| Literature DB >> 28671856 |
James Larkin1, David Minor1, Sandra D'Angelo1, Bart Neyns1, Michael Smylie1, Wilson H Miller1, Ralf Gutzmer1, Gerald Linette1, Bartosz Chmielowski1, Christopher D Lao1, Paul Lorigan1, Kenneth Grossmann1, Jessica C Hassel1, Mario Sznol1, Adil Daud1, Jeffrey Sosman1, Nikhil Khushalani1, Dirk Schadendorf1, Christoph Hoeller1, Dana Walker1, George Kong1, Christine Horak1, Jeffrey Weber1.
Abstract
Purpose Until recently, limited options existed for patients with advanced melanoma who experienced disease progression while receiving treatment with ipilimumab. Here, we report the coprimary overall survival (OS) end point of CheckMate 037, which has previously shown that nivolumab resulted in more patients achieving an objective response compared with chemotherapy regimens in ipilimumab-refractory patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 expression, BRAF status, and best prior cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy response, then randomly assigned 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (ICC; dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or carboplatin area under the curve 6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). Patients were treated until they experienced progression or unacceptable toxicity, with follow-up of approximately 2 years. Results Two hundred seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (99% treated) and 133 to ICC (77% treated). More nivolumab-treated patients had brain metastases (20% v 14%) and increased lactate dehydrogenase levels (52% v 38%) at baseline; 41% of patients treated with ICC versus 11% of patients treated with nivolumab received anti-programmed death 1 agents after randomly assigned therapy. Median OS was 16 months for nivolumab versus 14 months for ICC (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95.54% CI, 0.73 to 1.24); median progression-free survival was 3.1 months versus 3.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95.1% CI, 0.78 to 1.436). Overall response rate (27% v 10%) and median duration of response (32 months v 13 months) were notably higher for nivolumab versus ICC. Fewer grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in patients on nivolumab (14% v 34%). Conclusion Nivolumab demonstrated higher, more durable responses but no difference in survival compared with ICC. OS should be interpreted with caution as it was likely impacted by an increased dropout rate before treatment, which led to crossover therapy in the ICC group, and by an increased proportion of patients in the nivolumab group with poor prognostic factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28671856 PMCID: PMC6804912 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.8023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Oncol ISSN: 0732-183X Impact factor: 44.544