Show simple item record

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort

dc.contributor.authorHorn, Leora
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-29T00:47:15Z
dc.date.available2020-10-29T00:47:15Z
dc.date.issued2020-03
dc.identifier.issn1556-0864
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/16263
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Nivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab +/- ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort. Methods: Patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. Results: Overall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8-7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1-8.3). Twenty-four-month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively. Conclusions: Whereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy. (C) 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. The authors thank the patients and their families, as well as the participating trial teams, for making this trial possible; Candice Mayne for her contribution as protocol manager of this study; and Stephanie Meadows Shropshire for contributions to the statistical analysis plan. All authors have contributed to and approved this article; medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Sharon Gladwin of Caudex, with funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherJournal of Thoracic Oncologyen_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | How you can reuse
dc.source.urihttps://www.jto.org/article/S1556-0864(19)33531-2/fulltext#articleInformation
dc.subjectSmall cell lung cancer: Nivolumaben_US
dc.subjectIpilimumaben_US
dc.subjectProgrammed death-1 inhibitoren_US
dc.subjectImmunotherapyen_US
dc.titleNivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohorten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jtho.2019.10.004


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record