Research Funding
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Background
CheckMate 025 demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) in previously treated patients (pts) with aRCC, with improved safety and tolerability in the NIVO arm compared with EVE. The primary analysis was based on 14-months minimum follow-up. Here, we report an updated, final analysis with an extended minimum follow-up of 64 months.
Methods
Previously treated pts with predominantly clear cell aRCC were randomized (1:1) to NIVO 3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks or EVE 10 mg orally once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Confirmed ORR and PFS were per investigator (inv) using RECIST v1.1.
Results
Overall, 410 vs 411 pts were randomized to NIVO vs EVE, respectively. OS benefit was maintained and PFS favored NIVO vs EVE with long-term follow-up (HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.72–0.99). (Table) ORR was higher (23% vs 4%) with NIVO vs EVE and median duration of response (DOR) was longer (18.2 vs 14.0 months). Ongoing response was observed in 28% vs 18% of pts with NIVO vs EVE. Most pts received subsequent systemic anticancer therapy: 276 pts in the NIVO arm (67%; most commonly EVE [35%] or axitinib [33%]) and 296 pts in the EVE arm (72%; most commonly axitinib [41%] or NIVO [26%]). No new safety signals or treatment-related deaths emerged with long-term follow-up in either arm. More pts in the EVE arm (37%) experienced a grade 3/4 treatment-related AE compared with pts in the NIVO arm (21%).
Conclusions
At >5-years minimum follow-up, response rates and survival remain superior with NIVO vs EVE, and 28% of responses to NIVO are ongoing. Long-term follow-up highlights the efficacy and safety of NIVO monotherapy in pts with aRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT01668784