Upcoming event

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

  • 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

Research Funding

Bristol Myers Squibb

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. One additional drug-related death occurred with NIVO+IPI and zero with SUN 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.

ITT

IP

FAV

Arm; n

NIVO+IPI; 550

SUN; 546

NIVO+IPI; 425

SUN; 422

NIVO+IPI; 125

SUN; 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), mo

53 (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), mo

12 (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, %

12

3

11

2

13

6

mDOR (95% CI), mo

75 (59-76)

25 (20-30)

75 (51-76)

20 (15-25)

61 (28-NE)

33 (25-51)

m, median; NE, not estimable.