Background In patients with melanoma, ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) prolongs overall survival and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) produced durable tumor regressions in a phase 1 trial. Based on their distinct immunologic mechanisms of action and supportive preclinical data, we conducted a phase 1 trial of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in advanced melanoma patients. Methods Patients received nivolumab and ipilimumab every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone every 3 weeks for 4 doses (concurrent regimen). Combined treatment was subsequently continued every 12 weeks for up to 8 doses. In a sequenced regimen, patients previously treated with ipilimumab received nivolumab every 2 weeks. Results Fifty-three patients received concurrent nivolumab/ipilimumab and 33 received sequenced treatment. The objective response rate, for all concurrent-regimen patients was 40% (modified WHO criteria). Evidence of clinical activity (conventional, unconfirmed, or immune-related response or stable disease ≥24 weeks) was observed in 65% of patients. At the maximum tolerated dose (1 mg/kg nivolumab + 3 mg/kg ipilimumab), 53% of patients achieved an objective response, all with ≥80% tumor reduction. Grade 3–4 related adverse events occurred in 53% of concurrent-regimen patients, but were qualitatively similar to historical monotherapy experience and were generally reversible. Among sequenced-regimen patients, 18% had grade 3–4 related adverse events and the objective response rate was 20%. Conclusions Concurrent nivolumab/ipilimumab had a manageable safety profile and achieved clinical activity that is distinct from published monotherapy data, with rapid and deep tumor regressions in a substantial number of patients.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine how men without partners make decisions about prostate cancer treatment, manage treatment side effects, and obtain information and support. Background In 2009, it was projected that over 230,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. While treatment options vary, these options result in changes within the man that can affect his quality of life. Research has shown that often spouses play a central role in men’s choice of treatment and in maintaining men’s quality of life. In addition, spouses are the major providers of emotional support and physical care. However, little is known about how men without partners cope with prostate cancer. Prior research seldom addresses how diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer affects the quality of life of men without partners. Methods Because very little is known about the needs of men without partners managing prostate cancer, qualitative analysis of data obtained during semi-structure interviews provided respondents with an opportunity to share the lived experience of prostate cancer. A semi-structured interview was conducted with selected, consenting men. The sample was drawn from the ongoing R01 study of men with prostate cancer (PROSTQA). Results The sample for this study included 17 unpartnered prostate cancer survivors. The ages of participants ranged from 47 to 72 with a mean age of 63. The participants had between zero and two co-morbidities with an average of one co-morbidity per participant. The sample was 82% Caucasian and 17% Black. A total of 35% of the participants reported “some college” (n = 6), 30% graduated from college (n = 5), and 23% went to graduate school (n = 4). One participant reported that he was a high school graduate and one had less than a high school education. Five themes emerged from the data: going it alone, diagnosis and prostate cancer treatment decision-making, sources of information and support, the aftermath of prostate cancer, and coping strategies. Conclusions This study provides information about unpartnered men’s prostate cancer experience. This information will help health care professionals to meet the needs of unpartnered more effectively and help them to assist men as they adapt to living with this chronic illness.

LBA9003^ Background: We report updated survival and clinical activity in initially enrolled cohorts and activity by BRAF MT status in a phase I trial of concurrent and sequenced NIVO + IPI. Methods: MEL pts (n=53, enrolled 2009-2012, data analysis Dec 2013) with ≤3 prior therapies received IV concurrent NIVO + IPI, Q3Wk × 4 doses, followed by NIVO Q3Wk × 4. At wk 24, NIVO + IPI continued Q12Wk × 8 in pts with disease control and no DLT. Tumor responses were evaluated by WHO and immune-related criteria. Results: Pt characteristics included stage M1c: 55% and prior systemic therapy: 40%. Across doses, 1- and 2-y OS rates were 82% and 75%. Clinical activity was similar to previous reports except CRs rose to 9/53 (17%). Pts with/without tumor BRAF MT (n=36) had similar activity (Table). By wk 36, 42% demonstrated ≥80% tumor reduction. Median duration of response (DOR) was not reached (NR). Of 22 pts with objective response, 14 (64%) had DOR ≥24 wk (range: 25+, 106+). Treatment-related adverse events were as reported previously: grade 3-4, 53% of pts; most common: ↑ lipase and AST (13% ea). Data for sequenced cohorts are shown (Table). Conclusions: Concurrent NIVO + IPI therapy showed encouraging survival and a manageable safety profile in advanced MEL pts. Responses were observed regardless of BRAF MT status and were durable in the majority of pts. Forty additional pts were enrolled (last pt: Nov 2013) on a cohort of NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3Wk × 4 doses, followed by NIVO 3mg/kg Q2Wk (the selected regimen for phase II/III trials). Clinical trial information: NCT01024231. [Table: see text]

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

9012^ Background: CTLA-4 and PD-1 are critical immune checkpoint receptors. In MEL pts, ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) prolonged survival in two phase III trials, and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) produced an objective response rate (ORR) of 31% (n=106) in a phase I trial. PD-1 is induced by CTLA-4 blockade, and combined blockade of CTLA-4/PD-1 showed enhanced antitumor activity in murine models. Thus, we initiated the first phase 1 study to evaluate nivolumab/ipilimumab combination therapy. Methods: MEL pts with ≤3 prior therapies received IV nivolumab and ipilimumab concurrently, q3 wk × 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone q3 wk × 4 (Table). At wk 24, combined treatment was continued q12 wk × 8 in pts with disease control and no DLT. In two sequenced-regimen cohorts, pts with prior standard ipilimumab therapy were treated with nivolumab (q2 wk × 48). Results: As of Dec. 6, 2012, 69 pts were treated. We report efficacy data on 37 pts with concurrent therapy in completed cohorts 1-3 (Table); ORR was 38% (95% CI: 23-55). In cohort 2 (MTD), ORR was 47% and 41% of pts had ≥80% tumor reduction at 12 wk (Table) with some pts showing rapid responses, prompt symptom resolution, and durable CRs. Related adverse events (rAEs) for concurrent therapy were similar in nature with some higher in frequency than those typically seen for the monotherapies and were generally manageable using immunosuppressants. Cohort 3 exceeded the MTD (DLT: gr 3-4 ↑ lipase). At the MTD, gr 3-4 rAEs occurred in 59% of pts and included uveitis/choroiditis, colitis, and reversible lab abnormalities. Conclusions: Nivolumab and ipilimumab can be combined with a manageable safety profile. Clinical activity for concurrent therapy appears to exceed that of published monotherapy data, with rapid and deep tumor responses (≥80% tumor reduction at 12 wk) in 30% (11/37) of pts. A phase III trial is planned to compare concurrent combination dosing with each monotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01024231. [Table: see text]