Explore the vast range of titles available.

With a 5-year minimum follow-up in patients with metastatic melanoma, overall survival at 5 years was 52% with a combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 44% with nivolumab alone and 26% with ipilimumab alone. Programmed cell death ligand 1 expression did not influence the response rate or progression-free survival.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods A systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary. Results Of 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27–0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14–0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib. Conclusion Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk–benefit profile.

BackgroundTreatment-free survival (TFS; time spent free of systemic anticancer therapy) is increasingly used to support traditional endpoints. TFS was previously evaluated in patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. This analysis compared TFS for nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.MethodsData were from 714 patients in the phase 2/3 RELATIVITY-047 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03470922). TFS was defined as the difference in restricted mean event times between the Kaplan-Meier curves for time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy initiation or death. TFS was further partitioned into time with and time without grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Subgroup analysis based on tumor BRAF mutational status and tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level was conducted. Between-treatment group differences were calculated with bootstrapped 95% CIs.ResultsAt 48 months from randomization, Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival were 52% and 43% for patients in the nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab groups, respectively; 38% and 33% of patients in these respective groups were free of subsequent systemic therapy. The 48-month mean TFS was 2.9 months (95% CI 1.0 to 4.9) longer with nivolumab plus relatlimab than with nivolumab (9.7 vs 6.8 months, respectively). Mean TFS represented 20% and 14% of the 48-month period after initiating nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab, respectively. Considering only time without grade ≥3 TRAEs, the 48-month mean TFS was 2.6 months (95% CI 0.8 to 4.5) longer with nivolumab plus relatlimab than with nivolumab (9.1 vs 6.5 months, respectively). The 48-month mean total TFS was consistently longer with nivolumab plus relatlimab than with nivolumab in the BRAF mutant (9.4 vs 6.5 months), BRAF wild-type (9.9 vs 6.9 months), PD-L1 ≥1% (12.3 vs 7.7 months), and PD-L1<1% (7.9 vs 6.2 months) subgroups.ConclusionsThis analysis demonstrated TFS benefit during the 48 months since initiating nivolumab plus relatlimab compared with nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. A direct comparison between nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab is needed to determine the differences between the regimens in TFS and those in traditional endpoints.

ObjectiveThis study examined real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) treated with first-line immunotherapy consisting of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or targeted therapy consisting of BRAF/MEK inhibitors.DesignRetrospective chart review study.SettingAcademic medical centres, community hospitals and private practice offices.ParticipantsIncluded patients diagnosed with melanoma with brain metastasis in the USA.Outcome measuresThe statistical analysis was descriptive in nature. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between treatments in a univariate Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsIn total, 472 patients with MBM who received first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=246), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n=112) or BRAF/MEK inhibitors (n=114) were identified. Patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab, compared with patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy or BRAF/MEK inhibitors, had favourable baseline prognostic factors, such as younger age, fewer or smaller brain metastases, better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and less frequently elevated lactate dehydrogenase. Median follow-up times were 15.4 months (range 0.1 to 37.0), 13.3 months (range 0.3 to 36.6) and 13.9 months (range 1.9 to 36.5), respectively. Numerically longer OS was observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.67) or BRAF/MEK inhibitors (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04) and numerically longer PFS was observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02) or BRAF/MEK inhibitors (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12). With nivolumab plus ipilimumab, anti-PD-1 monotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 1-year OS rates were 79%, 60% and 72%, respectively; 1-year PFS rates were 68%, 58% and 59%.ConclusionsIn this real-world study, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab appeared to provide benefit versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with MBM, consistent with pivotal trial data. However, the observed benefit may have been due to confounding and selection bias, given that patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab had favourable baseline prognostic factors compared with patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy or BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

Background Survival heterogeneity and limited trial follow-up present challenges for estimating lifetime benefits of oncology therapies. This study used CheckMate 067 (NCT01844505) extended follow-up data to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric and flexible models in estimating the long-term overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (an immune checkpoint inhibitor combination) in advanced melanoma. Methods Six sets of survival models (standard parametric, piecewise, cubic spline, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models) were independently fitted to overall survival data for treatments in CheckMate 067 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab) using successive data cuts (28, 40, 52, and 60 mo). Standard parametric models allow survival extrapolation in the absence of a complex hazard. Piecewise and cubic spline models allow additional flexibility in fitting the hazard function. Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provide flexibility by explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity. Sixty-month follow-up data, external ipilimumab data, and clinical expert opinion were used to evaluate model estimation accuracy. Lifetime survival projections were compared using a 5% discount rate. Results Standard parametric, piecewise, and cubic spline models underestimated overall survival at 60 mo for the 28-mo data cut. Compared with other models, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate long-term overall survival estimates versus external data, higher mean survival benefit over 20 y for the 28-mo data cut, and more consistent 20-y mean overall survival estimates across data cuts. Conclusion This case study demonstrates that survival models explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity showed greater accuracy for early data cuts than standard parametric models did, consistent with similar immune checkpoint inhibitor survival validation studies in advanced melanoma. Research is required to assess generalizability to other tumors and disease stages. Highlights Given that short clinical trial follow-up periods and survival heterogeneity introduce uncertainty in the health technology assessment of oncology therapies, this study evaluated the suitability of conventional parametric survival modeling approaches as compared with more flexible models in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitors that have the potential to provide lasting survival benefits. This study used extended follow-up data from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505) to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric models in comparison with more flexible methods for estimating the long-term survival benefit of the immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate estimates of long-term overall survival versus external data than other models tested. In this case study with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in advanced melanoma, extrapolation models that explicitly incorporate differences in cancer survival between observed or latent subgroups showed greater accuracy with both early and later data cuts than other approaches did.

Background Ipilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies. Methods IMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. Results Among 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti–programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab–treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab–treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts. Conclusions With long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913

BackgroundTreatment-free survival (TFS) characterizes disease control after discontinuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) until subsequent therapy or death. We previously evaluated TFS in a pooled analysis of the CheckMate 067 and CheckMate 069 trials of the ICIs nivolumab and ipilimumab, alone or in combination, in patients with advanced melanoma after minimum follow-up of 36 months. This analysis investigated TFS differences between treatments in CheckMate 067 after a minimum follow-up of 60 months, and their relation to overall survival (OS) differences.MethodsData were from 937 patients who initiated treatment (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or ipilimumab) in CheckMate 067 (NCT01844505). TFS was defined as the area between the Kaplan-Meier curves for time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, each measured from randomization. TFS was partitioned as time with and without toxicity. Toxicity included persistent and late-onset grade ≥2 select treatment-related adverse events (ie, those of potential immunologic etiology). The area between Kaplan-Meier curves was estimated by the difference in 60-month restricted-mean times of the endpoints. Between-group differences were estimated with bootstrapped 95% CIs.ResultsAt 60 months from randomization, 39%, 24%, and 11% of patients assigned to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab, respectively, had survived and were treatment-free. The 60-month mean TFS was approximately twice as long with the combination (19.7 months) than with nivolumab (9.9 months; absolute difference, 9.8 (95% CI 6.7 to 12.8)) or ipilimumab (11.9 months; absolute difference, 7.8 (95% CI 4.6 to 11.0)). In the respective groups, mean TFS represented 33% (8% with and 25% without toxicity), 17% (2% and 14%), and 20% (3% and 17%) of the 60-month period. Compared with 36-month estimates, mean TFS over the 60-month period represented slightly greater percentages of time in the nivolumab-containing regimen groups and a lesser percentage in the ipilimumab group. TFS differences between the combination and either monotherapy increased with longer follow-up.ConclusionsAlong with improved long-term OS with the nivolumab-containing regimens versus ipilimumab, TFS without toxicity was sustained with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus either monotherapy, demonstrating larger between-group differences with extended follow-up.

Background Nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) is approved for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. However, real‐world data on this regimen are limited in this setting. Methods This retrospective observational study utilized data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database and patient medical charts. Eligible patients were diagnosed with melanoma and received adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy from March to August 2018. Patients were grouped by dosing regimen: cohort 1 (C1), de novo nivolumab 480 mg Q4W; cohort 2 (C2), switched to nivolumab 480 mg Q4W after nivolumab 240 mg or 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); cohort 3 (C3), de novo nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W; or cohort 4 (C4), de novo nivolumab 240 mg Q2W. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. Duration of therapy and safety/tolerability were assessed. Results One hundred ninety‐one patients were included (C1, n = 40; C2, n = 74; C3, n = 22; C4, n = 55). Duration of therapy was relatively consistent across cohorts (median, 10.3 months; range, 8.3–10.7). Likewise, proportions of patients experiencing treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar (range, 54.5%–60.1%), as were the most common events (fatigue, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, nausea, and pruritus). However, proportions experiencing ‘significant’ TRAEs varied between cohorts. Proportions discontinuing treatment were relatively consistent across cohorts. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses generally supported the unadjusted findings. Conclusions Real‐world safety profiles of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W and 480 mg Q4W were similar, and both were comparable to the well‐documented safety of weight‐based dosing (3 mg/kg Q2W), further supporting their approval and use in the adjuvant setting for melanoma. Real‐word data on use of the flat‐dose nivolumab 480 mg Q4W regimen for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma are limited. Findings from the current study suggest that the real‐world safety and tolerability profiles of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W and 480 mg Q4W are similar and that both are comparable to weight‐based dosing (3 mg/kg Q2W), adding to existing data supporting their approval and use as adjuvant treatments for melanoma.

Background Monoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage. Methods Patient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period. Results The total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively. Conclusions The total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies).

Introduction The aim of the current study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant treatment with nivolumab relative to clinically relevant comparators in adult patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection from a French societal perspective. Methods The comparators were observation, low-dose interferon and pembrolizumab. A subgroup analysis was carried out in patients with BRAF mutation, adding dabrafenib plus trametinib. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to project costs and health benefits over a 20-year time horizon. Extrapolation for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was carried out using spline-based models. Because of the immaturity of OS data in pivotal trials for nivolumab and pembrolizumab, a predictive model of OS treatment effect based on RFS effect was developed using a correlation equation. Health state utilities and adverse events disutilities were derived from the CheckMate 238 trial and literature. Costs were estimated in 2019 euros. The model’s primary outcome was efficiency frontier. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results. Results Observation, low-dose interferon and nivolumab were on the efficiency frontier. The incremental cost–utility ratio of nivolumab versus low-dose interferon (closest therapy on the efficiency frontier) was €37,886/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis reported an 80% probability of nivolumab being a cost-effective strategy for a willingness-to-pay threshold of €52,000/QALY. In the subgroup with BRAF mutation, the efficiency frontier was not changed by the addition of dabrafenib plus trametinib. Conclusions Nivolumab is a cost-effective strategy as adjuvant treatment in adult patients with surgically resected melanoma in France.