BACKGROUND Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P = 0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749.)

No abstract

BackgroundThe extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up.MethodsPatients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory.ResultsAmong ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62–0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61–0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77–1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46–0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%–12.8% vs 1.4%–5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports.ConclusionsNIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months’ minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response.Trial registration numberNCT02231749.

No abstract

609 Background: N+I demonstrated superior OS and ORR v S in intention-to-treat (ITT) and intermediate/poor-risk (IP) pts with aRCC in CheckMate 214. Here, we report OS, response outcomes per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and safety with extended min follow-up of 42 mo. Methods: Pts with clear cell aRCC were randomized 1:1 to N 3 mg/kg + I 1 mg/kg Q3W×4 and then N 3 mg/kg Q2W, or S 50 mg daily for 4 wk on, 2 wk off. Endpoints were OS, ORR, and PFS per IRRC using RECIST v1.1 in IP (primary), ITT (secondary), and favorable pts (FAV; exploratory). Results: OS remained superior in ITT (HR 0.72) and IP (HR 0.66) pts with N+I v S (Table). ORR per IRRC was higher and more responses were ongoing with N+I v S (68% v 53% [ITT] and 68% v 52% [IP]). More pts achieved complete response (CR) with N+I and these were ongoing in 86% [ITT] and 84% [IP] of pts. The PFS probability with N+I stabilized after 24 mo at ~35% in ITT and IP pts, whereas probabilities declined over time with S. Among FAV pts, while ORR was 29% with N+I v 54% with S, more pts achieved CR (13% v 6%), and more responses were ongoing (69% v 54%) with N+I v S; 94% of CRs in FAV pts were ongoing with N+I. OS benefits were similar in both arms and PFS probabilities are stabilizing with N+I and declining with S in FAV pts. The incidence of any and grade 3–4 treatment-related AEs was consistent with previous reports and no new drug-related deaths occurred in either arm. Response outcomes per investigator will also be reported. Conclusions: Superior OS and ORR with N+I v S was maintained in ITT and IP pts. More pts treated with N+I experienced CR compared with S, responses and CRs were durable, and PFS probabilities stabilized with N+I after extended follow-up. No new safety signals emerged. Clinical trial information: NCT02231749 .[Table: see text]

Progression of bone metastases during radium-223 therapy is uncommon. A bone flare (pain and/or radiological) may be noted during the first 3 months, and should not be confused with progression. Imaging by CT scan should be considered after three and six doses of radium-223 to rule out extraskeletal disease progression.

No abstract

This article assessed the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic bladder cancer who had previously failed one treatment regimen. It would cost $122 557 in the United States, $91 995 in the United Kingdom, $90 099 in Canada, and $99 966 in Australia to gain one quality-adjusted life-year with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in these patients, which may be considered cost-effective only in the United States because of the differences in willingness-to-pay thresholds.