Showing papers by "Christopher D. Lao published in 2023"

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

Overall Survival and Response with Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Advanced Melanoma

Abstract: BackgroundA phase 2/3 trial — A Study of Relatlimab Plus Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab Alone in Participants With Advanced Melanoma (RELATIVITY-047) — evaluated nivolumab + relatlimab as a fixed-dose combination and found a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit over nivolumab monotherapy in previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. We now report updated PFS and safety data and the first results for overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR).MethodsPatients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nivolumab 480 mg and relatlimab 160 mg fixed-dose combination or nivolumab 480 mg alone, given intravenously every 4 weeks. PFS (primary end point) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, was assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points, tested hierarchically, were OS and then ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, per BICR.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 19.3 months, median PFS according to BICR was 10.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 14.8) with nivolumab + relatlimab versus 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.4) with nivolumab (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.94). Median OS was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 34.2 to NR) with nivolumab + relatlimab versus 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.2 to NR) with nivolumab (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.01; P=0.059) (prespecified value for statistical significance, P≤0.043). ORRs per BICR were 43.1% (95% CI, 37.9 to 48.4) versus 32.6% (95% CI, 27.8 to 37.7), respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 21.1% of patients treated with nivolumab + relatlimab versus 11.1% treated with nivolumab.ConclusionsThe fixed-dose combination of nivolumab + relatlimab showed consistent PFS benefit versus nivolumab with approximately 6 months of additional median follow-up. The combination treatment did not reach the preplanned statistical threshold for OS, with a 10.3 percentage-point difference in ORR. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with nivolumab + relatlimab versus nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03470922.)

Non-comparative, open-label, international, multicenter phase I/II study of nivolumab (NIVO) ± ipilimumab (IPI) in patients (pts) with recurrent/metastatic merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) (CheckMate 358).

Abstract: 9506 Background: MCC is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is often upregulated in MCC and blockade of PD-L1 or its receptor, PD-1, has improved survival for patients with metastatic MCC. Anti–PD-1 combined with anti–CTLA-4 has been reported to improve outcomes over anti–PD-1 monotherapy (NCT03071406; Kim S et al., Lancet 2022), however further investigation is needed. CheckMate 358 (NCT02488759) assessed NIVO ± IPI in 2 non-randomized MCC cohorts. Methods: Eligible pts had recurrent or metastatic MCC, ≤ 2 prior therapies, ECOG performance status (PS) 0–1, and no prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Pts were eligible regardless of PD-(L)1 status. Pts received NIVO 240 mg Q2W or NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W for ≤ 24 months (m) or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Imaging was conducted Q8W in year 1 and Q12W thereafter. Planned sample sizes were 23 pts for NIVO and 40 pts for NIVO + IPI. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: 68 pts received NIVO (n = 25) or NIVO + IPI (n = 43) with ≥ 24 m follow-up (median: NIVO, 62.5 m; NIVO + IPI, 24.4 m). In the NIVO arm, median age was 66 yrs (range, 27–88), 10 (40.0%) pts had ECOG PS of 1, and 15 (60.0%) were treatment-naive. In the NIVO + IPI arm, median age was 70 yrs (range, 48–85), 27 (62.8%) pts had ECOG PS of 1, and 33 (76.7%) were treatment-naive. Treatment duration was 15.8 m in the NIVO arm, and 7.9 m for NIVO and 6.0 m for IPI in the NIVO + IPI arm. Efficacy and safety outcomes are summarized in the table. ORR was 60.0% (95% CI, 38.7–78.9) in the NIVO arm and 58.1% (95% CI, 42.1–73.0) in the NIVO + IPI arm. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression (NIVO, 28.0%; NIVO + IPI, 32.6%) or study-drug toxicity (NIVO, 20.0%; NIVO + IPI, 25.6%). There was 1 study drug-related death in each arm (NIVO, pneumonitis; NIVO + IPI, gastrointestinal motility disorder). Conclusions: Both NIVO and NIVO + IPI show durable clinical efficacy in advanced MCC. While the non-randomized trial design limits comparisons between the arms, results do not suggest additional efficacy benefit with IPI added to NIVO. Higher incidence of grade 3/4 TRAEs observed in the combination arm could have resulted in shorter treatment duration. Clinical trial information: NCT02488759 . [Table: see text]

Nivolumab (NIVO) plus relatlimab (RELA) vs NIVO in previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma: 2-year results from RELATIVITY-047.

Abstract: 9502 Background: In RELATIVITY-047 (NCT03470922), NIVO + RELA demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit vs NIVO; there was an observed improvement in overall survival (OS) although it was not statistically significant. The combination also had a descriptively higher confirmed objective response rate (ORR) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) vs NIVO. Here we report updated descriptive analyses (efficacy, safety, and secondary analyses) with longer (~ 2 years) follow-up. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO 480 mg + RELA 160 mg fixed-dose combination or NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks, as previously described. Primary endpoint of PFS per RECIST v1.1 was assessed by BICR; secondary endpoints included OS and ORR per BICR. Exploratory analyses were performed for melanoma-specific survival (MSS; defined as death due to melanoma, with censoring of deaths due to other causes) and efficacy outcomes on subsequent systemic therapy. Results: Patients received NIVO + RELA (n = 355) or NIVO (n = 359). Median follow-up was 25.3 months in this updated analysis (minimum follow-up, 21.0 months). NIVO + RELA continued to show a benefit over NIVO for PFS, OS and ORR (Table). A similar improvement was also observed in MSS. NIVO + RELA was generally favored over NIVO across key subgroups (consistent with previous reports). Subsequent systemic therapy was received by 131 (36.9%) and 136 (37.9%) patients in the NIVO + RELA and NIVO arms, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs; any grade) leading to treatment discontinuation were observed in 61 (17.2%) and 31 (8.6%) patients on NIVO + RELA and NIVO, respectively. Grade 3–4 TRAEs were observed in 78 (22.0%) patients on NIVO + RELA and 43 (12.0%) patients on NIVO. In total, there were 6 treatment-related deaths (NIVO + RELA, n = 4; NIVO, n = 2); no new treatment-related deaths have been reported since the last analysis. Conclusions: With 12.3 months of additional follow-up, a consistent benefit was observed with NIVO + RELA vs NIVO for PFS, OS and ORR in the ITT population, as well as in key patient subgroups. MSS was longer with NIVO + RELA compared with NIVO. The safety profile of NIVO + RELA remained consistent with previous reports, with no new or unexpected safety signals. Efficacy outcomes on subsequent systemic therapy (by type of subsequent therapy, including PD-L1/CTLA-4) will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03470922 . [Table: see text]

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).

Abstract: 9552 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. [Table: see text]

Health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus relatlimab versus nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma: RELATIVITY-047 trial.

Abstract: In the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 trial, a novel fixed-dose combination (FDC) of nivolumab plus relatlimab (NIVO + RELA; a programmed death-1 and a lymphocyte-activation gene 3 inhibitor, respectively) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus NIVO in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma (median follow-up, 13.2 months) with stable health-related quality of life (HRQoL), although grade three or four treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were more frequent with the combination. Updated HRQoL results (median follow-up, 19.3 months) are presented.Patients were randomised to receive intravenous NIVO + RELA (480 mg and 160 mg, respectively) or NIVO (480 mg) every 4 weeks. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Melanoma (FACT-M) and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at baseline, before dosing at each treatment cycle, and at follow-up (posttreatment) visits.Consistent with the initial analysis, HRQoL remained stable with NIVO + RELA on treatment and was similar to that with NIVO. Mean changes from baseline did not exceed clinically meaningful thresholds. HRQoL results were consistent across instruments and scales/subscales. Despite an increased rate of grade three or four TRAEs with NIVO + RELA versus NIVO, the proportion of patients reporting that they were bothered 'quite a bit' or 'very much' by TRAEs was low and comparable between treatments.Results from the RELATIVITY-047 trial show that the PFS benefit with NIVO + RELA FDC over NIVO was obtained with stable patient-reported HRQoL, supporting NIVO + RELA as a first-line treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma.

Durable clinical outcomes in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma and progression-free survival (PFS) ≥3y on nivolumab (NIVO) ± ipilimumab (IPI) or IPI in checkmate 067.

Abstract: 9542 Background: NIVO + IPI has demonstrated durable clinical benefit at 7.5 y in pts with advanced melanoma in the phase 3 CheckMate 067 study. PFS curves plateaued at ~3 y in this study, suggesting that being alive and progression-free for ≥ 3 y (PFS ≥ 3y) may be a good surrogate for long-term clinical benefit. We conducted analyses to quantify this association. Methods: Pts with treatment (tx)-naive, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma (stratified by PD-L1 expression, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage) received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg for 4 doses Q3W, followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W (n = 314); NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo (n = 316); or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo (n = 315) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Exploratory post hoc analysis was performed in pts with PFS ≥ 3y. Results: In the NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI arms, respectively, 99 (32%), 78 (25%), and 21 (7%) pts had PFS ≥ 3y. Objective response rates (ORRs) in these pts were ≥ 95% (table). The majority of responses were complete responses (CRs; table); in almost all pts with partial responses (PRs) on NIVO + IPI or NIVO, target-lesion size decreased by ≥ 50%. At 7.5 y of follow-up among pts alive and progression-free at 3 y, PFS rates were ≥ 68%, overall survival (OS) rates were ≥ 85%, and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) rates were ≥ 95% in the 3 tx groups (table). Among pts in this group who died after 3 y on study, the majority of deaths were unrelated to disease (table). The majority of pts with PFS ≥ 3y who were alive and in follow-up were tx-free at the 7.5-y data cutoff (77/84, 57/64, and 13/16). Pts who received NIVO + IPI were off tx (median) for 75.5 mo (NIVO, 55.7 mo; IPI, 59.2 mo). Among pts with PFS ≥ 3y in the 3 tx groups, 4%, 5%, and 19% received subsequent systemic tx (table). No new safety signals were observed in pts with PFS ≥ 3y. Conclusions: This exploratory post hoc analysis suggested that PFS ≥ 3y may be a good surrogate for long-term MSS with NIVO + IPI or NIVO, with very few occurrences of progression or death due to melanoma in this population through 7.5 y. Most pts were tx-free without having received subsequent systemic tx after demonstrating PFS ≥ 3y. Further study of pts with PFS ≥ 3y may allow the burden of imaging and follow-up visits to be reduced in this group. Clinical trial information: NCT01844505 . [Table: see text]