BACKGROUND:Immune checkpoint inhibitors can be coadministered as a fixed-ratio combination (FRC) or administered as sequential infusions (ASI). Two randomized, open-label trials compared nivolumab + ipilimumab as a FRC versus ASI in patients with melanoma or renal cell carcinoma. METHODS:CheckMate 742 was a Phase 3b study in patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma who received nivolumab 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg either concurrently as an FRC or sequentially as ASI every 3 weeks. CheckMate 800 was a Phase 2 study in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg either concurrently as an FRC or sequentially as ASI every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in the Broad Scope Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Anaphylactic Reaction Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQ) occurring within 2 days after dosing. Secondary endpoints included incidence of AEs in the Narrow Scope MedDRA Anaphylactic Reaction SMQ. RESULTS:There was no clinically relevant difference in safety between FRC and ASI as measured by the primary endpoint in either study; odds ratio (95% CI) of 0.87 (0.30-2.49) and 1.0 (0.30-3.39) for CheckMate 742 and CheckMate 800, respectively. No AEs were reported in the Narrow Scope MedDRA Anaphylactic Reaction SMQ in either study. One death from drug toxicity occurred in CheckMate 742. CONCLUSIONS:Both studies met their primary endpoint. The safety profiles of nivolumab + ipilimumab as FRC or ASI were acceptable and manageable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS:NCT02905266 and NCT03029780 for CheckMate 742 and CheckMate 800, respectively.

PURPOSE CheckMate 914 is a two-part, randomized phase III trial evaluating adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (part A) or adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (part B) versus placebo in mutually exclusive populations of patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of postnephrectomy recurrence. Part A showed no disease-free survival (DFS) benefit for adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. We report results from part B. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks for up to 12 doses), placebo, or nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks for up to 12 doses) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks for up to four doses). The planned treatment duration was 24 weeks (approximately 5.5 months). The primary end point was DFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) for nivolumab versus placebo; safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS Overall, 825 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (n = 411), placebo (n = 208), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 206). With a median follow-up of 27.0 months (range, 18.0-42.4), the primary end point of improved DFS per BICR with nivolumab versus placebo was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.21]; P = .40); the median DFS was not reached in either arm, and 18-month DFS rates were 78.4% versus 75.4%. The HR for DFS per investigator was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.58 to 1.12; P = .19). Grade 3-4 all-cause adverse events (AEs) occurred in 17.2%, 15.0%, and 28.9% of patients with nivolumab, placebo, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab, respectively. Any-grade treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation in 9.6%, 1.0%, and 28.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION Part B of CheckMate 914 did not meet the primary end point of improved DFS for nivolumab versus placebo in patients with localized RCC at high risk of postnephrectomy recurrence.

Abstract Introduction: CheckMate 914 (CM-914) Part A is a double-blind, phase III randomized trial of the Nivolumab (NIVO) plus Ipilimumab (IPI) vs placebo (PBO) in localized ccRCC. Our prior report from this study suggested a disease-free survival (DFS) benefit for NIVO+IPI among patients with Fuhrman grade 4, TNM stages PT2a and PT4, or sarcomatoid features, although the sample size was limited. It is known that high circulating KIM-1 is associated with worse DFS after nephrectomy. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, we investigated whether high KIM-1 may help identify a subset of patients who benefit from adjuvant NIVO+IPI. Methods: Patients (n=816) with RCC after nephrectomy were randomized in CM-914 Part A to receive NIVO+IPI or PBO as previously described. Assessment of KIM-1 levels was performed using enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) on pre-treatment (n=584) and matched on-treatment blood samples (n=584). We used pre-treatment tumor samples to assess PD-L1% tumor cell expression (%TC) in an PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharm Dx assay. The association between biomarkers and DFS outcomes was investigated by Kaplan-Meier (KM) and Cox proportional hazards analysis. Results: Median baseline serum KIM-1 level was 102 (9.9 - 1055.7) pg/mL. Serum KIM-1 levels were higher in males vs females, ≥65 yrs vs <65 yrs, Asian vs white patients, and patients with partial vs radical nephrectomy. In the PBO arm, subjects with highest quartile of pre-treatment KIM-1 had significantly worse DFS than those from the three lower quartiles. In contrast, this DFS risk among the subjects within the highest KIM-1 quartile was mitigated with NIVO+IPI treatment. Among patients within the highest quartile of pre-treatment KIM-1, there was trend for better DFS for NIVO+IPI versus PBO, HR=0.6 (0.34-1.04). Increase in KIM-1 during study therapy was positively associated with higher DFS rate in both arms. Multivariable analysis showed that PD-L1 %TC was predictive at predefined PD-L1 cutoffs (>=1%, >=5%, and >=10%), associating with improved DFS compared to placebo. Subjects with high PD-L1 expression had a DFS benefit from NIVO+IPI independent of KIM-1. Conclusion: Circulating KIM-1 and tumor PD-L1 expression may enrich for benefit from IO therapy in adjuvant ccRCC and hence holds promise for informing risk stratification and patient inclusion in neoadjuvant or adjuvant clinical trials. Citation Format: Sai Vikram Vemula, Wenxin Xu, Yu Wang, Xiaowen Liu, Jorge Ruiz de Somocurcio, David McDermott, Jun Li, Rupal Bhatt, Chung-Wei Lee, Burcin Simsek, Saurabh Gupta, Robert Motzer. High serum kidney injury marker-1 and high baseline tumor PD-L1 protein expression levels are independently associated with treatment effect in adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs placebo in localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 5151.

LBA358 Background: CheckMate 914 (NCT03138512) is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 2-part trial evaluating adjuvant NIVO plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) vs PBO (Part A) or adjuvant NIVO monotherapy vs PBO (and NIVO monotherapy vs NIVO+IPI to assess the contribution of components; Part B) designed in sequence in mutually exclusive patients (pts) with localized RCC at high risk of post-nephrectomy relapse. Results from Part A at 37.0 months median study follow-up (range, 15.4–58.0) showed no disease-free survival (DFS) benefit for adjuvant NIVO+IPI vs PBO in the overall study population ( Lancet 2023;401:821–832). We report primary analyses for Part B of the trial. Methods: Pts eligible for CheckMate 914 included those undergoing radical or partial nephrectomy between 4 and 12 weeks before randomization with negative surgical margins; with predominantly clear cell histology (with or without sarcomatoid features); pathological TNM stage T2a (grade [G] 3/4) N0M0, T2b-T4 (any G) N0M0, or any T (any G) N1M0; and no evidence of residual disease or distant metastases (M0). Pts in Part B were randomized 2:1:1 to NIVO (240 mg every 2 weeks × 12) plus IPI PBO, NIVO (240 mg every 2 weeks × 12) plus IPI (1 mg/kg every 6 weeks × 4), or matching PBO, and stratified by pathological TNM stage and type of nephrectomy. Treatment was planned for 24 weeks (approximately 5.5 months) or until disease recurrence/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint for Part B is DFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) for NIVO monotherapy vs PBO. Secondary endpoints include safety of NIVO monotherapy. Results: In total,619 pts were randomized to NIVO monotherapy (n = 411) or PBO (n = 208). With 27.0 months median study follow-up (range, 18.0–42.4), the primary efficacy endpoint of DFS per BICR with NIVO monotherapy vs PBO was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62–1.21; P = 0.3962). Median DFS was not reached in either arm; DFS probabilities were 83.3% vs 78.2% (at 12 months) and 78.4% vs 75.4% (at 18 months), respectively. The HR for DFS per investigator was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.58–1.12; P = 0.1936). Median (Q1, Q3) treatment duration was 5.1 (5.1, 5.3) months with NIVO monotherapy and 5.1 (5.1, 5.2) months with PBO. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 72.5% vs 51.7% of pts treated with NIVO monotherapy (n = 408) vs PBO (n = 207), and grade 3–4 treatment-related AEs were reported in 8.8% vs 1.9%, respectively. Any-grade treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation in 9.6% and 1.0% of pts in the NIVO monotherapy and PBO arms, respectively. Conclusions: Part B of the CheckMate 914 trial of NIVO monotherapy vs PBO in pts with localized RCC at high risk of relapse after nephrectomy did not meet the primary endpoint of DFS. Safety of NIVO monotherapy was consistent with its known profile in advanced RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03138512 .

This is a summary of a research article reporting Part A of the CheckMate 914 study (NCT03138512; EudraCT 2016-004502-34). Following surgery to remove renal cell carcinoma (RCC), people with a high risk of the cancer returning received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (adjuvant therapy) or placebo to see if this risk was reduced. The results of this study showed that the risk of RCC returning or death was not changed with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment compared with placebo. In addition, people treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had more side effects compared with people treated with placebo (89% versus 57%).

4527 Background: In CheckMate 9ER, NIVO+CABO improved or maintained HRQoL vs SUN in previously untreated aRCC. We report an exploratory analysis of HRQoL in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk-based subgroups treated with NIVO+CABO vs SUN in CheckMate 9ER (minimum follow-up, 36.5 mo). Methods: Subgroups were stratified by IMDC categories of favorable (F) risk (score = 0) or intermediate/poor (I/P) risk (score = 1–6) at randomization. HRQoL was evaluated using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19). Changes from baseline (BL) through wk 151 were analyzed using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM). Bother due to treatment side effects (FKSI-19 item GP5) was assessed using a generalized estimating equations model (response dichotomized as minimal [“not at all” or “a little bit”] vs notable [“somewhat,” “quite a bit,” or “very much”]). Cox proportional hazards (CPH) modeling was used to evaluate time to confirmed deterioration (TTCD). Results: Differences in least square means (LSM) for FKSI-19 scores through wk 151 indicated HRQoL benefit in the NIVO+CABO arm over the SUN arm for I/P-risk patients (n = 505) but not for F-risk patients (n = 146). In the I/P-risk subgroup, longitudinal analysis of FKSI-19 total scores indicated that HRQoL improved through wk 151 in the NIVO+CABO arm but decreased from BL in the SUN arm. HRQoL declined from BL through wk 151 in F-risk patients in the NIVO+CABO and SUN arms. Patients were less likely to be bothered by side effects of NIVO+CABO vs SUN regardless of risk (I/P-risk odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34–0.75; F-risk OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28–0.91). TTCD analysis of FKSI-19 scores of the I/P-risk subgroup indicated that the NIVO+CABO arm had lower deterioration risk than the SUN arm. For the F-risk subgroup, risk based on FKSI-19 total scores was similar for both treatment arms. Conclusions: Compared with SUN, NIVO+CABO improved or maintained HRQoL in I/P-risk patients and had less side effect bother in all subgroups. There were no significant differences between treatment arms for F-risk patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177 . [Table: see text]

4506 Background: In part A of the CheckMate 914 trial, adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS) vs placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of post-nephrectomy relapse (Motzer RJ, et al. Lancet 2023). Exploratory analyses were conducted to better understand outcomes in key pt subsets and with early NIVO+IPI discontinuation. Methods: Key study inclusion criteria were radical/partial nephrectomy with negative margins > 4 and ≤ 12 weeks before randomization; predominant clear cell histology; pathological TNM stage T2a (grade [G] 3/4) N0M0, T2b-T4 (any G) N0M0, or any pT (any G) N1M0; and no evidence of residual disease/metastases. Pts in part A were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 240 mg Q2W (× 12) + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W (× 4) or equivalent PBO for 24 weeks or until recurrence/unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint is DFS per blinded independent central review. Exploratory analyses assessed DFS by key subsets including Fuhrman grade, sarcomatoid features (yes/no), PD-L1 expression, and NIVO+IPI exposure (≤ 6 cycles [1–2 IPI doses] vs > 6 cycles [3–4 IPI doses]). Safety was assessed by exposure. Results: 816 pts were randomized to adjuvant NIVO+IPI (N = 405) or PBO (N = 411). At 37.0 months median follow-up (min, 15.4 months), subset analyses suggested a DFS benefit for NIVO+IPI vs PBO in pts with Fuhrman grade 4 or sarcomatoid features. DFS by PD-L1 expression will be reported in the presentation. Pts who received > 6 NIVO+IPI cycles trended toward improved DFS vs pts receiving ≤ 6 NIVO+IPI cycles. Of the 102 pts who received ≤ 6 NIVO+IPI cycles, 3% had sarcomatoid features, and 20% had Fuhrman grade 4; treatment discontinuation in these pts was due to study drug toxicity (75%), unrelated adverse events (AEs; 6%), pt request (5%), recurrence (4%), consent withdrawal/non-compliance (4%), or other (6%), and most pts receiving ≤ 6 NIVO+IPI cycles were discontinued without initial dose delay (NIVO, 84%; IPI, 89%). In the group of patients who received ≤ 6 NIVO+IPI cycles, grade 1–2 all-cause AEs were reported in 35% of pts (grade ≥ 3, 63%) and 31% of pts discontinued treatment due to grade 1–2 all-cause AEs (grade ≥ 3, 44%). Conclusions: Exploratory analyses suggest that tumor grade and sarcomatoid features influence outcomes with adjuvant NIVO+IPI. Limited NIVO+IPI exposure (≤ 6 cycles) and discontinuation for low-grade AEs may have contributed to the lack of DFS benefit observed in CheckMate 914 part A. Clinical trial information: NCT03138512 . [Table: see text]

4501 Background: Among patients (pts) with untreated aRCC in the CheckMate 9ER trial, superior progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.70) were maintained, and objective response and complete response (CR) rates were doubled for nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) vs sunitinib (SUN) with extended 25.4 mo minimum (32.9 mo median) follow-up. This exploratory analysis evaluated the relationship between DepOR and clinical outcomes in CheckMate 9ER. Methods: Eligible pts received N (240 mg) every 2 weeks plus C (40 mg) once daily or SUN (50 mg once daily; 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). In this analysis, DepOR subgroups were based on best overall response (blinded independent central review [BICR] per RECIST v1.1) and best tumor reduction threshold, as follows: CR; partial response subdivided by a tumor reduction of ≥80%–<100% (PR1); ≥60%–<80% (PR2); or ≥30%–<60% (PR3); stable disease (SD); and progressive disease (PD). PFS (per BICR) and OS by DepOR subgroups were analyzed after a 6-mo post-randomization landmark. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were assessed in DepOR subgroups. Results: Of 323 and 328 pts randomized to N+C or SUN, 236 and 157 pts were progression-free and alive and 293 and 253 pts were alive at the 6-mo landmark and were categorized by DepOR subgroup. Overall, greater proportions of pts receiving N+C had deeper responses vs SUN (CR, PR1, PR2; Table). Deeper responses with N+C were associated with improved 12-mo PFS rate vs SUN for CR (94.9% vs 82.4%), PR1 (81.3% vs 37.5%), and PR2 (72.1% vs 53.2%). In both arms, increasingly deeper response led to better OS outcome; yet OS rates and medians were comparable between arms for CR, PR1, PR2, and PR3 (Table). No meaningful patterns for overall TRAE rates by DepOR subgroup were identified in either arm. Conclusions: In CheckMate 9ER, more pts receiving N+C achieved deeper responses vs SUN. Deeper responses were generally associated with improved PFS and OS. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177. [Table: see text]

CheckMate 914 (NCT03138512) is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 2-part trial evaluating NIVO+IPI vs PBO (part A) or NIVO monotherapy vs NIVO+IPI vs PBO (part B) in mutually exclusive patients (pts) with localized RCC at high risk of post-nephrectomy relapse. We report the primary analysis for part A of this trial.

323 Background: In CheckMate 9ER, patients (pts) with aRCC were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 240 mg IV Q2W + cabozantinib 40 mg PO QD (N+C; n = 323) or sunitinib (S) 50 mg PO (4 weeks of 6-week cycles; n = 328). As reported previously, at a median follow-up of 18.1 months, N+C led to superior progression-free and overall survival and more favorable HRQoL than S. We report results of HRQoL analyses for 32.9-months follow-up. Methods: Disease-related symptoms (DRS) were evaluated using the FKSI-19 instrument and HRQoL with the EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS). Change from baseline (BL) was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), adjusting for baseline scores and stratification factors, and included all common timepoints (at BL and every 6 wks) through week 151. Time to deterioration analysis was conducted for first (TFD), confirmed (TCD) and definitive (TDD) deterioration events using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Bother with treatment side effects (item GP5 in FKSI-19) was assessed using a generalized estimating equations model with response dichotomized as minimal bother (“not at all” or “a little bit”) vs notable bother (“somewhat”, “quite a bit”, and “very much”). HRQoL endpoints were exploratory and P-values are nominal and descriptive. Results: Group mean scores over time show that HRQoL was maintained or improved from BL with N+C while reductions were observed with S. Overall changes from BL though week 151 favored N+C with nominal significant differences between treatments observed for all scores except functional well-being (FWB; Table). Similarly, decreased risk of deterioration was observed with N+C vs S for all scores except FWB, irrespective of the deterioration definition used (TFD, TCD, TDD). Pts in N+C arm were 48% (odds ratio: 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35-0.77]) less likely to be notably bothered by side effects than pts in S arm. Conclusions: Pts continued to report improved HRQoL with N+C compared to S. Treatment with N+C reduced the risk of meaningful deterioration in HRQoL scores, regardless of the definition of deterioration and showed a decreased risk of being bothered by treatment side effects in contrast to S. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of N+C over S with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL is maintained with longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177. [Table: see text]

BackgroundIn the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER.MethodsIn this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment.FindingsBetween Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0–26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20–3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17–0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84–1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28–0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58–5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14–0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01–0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08–0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56–0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50–0·80], nominal p=0·0001).InterpretationPROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.FundingBristol Myers Squibb.

350 Background: First-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) demonstrated superiority over sunitinib (SUN) in the primary disclosure of the phase 3 CheckMate 9ER trial (NCT03141177; 10.6 months minimum follow-up; Choueiri TK et al. N Engl J Med 2021) in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Here, we report the preplanned final overall survival (OS) analysis with updated efficacy and safety in intent-to-treat (ITT) pts, and an exploratory assessment of target lesions by organ site after extended follow-up. Methods: Pts with aRCC (clear cell component) were randomized to N 240 mg every 2 weeks + C 40 mg once daily vs SUN 50 mg once daily (4 weeks of 6-week cycles). The primary endpoint was RECIST v1.1–defined progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in ITT pts; secondary endpoints included OS, objective response rate (ORR) by BICR, and safety. The preplanned final OS analysis was set to occur after observing 254 events. Maximal reduction of target lung, lymph node, kidney, and liver lesions were evaluated per BICR via post hoc exploratory analyses. Results: After 25.4 months minimum follow-up (median, 32.9 months) for OS in ITT pts, a total of 271 OS events occurred, and N+C continued to demonstrate OS improvement vs SUN (N = 323 vs 328; median 37.7 vs 34.3 months; HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.55–0.90]). PFS (median 16.6 vs 8.3 months; HR 0.56 [95% CI 0.46–0.68]) and ORR (55.7% [95% CI 50.1–61.2] vs 28.4% [95% CI 23.5–33.6]) benefits were maintained with N+C vs SUN, and 12.4% (N+C) vs 5.2% (SUN) of pts had a complete response. Median duration of response was 23.1 months with N+C vs 15.1 months with SUN. A higher percentage of pts experienced any reduction and ≥30% reduction from baseline with N+C vs SUN in target lesions at all organ sites assessed (Table). Among all treated pts, 97.2% (N+C; N = 320) vs 93.1% (SUN; N = 320) had a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) of any grade (65.0% vs 54.1% had a grade ≥ 3 TRAE). Conclusions: N+C continued to provide survival improvement vs SUN among ITT pts in the final OS analysis, additionally PFS and ORR benefits with N+C were sustained with minimum 2-year follow-up. A higher proportion of pts experienced tumor shrinkage benefit with N+C vs SUN across all 4 organ sites assessed. No new safety signals emerged with extended follow-up in either arm. These results highlight N+C as a first-line treatment for pts with aRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177. [Table: see text]

NIVO + IPI a démontré une amélioration de la survie globale versus sunitinib dans le CCR métastatique (NEJM2018 ;378 :1277–90). CM914, est une étude de phase 3, randomisée, en double aveugle, multicentrique, évaluant NIVO + IPI versus placebo (partie-A) ou NIVO monothérapie versus NIVO + IPI versus placebo (partie-B), chez des patients atteints de CCR localisé à haut risque de récidive après néphrectomie. Nous rapportons ici la première analyse de la partie-A. Les critères d'inclusion principaux comportent : néphrectomie radicale ou partielle avec marges chirurgicales négatives, composante à cellules claires prédominante, pT2a (G3-4) N0M0, pT2b/pT3(a,b,c)/pT4 (tout grade) N0M0, ou pT0-4 (tout G) N1M0 ; sans signe de maladie résiduelle ou métastases. Les patients étaient randomisés 1 :1 sous NIVO 240 mg/2 semaines (×12) + IPI 1 mg/kg/6 semaines (×4) ou placebo, avec stratification selon stade TNM et type de néphrectomie ; durée de traitement de 24 semaines ou jusqu'à récidive/toxicité inacceptable. Le critère d'évaluation principal était la survie sans maladie (DFS) en revue centralisée (BICR). La survie globale et la tolérance étaient des objectifs secondaires. L'inclusion des patients dans la partie-A a commencé en juillet 2017 et s'est terminée en février 2021. L'analyse finale de la DFS par le BICR et les objectifs secondaires disponibles sera présentée pour les 800 patients randomisés dans le bras NIVO + IPI ou placebo dans la partie-A de l'étude CM914. Au total, environ 227 événements de DFS parmi les patients randomisés dans la partie-A sont attendus, assurant une puissance de 90 % pour détecter un hazard ratio de 0,65 avec un risque global d'erreur de type I de 0,05 (bilatérale). Ces résultats devraient soutenir le rôle de NIVO + IPI en tant que nouvelle option d'immunothérapie adjuvante pour les patients atteints de carcinome rénal localisé présentant un risque élevé de récidive post-néphrectomie.

Background: The phase III CheckMate 9ER trial originally included a nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib triplet arm, which was discontinued early due to the evolving treatment landscape for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report an exploratory analysis of patients randomised to the triplet regimen before enrolment discon-tinuation.Methods: Patients with clear-cell aRCC received nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/ kg) Q3W for four cycles with once-daily cabozantinib (40 mg), then nivolumab (240 mg) Q2W plus once-daily cabozantinib (40 mg). CheckMate 9ER primary (progression-free survival [PFS] by blinded independent central review [BICR]) and key secondary (overall survival [OS], objective response rate [ORR] by BICR, and safety) endpoints were applied, along with investigator-assessed PFS and ORR.Results: Fifty patients were randomised to the triplet regimen. After a median follow-up of 39.1 months (range, 33.4-44.5), median PFS (95% CI) was 9.9 (5.7-16.8) months by BICR and 13.9 (7.3-24. 7) months by investigator; median OS (95% CI) was 37.0 (31.8-not esti-mable) months. ORR (95% CI) was 44.0% (30.0-58.7; complete response, 8.0%) by BICR and 48.0% (33.7-62.6; all partial responses) by investigator. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 84.0%, most commonly alanine aminotransferase increased (20.0%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (16.0% ), and hepatotoxicity (16.0%). Grade 3-4 hepatic immune-mediated AEs occurred in 40.0%. There were no grade 5 TRAEs.Conclusions: These results suggest that the nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib triplet combination has clinical activity in patients with previously untreated aRCC, although monitoring of overlapping toxicities will be important in future studies of this regimen.ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03141177. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Background In the primary analysis of CheckMate 9ER, nivolumab plus cabozantinib showed superior progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (median follow-up of 18.1 months). Here, we report extended follow-up of overall survival and updated efficacy and safety. Methods This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done in 125 hospitals and cancer centres across 18 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by the investigator, any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk category, and available tumour tissue for PD-L1 testing. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib (40 mg) orally once daily or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily (4 weeks per 6-week cycle). Randomisation, stratified by IMDC risk status, tumour PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, was done by permuted block within each stratum using a block size of four, via an interactive response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint (reported here as the preplanned final analysis according to the protocol). Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177. Findings Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 328 to the sunitinib group. With an extended follow-up (data cutoff of June 24, 2021; median 32.9 months [IQR 30.4-35.9]), median overall survival was 37.7 months (95% CI 35.5-not estimable) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 34.3 months (29.0-not estimable) in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70 [95% CI 0.55-0.90], p=0.0043) and updated median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (12.8-19.8) versus 8.3 months (7.0-9.7; HR 0.56 [95% CI 0.46.0.68], p<0.0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 208 (65%) of 320 patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus 172 (54%) of 320 with sunitinib. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (40 [13%] of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 39 [12%] of 320 in the sunitinib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (25 [8%] vs 26 [8%]), and diarrhoea (22 [7%] vs 15 [5%]). Grade 3-4 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 70 (22%) of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 31 (10%) of 320 in the cabozantinib group. One additional treatment-related death occurred with sunitinib (sudden death). Interpretation With extended follow-up and preplanned final overall survival analysis per protocol, nivolumab plus cabozantinib demonstrated improved efficacy versus sunitinib, further supporting the combination in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

4553 Background: First-line N+C significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) vs S in aRCC patients (pts) in the phase 3 CheckMate 9ER trial, leading to FDA approval of N+C in this setting. A deeper understanding of how baseline disease characteristics may impact clinical outcomes with N+C vs S may inform clinical decision making. Methods: Pts with clear cell aRCC were randomized to N 240 mg IV Q2W + C 40 mg PO QD vs S 50 mg PO QD (4 weeks of 6-week cycles). In this post hoc exploratory analysis, PFS, OS, and ORR were evaluated across pt subgroups defined by baseline IMDC risk status, organ sites of metastases (mets), number of organs with any lesions, or target lesion size. Consistent with primary/secondary efficacy endpoints in ITT pts, PFS and ORR were evaluated per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review in subgroups. Results: Median follow-up in ITT pts was 23.5 months. PFS, OS, and ORR (including complete response [CR]) outcomes are summarized in the table across subgroups: IMDC risk (favorable [FAV], intermediate [I], poor [P]); number of organs with ≥ 1 target/nontarget lesion (T/NT; 1 and ≥ 2); sum of diameters of target lesions (sDTL; < and ≥ median [72.1 mm]), and in pts with liver, bone, or lung mets. The PFS HR favored N+C vs S and median (m) PFS was longer with N+C vs S across all subgroups. The OS HR also favored N+C vs S across most subgroups. ORR ranged from 38%–66% (N+C) vs 10%–44% (S) across subgroups, and CR benefits were seen with N+C in most subgroups. Additional outcomes including landmark OS and response details in subgroups will be reported. Conclusions: Consistent with outcomes in ITT pts, efficacy benefits with N+C vs S were observed regardless of IMDC risk status, organ site of mets, or extent of tumor burden at baseline. These results support N+C as a new first-line treatment option for pts with aRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND: Conflicting disparities have been seen in assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes for Hispanic and Asian women compared to white, non-Hispanic (WNH) women. We, therefore, sought to clarify these disparities and calculated cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) for these racial or ethnic groups using the SARTCORS database. METHODS: We performed an analysis of the 2014–2016 SARTCORS database for member clinics doing at least 50 cycles of ART each year. RESULTS: In comparison to cycles in WNH women, cycles in Hispanic and Asian patients were in older (p < 0.001), more nulliparous women, that were less likely to have a history of endometriosis compared WNH women regardless of prior ART status. ART cycles in Hispanic and Asian women, exhibited lower rates of live birth (LB) per cycle start (p < 0.001) compared to cycles in WNH women. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that cycles from Hispanic and Asian women were less likely to have a LB and CLBR than white women (OR 0.86; p = 0.004, OR 0.69; p < 0.001, respectively) independent of age, parity, BMI, etiology of infertility, use of ICSI or number of embryos transferred. CONCLUSIONS: Race or ethnicity continues to be an independent prognostic factor for LB and CLBR for ART. Additional analysis of trends among Hispanic and Asian women is warranted to enable addressing disparities in outcomes in ART treatment.

First-line (1L) nivolumab + cabozantinib (N+C) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) vs sunitinib (S) in aRCC pts in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial. Pts without upfront nephrectomy have poor prognoses and clinical trial data in this population remain limited. Assessment of how different baseline characteristics may impact outcomes with N+C vs S in aRCC pts is of clinical interest.