneca, MSD, Janssen Cilag, ONO Pharmaceutical, Ipsen Pharma and Merck Serono; and lecture fees from Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Astellas, Hexal, Apogepha, AstraZeneca, MSD, ONO Pharmaceutical, Ipsen Pharma, Medac and Merck Serono. YT reports research funding from ONO Pharmaceutical, Pfizer and Takeda; consulting or advisory fees from ONO Pharmaceutical; and honoraria from ONO Pharmaceutical, BMS and Pfizer. DC reports research funding (institutional) from Janssen Oncology; consulting or advisory fees from Janssen Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS, MSD Oncology, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and Boehringer Ingelheim; and travel accommodations and expenses from Pfizer, Roche, BMS and AstraZeneca Spain. BIR reports research funding from Pfizer, Merck, GNE/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca and BMS; consulting fees from BMS, Pfizer, GNE/Roche, Aveo, Novartis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Merck, Arravive, Surface Oncology and 3D Medicines; and stock ownership in PTC therapeutics. TKC reports clinical trial grants from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, GSK and EMD Serono; consulting or advisory fees from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, GSK and EMD Serono; manuscript preparation fees from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, GSK and EMD Serono; travel accommodations and expenses from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, GSK and EMD Serono; and patent related to biomarkers of immune-oncology and cfmethDNA pending. SSS is an employee of and has stock ownership in BMS. MBM is an employee of and has stock ownership in BMS. RJM reports research funding (institutional) from Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, Genentech, Roche and BMS; and consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, Exelixis, Merck, Genentech, Incyte, Lilly, Roche and BMS.

Publisher Copyright:
©

Keywords

  • advanced renal cell carcinoma
  • checkmate 214
  • dual checkpoint inhibition
  • long-Term follow-up
  • nivolumab plus ipilimumab

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: Extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this