Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Nivolumab Alone for Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: The Phase 2 CheckMate 714 Randomized Clinical Trial.
Male
Humans
Middle Aged
Nivolumab
/ adverse effects
Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck
/ drug therapy
Double-Blind Method
Platinum
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ drug therapy
Ipilimumab
/ adverse effects
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell
/ drug therapy
Head and Neck Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Immunotherapy
Journal
JAMA oncology
ISSN: 2374-2445
Titre abrégé: JAMA Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101652861
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2023
01 Jun 2023
Historique:
medline:
19
6
2023
pubmed:
7
4
2023
entrez:
6
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There remains an unmet need to improve clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). To evaluate clinical benefit of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in patients with R/M SCCHN. The CheckMate 714, double-blind, phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted at 83 sites in 21 countries between October 20, 2016, and January 23, 2019. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and had platinum-refractory or platinum-eligible R/M SCCHN and no prior systemic therapy for R/M disease. Data were analyzed from October 20, 2016 (first patient, first visit), to March 8, 2019 (primary database lock), and April 6, 2020 (overall survival database lock). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously [IV] every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks) or nivolumab (3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) plus placebo for up to 2 years or until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or consent withdrawal. The primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response between treatment arms by blinded independent central review in the population with platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN. Exploratory end points included safety. Of 425 included patients, 241 (56.7%; median age, 59 [range, 24-82] years; 194 males [80.5%]) had platinum-refractory disease (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 159; nivolumab, n = 82) and 184 (43.3%; median age, 62 [range, 33-88] years; 152 males [82.6%]) had platinum-eligible disease (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 123; nivolumab, n = 61). At primary database lock, the ORR in the population with platinum-refractory disease was 13.2% (95% CI, 8.4%-19.5%) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 18.3% (95% CI, 10.6%-28.4%) with nivolumab (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95.5% CI, 0.33-1.43; P = .29). Median duration of response for nivolumab plus ipilimumab was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 11.0 months to NR) vs 11.1 months (95% CI, 4.1 months to NR) for nivolumab. In the population with platinum-eligible disease, the ORR was 20.3% (95% CI, 13.6%-28.5%) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 29.5% (95% CI, 18.5%-42.6%) with nivolumab. The rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab were 15.8% (25 of 158) vs 14.6% (12 of 82) in the population with platinum-refractory disease and 24.6% (30 of 122) vs 13.1% (8 of 61) in the population with platinum-eligible disease. The CheckMate 714 randomized clinical trial did not meet its primary end point of ORR benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with an acceptable safety profile. Research to identify patient subpopulations in R/M SCCHN that would benefit from nivolumab plus ipilimumab over nivolumab monotherapy is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02823574.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37022706
pii: 2803086
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.0147
pmc: PMC10080406
doi:
Substances chimiques
Nivolumab
31YO63LBSN
Platinum
49DFR088MY
Ipilimumab
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02823574']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comment
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
779-789Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentOn
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2022 Jul 20;40(21):2321-2332
pubmed: 35333599
J Immunother Cancer. 2022 Feb;10(2):
pubmed: 35217573
N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 11;359(11):1116-27
pubmed: 18784101
Lancet. 2019 Nov 23;394(10212):1915-1928
pubmed: 31679945
Oncologist. 2022 Mar 4;27(2):e194-e198
pubmed: 35641218
Cancer Immunol Res. 2021 Oct;9(10):1202-1213
pubmed: 34389558
Lancet. 2019 Jan 12;393(10167):156-167
pubmed: 30509740
Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Mar 22;12(4):252-64
pubmed: 22437870
J Clin Oncol. 2023 Apr 20;41(12):2166-2180
pubmed: 36473143
J Mol Diagn. 2021 Sep;23(9):1159-1173
pubmed: 34197924
Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):375-386
pubmed: 33485464
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1856-1867
pubmed: 27718784
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jan;18(1):31-41
pubmed: 27932067
ESMO Open. 2020 Nov;5(6):e001079
pubmed: 33246931
JCI Insight. 2018 Feb 22;3(4):
pubmed: 29467336
J Thorac Oncol. 2022 Feb;17(2):289-308
pubmed: 34648948
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Oncologist. 2018 Sep;23(9):1079-1082
pubmed: 29866947
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020 Nov 26;6(1):92
pubmed: 33243986
N Engl J Med. 2022 Feb 3;386(5):449-462
pubmed: 35108470
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Jul 15;27(14):3926-3935
pubmed: 33782030
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
Oral Oncol. 2018 Jun;81:45-51
pubmed: 29884413
Ann Oncol. 2022 May;33(5):488-499
pubmed: 35124183
J Clin Oncol. 2023 Feb 1;41(4):790-802
pubmed: 36219809
Lancet. 2008 May 17;371(9625):1695-709
pubmed: 18486742
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 17;381(16):1535-1546
pubmed: 31562797