Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a prospective, randomized trial involving patients with urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery, adjuvant nivolumab was compared with placebo. The median disease-free survival was 20.8 months with nivolumab and 10.8 months with placebo. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were noted in 17.9% of patients in the nivolumab group.

In a randomized trial involving more than 900 patients undergoing resection of advanced melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab was associated with a higher rate of 12-month recurrence-free survival than ipilimumab (70.5% vs. 60.8%) and with fewer adverse events.

Adjuvant chemotherapy has not improved disease-free survival among patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. In this trial, after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and resection, patients with residual disease were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab or placebo. Nivolumab doubled the median disease-free survival from 11.0 to 22.4 months.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown improved overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to investigate whether the addition of a limited course (two cycles) of chemotherapy to this combination would further enhance the clinical benefit. This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 103 hospitals in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web response system via permuted blocks (block size of four) to nivolumab (360 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) combined with histology-based, platinum doublet chemotherapy (intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles; experimental group), or chemotherapy alone (every 3 weeks for four cycles; control group). Randomisation was stratified by tumour histology, sex, and PD-L1 expression. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was analysed in all treated patients. Results reported here are from a pre-planned interim analysis (when the study met its primary endpoint) and an exploratory longer-term follow-up analysis. This study is active but no longer recruiting patients, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03215706. Between Aug 24, 2017, and Jan 30, 2019, 1150 patients were enrolled and 719 (62·5%) randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (n=361 [50%]) or four cycles of chemotherapy alone (n=358 [50%]). At the pre-planned interim analysis (median follow-up 9·7 months [IQR 6·4–12·8]), overall survival in all randomly assigned patients was significantly longer in the experimental group than in the control group (median 14·1 months [95% CI 13·2–16·2] vs 10·7 months [9·5–12·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [96·71% CI 0·55–0·87]; p=0·00065). With 3·5 months longer median follow-up (median 13·2 months [IQR 6·4–17·0]), median overall survival was 15·6 months (95% CI 13·9–20·0) in the experimental group versus 10·9 months (9·5–12·6) in the control group (HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55–0·80]). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (in 24 [7%] patients in the experimental group vs 32 [9%] in the control group), anaemia (21 [6%] vs 50 [14%]), diarrhoea (14 [4%] vs two [1%]), increased lipase (22 [6%] vs three [1%]), and febrile neutropenia (14 [4%] vs ten [3%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 106 (30%) patients in the experimental group and 62 (18%) in the control group. Seven (2%) deaths in the experimental group (acute kidney failure, diarrhoea, hepatotoxicity, hepatitis, pneumonitis, sepsis with acute renal insufficiency, and thrombocytopenia; one patient each) and six (2%) deaths in the control group (anaemia, febrile neutropenia, pancytopenia, pulmonary sepsis, respiratory failure, and sepsis; one patient each) were treatment related. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided a significant improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone and had a favourable risk–benefit profile. These data support this regimen as a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC. Bristol Myers Squibb. For the Polish and Russian translations of the Article see Supplementary Materials section.

Previously, findings from CheckMate 238, a double-blind, phase 3 adjuvant trial in patients with resected stage IIIB–C or stage IV melanoma, showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival with nivolumab versus ipilimumab. This report provides updated 4-year efficacy, initial overall survival, and late-emergent safety results. This multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 130 academic centres, community hospitals, and cancer centres across 25 countries. Patients aged 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nivolumab or ipilimumab via an interactive voice response system and stratified according to disease stage and baseline PD-L1 status of tumour cells. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, and then every 12 weeks until 1 year of treatment, disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by investigator assessment, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety analysis. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of Jan 30, 2020. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02388906. Between March 30 and Nov 30, 2015, 906 patients were assigned to nivolumab (n=453) or ipilimumab (n=453). Median follow-up was 51·1 months (IQR 41·6–52·7) with nivolumab and 50·9 months (36·2–52·3) with ipilimumab; 4-year recurrence-free survival was 51·7% (95% CI 46·8–56·3) in the nivolumab group and 41·2% (36·4–45·9) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·60–0·86]; p=0·0003). With 211 (100 [22%] of 453 patients in the nivolumab group and 111 [25%] of 453 patients in the ipilimumab group) of 302 anticipated deaths observed (about 73% of the originally planned 88% power needed for significance), 4-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·7–81·5) with nivolumab and 76·6% (72·2–80·3) with ipilimumab (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·66–1·14]; p=0·31). Late-emergent grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (1%) of 452 and seven (2%) of 453 patients. The most common late-emergent treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported were diarrhoea, diabetic ketoacidosis, and pneumonitis (one patient each) in the nivolumab group, and colitis (two patients) in the ipilimumab group. Two previously reported treatment-related deaths in the ipilimumab group were attributed to study drug toxicity (marrow aplasia in one patient and colitis in one patient); no further treatment-related deaths were reported. At a minimum of 4 years' follow-up, nivolumab demonstrated sustained recurrence-free survival benefit versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma indicating a long-term treatment benefit with nivolumab. With fewer deaths than anticipated, overall survival was similar in both groups. Nivolumab remains an efficacious adjuvant treatment for patients with resected high-risk melanoma, with a safety profile that is more tolerable than that of ipilimumab. Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Cemiplimab provided significant survival benefit to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of at least 50% and no actionable biomarkers at 1-year follow-up. In this exploratory analysis, we provide outcomes after 35 months' follow-up and the effect of adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at the time of disease progression. EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540. Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1–31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5–16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46–0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2–8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3–6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42–0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1–9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3–18·7). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

PERLA is a global, double-blind, parallel phase II trial (NCT04581824) comparing efficacy and safety of anti–PD-1 antibodies dostarlimab and pembrolizumab, plus chemotherapy (DCT and PCT, respectively) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC without known targetable genomic aberrations. Patients stratified by PD-L1 tumor proportion score and smoking status were randomized 1:1, receiving ≤35 cycles 500 mg dostarlimab or 200 mg pembrolizumab, ≤35 cycles 500 mg/m 2 pemetrexed and ≤4 cycles cisplatin (75 mg/m 2 ) or carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/ml/min) Q3W. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) (blinded independent central review). Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS) based on investigator assessment, overall survival (OS) and safety. Exploratory endpoints include ORR by PD-L1 subgroup and duration of response. PERLA met its pre-specified endpoint. ORR (n/N; 95% CI) is 45% (55/121; 36.4–54.8) for DCT and 39% (48/122; 30.6–48.6) for PCT (data cut-off: 07 July 23), numerically favoring dostarlimab in PD-L1-positive subgroups. Median PFS (months [95% CI]) is 8.8 (6.7–10.4) for DCT and 6.7 (4.9–7.1) for PCT (HR 0.70 [95% CI: 0.50–0.98]; data cut-off: 04 August 22). Median OS (months [95% CI]) is 19.4 (14.5–NR) for DCT and 15.9 (11.6–19.3) for PCT (HR 0.75 [95% CI: 0.53–1.05]) (data cut-off: 07 July 23). Safety profiles are similar between groups. In this study, DCT shows similar efficacy to PCT and demonstrates clinical efficacy as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. Several PD-(L)1 inhibitors have been approved or are in development for the treatment of NSCLC, showing promising efficacy and tolerable safety profiles. Here, the authors present a randomized phase II clinical trial comparing two different anti-PD-1 antibodies, dostarlimab and pembrolizumab, both combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic NSCLC.

BackgroundIn CheckMate 9LA, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression or histology. We report updated efficacy and safety in all randomized patients with a minimum 4-year follow-up and an exploratory treatment-switching adjustment analysis in all treated patients who received chemotherapy and subsequent immunotherapy.MethodsAdults with stage IV/recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and ECOG performance status ≤1 were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with chemotherapy (two cycles) or chemotherapy (four cycles, with optional maintenance pemetrexed for the nonsquamous population). Assessments included OS, progression-free survival, and objective response rate. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by tumor PD-L1 expression and histology and in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and a treatment-switching adjustment analysis using inverse probability of censoring weighting.ResultsWith a 47.9-month minimum follow-up for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong OS over chemotherapy in all randomized patients (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87; 4-year OS rate: 21% versus 16%), regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression (HR (95% CI): PD-L1<1%, 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86) and ≥1%, 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92)) or histology (squamous, 0.64 (0.48 to 0.84) and non-squamous, 0.80 (0.66 to 0.97)). In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to TRAEs (n=61), the 4-year OS rate was 41%. With treatment-switching adjustment for the 36% of patients receiving subsequent immunotherapy in the chemotherapy arm, the estimated HR of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80). No new safety signals were observed.ConclusionsIn this 4-year update, patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to have long-term, durable efficacy benefit over chemotherapy regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression and/or histology. A greater estimated relative OS benefit was observed after adjustment for subsequent immunotherapy use in the chemotherapy arm. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic/recurrent NSCLC, including those with tumor PD-L1<1% or squamous histology, populations with high unmet needs.

Background and Objective: In the therapeutic strategy of rectal cancer, radiotherapy has consolidated its important position and frequent use in current practice due to its indications as neoadjuvant, adjuvant, definitive, or palliative treatment. In recent years, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has been established as the preferred regimen compared to concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In relation to better outcomes, the percentage of patients who achieved pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant treatment is higher in the case of TNT. This study aimed to analyze the response to TNT compared to neoadjuvant CRT regarding pCR rate and the change in staging after surgical intervention. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective study on 323 patients with rectal cancer and finally analyzed the data of 201 patients with neoadjuvant treatment, selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients received CRT neoadjuvant therapy or TNT neoadjuvant therapy with FOLFOX or CAPEOX. Results: Out of 157 patients who underwent TNT treatment, 19.74% had pathological complete response, whereas in the group with CRT (n = 44), those with pCR were 13.64%. After neoadjuvant treatment, the most frequent TNM classifications were ypT2 (40.30%) and ypN0 (79.10%). The statistical analysis of the postoperative disease stage, after neoadjuvant therapy, showed that the most frequent changes were downstaging (71.14%) and complete response (18.41%). Only four patients (1.99%) had an upstaging change. The majority of patients (88.56%) initially presented clinical evidence of nodal involvement whereas only 20.9% of the patients still presented regional disease at the time of surgical intervention. Conclusions: By using TNT, a higher rate of stage reduction is obtained compared to the neoadjuvant CRT treatment. The post-neoadjuvant-treatment imagistic evaluation fails to accurately evaluate the response. A better response to TNT was observed in young patients.

Background Rivoceranib is an oral, selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. ANGEL (NCT03042611) was a global, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating rivoceranib as 3rd-line or ≥4th-line therapy in patients with advanced/metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Methods Patients had failed ≥2 lines of chemotherapy and were randomized 2:1 to rivoceranib 700 mg once daily or placebo with best supportive care. Primary endpoint: overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Results In total, 460 patients (rivoceranib n  = 308, placebo n  = 152) were enrolled. OS was not statistically different for rivoceranib versus placebo (median 5.78 vs. 5.13 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.74–1.15; p  = 0.4724). PFS by BICR (median 2.83 vs. 1.77 months; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47–0.71; p  < 0.0001), ORR (6.5% vs. 1.3%; p  = 0.0119), and DCR (40.3 vs. 13.2%; p  < 0.0001) were improved with rivoceranib versus placebo. In patients receiving ≥4th-line therapy, OS (median 6.34 vs. 4.73 months; p  = 0.0192) and PFS by BICR (median 3.52 vs. 1.71 months; p  < 0.0001) were improved with rivoceranib versus placebo. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events with rivoceranib were hypertension (17.9%), anemia (10.4%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (9.4%), asthenia (8.5%), and proteinuria (7.5%). Conclusions This study did not meet its primary OS endpoint. Compared to placebo, rivoceranib improved PFS, ORR, and DCR. Rivoceranib also improved OS in a prespecified patient subgroup receiving ≥4th-line therapy.