Continuous Versus 1-Year Fixed-Duration Nivolumab in Previously Treated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CheckMate 153

David Waterhouse(The US Oncology Network), Edward B. Garon, Jason C. Chandler(West Cancer Center), Michael McCleod(Sarah Cannon), Maen Hussein(Sarah Cannon), Robert M. Jotte(Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers), Leora Horn(Vanderbilt University Medical Center), Davey B. Daniel(Sarah Cannon), George P. Keogh, Ben Creelan(Moffitt Cancer Center), Lawrence H. Einhorn(Indiana University Health), Justin Baker(South Carolina Oncology Associates), Samer S. Kasbari(Southeastern Medical Oncology Center), Petros Nikolinakos(University Cancer and Blood Center), Sunil Babu(Fort Wayne Medical Institute), Félix Couture(Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches), Natasha B. Leighl(University of Toronto), Craig H. Reynolds(Sarah Cannon), George R. Blumenschein(The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center), Vijay Gunuganti(Texas Oncology), Ang Li(Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States)), Nivedita Aanur(Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States)), David R. Spigel(Sarah Cannon)
Journal of Clinical Oncology
September 10, 2020
Cited by 237Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

PURPOSE Limited data exist on the optimal duration of immunotherapy, including for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present an exploratory analysis of CheckMate 153, a largely community-based phase IIIb/IV study, to evaluate the impact of 1-year fixed-duration versus continuous therapy on the efficacy and safety of nivolumab. METHODS Patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Those still receiving treatment at 1 year, including patients perceived to be deriving benefit despite radiographic progression, were randomly assigned to continue nivolumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to stop nivolumab with the option of on-study retreatment after disease progression (1-year fixed duration). RESULTS Of 1,428 patients treated, 252 were randomly assigned to continuous (n = 127) or 1-year fixed-duration (n = 125) treatment (intent-to-treat [ITT] population). Of these, 89 and 85 patients in the continuous and 1-year fixed-duration arms, respectively, had not progressed (progression-free survival [PFS] population). With minimum post–random assignment follow-up of 13.5 months, median PFS was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment (PFS population: 24.7 months v 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.84]). Median overall survival from random assignment was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment in the PFS (not reached v 32.5 months; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99]) and ITT (not reached v 28.8 months; HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.92]) populations. Few new-onset treatment-related adverse events occurred. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, these findings from an exploratory analysis represent the first randomized data on continuous versus fixed-duration immunotherapy in previously treated advanced NSCLC and suggest that continuing nivolumab beyond 1 year improves outcomes.


Related Papers