Weber Jeffrey S, Gibney Geoff, Sullivan Ryan J, Sosman Jeffrey A, Slingluff Craig L, Lawrence Donald P, Logan Theodore F, Schuchter Lynn M, Nair Suresh, Fecher Leslie, Buchbinder Elizabeth I, Berghorn Elmer, Ruisi Mary, Kong George, Jiang Joel, Horak Christine, Hodi F Stephen
New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA; Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jul;17(7):943-955. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30126-7. Epub 2016 Jun 4.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Bristol-Myers Squibb.
在晚期黑色素瘤患者中,免疫检查点抑制剂纳武单抗和伊匹单抗联合使用比单独使用任何一种药物都显示出更高的疗效,尽管会出现更多的高级别不良事件。我们评估了先使用纳武单抗后使用伊匹单抗,或相反顺序给药,是否能在不影响疗效的情况下提高安全性。
我们在美国的九个学术医疗中心进行了这项随机、开放标签的2期研究。符合条件的患者(年龄≥18岁)患有不可切除的III期或IV期黑色素瘤(未接受过治疗或在不超过一次先前全身治疗后病情进展,东部肿瘤协作组体能状态为0或1),被随机分配(1:1)接受诱导治疗,静脉注射纳武单抗3mg/kg,每2周一次,共六剂,随后计划改为静脉注射伊匹单抗3mg/kg,每3周一次,共四剂,或相反顺序。随机分组通过独立的交互式语音应答系统采用置换区组设计(区组大小为4),无分层因素。诱导治疗后,两组均接受静脉注射纳武单抗3mg/kg,每2周一次,直至病情进展或出现不可接受的毒性。主要终点是诱导期结束(第25周)时与治疗相关的3 - 5级不良事件,在接受治疗的人群中进行分析。次要终点是在第25周时达到缓解的患者比例以及在第13周和第25周时的疾病进展情况。总生存是预先设定的探索性终点。本研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,编号为NCT01783938,正在进行但不再招募患者。
2013年4月30日至2014年7月21日期间,140例患者入组并随机分配接受纳武单抗后使用伊匹单抗(n = 70)或伊匹单抗后使用纳武单抗的相反顺序(n = 70),其中分别有68例和70例患者接受了至少一剂研究药物并纳入分析。在第25周时,纳武单抗后使用伊匹单抗组(68例患者中的34例[50%;95%CI 37.6 - 62.4])和伊匹单抗后使用纳武单抗组(70例患者中的30例[43%;31.1 - 55.3])与治疗相关的3 - 5级不良事件发生率相似。在整个研究期间,最常见的与治疗相关的3 - 4级不良事件是结肠炎(纳武单抗后使用伊匹单抗组10例[15%],相反顺序组14例[20%])、脂肪酶升高(10例[15%]对12例[17%])和腹泻(8例[12%]对5例[7%])。未发生与治疗相关的死亡。在第25周时,纳武单抗后使用伊匹单抗组达到缓解的患者比例高于相反顺序组(28例[41%;95%CI 29.4 - 53.8]对14例[20%;11.4 - 31.3])。在第13周时,纳武单抗后使用伊匹单抗组有26例(38%;95%CI 26.7 - 50.8)患者出现病情进展,相反顺序组有43例(61%;49.0 - 72.8)患者出现病情进展;在第25周时,分别有26例(38%;26.7 - 50.8)和42例(60%;47.6 - 71.5)患者出现病情进展。在纳武单抗后使用伊匹单抗组中,经过中位数19.8个月(IQR 12.8 - 25.7)的随访,未达到中位总生存(95%CI 23.7 - 未达到),而在伊匹单抗后使用纳武单抗组中,经过中位数14.7个月(IQR 5.6 - 23.9)的随访,中位总生存为16.9个月(95%CI 9.2 - 26.5;HR 0.48 [95%CI 0.29 - 0.80])。纳武单抗后使用伊匹单抗组中实现12个月总生存的患者比例高于伊匹单抗后使用纳武单抗组(76%;95%CI 64 - 85对54%;42 - 65)。
与相反顺序相比,纳武单抗后使用伊匹单抗似乎是更具临床益处的选择,尽管不良事件发生率更高。
百时美施贵宝公司。