Metastatic Melanoma: Immunotherapy Drug Combination, Ipilimumab plus Nivolumab – Shrinks Tumor Size In 58% Skin Cancer Patients
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma.
Abstract
Background Nivolumab (a programmed death 1 [PD-1] checkpoint inhibitor) and ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] checkpoint inhibitor) have been shown to have complementary activity in metastatic melanoma. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab was compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. Methods We assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, 945 previously untreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma to nivolumab alone, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or ipilimumab alone. Progression-free survival and overall survival were coprimary end points. Results regarding progression-free survival are presented here. Results The median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group. Conclusions Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).
SOURCE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26027431
Source: Wolchok JD, Larkin K, Chiarion-Sileni V, et al. Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015.
Also reported in
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/294660.php
Immunotherapy Drug Combo Shrinks Tumor Size In 58% Skin Cancer Patients
Despite years searching for the “miracle drug” to cure cancer, recent research suggests the biggest weapon we have against the disease may be our own immune system. In a phase 3 cancer treatment trial, over half of advanced melanoma patients given a combination of two immunotherapy drugs, ipilimumab and nivolumab, saw significant reduction in tumor size, suggesting that immunotherapy may soon replace chemotherapy as the standard route of cancer treatment.
OTHER RELATED STUDIES
Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a multicenter single-arm phase II study.
O’Day SJ1, Maio M, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gajewski TF, Pehamberger H, Bondarenko IN, Queirolo P, Lundgren L, Mikhailov S, Roman L, Verschraegen C, Humphrey R, Ibrahim R, de Pril V, Hoos A, Wolchok JD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
This phase II study evaluated the safety and activity of ipilimumab, a fully human mAb that blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4, in patients with advanced melanoma.
PATIENTS AND METHODS:
Patients with previously treated, unresectable stage III/stage IV melanoma received 10 mg/kg ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four cycles (induction) followed by maintenance therapy every 3 months. The primary end point was best overall response rate (BORR) using modified World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. We also carried out an exploratory analysis of proposed immune-related response criteria (irRC).
RESULTS:
BORR was 5.8% with a disease control rate (DCR) of 27% (N = 155). One- and 2-year survival rates (95% confidence interval) were 47.2% (39.5% to 55.1%) and 32.8% (25.4% to 40.5%), respectively, with a median overall survival of 10.2 months (7.6-16.3). Of 43 patients with disease progression by modified WHO criteria, 12 had disease control by irRC (8% of all treated patients), resulting in a total DCR of 35%. Adverse events (AEs) were largely immune related, occurring mainly in the skin and gastrointestinal tract, with 19% grade 3 and 3.2% grade 4. Immune-related AEs were manageable and generally reversible with corticosteroids.
CONCLUSION:
Ipilimumab demonstrated clinical activity with encouraging long-term survival in a previously treated advanced melanoma population.
Ipilimumab plus Dacarbazine for Previously Untreated Metastatic Melanoma
N Engl J Med 2011; 364:2517-2526June 30, 2011DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1104621
Ipilimumab monotherapy (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight), as compared with glycoprotein 100, improved overall survival in a phase 3 study involving patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 study of ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma.
We randomly assigned 502 patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter) plus placebo, given at weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10, followed by dacarbazine alone every 3 weeks through week 22. Patients with stable disease or an objective response and no dose-limiting toxic effects received ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks thereafter as maintenance therapy. The primary end point was overall survival.
Overall survival was significantly longer in the group receiving ipilimumab plus dacarbazine than in the group receiving dacarbazine plus placebo (11.2 months vs. 9.1 months, with higher survival rates in the ipilimumab–dacarbazine group at 1 year (47.3% vs. 36.3%), 2 years (28.5% vs. 17.9%), and 3 years (20.8% vs. 12.2%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.3% of patients treated with ipilimumab plus dacarbazine, as compared with 27.5% treated with dacarbazine and placebo (P<0.001). No drug-related deaths or gastrointestinal perforations occurred in the ipilimumab–dacarbazine group.
Ipilimumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram) in combination with dacarbazine, as compared with dacarbazine plus placebo, improved overall survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. The types of adverse events were consistent with those seen in prior studies of ipilimumab; however, the rates of elevated liver-function values were higher and the rates of gastrointestinal events were lower than expected on the basis of prior studies. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00324155.)
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, this trial showed that there was a significant improvement in overall survival among patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma who received ipilimumab plus dacarbazine as compared with dacarbazine plus placebo. Adverse events other than those typically seen with dacarbazine or ipilimumab therapy were not identified. An increase in liver-function values is an important side effect that was observed more frequently than expected with the combination therapy. Other ipilimumab-associated adverse events (enterocolitis and endocrinopathy) were observed, albeit at a rate that was lower than expected. The key side effects of ipilimumab were managed through adherence to treatment according to well-established guidelines, including the administration of systemic glucocorticoids or other immunosuppressant agents.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20147741
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.