Nivolumab (NIVO) plus chemotherapy (chemo) or ipilimumab (IPI) vs chemo as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): 29-month (mo) follow-up from CheckMate 648.

Authors

Ken Kato

Ken Kato

National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan;

Ken Kato , Jaffer A. Ajani , Yuichiro Doki , 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 , Mariela A. Blum Murphy , Apurva Patel , Nan Hu , Yasuhiro Matsumura , Ian Chau , Yuko Kitagawa

Organizations

National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; , Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan; , Affiliated Hospital Cancer Center, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing, China; , Klinika Onkologii i Radioterapii, Narodowy Instytut Onkologii, Warszawa, Poland; , Japanese Red Cross Akita 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 dei 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; , Ono Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., Osaka, Japan; , Royal Marsden Hospital, London & Surrey, United Kingdom; , Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Bristol Myers Squibb

Background: NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) vs chemo in CheckMate 648 (NCT03143153), leading to approvals in the US, EU, Japan, and other countries. We report longer follow-up results. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC were randomized to NIVO (240 mg Q2W) + chemo (fluorouracil + cisplatin Q4W), NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W) or chemo. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Hierarchical testing was done first in patients (pts) with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 1%, then in all randomized pts. Results: 970 pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo, NIVO + IPI, or chemo. With 29-mo minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI continued to show improvement in OS vs chemo, including higher 24-mo OS rates, in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and all randomized pts. Responses were more durable and a larger proportion of responders had a duration of response (DOR) ≥ 24 mo with NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% (22%, 36%, 13%, respectively) and all randomized pts (21%, 29%, 13%). Additional efficacy data by PD-L1 status will be presented. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 96% (grade 3/4, 49%) of pts with NIVO + chemo, 80% (33%) with NIVO + IPI, and 90% (36%) with chemo. Any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 35% of pts with NIVO + chemo, 19% with NIVO + IPI, and 21% with chemo. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 2% of pts in each arm. Conclusions: NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful survival benefit vs chemo, durable objective responses, and acceptable safety profiles with longer follow-up. This further supports each regimen as a new 1L treatment option for advanced ESCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03143153.

EfficacyTumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%All randomized
NIVO + chemo

(n = 158)
NIVO + IPI

(n = 158)
Chemo

(n = 157)
NIVO + chemo

(n = 321)
NIVO + IPI

(n = 325)
Chemo

(n = 324)
mOS (95% CI), mo15.0

(11.9–18.6)
13.1

(11.2–17.4)
9.1

(7.7–10.0)
12.8

(11.1–15.7)
12.7

(11.3–15.5)
10.7

(9.4–12.1)
HR vs chemo (95% CI)0.59

(0.46–0.76)
0.62

(0.48–0.80)
0.78

(0.65–0.93)
0.77

(0.65–0.92)
24-mo OS rate (95% CI), %31 (24–39)34 (26–41)12 (7–18)29 (24–34)32 (27–37)19 (15–24)
mPFSa (95% CI), mo6.8

(5.7–8.3)
4.0

(2.3–4.4)
4.4

(2.9–5.8)
5.8

(5.5–7.0)
2.9

(2.7–4.2)
5.6

(4.3–5.9)
HR vs chemo (95% CI)0.67

(0.51–0.89)
1.04

(0.79–1.36)
0.83

(0.68–1.00)
1.26

(1.04–1.51)
24-mo PFS rate (95% CI), %12 (7–19)15 (10–22)3 (0–11)11 (8–16)12 (8–16)4 (2–9)
ORR,a n (%)83 (53)55 (35)31 (20)152 (47)89 (27)86 (27)
mDORa,b (95% CI),mo8.4

(6.9–12.4)
11.8

(6.8–18.0)
5.7

(4.4–8.7)
8.2

(6.9–9.7)
11.1

(7.1–14.3)
7.1

(5.7–8.2)

aper BICR; bEvaluated in responders. ORR, objective response rate; m, median.

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

2023 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Oral Abstract Session

Session Title

Oral Abstract Session A: Cancers of the Esophagus and Stomach

Track

Esophageal and Gastric Cancer,Other GI Cancer

Sub Track

Therapeutics

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT03143153

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 4; abstr 290)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.4_suppl.290

Abstract #

290

Abstract Disclosures