Frontline immunotherapy treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab in metastatic renal cell cancer: a new standard of care

Nivolumab is a programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor currently approved as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinomas (RCC) after failure of standard antiangiogenic treatment. Motzer et al. have recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine the findings of CheckMate 214 trial, using nivolumab and ipilimumab, a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor, versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced RCC. The combination demonstrated a higher 18-month overall survival rate of 75% versus 60%, and a higher objective response rate of 42% versus 27%, for the combination in favor over sunitinib monotherapy. These results herald the rapidly changing role of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy as first-line treatment for metastatic RCC.     

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort

IntroductionNivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort.MethodsPatients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review.ResultsOverall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8–7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1–8.3). Twenty-four–month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively.ConclusionsWhereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy.     

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in the treatment of cancers: A meta‐analysis of 27 prospective clinical trials

Immune checkpoint inhibition therapy has benefited people and shown powerful anti‐tumor activity during the past several years. Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody against PD‐1, is a widely studied immune checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of cancers. To assess the safety and efficacy of nivolumab, 27 clinical trials on nivolumab were analyzed. Results showed that the summary risks of all grade adverse effects (AEs) and grade ≥3 AEs were 0.65 and 0.12. The rate of nivolumab‐related death was 0.25%. The most common any grade AEs were fatigue (25.1%), rush (13.0%), pruritus (12.5%), diarrhea (12.1%), nausea (11.8%) and asthenia (10.4%). The most common grade ≥3 AEs were hypophosphatemia (only 2.3%) and lymphopenia (only 2.1%). The pooled objective response rate (ORR), 6‐month progression‐free survival (PFS) rate and 1‐year overall survival (OS) rate were 0.26, 0.40 and 0.52, respectively. The odds ratio of ORR between PD‐L1 positive and negative was 2.34 (95% CI 1.77–3.10, p < 0.0001). The odds ratios of ORR, 6‐month PFS rate and 1‐year OS rate between nivolumab and chemotherapeutics were 2.77 (95% CI 1.69–4.56, p < 0.0001), 1.97 (95% CI 1.02–3.81, p = 0.04) and 1.87 (95% CI 1.46–2.40, p <0.0001), respectively. In conclusion, nivolumab has durable outcomes with tolerable AEs and drug‐related deaths in cancer patients. Nivolumab monotherapy has better treatment response compared with chemotherapy, whereas chemotherapeutics have significantly higher risk of adverse effects than nivolumab.     

Nivolumab in melanoma

Introduction: The treatment of melanoma is evolving rapidly over the past few years.

Areas covered: We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on the role of nivolumab in melanoma

Expert commentary: Nivolumab is approved by FDA and EMA for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. Nivolumab is superior to chemotherapy and to ipilimumab in previously untreated patients and to chemotherapy in ipilimumab pre-treated patients. The addition ipilimumab to nivolumab is associated with a higher response rate and a better PFS, particularly in patients with PD-L1 negative tumors, albeit at the cost of an increase in grade 3–4 adverse event rate. Definitive survival data on this combination are pending and the selection of patients most likely to benefit from this combination and its pharmacoeconomics are to be elucidated. Prospectively validated predictive markers are lacking. Of particular interest are immune-related adverse events which should be managed according to published guidelines.     

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in Japanese patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma: A phase II study

Treating advanced or recurrent melanoma remains a challenge. Cancer cells can evade the immune system by blocking T‐cell activation through overexpression of the inhibitory receptor programmed death 1 (PD‐1) ligands. The PD‐1 inhibitor nivolumab blocks the inhibitory signal in T cells, thus overcoming the immune resistance of cancer cells. Nivolumab has shown promising anticancer activity in various cancers. We carried out a single‐arm, open‐label, multicenter, phase II study to investigate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in previously untreated Japanese patients with advanced melanoma. Twenty‐four patients with stage III/IV or recurrent melanoma were enrolled and received i.v. nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate evaluated by an independent radiology review committee. The independent radiology review committee‐assessed overall response rate was 34.8% (90% confidence interval, 20.8–51.9), and the overall survival rate at 18 months was 56.5% (90% confidence interval, 38.0–71.4). Treatment‐related adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or 4 only occurred in three patients (12.5%). Two patients discontinued nivolumab because of AEs, but all AEs were considered manageable by early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Subgroup analyses showed that nivolumab was clinically beneficial and tolerable regardless of BRAF genotype, and that patients with treatment‐related select AEs and with vitiligo showed tendency for better survival. In conclusion, nivolumab showed favorable efficacy and safety profiles in Japanese patients with advanced or recurrent melanoma, with or without BRAF mutations. (Trial registration no. JapicCTI‐142533.)     

A Plea for Optimizing Selection in Current Adjuvant Immunotherapy Trials for High-risk Nonmetastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma According to Expected Cancer-specific Mortality

BackgroundTyrosine kinase inhibitor-based adjuvant therapy showed no survival benefits for patients with high-risk nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (nmRCC). Five randomized immune-oncology checkpoint inhibitor trials are ongoing. We assessed the effect of stage, grade, and histologic type on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in candidates for 1 of the 4 North American ongoing immune-oncology checkpoint inhibitor trials of high-risk nmRCC.Patients and MethodsFrom the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2001-2015), we identified patients who had undergone surgery for nmRCC and had met the inclusion criteria for the PROSPER RCC (nivolumab in treating patients with localized kidney cancer undergoing nephrectomy), CheckMate 914 (a study comparing the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus placebo in participants with localized renal cell carcinoma), KEYNOTE-564 [safety and efficacy study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) as monotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma post nephrectomy], or IMmotion010 [a study of atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy in participants with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of developing metastasis following nephrectomy] trials. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the 10-year CSM rates in the overall cohort according to stage, grade, and histologic characteristics, and in 4 generated random samples according to the eligible patients for each of the 4 trials.ResultsOf 116,750 patients who had undergone surgery for nmRCC, 18,559 (15.9%) had fulfilled the inclusion criteria for 1 of the 4 trials. The greatest proportion of higher stage and grade combinations and sarcomatoid histologic features would have qualified for IMmotion010, followed by KEYNOTE-564, CheckMate 914, and PROSPER RCC. Multivariable Cox regression models demonstrated the most unfavorable prognosis for stage N1 grade 3/4 (hazard ratio [HR], 11.5; P < .001), stage T4N0 grade 3/4 (HR, 9.8; P < .001), and sarcomatoid histologic features (HR, 5.5; P < .001). Among the 4 random samples, the difference in the qualifying criteria resulted in the greatest versus progressively lower CSM rates in the IMmotion010, KEYNOTE-564, CheckMate 914, and PROSPER RCC trials, respectively (P < .001).ConclusionsOur findings indicate that participation in adjuvant immunotherapy trials should be predominantly encouraged for patients with high-grade stage T3, T4, and N1 and patients with any stage with sarcomatoid pathologic features.     

Impact of Nivolumab versus Docetaxel on Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptoms in Patients with Advanced Squamous Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results from the CheckMate 017 Study

Introduction

In the phase III CheckMate 017 study, nivolumab prolonged overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. Study objectives included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom assessments.

Third-Line Nivolumab Monotherapy in Recurrent SCLC: CheckMate 032

Introduction

For patients with recurrent SCLC, topotecan remains the only approved second-line treatment, and the outcomes are poor. CheckMate 032 is a phase 1/2, multicenter, open-label study of nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in SCLC or other advanced/metastatic solid tumors previously treated with one or more platinum-based chemotherapies. We report results of third- or later-line nivolumab monotherapy treatment in SCLC.

A Phase 1 Trial of Concurrent or Sequential Ipilimumab,Nivolumab, and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Patients With Stage IV NSCLC Study

IntroductionPrevious studies have evaluated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in oligometastatic patients with NSCLC, including multimodality treatment with anti–programmed cell death protein-1 monotherapy. Questions remain regarding the timing of SBRT and immunotherapy, safety with dual checkpoint blockade, and the utility in widely metastatic patients. This randomized phase 1 trial combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with sequential or concurrent multisite SBRT in patients with stage IV NSCLC to evaluate safety and obtain preliminary activity data.MethodsTreatment-naive patients with metastatic NSCLC were randomized to concurrent (SBRT with immunotherapy) or sequential (SBRT followed by immunotherapy) treatment. A maximum of four treatment fields received SBRT. Nivolumab and ipilimumab were continued until clinical progression, development of toxicity, or after 2 years. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as greater than or equal to grade 3 toxicity to the relevant organ system attributed to SBRT and immunotherapy occuring within 3 months.ResultsA total of 37 patients were assessable. No dose-limiting toxicity occurred in the concurrent cohort (n = 18). The sequential cohort required a dose reduction in the central lung group owing to two grade 4 pneumonitis events (2 of 19). Overall best response was as follows: 5.4% (2 of 37) complete response, 40.5% (15 of 37) partial response, 16.2% (6 of 37) stable disease, and 37.8% (14 of 37) progressive disease. Median progression-free survival was 5.8 months (95% confidence interval: 3.6–11.4 mo), with median follow-up of 17.0 months. Median overall survival was not reached.ConclusionsConcurrent nivolumab, ipilimumab, and SBRT were not more toxic than sequential therapy, and multisite SBRT was well tolerated in widely metastatic patients. Multimodality therapy resulted in durable metastasis control and encouraging early overall survival.     

A Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) Analysis of Nivolumab Versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC)

BackgroundThis analysis compared quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST) between nivolumab and everolimus among previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma enrolled in the phase III CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784).Materials and MethodsAt 45-month follow-up, overall survival (OS) was partitioned into 3 health states: TWiST, time with grade ≥ 3 toxicity (TOX), and time after progression (REL). Mean Q-TWiST was determined by multiplying each state’s duration with its utility (TWiST, 1.0; TOX, 0.5; REL, 0.5). Relative Q-TWiST gains (calculated as Q-TWiST difference divided by everolimus OS) of ≥ 10% were predefined as clinically important. Immuno-oncology-specific sensitivity analyses considered 4 alternative progression definitions: Tumor size increase ≥ 25% from nadir; treatment discontinuation; ≥ 2-point reduction from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms scores; and a composite definition. A scenario incorporating grade ≥ 2 toxicities was tested.ResultsCompared with everolimus, nivolumab was associated with a significant Q-TWiST improvement of 3.3 months (P < .001). In all sensitivity analyses, nivolumab was associated with Q-TWiST gains (relative gain %) ranging from 3.3 months (14.4%) to 4.8 months (20.9%).ConclusionsNivolumab is associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful gain in quality-adjusted OS versus everolimus among previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.     

Short-term CTLA-4 blockade directly followed by PD-1 blockade in advanced melanoma patients: a single-center experience

BackgroundCombination of T cell checkpoint blockade by CTLA-4- and PD-1-blockade is one of the most promising therapies in patients with advanced melanoma. It induces superior response rates when compared with single-agent therapy, but at the cost of a high percentage of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs). This combination therapy was until July 2016 not available in the Netherlands, which prompted several physicians to treat patients with less than standard numbers of courses of ipilimumab followed directly by nivolumab or pembrolizumab.Patients and methodsIn this retrospective analysis, patients were included who were treated with two courses (day 0 and 21) anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab 3 mg/kg q3wk), directly followed by anti-PD-1 (starting at day 22 with nivolumab 3mg/kg q2wk or pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg q3wk). Data on treatment-related AEs were collected from electronic patient records and scored according to CTCAE 4.03 criteria. Overall response was evaluated using RECIST 1.1 for CT-scans and EORTC criteria for PET-scans.ResultsForty advanced melanoma patients could be included (29/40 pembrolizumab, 11/40 nivolumab). Median follow-up (FU) was 51 weeks (range: 4–63 weeks) with a minimum FU of 26 weeks. Treatment-related AEs of grade 3 and 4 occurred in 38% of the patients. The best overall response rate (BORR) was 55% (95% CI 39–70) and disease control rate was 75% (95% CI 59–87). Ongoing responses were observed in 82% of responding patients.ConclusionTreatment with short-term CTLA-4 blockade directly followed by PD-1 blockade may have similar efficacy but potentially lower toxicity when compared with concurrent therapy with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1. These results warrant further investigation in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.     

Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057): 3-year update and outcomes in patients with liver metastases

BackgroundLong-term data with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. Two phase III trials demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and a favorable safety profile with the anti-programmed death-1 antibody nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced squamous (CheckMate 017) and nonsquamous (CheckMate 057) NSCLC. We report results from ≥3 years’ follow-up, including subgroup analyses of patients with liver metastases, who historically have poorer prognosis among patients with NSCLC.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m² every 3 weeks) until progression or discontinuation. The primary end point of each study was OS. Patients with baseline liver metastases were pooled across studies by treatment for subgroup analyses.ResultsAfter 40.3 months’ minimum follow-up in CheckMate 017 and 057, nivolumab continued to show an OS benefit versus docetaxel: estimated 3-year OS rates were 17% [95% confidence interval (CI), 14% to 21%] versus 8% (95% CI, 6% to 11%) in the pooled population with squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Nivolumab was generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified. Of 854 randomized patients across both studies, 193 had baseline liver metastases. Nivolumab resulted in improved OS compared with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.91), consistent with findings from the overall pooled study population (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81). Rates of treatment-related hepatic adverse events (primarily grade 1–2 liver enzyme elevations) were slightly higher in nivolumab-treated patients with liver metastases (10%) than in the overall pooled population (6%).ConclusionsAfter 3 years’ minimum follow-up, nivolumab continued to demonstrate an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC. Similarly, nivolumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with liver metastases, and remained well tolerated.Clinical trial registrationCheckMate 017: NCT01642004; CheckMate 057: NCT01673867.     

A Phase 1–2 Study of Rovalpituzumab Tesirine in Combination With Nivolumab Plus or Minus Ipilimumab in Patients With Previously Treated Extensive-Stage SCLC

IntroductionThis open-label, phase 1–2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova-T), an antibody-drug conjugate targeting DLL3, plus immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab in previously treated extensive-stage SCLC (ES SCLC).MethodsPatients with histologically or cytologically confirmed, previously treated (two or more lines of therapy) ES SCLC were enrolled into two cohorts. Cohort 1 received 0.3 mg/kg Rova-T (once every 6 wk for two cycles) plus 360 mg nivolumab (two 3-wk cycles beginning on week 4). Cohort 2 received the same dosage of Rova-T as cohort 1 plus 1 mg/kg nivolumab (four 3-wk cycles) and 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (beginning week 4). Both cohorts received 480 mg nivolumab every 4 weeks starting at week 10. Key objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability and efficacy (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). The response-related results are based on centrally read data.ResultsA total of 42 patients received therapy: cohort 1, n = 30; cohort 2, n = 12. Overall, 43% received two or more previous lines of therapy. All patients experienced one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 41 patients reported AEs considered related to the study drug by the investigator. The most frequent TEAE was pleural effusion (n = 20, 48%); most common grade greater than or equal to 3 was anemia (n = 9, 21%). Three grade 5 TEAEs considered related to the study drug were reported (cohort 1): pneumonitis (n = 2), acute kidney injury (n = 1). The objective response rate was 30% (12 of 40): cohort 1, 27.6% (8 of 29); cohort 2, 36.4% (4 of 11); all partial responses.ConclusionsDespite encouraging antitumor activity in previously treated ES SCLC, combination therapy with Rova-T and nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab was not well tolerated at the dose levels and administration schedules evaluated.     

Ipilimumab alone or in combination with nivolumab after progression on anti-PD-1 therapy in advanced melanoma

BackgroundThe anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab have shown improved objective response rates and progression-free survival compared to ipilimumab only in advanced melanoma patients. Anti-PD-1 therapy demonstrated nearly equal clinical efficacy in patients who had progressed after ipilimumab or were treatment-naïve. However, only limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy of ipilimumab alone or in combination with nivolumab after treatment failure to anti-PD-therapy.Patients and methodsA multicenter retrospective study in advanced melanoma patients who were treated with nivolumab (1 or 3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg or 3 mg/kg) or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) alone after treatment failure to anti-PD-1 therapy was performed. Patient, tumour, pre- and post-treatment characteristics were analysed.ResultsIn total, 47 patients were treated with ipilimumab (ipi-group) and 37 patients with ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination-group) after treatment failure to anti-PD-1 therapy. Overall response rates for the ipi- and the combination-group were 16% and 21%, respectively. Disease control rate was 42% for the ipi-group and 33% for the combination-group. One-year overall survival rates for the ipi- and the combination-group were 54% and 55%, respectively.ConclusionsIpilimumab should be considered as a viable treatment option for patients with failure to prior anti-PD-1 therapy, including those with progressive disease as best response to prior anti-PD-1. In contrast, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab appears significantly less effective in this setting compared to treatment-naïve patients.     

CheckMate 73L: A Phase 3 Study Comparing Nivolumab Plus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Durvalumab for Previously Untreated,Locally Advanced Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

IntroductionThe 5 year survival rate for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not amenable for definitive resection with historical standard-of-care concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) ranges from 15% to 32%. cCRT primes anti-tumor immunity and also upregulates programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), providing a rationale for combining an immune checkpoint inhibitor with cCRT to improve outcomes. In the PACIFIC trial, consolidation therapy with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) vs. placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after cCRT. CheckMate73L (NCT04026412), a randomized phase 3 study, evaluates the efficacy of nivolumab plus cCRT followed by nivolumab with or without ipilimumab vs. cCRT followed by durvalumab for untreated, stage III NSCLC.Patients and MethodsPatients with untreated, stage III NSCLC will be randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus cCRT followed by nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (Arm A) or nivolumab alone (Arm B); or cCRT followed by durvalumab (Arm C). Primary endpoints are PFS and OS (Arm A vs. Arm C). Secondary endpoints include additional analyses of PFS and OS (Arm A vs. Arm B; Arm B vs. Arm C), as well as objective response rate, complete response rate, time to response, duration of response, time to death or distant metastases, and safety and tolerability. Recruitment began on August 20, 2019, and the estimated primary completion date is October 17, 2022.     

Ipilimumab alone or in combination with radiotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from an open-label,multicenter phase I/II study

BackgroundThis phase I/II study in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) explored ipilimumab as monotherapy and in combination with radiotherapy, based on the preclinical evidence of synergistic antitumor activity between anti-CTLA-4 antibody and radiotherapy.Patients and methodsIn dose escalation, 33 patients (≥6/cohort) received ipilimumab every 3 weeks × 4 doses at 3, 5, or 10 mg/kg or at 3 or 10 mg/kg + radiotherapy (8 Gy/lesion). The 10-mg/kg cohorts were expanded to 50 patients (ipilimumab monotherapy, 16; ipilimumab + radiotherapy, 34). Evaluations included adverse events (AEs), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, and tumor response.ResultsCommon immune-related AEs (irAEs) among the 50 patients receiving 10 mg/kg ± radiotherapy were diarrhea (54%), colitis (22%), rash (32%), and pruritus (20%); grade 3/4 irAEs included colitis (16%) and hepatitis (10%). One treatment-related death (5 mg/kg group) occurred. Among patients receiving 10 mg/kg ± radiotherapy, eight had PSA declines of ≥50% (duration: 3–13+ months), one had complete response (duration: 11.3+ months), and six had stable disease (duration: 2.8–6.1 months).ConclusionsIn mCRPC patients, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg ± radiotherapy suggested clinical antitumor activity with disease control and manageable AEs. Two phase III trials in mCRPC patients evaluating ipilimumab 10 mg/kg ± radiotherapy are ongoing.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00323882.     

Immunotherapy in Squamous Cell Cancer of the Esophagus

Treatment of esophageal carcinoma has changed dramatically following several landmark trials, which have proven the benefit of immunotherapy. The selective PD-1 (programmed cell death ligand-1)-inhibitor nivolumab has been shown to improve DFS in the adjuvant therapy setting (CheckMate-577). In the first-line treatment, PD-L1 positive (CPS ≥ 10) squamous cell carcinoma patients (pts) have been shown to have an increased OS following treatment with the PD-1-inhibitor pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-590). Nivolumab also improved overall survival in the first line setting either combined with ipilimumab or with chemotherapy (CheckMate 648) compared to chemotherapy alone. In Asian first-line patients, phase III trials investigating camrelizumab (ESCORT 1), toripalimab (JUPITER 06), or sintilimab (ORIENT 15) in addition to chemotherapy also showed significant survival benefits. In the second-line setting, monotherapy with nivolumab (ATTRACTION-03), pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-181), camrelizumab (ESCORT), and tislelizumab (RATIONALE 302) demonstrated a benefit in OS in comparison to chemotherapy. Here we will review these trials and integrate them into the current treatment algorithm.