Perioperative nivolumab (NIVO) vs placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with resectable NSCLC: Updated survival and biomarker analyses from CheckMate 77T.

T Tina Cascone M Mark M. Awad J Jonathan Spicer J Jie He (Department of Chemistry) S Shun Lu F Fumihiro Tanaka (University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan) R Robin Cornelissen (Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands) L Lubos B. Petruzelka (Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic) H Hiroyuki Ito L Ludmila De Oliveira Koch (Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil) L Lin Wu (The Department of Thoracic Medical Oncology Hunan Cancer Hospital/The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine Central South University Changsha China) S Sabine Bohnet (University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany) C Cinthya Coronado Erdmann (Bristol Myers Squibb, Boudry, Switzerland) S Stephanie Meadows-Shropshire (Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) J Jaclyn Neely (Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) A Amy Hung (Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) P Padma Sathyanarayana (Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) S Sumeena Bhatia (Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) M Mariano Provencio (Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Madrid)

Abstract

LBA8010 Background: The phase 3 CheckMate 77T study demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS with perioperative NIVO vs PBO in pts with resectable NSCLC. pCR rates were also improved. Here, we report updated EFS, OS from the first prespecified interim analysis, and exploratory biomarker analyses. Methods: Pts with resectable stage IIA–IIIB (N2; AJCC v8) NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to neoadjuvant (neoadj) NIVO + chemotherapy (chemo) Q3W (up to 4 cycles [cyc]) followed by adjuvant (adj) NIVO Q4W (up to 13 cyc) or neoadj PBO + chemo Q3W (up to 4 cyc) followed by adj PBO Q4W (up to 13 cyc). The primary endpoint was EFS per BICR. Secondary endpoints included pCR, OS, and safety. Exploratory analyses included efficacy by pCR status, presurgery ctDNA clearance (CL), and tumor genomic alterations. Results: At a median follow-up of 41.0 mo (database lock, 16 Dec 2024), NIVO continued to provide EFS benefit vs PBO (HR [95% CI], 0.61 [0.46–0.80]; 30-mo EFS rates, 61% vs 43%) in all randomized pts and regardless of disease stage, tumor histology, or PD-L1 expression (Table). EFS from surgery (HR [95% CI]) continued to favor NIVO vs PBO in pts with pCR (0.90 [0.19–4.15]) or without (w/o; 0.72 [0.50–1.05]). In biomarker-evaluable pts (NIVO, 98; PBO, 92), pts with ctDNA CL had greater EFS benefit (assessed from randomization) vs pts w/o (HR [95% CI]: NIVO, 0.41 [0.20–0.86]; PBO, 0.62 [0.31–1.22]); pts with ctDNA CL with or w/o pCR had improved EFS vs pts w/o ctDNA CL and pCR (data to be presented). EFS (HR [95% CI]) favored NIVO vs PBO in pts with tumor genomic alterations ( KRAS , and/or STK11 , and/or KEAP1 mutations; 0.63 [0.32–1.23]) or w/o (0.65 [0.39–1.10]). Higher ctDNA CL and pCR rates were seen with NIVO vs PBO regardless of mutation status; additional efficacy and ctDNA outcomes will be presented. At the first prespecified interim OS analysis, NIVO showed a trend of OS improvement vs PBO in all randomized pts (HR [97.63% CI], 0.85 [0.58–1.25]; median OS, not reached in both tx arms; 30-mo OS rates, 78% vs 72%). Safety outcomes were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions: In this update, perioperative NIVO continued to show long-term EFS benefit and a favorable OS trend vs PBO in pts with resectable NSCLC; no new safety signals were observed. In exploratory analyses, presurgery ctDNA CL was associated with EFS benefit. EFS favored NIVO vs PBO regardless of KRAS , STK11 , and KEAP1 mutation status. Clinical trial information: NCT04025879 . All pts Stage II Stage III Squamous Non-squamous PD-L1 < 1% PD-L1 ≥ 1% NIVO (N = 229) vs PBO(N = 232) NIVO (n = 80) vs PBO(n = 81) NIVO (n = 149) vs PBO(n = 149) NIVO (n = 116) vs PBO(n = 118) NIVO (n = 113) vs PBO(n = 114) NIVO (n = 93) vs PBO(n = 93) NIVO (n = 128) vs PBO(n = 128) Median EFS, mo 46.6 vs 16.9 NR vs NR 42.1 vs 13.4 NR vs 16.4 40.1 vs 16.9 40.1 vs 19.8 46.6 vs 15.1 HR (95% CI) 0.61(0.46–0.80) 0.77(0.46–1.30) 0.54(0.39–0.74) 0.53(0.35–0.80) 0.69 (0.48–1.00) 0.79(0.52–1.21) 0.53(0.36–0.76)

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 17_suppl
Published June 10, 2025
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (19)

T

Tina Cascone

M

Mark M. Awad

J

Jonathan Spicer

J

Jie He

Department of Chemistry

S

Shun Lu

F

Fumihiro Tanaka

University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan

R

Robin Cornelissen

Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands

L

Lubos B. Petruzelka

Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

H

Hiroyuki Ito

L

Ludmila De Oliveira Koch

Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil

L

Lin Wu

The Department of Thoracic Medical Oncology Hunan Cancer Hospital/The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine Central South University Changsha China

S

Sabine Bohnet

University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany

C

Cinthya Coronado Erdmann

Bristol Myers Squibb, Boudry, Switzerland

S

Stephanie Meadows-Shropshire

Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ

J

Jaclyn Neely

Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ

A

Amy Hung

Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ

P

Padma Sathyanarayana

Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ

S

Sumeena Bhatia

Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ

M

Mariano Provencio

Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Madrid