Georgina V Long, Evan J Lipson, F Stephen Hodi, Paolo A Ascierto, James Larkin, Christopher Lao, Jean-Jacques Grob, Flavia Ejzykowicz, Andriy Moshyk, Viviana Garcia-Horton, Zheng-Yi Zhou, Yiqiao Xin, Jennell Palaia, Laura McDonald, Sarah Keidel, Anthony Salvatore, Divya Patel, Leon A Sakkal, Hussein Tawbi, Dirk Schadendorf
{"title":"晚期黑色素瘤一线治疗Nivolumab加Relatlimab与Nivolumab加Ipilimumab：使用RELATIVITY-047和CheckMate 067试验数据的间接治疗比较。","authors":"Georgina V Long, Evan J Lipson, F Stephen Hodi, Paolo A Ascierto, James Larkin, Christopher Lao, Jean-Jacques Grob, Flavia Ejzykowicz, Andriy Moshyk, Viviana Garcia-Horton, Zheng-Yi Zhou, Yiqiao Xin, Jennell Palaia, Laura McDonald, Sarah Keidel, Anthony Salvatore, Divya Patel, Leon A Sakkal, Hussein Tawbi, Dirk Schadendorf","doi":"10.1200/JCO.24.01125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved for advanced melanoma on the basis of the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials, respectively. As no head-to-head trial comparing these regimens exists, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted using patient-level data from each trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for baseline characteristic differences. Minimum follow-ups (RELATIVITY-047, 33 months; CheckMate 067, 36 months) were selected to best align assessments. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) per investigator; overall survival (OS); and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A Cox regression model compared PFS, OS, and MSS. A logistic regression model compared cORRs. Subgroup analyses were exploratory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for nivolumab plus relatlimab (n = 339) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 297). Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.33]), cORR (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14]), OS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19]), and MSS (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.12]) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Subgroup comparisons showed larger numerical differences favoring nivolumab plus ipilimumab with acral melanoma, <i>BRAF</i>-mutant melanoma, and lactate dehydrogenase >2 × upper limit of normal, but were limited by small samples. Nivolumab plus relatlimab was associated with fewer grade 3-4 TRAEs (23% <i>v</i> 61%) and any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation (17% <i>v</i> 41%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar efficacy to nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the overall population, including most-but not all-subgroups, and improved safety in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Results should be interpreted with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":15384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"3926-3934"},"PeriodicalIF":42.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"First-Line Nivolumab Plus Relatlimab Versus Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using RELATIVITY-047 and CheckMate 067 Trial Data.\",\"authors\":\"Georgina V Long, Evan J Lipson, F Stephen Hodi, Paolo A Ascierto, James Larkin, Christopher Lao, Jean-Jacques Grob, Flavia Ejzykowicz, Andriy Moshyk, Viviana Garcia-Horton, Zheng-Yi Zhou, Yiqiao Xin, Jennell Palaia, Laura McDonald, Sarah Keidel, Anthony Salvatore, Divya Patel, Leon A Sakkal, Hussein Tawbi, Dirk Schadendorf\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/JCO.24.01125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved for advanced melanoma on the basis of the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials, respectively. As no head-to-head trial comparing these regimens exists, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted using patient-level data from each trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for baseline characteristic differences. Minimum follow-ups (RELATIVITY-047, 33 months; CheckMate 067, 36 months) were selected to best align assessments. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) per investigator; overall survival (OS); and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A Cox regression model compared PFS, OS, and MSS. A logistic regression model compared cORRs. Subgroup analyses were exploratory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for nivolumab plus relatlimab (n = 339) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 297). Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.33]), cORR (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14]), OS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19]), and MSS (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.12]) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Subgroup comparisons showed larger numerical differences favoring nivolumab plus ipilimumab with acral melanoma, <i>BRAF</i>-mutant melanoma, and lactate dehydrogenase >2 × upper limit of normal, but were limited by small samples. Nivolumab plus relatlimab was associated with fewer grade 3-4 TRAEs (23% <i>v</i> 61%) and any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation (17% <i>v</i> 41%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar efficacy to nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the overall population, including most-but not all-subgroups, and improved safety in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Results should be interpreted with caution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3926-3934\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":42.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.01125\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.01125","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
First-Line Nivolumab Plus Relatlimab Versus Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using RELATIVITY-047 and CheckMate 067 Trial Data.
Purpose: Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved for advanced melanoma on the basis of the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials, respectively. As no head-to-head trial comparing these regimens exists, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted using patient-level data from each trial.
Methods: Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for baseline characteristic differences. Minimum follow-ups (RELATIVITY-047, 33 months; CheckMate 067, 36 months) were selected to best align assessments. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) per investigator; overall survival (OS); and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A Cox regression model compared PFS, OS, and MSS. A logistic regression model compared cORRs. Subgroup analyses were exploratory.
Results: After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for nivolumab plus relatlimab (n = 339) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 297). Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.33]), cORR (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14]), OS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19]), and MSS (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.12]) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Subgroup comparisons showed larger numerical differences favoring nivolumab plus ipilimumab with acral melanoma, BRAF-mutant melanoma, and lactate dehydrogenase >2 × upper limit of normal, but were limited by small samples. Nivolumab plus relatlimab was associated with fewer grade 3-4 TRAEs (23% v 61%) and any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation (17% v 41%).
Conclusion: Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar efficacy to nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the overall population, including most-but not all-subgroups, and improved safety in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Results should be interpreted with caution.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Clinical Oncology serves its readers as the single most credible, authoritative resource for disseminating significant clinical oncology research. In print and in electronic format, JCO strives to publish the highest quality articles dedicated to clinical research. Original Reports remain the focus of JCO, but this scientific communication is enhanced by appropriately selected Editorials, Commentaries, Reviews, and other work that relate to the care of patients with cancer.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
