Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) vs sunitinib (SUN) for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Long-term follow-up data from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial.

Authors

null

Nizar M. Tannir

Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

Nizar M. Tannir , Bernard Escudier , David F. McDermott , Mauricio Burotto , Toni K. Choueiri , Hans J. Hammers , Elizabeth R. Plimack , Camillo Porta , Saby George , Thomas Powles , Frede Donskov , Michael B. Atkins , Christian K. Kollmannsberger , Marc-Oliver Grimm , Yoshihiko Tomita , Brian I. Rini , Ruiyun Jiang , Heshani Desilva , Chung-Wei Lee , Robert J. Motzer

Organizations

Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, MA, Bradford Hill Clinical Research Center, Santiago, Chile, Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, UT Southwestern Kidney Cancer Program, Dallas, TX, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, Barts Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom, University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

Research Funding

Bristol Myers Squibb
Bristol Myers Squibb

363

Background: First-line NIVO+IPI has provided substantial long-term survival benefits over SUN in patients (pts) with aRCC in CheckMate 214. We report survival, response per independent radiology review committee (IRRC) and safety after 6 y minimum (80 mo median) follow-up in all randomized pts, by IMDC risk and in pts with overall survival (OS) ≥ 6 y (long-term survivors; LTS). Longer follow-up data (minimum, 7.5 y) will be presented. Methods: Pts with clear cell aRCC were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W×4 then NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W vs SUN 50 mg QD for 4 wk on, 2 wk off. Endpoints: OS, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR; both per IRRC using RECIST v1.1) in IMDC intermediate/poor risk (IP; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary) and favorable risk (FAV; exploratory) pts. Exploratory outcomes in LTS pts were assessed post hoc. Results: OS with NIVO+IPI vs SUN remained superior in ITT (HR 0.72) and IP (HR 0.68) pts; OS benefits were similar between arms in FAV pts (HR 0.87; Table). Median PFS was consistent with previous reports. ORR per IRRC was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN, with more ongoing responses in ITT (60% vs 50%) and IP (60% vs 50%) pts. In FAV pts, ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN, yet more responses were ongoing (59% vs 52%, respectively). Median duration of response (DOR) was longer and complete response (CR) rate was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN regardless of IMDC risk. Incidence of any and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events remained largely unchanged. No new drug-related deaths occurred in either arm since the previous database lock. In the LTS subgroup (NIVO+IPI, n = 208; SUN, n = 151), ORR was higher (66% vs 53%), more pts had a CR (27% vs 9%) and fewer progressed (4% vs 11%) with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. Median DOR was longer with NIVO+IPI (n = 137) vs SUN (n = 80) among LTS with confirmed response (76 vs 40 mo). Updated survival, response and safety data with 7.5 y minimum follow-up, along with additional subgroup analyses, will be presented. Conclusions: NIVO+IPI demonstrated long-term survival and more durable response benefits vs SUN in ITT and IP pts. CR rates were higher and median DOR was longer with NIVO+IPI vs SUN regardless of IMDC risk group, and in LTS pts. No new safety signals emerged. Clinical trial information: NCT02231749.

ITTIPFAV
Arm; nNIVO+IPI; 550SUN; 546NIVO+IPI; 425SUN; 422NIVO+IPI; 125SUN; 124
OS HR (95% CI)0.72 (0.62-0.83)0.68 (0.58-0.81)0.87 (0.62-1.24)
mOS (95% CI), mo53 (46-65)37 (32-44)47 (35-56)26 (22-33)79 (65-NE)68 (56-79)
PFS per IRRC, HR (95% CI)0.86 (0.73-1.01)0.73 (0.61-0.87)1.60 (1.13-2.26)
mPFS (95% CI), mo12 (10-16)12 (10-15)11 (8-16)8 (7-10)12 (10-18)29 (22-38)
ORR per IRRC, % (95% CI)39 (35–44)32 (29-37)42 (37-47)27 (23-31)30 (22-38)52 (43-61)
CR per IRRC, %123112136
mDOR (95% CI), mo75 (59-76)25 (20-30)75 (51-76)20 (15-25)61 (28-NE)33 (25-51)

m, median; NE, not estimable.

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

2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Rapid Oral Abstract Session

Session Title

Rapid Oral Abstract Session C: Renal Cell, Adrenal, and Testicular Cancers

Track

Renal Cell Cancer,Adrenal Cancer,Testicular Cancer

Sub Track

Therapeutics

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02231749

Citation

J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 (suppl 4; abstr 363)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2024.42.4_suppl.363

Abstract #

363

Abstract Disclosures