Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

Robert J. Motzer(Johns Hopkins University), Bernard Escudier(Institut Gustave Roussy), Ray McDermott(Hadassah Medical Center), Saby George(Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center), Hans J. Hammers(Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center), Sandhya Srinivas(Cancer Prevention Institute of California), Scott S. Tykodi(University of Washington), Jeffrey A. Sosman(Vanderbilt University Medical Center), Giuseppe Procopio(Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori), Elizabeth R. Plimack(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Daniel Castellano(Hospital Universitario 12 De Octubre), Toni K. Choueiri(Brigham and Women's Hospital), Howard Gurney(Macquarie University), Frede Donskov(Aarhus University Hospital), Petri Bono(Helsinki University Hospital), John Wagstaff(Cancer Institute (WIA)), Thomas Gauler(University of Duisburg-Essen), Takeshi Ueda(Chiba Cancer Center), Yoshihiko Tomita(Niigata University of Management), Fabio A.B. Schutz(Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo), Christian Kollmannsberger(BC Cancer Agency), James Larkin(Royal Marsden Hospital), Alain Ravaud(Hôpital Saint-André), Jason S. Simon(Bristol-Myers Squibb (Belgium)), Li-An Xu, Ian M. Waxman(Bristol-Myers Squibb (Belgium)), Padmanee Sharma(The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center)
New England Journal of Medicine
September 25, 2015
Cited by 5,875Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. METHODS: A total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.002), which met the prespecified criterion for superiority (P≤0.0148). The objective response rate was greater with nivolumab than with everolimus (25% vs. 5%; odds ratio, 5.98 [95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72]; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% of the patients receiving nivolumab and in 37% of the patients receiving everolimus; the most common event with nivolumab was fatigue (in 2% of the patients), and the most common event with everolimus was anemia (in 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 025 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01668784.).


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis