Efficacy and safety of first-line (1L) nivolumab plus relatlimab (NIVO + RELA) versus NIVO plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) in advanced melanoma: An indirect treatment comparison (ITC) using patient-level data (PLD).

Authors

null

Dirk Schadendorf

University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), and German Cancer Consortium, Partner Site Essen, Essen, Germany

Dirk Schadendorf , Hussein A. Tawbi , Evan J. Lipson , F. Stephen Hodi , Paolo Antonio Ascierto , James Larkin , Christopher D. Lao , Jean-Jacques Grob , Flavia Ejzykowicz , Andriy Moshyk , Viviana Garcia Horton , Jenny Zhou , Yiqiao Xin , Jennell Palaia , Laura McDonald , Sarah Keidel , Anthony Salvatore , Leon A. Sakkal , Georgina V. Long

Organizations

University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), and German Cancer Consortium, Partner Site Essen, Essen, Germany, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom, University of Michigan, Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille, France, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, Analysis Group, Inc, Boston, MA, Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Bristol Myers Squibb

Background: NIVO + RELA and NIVO + IPI are approved as dual checkpoint inhibitor, 1L treatment options for patients (pts) with advanced melanoma based on results from the RELATIVITY-047 (NIVO + RELA vs NIVO; enrollment, 2018–2020) and CheckMate 067 (NIVO + IPI or NIVO vs IPI; enrollment, 2013–2014) trials, respectively. However, there is no head-to-head trial comparing the combinations; therefore, this ITC was conducted using PLD. Methods: To adjust for cross-trial imbalances in baseline characteristics, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used. Database locks were selected to best align follow-ups in RELATIVITY-047 (min., 21 mo; median, 25 mo) and CheckMate 067 (min., 28 mo; median, 29 mo). Efficacy and safety outcomes were selected based on data availability, including progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator, confirmed objective response rates (ORRs) per investigator, overall survival (OS), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and TRAEs leading to discontinuation (DC). Efficacy was also evaluated in key subgroups. PFS and OS were compared for NIVO + RELA vs NIVO + IPI using Kaplan–Meier curves and hazard ratios (HRs); ORRs were compared using odds ratio (OR). As an internal validation of the ITC and matched assessments, the weighted NIVO cohorts from both trials were compared. Results: After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for NIVO + RELA (n = 340) and NIVO + IPI (n = 298). PFS, confirmed ORR, and OS after IPTW were similar between the treatments (table). Efficacy outcomes appeared to be similar between the treatments across subgroups, although trends favoring NIVO + IPI were observed for certain subgroups, such as pts with BRAF mutant disease or lactate dehydrogenase more than twice the upper limit of normal. Grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 23% and 61% of pts receiving NIVO + RELA and NIVO + IPI, respectively; any-grade TRAEs leading to DC occurred in 17% and 40% of pts. Efficacy outcomes were similar between the NIVO cohorts (table). Conclusions: In the absence of head-to-head trials, this ITC suggests that 1L treatment with NIVO + RELA may have comparable efficacy to, and better tolerability than, NIVO + IPI in pts with advanced melanoma. Similar outcomes between the NIVO cohorts support the ITC methodology. Results should be interpreted with caution given differences in study design and changes in treatment landscape over time.

NIVO + RELA
(n = 340)
NIVO + IPI
(n = 298)
HR/OR (95% CI)NIVO RELATIVITY-047
(n = 338)
NIVO CheckMate 067
(n = 287)
HR/OR (95% CI)
Median PFS, mo (95% CI)12.0 (8.2–15.8)11.2 (8.4–17.5)1.07 (0.87–1.31)6.7 (4.6–10.2)5.7 (3.1–8.9)0.93 (0.76–1.13)
Confirmed ORR, %48500.93 (0.74–1.17)40391.03 (0.81–1.32)
Median OS, mo (95% CI)NR (37.0–NR)NR (31.9–NR)0.94 (0.74–1.19)36.8 (27.3–NR)32.4 (25.8–NR)0.95 (0.76–1.20)

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 Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Melanoma/Skin Cancers

Track

Melanoma/Skin Cancers

Sub Track

Advanced/Metastatic Disease

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 16; abstr 9552)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.9552

Abstract #

9552

Poster Bd #

315

Abstract Disclosures