Jeffrey S Weber1, Geoff Gibney2, Ryan J Sullivan3, Jeffrey A Sosman4, Craig L Slingluff5, Donald P Lawrence3, Theodore F Logan6, Lynn M Schuchter7, Suresh Nair8, Leslie Fecher9, Elizabeth I Buchbinder10, Elmer Berghorn11, Mary Ruisi11, George Kong11, Joel Jiang11, Christine Horak11, F Stephen Hodi12. 1. New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. 2. H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA; Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA. 3. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 5. University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 6. Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 7. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 8. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA, USA. 9. Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 10. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 11. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. 12. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: stephen_hodi@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS:Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65). INTERPRETATION:Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65). INTERPRETATION:Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Authors: Rui-Ru Ji; Scott D Chasalow; Lisu Wang; Omid Hamid; Henrik Schmidt; John Cogswell; Suresh Alaparthy; David Berman; Maria Jure-Kunkel; Nathan O Siemers; Jeffrey R Jackson; Vafa Shahabi Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: Dirk Schadendorf; F Stephen Hodi; Caroline Robert; Jeffrey S Weber; Kim Margolin; Omid Hamid; Debra Patt; Tai-Tsang Chen; David M Berman; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Janis M Taube; Geoffrey D Young; Tracee L McMiller; Shuming Chen; January T Salas; Theresa S Pritchard; Haiying Xu; Alan K Meeker; Jinshui Fan; Chris Cheadle; Alan E Berger; Drew M Pardoll; Suzanne L Topalian Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Steven J O'Day; David F McDermott; Robert W Weber; Jeffrey A Sosman; John B Haanen; Rene Gonzalez; Caroline Robert; Dirk Schadendorf; Jessica C Hassel; Wallace Akerley; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jose Lutzky; Paul Lorigan; Julia M Vaubel; Gerald P Linette; David Hogg; Christian H Ottensmeier; Celeste Lebbé; Christian Peschel; Ian Quirt; Joseph I Clark; Jedd D Wolchok; Jeffrey S Weber; Jason Tian; Michael J Yellin; Geoffrey M Nichol; Axel Hoos; Walter J Urba Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael A Postow; Jason Chesney; Anna C Pavlick; Caroline Robert; Kenneth Grossmann; David McDermott; Gerald P Linette; Nicolas Meyer; Jeffrey K Giguere; Sanjiv S Agarwala; Montaser Shaheen; Marc S Ernstoff; David Minor; April K Salama; Matthew Taylor; Patrick A Ott; Linda M Rollin; Christine Horak; Paul Gagnier; Jedd D Wolchok; F Stephen Hodi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Julie R Brahmer; Charles G Drake; Ira Wollner; John D Powderly; Joel Picus; William H Sharfman; Elizabeth Stankevich; Alice Pons; Theresa M Salay; Tracee L McMiller; Marta M Gilson; Changyu Wang; Mark Selby; Janis M Taube; Robert Anders; Lieping Chen; Alan J Korman; Drew M Pardoll; Israel Lowy; Suzanne L Topalian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Harriet Kluger; Margaret K Callahan; Michael A Postow; Naiyer A Rizvi; Alexander M Lesokhin; Neil H Segal; Charlotte E Ariyan; Ruth-Ann Gordon; Kathleen Reed; Matthew M Burke; Anne Caldwell; Stephanie A Kronenberg; Blessing U Agunwamba; Xiaoling Zhang; Israel Lowy; Hector David Inzunza; William Feely; Christine E Horak; Quan Hong; Alan J Korman; Jon M Wigginton; Ashok Gupta; Mario Sznol Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-06-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ahmad A Tarhini; Howard Edington; Lisa H Butterfield; Yan Lin; Yongli Shuai; Hussein Tawbi; Cindy Sander; Yan Yin; Matthew Holtzman; Jonas Johnson; Uma N M Rao; John M Kirkwood Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sachet A Shukla; Pavan Bachireddy; Bastian Schilling; Christina Galonska; Qian Zhan; Clyde Bango; Rupert Langer; Patrick C Lee; Daniel Gusenleitner; Derin B Keskin; Mehrtash Babadi; Arman Mohammad; Andreas Gnirke; Kendell Clement; Zachary J Cartun; Eliezer M Van Allen; Diana Miao; Ying Huang; Alexandra Snyder; Taha Merghoub; Jedd D Wolchok; Levi A Garraway; Alexander Meissner; Jeffrey S Weber; Nir Hacohen; Donna Neuberg; Patrick R Potts; George F Murphy; Christine G Lian; Dirk Schadendorf; F Stephen Hodi; Catherine J Wu Journal: Cell Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: David M Woods; Andressa S Laino; Aidan Winters; Jason Alexandre; Daniel Freeman; Vinay Rao; Santi S Adavani; Jeffery S Weber; Pratip K Chattopadhyay Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-06-04
Authors: Lillian L Siu; S Percy Ivy; Erica L Dixon; Amy E Gravell; Steven A Reeves; Gary L Rosner Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daphne Day; Arta M Monjazeb; Elad Sharon; S Percy Ivy; Eric H Rubin; Gary L Rosner; Marcus O Butler Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jaydira Del Rivero; Lisa M Cordes; Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska; Ravi A Madan; Lynnette K Nieman; James L Gulley Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-10
Authors: Kristen E Pauken; Michael Dougan; Noel R Rose; Andrew H Lichtman; Arlene H Sharpe Journal: Trends Immunol Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 16.687
Authors: Osama Mohamad; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Samuel Schroeder; Andrew Leiker; Alana Christie; Elizabeth Zhang-Velten; Lakshya Trivedi; Saad Khan; Neil B Desai; Aaron Laine; Kevin Albuquerque; Puneeth Iyengar; Yull Arriaga; Kevin Courtney; David E Gerber; Hans Hammers; Hak Choy; Robert Timmerman; James Brugarolas; Raquibul Hannan Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 8.110