Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2020 · 240 citations · 14 references
PharmacyOncologyPharmacotherapyCancer ImmunologyImmunotherapyOncology PharmacotherapyCancer ImmunotherapyImmunotherapy SafetyLung Cancer PharmacotherapyTherapy Response AssessmentToxicity ManagementNon-small Cell Lung Cancer ImmunotherapyNon-small Cell Lung Cancer TherapyNon-small Cell Lung Cancer TreatmentOptimal Duration TrialsOptimal Treatment DurationRadiographic ProgressionSequential Therapy DurationTreatment Duration Individualization
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.
14
Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
H. Borghaei, L. Paz-Ares, Leora Horn et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 2015 · 9.5K citations · Full text
Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Julie R. Brahmer, Karen L. Reckamp, Lucio Crinò et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 2015 · 8.6K citations · Full text
Pharmacy, Oncology, Pharmacotherapy +15
Achim Rittmeyer, Fabrice Barlési, Daniel Waterkamp et al. · The Lancet · 2016 · 4.8K citations · Full text
Medicine, Oncology, Pharmacology +13
Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Scott Antonia, Augusto Villegas, Davey B. Daniel et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 2017 · 4.5K citations · Full text