Nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) or NIVO plus chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): First results of the CheckMate 648 study.

Authors

Ian Chau

Ian Chau

Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, United Kingdom

Ian Chau , Yuichiro Doki , Jaffer A. Ajani , Jianming Xu , Lucjan Wyrwicz , Satoru Motoyama , Takashi Ogata , Hisato Kawakami , Chih-Hung Hsu , Antoine Adenis , Farid El Hajbi , Maria Di Bartolomeo , Maria Ignez Freitas Melro Braghiroli , Eva Holtved , Ioannis Xynos , Xuan Liu , Ming Lei , Kaoru Kondo , Ken Kato , Yuko Kitagawa

Organizations

Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, United Kingdom, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, Affiliated Hospital Cancer Center, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing, China, Klinika Onkologii i Radioterapii, Narodowy Instytut Onkologii, Warsaw, Poland, Akita University Hospital, Akita, Japan, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Kanagawa, Japan, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osakasayama, Japan, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, Institut du Cancer de Montpellier, Montpellier, France, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, Department of Head and Neck Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Bristol Myers Squibb

Background: NIVO demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) vs chemo in previously treated patients (pts) with ESCC (ATTRACTION-3). We report OS and progression-free survival (PFS) from CheckMate 648, the first global phase III study to evaluate both an immuno-oncology (I-O)/chemo combination and an I-O/I-O combination in advanced ESCC. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent or metastatic ESCC were enrolled regardless of tumor cell PD-L1 expression. Pts were randomized to NIVO (240 mg Q2W) + chemo (fluorouracil + cisplatin Q4W), NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), or chemo alone. Primary endpoints for both comparisons were OS and PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. Hierarchically tested secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in all randomized pts. Results: 970 pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo, NIVO + IPI, and chemo arms (49% with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%). With 13 months (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI led to statistically significant improvement in OS vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and all randomized pts (Table). Statistically significant PFS benefit was also observed for NIVO + chemo vs chemo (HR 0.65 [98.5% CI 0.46–0.92]; P = 0.0023) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. PFS in NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. The objective response rate (per BICR) was 53% (NIVO + chemo), 35% (NIVO + IPI), and 20% (chemo) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and in all randomized pts was 47%, 28%, and 27%, respectively; longer median (95% CI) duration of response was observed vs chemo for pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%: 8.4 (6.9–12.4), 11.8 (7.1–27.4), and 5.7 (4.4–8.7) mo and for all randomized pts: 8.2 (6.9–9.7), 11.1 (8.3–14.0), and 7.1 (5.7–8.2) mo, respectively. No new safety signals were identified (Table). Conclusions: NIVO plus chemo and NIVO plus IPI both demonstrated superior OS vs chemo, along with durable objective responses and acceptable safety, in pts with advanced ESCC, and each represents a potential new 1L treatment option. Clinical trial information: NCT03143153

OS (tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%)
NIVO + chemo

N = 158
NIVO + IPI

N = 158
Chemo

N = 157
Median OS, mo (95% CI)
15.4 (11.9–19.5)
13.7 (11.2–17.0)
9.1 (7.7–10.0)
HR vs chemo (CI; P value)
0.54 (99.5% CI 0.37–0.80;

P< 0.0001)
0.64 (98.6% CI 0.46–0.90;

P = 0.001)

OS (all randomized pts)
N = 321
N = 325
N = 324
Median OS, mo (95% CI)
13.2 (11.1–15.7)
12.8 (11.3–15.5)
10.7 (9.4–11.9)
HR vs chemo (CI; P value)
0.74 (99.1% CI 0.58–0.96;

P = 0.0021)
0.78 (98.2% CI 0.62–0.98;

P = 0.011)

Safety: treatment-related events  (all treated pts), n (%)
N = 310
N = 322
N = 304
Any grade/grade 3−4
297 (96)/147 (47)
256 (80)/102 (32)
275 (90)/108 (36)
Leading to discontinuationa
106 (34)
57 (18)
59 (19)
Deaths
5 (2)
5 (2)
4 (1)

aDue to any component of the regimen.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2021 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Oral Abstract Session

Session Title

Gastrointestinal Cancer—Gastroesophageal, Pancreatic, and Hepatobiliary

Track

Gastrointestinal Cancer—Gastroesophageal, Pancreatic, and Hepatobiliary

Sub Track

Esophageal or Gastric Cancer

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT03143153

Citation

J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 15; abstr LBA4001)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.LBA4001

Abstract #

LBA4001

Abstract Disclosures