Extended follow-up results from the CheckMate 274 trial.

Authors

null

Matt D. Galsky

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY

Matt D. Galsky , Alfred Alfred Witjes , Jürgen E. Gschwend , Michael Schenker , Begoña Pérez Valderrama , Yoshihiko Tomita , Aristotelis Bamias , Thierry Lebret , Shahrokh F. Shariat , Se Hoon Park , Mads Agerbaek , Gautam Gopalji Jha , Frank Stenner , Santanu Dutta , Federico Nasroulah , Joshua Zhang , Lynne Brophy , Dean F. Bajorin

Organizations

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands, Technical University of Munich, University Hospital Rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany, Sf. Nectarie Oncology Center, Craiova, Romania, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío (Spain), Sevilla, Spain, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, Hôpital Foch, Paris-Saclay University UVSQ, Versailles, France, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, Mhealth Fairview Clinics and Surgery Center, Minneapolis, MN, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, Bristol Myres Squibb, Princeton, NJ, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Bristol Myers Squibb

Background: The 2 primary endpoints of the CheckMate 274 trial were met as nivolumab (NIVO) improved disease-free survival (DFS) versus placebo (PBO) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 1%. We report extended follow-up data. Methods: CheckMate 274 is a phase 3, double-blind trial of adjuvant NIVO versus PBO for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) (bladder, ureter, or renal pelvis) after radical resection. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO 240 mg every 2 wk or PBO for ≤ 1 year of treatment. Patients had pathologic evidence of UC at high risk of recurrence and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤ 1. Primary endpoints were DFS in ITT patients and in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. DFS was also analyzed in prespecified subgroups. Overall survival and non–urothelial tract recurrence-free survival (NUTRFS) in ITT patients and in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% were secondary endpoints. Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and safety were exploratory endpoints. Results: There were 353 patients randomly assigned to NIVO (PD-L1 ≥ 1%, n = 140) and 356 to PBO (PD-L1 ≥ 1%, n = 142). With median follow-up of 36.1 months (minimum follow-up, 31.6 months), median DFS was 22.0 months with NIVO versus 10.9 months with PBO in ITT patients and 52.6 months with NIVO versus 8.4 months with PBO in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% (Table). DFS benefit was seen in most subgroups analyzed including age, sex, ECOG PS, nodal status, prior cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and PD-L1 status. NUTRFS and DMFS benefits with NIVO versus PBO were also observed in both populations (Table). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.2% and 7.2% of patients in the NIVO and PBO arms, consistent with the primary analysis. Overall survival will be assessed at a future database lock. Conclusions: With extended follow-up, NIVO continued to show DFS, NUTRFS, and DMFS benefits versus PBO. The hazard ratio (HR) for DFS and NUTRFS in PD-L1 ≥ 1% patients and for DMFS in both ITT and PD-L1 ≥ 1% patients also continued to improve versus the primary analysis. No new safety signals were identified. These results further support adjuvant NIVO as a standard of care for high-risk MIUC after radical resection. Clinical trial information: NCT02632409.

NIVO
No. of events/
no. of patients (%)
NIVO
Median
(95% CI), mo
PBO
No. of events/
no. of patients (%)
PBO
Median
(95% CI), mo
HR (95% CI)
DFS, ITT195/353 (55)22.0 (18.8–36.9)233/356 (65)10.9 (8.3–15.2)0.71 (0.58–0.86)
DFS, PD-L1 ≥ 1%61/140 (44)52.6 (25.8–NE)89/142 (63)8.4 (5.6–17.9)0.52 (0.37–0.72)
NUTRFS, ITT184/353 (52)25.9 (19.4–44.0)217/356 (61)13.7 (8.4–20.3)0.72 (0.59–0.88)
NUTRFS, PD-L1 ≥ 1%60/140 (43)52.6 (29.7–NE)86/142 (61)8.4 (5.6–20.0)0.53 (0.38–0.74)
DMFS, ITT155/353 (44)47.1 (26.5–NE)177/356 (50)28.7 (16.6–47.8)0.74 (0.60–0.92)
DMFS, PD-L1 ≥ 1%53/140 (38)NR (44.0–NE)68/142 (48)20.7 (10.6–NE)0.58 (0.40–0.84)

CI, confidence interval; NE, not estimable, NR, not reached.

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 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Oral Abstract Session

Session Title

Oral Abstract Session B: Urothelial Carcinoma

Track

Urothelial Carcinoma

Sub Track

Therapeutics

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02632409

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 6; abstr LBA443)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.LBA443

Abstract #

LBA443

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

Abstract

2022 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Analysis of disease-free survival in CheckMate 274 by PD-L1 combined positive score and tumor proportion score.

First Author: Matt D. Galsky

First Author: Hidekazu Hirano

Abstract

2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

PD-L1 as a predictor of chemo-immunotherapy response in biliary tract cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

First Author: Juan Jose Juarez

Abstract

2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

Noninvasive assessment of programmed-death ligand-1 (PD-L1) in esophagogastric (EG) cancer using 18F-BMS-986229 PET.

First Author: Samuel Louis Cytryn