CheckMate-032 Study: Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Esophagogastric Cancer

Yelena Y Janjigian, Johanna Bendell, Emiliano Calvo, Joseph W Kim, Paolo A Ascierto, Padmanee Sharma, Patrick A Ott, Katriina Peltola, Dirk Jaeger, Jeffry Evans, Filippo de Braud, Ian Chau, Christopher T Harbison, Cecile Dorange, Marina Tschaika, Dung T Le, Yelena Y Janjigian, Johanna Bendell, Emiliano Calvo, Joseph W Kim, Paolo A Ascierto, Padmanee Sharma, Patrick A Ott, Katriina Peltola, Dirk Jaeger, Jeffry Evans, Filippo de Braud, Ian Chau, Christopher T Harbison, Cecile Dorange, Marina Tschaika, Dung T Le

Abstract

Purpose: Metastatic esophagogastric cancer treatments after failure of second-line chemotherapy are limited. Nivolumab demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) versus placebo in Asian patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancers. We assessed the safety and efficacy of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Western patients with chemotherapy-refractory esophagogastric cancers.

Patients and methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic chemotherapy-refractory gastric, esophageal, or gastroesophageal junction cancer from centers in the United States and Europe received nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The primary end point was objective response rate. The association of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status with response and survival was also evaluated.

Results: Of 160 treated patients (59 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, 49 with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, 52 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg), 79% had received two or more prior therapies. At the data cutoff, investigator-assessed objective response rates were 12% (95% CI, 5% to 23%), 24% (95% CI, 13% to 39%), and 8% (95% CI, 2% to 19%) in the three groups, respectively. Responses were observed regardless of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status. With a median follow-up of 28, 24, and 22 months across the three groups, 12-month progression-free survival rates were 8%, 17%, and 10%, respectively; 12-month OS rates were 39%, 35%, and 24%, respectively. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 17%, 47%, and 27% of patients in the three groups, respectively.

Conclusion: Nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity, durable responses, encouraging long-term OS, and a manageable safety profile in patients with chemotherapy-refractory esophagogastric cancer. Phase III studies evaluating nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in earlier lines of therapy for esophagogastric cancers are underway.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01928394.

Figures

Fig 1.
Fig 1.
Changes in tumor burden per investigator assessment in individual patients. Percentage change from baseline in target lesions over time with (A) nivolumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO3), (B) nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1 + IPI3), (C) NIVO3 plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3 + IPI1), and (D) the reduction in maximum percentage change from baseline in size of tumors by treatment group. Patients with 0% best reduction in target lesion are not shown on the plot (NIVO3, n = 2; NIVO1 + IPI3, n = 1; NIVO3 + IPI1, n = 1). Triangle indicates investigator-assessed confirmed complete or partial response, square indicates percent change truncated at 100%, closed circle represents patients off treatment, and cross represents first occurrence of a new lesion. (*) Indicates patients with a confirmed response (complete or partial response), and the bars representing patients with a percentage change in tumor burden that exceeds 100% have been truncated.
Fig 2.
Fig 2.
Kaplan-Meier curves of (A) investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and (B) overall survival (OS) in all enrolled patients by treatment group: nivolumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO3), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1 + IPI3), and NIVO3 plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3 + IPI1). Hash marks indicate censored observations.
Fig A1.
Fig A1.
CONSORT diagram for study design and patient disposition. (*) Increased ALT/AST (n = 1 patient) and pneumonitis (n = 1 patient). (†) Increased ALT/AST (n = 3 patients); colitis (n = 2 patients); diarrhea (n = 2 patients); colitis, cystitis, and transaminitis (n = 1 patient); and diarrhea and hyperthyroidism (n = 1 patient). (‡) Acute renal failure, autoimmune hepatitis, diarrhea, enteritis, increased ALT/AST, lymphocytic myocarditis, and pneumonitis (n = 1 patient each). AE, adverse event; IPI1, ipilimumab 1 mg/kg; IPI3, ipilimumab 3 mg/kg; NIVO1, nivolumab 1 mg/kg; NIVO3, nivolumab 3 mg/kg.
Fig A2.
Fig A2.
Response characteristics in all responders by (A) investigator assessment and (B) blinded independent central review assessment. IPI1, ipilimumab 1 mg/kg; IPI3, ipilimumab 3 mg/kg; MSI, microsatellite instability; MSI-H, microsatellite instability–high; NIVO1, nivolumab 1 mg/kg; NIVO3 nivolumab 3 mg/kg; PDL, programmed death ligand; PD-L1+, programmed death-ligand 1–positive; PD-L1−, programmed death-ligand 1–negative.
Fig A3.
Fig A3.
Changes from baseline in target lesions over time per blinded independent central review assessment in patients treated with (A) nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy, (B) nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, or (C) nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. All data are based on the November 2016 database cutoff, except for the blinded independent central review data for the nivolumab 3 mg/kg group, which are based on the March 2016 database cutoff. The + signs indicate the occurrence of a new lesion, closed circles indicate off treatment, open squares represent percentage changes from baseline truncated at 100%, and red triangles indicate investigator-assessed confirmed complete or partial responses.
Fig A4.
Fig A4.
Waterfall plot showing maximum percentage change from baseline in size of tumors in patients treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO3), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1 + IPI3), and NIVO3 plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3 + IPI1) per blinded independent central review. All data are based on the November 2016 database cutoff, except for the blinded independent central review data for the NIVO3 group, which are based on the March 2016 database cutoff. Patients with 0% best reduction in target lesion are not shown on the plot (NIVO1 + IPI3; n = 1). (*) Indicates patients with a confirmed response. Bars representing patients with a percentage change in tumor burden that exceeded 100% have been truncated.
Fig A5.
Fig A5.
Kaplan-Meier curves of progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO3), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1 + IPI3), and NIVO3 plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3 + IPI1) per blinded independent central review. All data are based on the November 2016 database cutoff, except for the blinded independent central review data for the NIVO3 group, which are based on the March 2016 database cutoff.

References

    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer: Stomach cancer: GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. .
    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer: Oesophageal cancer: GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated incidence, mortality and prevalence. .
    1. Anandappa G, Chau I: Emerging novel therapeutic agents in the treatment of patients with gastroesophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 31:529-544, 2017
    1. Wagner AD, Syn NL, Moehler M, et al. : Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD004064, 2017
    1. Janjigian YY, Sanchez-Vega F, Jonsson P, et al. : Genetic predictors of response to systemic therapy in esophagogastric cancer. Cancer Discov 8:49-58, 2018
    1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network : Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature 513:202-209, 2014
    1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network : Integrated genomic characterization of oesophageal carcinoma. Nature 541:169-175, 2017
    1. Zhang M, Dong Y, Liu H, et al. : The clinicopathological and prognostic significance of PD-L1 expression in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of 10 studies with 1,901 patients. Sci Rep 6:37933, 2016
    1. Muro K, Chung HC, Shankaran V, et al. : Pembrolizumab for patients with PD-L1-positive advanced gastric cancer (KEYNOTE-012): A multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol 17:717-726, 2016
    1. Fuchs CS, Doi T, Jang RW, et al. : Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: Phase 2 clinical KEYNOTE-059 trial. JAMA Oncol 4:e180013; 2018
    1. Janjigian Y, Bendell JC, Calvo E, et al: CheckMate-032: Phase I/II, open-label study of safety and activity of nivolumab (NIVO) alone or with ipilimumab (IPI) in advanced and metastatic (A/M) gastric cancer (GC). J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 (suppl; abstr 4010)
    1. Kang YK, Boku N, Satoh T, et al. : Nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, at least two previous chemotherapy regimens (ONO-4538-12, ATTRACTION-2): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 390:2461-2471, 2017
    1. Curran MA, Montalvo W, Yagita H, et al. : PD-1 and CTLA-4 combination blockade expands infiltrating T cells and reduces regulatory T and myeloid cells within B16 melanoma tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:4275-4280, 2010
    1. Selby M, Englehardt J, Lu L-S, et al: Antitumor activity of concurrent blockade of immune checkpoint molecules CTLA-4 and PD-1 in preclinical models. J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 3061)
    1. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. : Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med 373:23-34, 2015
    1. Antonia SJ, López-Martin JA, Bendell J, et al. : Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): A multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol 17:883-895, 2016
    1. Overman MJ, Lonardi S, Wong KYM, et al. : Durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 36:773-779, 2018
    1. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. : New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228-247, 2009
    1. National Cancer Institute: NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0. Bethesda, MD, National Cancer Institute, 2009.
    1. Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al. : Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:261-268, 2004
    1. Simon R: Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 10:1-10, 1989
    1. Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MK, et al. : Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 369:122-133, 2013
    1. Hammers HJ, Plimack ER, Infante JR, et al. : Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The CheckMate 016 Study. J Clin Oncol 35:3851-3858, 2017
    1. Hellmann MD, Rizvi NA, Goldman JW, et al. : Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 012): Results of an open-label, phase 1, multicohort study. Lancet Oncol 18:31-41, 2017
    1. Muro K, Fuchs CS, Jang RW, et al: KEYNOTE-059 cohort 1: Pembrolizumab (Pembro) monotherapy in previously treated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer in patients (Pts) with PD-L1+ tumors: Asian subgroup analysis. J Clin Oncol 36, 2018 (suppl, abstr 723)
    1. Opdivo (nivolumab) US prescribing information: Princeton, NJ, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2018.
    1. Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, et al. : Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 357:409-413, 2017
    1. Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. : PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med 372:2509-2520, 2015

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever