Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) vs sunitinib (S) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Final follow-up results from the CheckMate 9ER trial.
Abstract
439 Background: N+C showed significant benefits vs S in progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) for patients (pts) with previously untreated aRCC from the phase 3 CheckMate 9ER trial ( N Engl J Med 2021; 384:829–41). We report final results for the trial with a long-term follow-up (min, >5 y), including updated efficacy in intent-to-treat (ITT) pts and by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk, and safety. Methods: Pts with aRCC were randomized to receive first-line N 240 mg every 2 wk + C 40 mg QD or S 50 mg QD (4 wk of each 6-wk cycle) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (2 y N max.). The primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included OS, ORR per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, and safety. Results: Median follow-up was 67.6 (range, 60.2–80.2) mo. In ITT pts (N+C, n = 323; S, n = 328), PFS favored N+C vs S (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49–0.70]). Median (95% CI) PFS (mPFS) was 16.4 (12.5–19.3) vs 8.3 (7.0–9.7) mo, respectively; 60-mo PFS rates were 13.6% vs 3.6%. OS also favored N+C vs S (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65–0.96]). Median (95% CI) OS (mOS) was 46.5 (40.6–53.8) vs 35.5 (29.2–42.8) mo, respectively; 60-mo OS rates were 40.9% vs 35.4%. ORR was greater with N+C vs S (55.7% vs 27.4%; complete response [CR], 13.9% vs 4.6%). Duration of response (DOR) rates at 60 mo with N+C vs S were 22.0% vs 10.0%, respectively. Efficacy by IMDC risk groups is reported in the Table. In all treated pts (n = 320 each arm), any-grade (grade ≥ 3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97.5% (67.8%) vs 93.1% (55.3%) with N+C vs S. No new deaths due to study drug toxicity occurred since the last database lock. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented. Conclusions: Long-term efficacy benefit was observed with N+C over S in this final follow-up from CheckMate 9ER. There were no new safety signals. The results continue to support N+C as a standard of care for previously untreated aRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177 . FAVN+C; n = 74 FAVS; n = 72 INTN+C; n = 188 INTS; n = 188 PoorN+C; n = 61 PoorS; n = 68 PFS HR (95% CI) 0.67 (0.46–0.97) - 0.63 (0.50–0.80) - 0.36 (0.23–0.56) - mPFS (95% CI), mo 21.4 (12.8–24.6) 12.8 (9.4–16.6) 16.6 (11.3–21.7) 8.5 (6.9–10.4) 9.9 (5.9–17.7) 4.2 (2.9–5.7) 60-mo PFS rate, % 15.1 3.9 12.7 4.7 15.7 0 OS HR (95% CI) 1.08 (0.70–1.66) - 0.86 (0.67–1.11) - 0.49 (0.33–0.74) - mOS (95% CI), mo 53.7 (40.8–70.7) 58.9 (46.1–NE) 47.4 (38.2–55.8) 36.2 (25.7–46.3) 34.8 (21.4–53.4) 10.5 (6.8–20.7) 60-mo OS rate, % 46.3 49.4 41.2 38.2 33.1 12.9 ORR (95% CI), % 66.2 (54.3–76.8) 43.1 (31.4–55.3) 55.9 (48.4–63.1) 27.7 (21.4–34.6) 42.6 (30.0–55.9) 10.3 (4.2–20.1) CR, % 16.2 6.9 15.4 4.8 6.6 1.5 60-mo DOR rate, % a 22.0 NE 19.0 13.0 37.0 0 FAV, IMDC favorable; INT, IMDC intermediate; NE, not estimable; poor, IMDC poor. a Based on pts with objective response.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Robert J. Motzer
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
Bernard Escudier
Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
Mauricio Burotto
Bradford Hill Clinical Research Center, Santiago, Chile
Thomas Powles
Department of Medical Oncology Barts Cancer Institute Queen Mary University of London London UK
Andrea B Apolo
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
Maria T. Bourlon
Urologic Oncology Clinic, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
Amishi Yogesh Shah
Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Camillo Porta
Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Consorziale Policlinico di Bari, Bari, Italy
Cristina Suarez
Department of Medical Oncology Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Spain
Carlos H. Barrios
Grupo Oncoclínicas, Centro de Pesquisa em Oncologia, Hospital São Lucas, PUCRS Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil
Martin Eduardo Richardet
Sanatorio Aconcagua, Cordoba, Argentina
Howard Gurney
Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Elizabeth R. Kessler
University of Colorado Cancer Center, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO
Yoshihiko Tomita
Department of Urology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medicine and Dental, Niigata-Shi, Japan
Jens Bedke
Eva Mayr-Stihl Cancer Center, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Fatima A. Rangwala
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ
Margarita Askelson
From the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center (J.D.W.) and the Department of Medicine (J.D.W., M.A.P.), Weill Cornell Medicine, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (M.A.P.) — both in New York; Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IRCCS, Padua (V.C.-S.), European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan (P.Q.), Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, IRCCS, Meldola (M.G.), University of Siena and the Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Siena (M.M.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) — all in Italy; Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.); Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.); University Hospital Essen, the German Cancer Consortium, the National Center for Tumor Diseases–West, the Research Alliance Ruhr, Research Center One Health, and University Duisburg-Essen — all in Essen, Germany (D.S.); the College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea (J.W.), Brist...
Julie Panzica
Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ
Viktor Fedorov
Toni K. Choueiri
Department of Medical Oncology Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute Boston Massachusetts USA