La présentation est en train de télécharger. S'il vous plaît, attendez

La présentation est en train de télécharger. S'il vous plaît, attendez

Étude de phase III, CheckMate 017 comparant en seconde ligne nivolumab et docétaxel dans les cancers épidermoïdes (1) Nivolumab 3 mg/kg toutes les 2.

Présentations similaires


Présentation au sujet: "Étude de phase III, CheckMate 017 comparant en seconde ligne nivolumab et docétaxel dans les cancers épidermoïdes (1) Nivolumab 3 mg/kg toutes les 2."— Transcription de la présentation:

1 Étude de phase III, CheckMate 017 comparant en seconde ligne nivolumab et docétaxel dans les cancers épidermoïdes (1) Nivolumab 3 mg/kg toutes les 2 semaines jusqu’à progression ou toxicité n = 135 272 cancers épidermoides PS 0-1 Prétraité (une seule ligne à base de platine) Biopsie archivée disponible R 1:1 Docétaxel 75 mg/m2 toutes les 3 sem. 6 cycles jusqu’à progression ou toxicité n = 137 Objectif principal : SG Objectifs secondaires RO RECIST 1.1 SSP QDV Tolérance Efficacité selon l’expression du PD-L1 A phase III study (CheckMate 017) of nivolumab (NIVO; anti-programmed death-1 [PD-1]) vs docetaxel (DOC) in previously treated advanced or metastatic squamous (SQ) cell non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Session: Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: A Paradigm Shift Type: Clinical Science Symposium Time: Sunday May 31, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM Location: E Hall D1 Citation:Abstract: Background: Treatment options are limited for patients (pts) with advanced SQ NSCLC who fail platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PT-DC). We report results of a randomized, open-label, global phase III study of NIVO, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, vs DOC in pts with SQ NSCLC and with disease progression (PD) during/after one prior PT-DC regimen. Methods: Pts (N = 272) were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO 3 mg/kg (n = 135) Q2W or DOC 75 mg/m2(n = 137) Q3W until PD, discontinuation due to toxicity, or other reasons. The primary objective was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), efficacy by PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 testing not required for enrollment), quality of life, and safety. Results:Superior OS was observed with NIVO vs DOC (HR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.79; p = ). NIVO improved PFS vs DOC (HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.81; p = ). ORR was 20% (27/135) for NIVO and 9% (12/137) for DOC (p = ). OS HRs favored NIVO regardless of PD-L1 expression (Table). Grade 3–4 drug-related AEs occurred in 7% (9/131) of NIVO and 55% (71/129) of DOC pts. No deaths were related to NIVO vs 3 DOC-related deaths. Conclusions: CheckMate 017 met its primary objective, demonstrating superior OS of NIVO vs DOC in pts with advanced, previously treated SQ NSCLC and demonstrated PFS and ORR superiority. Tumor PD-L1 status was neither prognostic nor predictive for efficacy endpoints. The safety profile of NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W is acceptable and favorable vs DOC. NIVO represents a significant improvement in second-line therapy for SQ NSCLC. Clinical trial information: NCT NIVO (n = 135) DOC (n = 137) mOS, mo (95% CI) 9.2 (7.3, 13.3) 6.0 (5.1, 7.3) 1-yr OS, % (95% CI) 42 (34, 50) 24 (17, 31) Median duration of response, mo (range) Not Reached (2.9–20.5+) 8.4 (1.4+–15.2+) mPFS, mo (95% CI) 3.5 (2.1, 4.9) 2.8 (2.1, 3.5) 1-yr PFS, % (95% CI) 21 (14, 28) 6 (3, 12) PD-1 expression NIVO (n) DOC (n) OS HR (95% CI) ≥ 1% 63 56 0.69 (0.45, 1.05) < 1% 54 52 0.58 (0.37, 0.92) ≥ 5% 42 39 0.53 (0.31, 0.89) < 5% 75 69 0.70 (0.47, 1.02) ≥ 10% 36 33 0.50 (0.28, 0.89) < 10% 81 0.70 (0.48, 1.01) ASCO® D’après Spiegel D et al., abstr. 8009, actualisé

2 Étude de phase III, CheckMate 017 comparant en seconde ligne nivolumab et docétaxel dans les cancers épidermoïdes (2) Nivolumab (n = 135) Docétaxel (n = 137) Âge médian (ans) 62 64 Homme (%) 82 71 ECOG PS 0/1 (%) 21/78 18/82 Métastases cérébrales (%) 7 6 Paclitaxel antérieur (%) 34 ASCO® D’après Spiegel D et al., abstr. 8009, actualisé

3 Étude de phase III, CheckMate 017 comparant en seconde ligne nivolumab et docétaxel dans les cancers épidermoïdes (3) Nivolumab (n = 135) Docétaxel (n = 137) RO % 20 9 SG médiane, % (IC95) 9,2 (7,3-13,3) 6,0 (5,1-7,3) SG à 1 an, % (IC95) 42 (34-50) 24 (17-31) Durée médiane de réponse (mois) Non atteinte (2,9–20,5+) 8,4 (1,4+–15,2+) SSP médiane, % (IC95) 3,5 (2,1- 4,9) 2,8 (2,1-3,5) SSP à 1 an, % (IC95) 21 (14-28) 6 (3-12) A phase III study (CheckMate 017) of nivolumab (NIVO; anti-programmed death-1 [PD-1]) vs docetaxel (DOC) in previously treated advanced or metastatic squamous (SQ) cell non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Session: Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: A Paradigm Shift Type: Clinical Science Symposium Time: Sunday May 31, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM Location: E Hall D1 Citation:Abstract: Background: Treatment options are limited for patients (pts) with advanced SQ NSCLC who fail platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PT-DC). We report results of a randomized, open-label, global phase III study of NIVO, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, vs DOC in pts with SQ NSCLC and with disease progression (PD) during/after one prior PT-DC regimen. Methods: Pts (N = 272) were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO 3 mg/kg (n = 135) Q2W or DOC 75 mg/m2(n = 137) Q3W until PD, discontinuation due to toxicity, or other reasons. The primary objective was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), efficacy by PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 testing not required for enrollment), quality of life, and safety. Results:Superior OS was observed with NIVO vs DOC (HR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.79; p = ). NIVO improved PFS vs DOC (HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.81; p = ). ORR was 20% (27/135) for NIVO and 9% (12/137) for DOC (p = ). OS HRs favored NIVO regardless of PD-L1 expression (Table). Grade 3–4 drug-related AEs occurred in 7% (9/131) of NIVO and 55% (71/129) of DOC pts. No deaths were related to NIVO vs 3 DOC-related deaths. Conclusions: CheckMate 017 met its primary objective, demonstrating superior OS of NIVO vs DOC in pts with advanced, previously treated SQ NSCLC and demonstrated PFS and ORR superiority. Tumor PD-L1 status was neither prognostic nor predictive for efficacy endpoints. The safety profile of NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W is acceptable and favorable vs DOC. NIVO represents a significant improvement in second-line therapy for SQ NSCLC. Clinical trial information: NCT NIVO (n = 135) DOC (n = 137) mOS, mo (95% CI) 9.2 (7.3, 13.3) 6.0 (5.1, 7.3) 1-yr OS, % (95% CI) 42 (34, 50) 24 (17, 31) Median duration of response, mo (range) Not Reached (2.9–20.5+) 8.4 (1.4+–15.2+) mPFS, mo (95% CI) 3.5 (2.1, 4.9) 2.8 (2.1, 3.5) 1-yr PFS, % (95% CI) 21 (14, 28) 6 (3, 12) PD-1 expression NIVO (n) DOC (n) OS HR (95% CI) ≥ 1% 63 56 0.69 (0.45, 1.05) < 1% 54 52 0.58 (0.37, 0.92) ≥ 5% 42 39 0.53 (0.31, 0.89) < 5% 75 69 0.70 (0.47, 1.02) ≥ 10% 36 33 0.50 (0.28, 0.89) < 10% 81 0.70 (0.48, 1.01) ASCO® D’après Spiegel D et al., abstr. 8009, actualisé

4 Étude de phase III, CheckMate 017 comparant en seconde ligne nivolumab et docétaxel dans les cancers épidermoïdes (4) Nivolumab (n = 292) Docétaxel (n = 290) Médiane, mois (IC95) 9,2 (7,3-13,3) 6,0 (5,1-7,3) Événements 86 113 HR = 0,73 ; IC96 : 0,59-0,89 ; p = 0,0015 100 80 60 Taux de SG à 1 an = 42 % Survie globale (%) 40 Nivolumab 20 Taux de SG à 1 an = 24 % Docétaxel A phase III study (CheckMate 017) of nivolumab (NIVO; anti-programmed death-1 [PD-1]) vs docetaxel (DOC) in previously treated advanced or metastatic squamous (SQ) cell non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Session: Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: A Paradigm Shift Type: Clinical Science Symposium Time: Sunday May 31, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM Location: E Hall D1 Citation:Abstract: Background: Treatment options are limited for patients (pts) with advanced SQ NSCLC who fail platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PT-DC). We report results of a randomized, open-label, global phase III study of NIVO, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, vs DOC in pts with SQ NSCLC and with disease progression (PD) during/after one prior PT-DC regimen. Methods: Pts (N = 272) were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO 3 mg/kg (n = 135) Q2W or DOC 75 mg/m2(n = 137) Q3W until PD, discontinuation due to toxicity, or other reasons. The primary objective was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), efficacy by PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 testing not required for enrollment), quality of life, and safety. Results:Superior OS was observed with NIVO vs DOC (HR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.79; p = ). NIVO improved PFS vs DOC (HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.81; p = ). ORR was 20% (27/135) for NIVO and 9% (12/137) for DOC (p = ). OS HRs favored NIVO regardless of PD-L1 expression (Table). Grade 3–4 drug-related AEs occurred in 7% (9/131) of NIVO and 55% (71/129) of DOC pts. No deaths were related to NIVO vs 3 DOC-related deaths. Conclusions: CheckMate 017 met its primary objective, demonstrating superior OS of NIVO vs DOC in pts with advanced, previously treated SQ NSCLC and demonstrated PFS and ORR superiority. Tumor PD-L1 status was neither prognostic nor predictive for efficacy endpoints. The safety profile of NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W is acceptable and favorable vs DOC. NIVO represents a significant improvement in second-line therapy for SQ NSCLC. Clinical trial information: NCT NIVO (n = 135) DOC (n = 137) mOS, mo (95% CI) 9.2 (7.3, 13.3) 6.0 (5.1, 7.3) 1-yr OS, % (95% CI) 42 (34, 50) 24 (17, 31) Median duration of response, mo (range) Not Reached (2.9–20.5+) 8.4 (1.4+–15.2+) mPFS, mo (95% CI) 3.5 (2.1, 4.9) 2.8 (2.1, 3.5) 1-yr PFS, % (95% CI) 21 (14, 28) 6 (3, 12) PD-1 expression NIVO (n) DOC (n) OS HR (95% CI) ≥ 1% 63 56 0.69 (0.45, 1.05) < 1% 54 52 0.58 (0.37, 0.92) ≥ 5% 42 39 0.53 (0.31, 0.89) < 5% 75 69 0.70 (0.47, 1.02) ≥ 10% 36 33 0.50 (0.28, 0.89) < 10% 81 0.70 (0.48, 1.01) 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Patients à risque (n) Mois Nivolumab Docétaxel 135 137 113 103 86 68 69 45 52 30 31 14 15 7 7 2 ASCO® D’après Spiegel D et al., abstr. 8009, actualisé

5 Survie sans progresion (%)
Étude de phase III, CheckMate 017 comparant en seconde ligne nivolumab et docétaxel dans les cancers épidermoïdes (5) 100 Nivolumab (n = 292) Docétaxel (n = 290) Médiane SSP, mois (IC95) 3,5 (2,1-4,9) 2,8 (2,1-3,5) HR = 0,62 ; IC95 : 0,47-0,81 ; p = 0,0004 80 60 Survie sans progresion (%) 40 Taux de SG à 1 an = 21 % Nivolumab 20 A phase III study (CheckMate 017) of nivolumab (NIVO; anti-programmed death-1 [PD-1]) vs docetaxel (DOC) in previously treated advanced or metastatic squamous (SQ) cell non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Session: Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: A Paradigm Shift Type: Clinical Science Symposium Time: Sunday May 31, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM Location: E Hall D1 Citation:Abstract: Background: Treatment options are limited for patients (pts) with advanced SQ NSCLC who fail platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PT-DC). We report results of a randomized, open-label, global phase III study of NIVO, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, vs DOC in pts with SQ NSCLC and with disease progression (PD) during/after one prior PT-DC regimen. Methods: Pts (N = 272) were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO 3 mg/kg (n = 135) Q2W or DOC 75 mg/m2(n = 137) Q3W until PD, discontinuation due to toxicity, or other reasons. The primary objective was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), efficacy by PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 testing not required for enrollment), quality of life, and safety. Results:Superior OS was observed with NIVO vs DOC (HR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.79; p = ). NIVO improved PFS vs DOC (HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.81; p = ). ORR was 20% (27/135) for NIVO and 9% (12/137) for DOC (p = ). OS HRs favored NIVO regardless of PD-L1 expression (Table). Grade 3–4 drug-related AEs occurred in 7% (9/131) of NIVO and 55% (71/129) of DOC pts. No deaths were related to NIVO vs 3 DOC-related deaths. Conclusions: CheckMate 017 met its primary objective, demonstrating superior OS of NIVO vs DOC in pts with advanced, previously treated SQ NSCLC and demonstrated PFS and ORR superiority. Tumor PD-L1 status was neither prognostic nor predictive for efficacy endpoints. The safety profile of NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W is acceptable and favorable vs DOC. NIVO represents a significant improvement in second-line therapy for SQ NSCLC. Clinical trial information: NCT NIVO (n = 135) DOC (n = 137) mOS, mo (95% CI) 9.2 (7.3, 13.3) 6.0 (5.1, 7.3) 1-yr OS, % (95% CI) 42 (34, 50) 24 (17, 31) Median duration of response, mo (range) Not Reached (2.9–20.5+) 8.4 (1.4+–15.2+) mPFS, mo (95% CI) 3.5 (2.1, 4.9) 2.8 (2.1, 3.5) 1-yr PFS, % (95% CI) 21 (14, 28) 6 (3, 12) PD-1 expression NIVO (n) DOC (n) OS HR (95% CI) ≥ 1% 63 56 0.69 (0.45, 1.05) < 1% 54 52 0.58 (0.37, 0.92) ≥ 5% 42 39 0.53 (0.31, 0.89) < 5% 75 69 0.70 (0.47, 1.02) ≥ 10% 36 33 0.50 (0.28, 0.89) < 10% 81 0.70 (0.48, 1.01) Taux de SG à 1 an = 6,4 % Docétaxel 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Patients à risque (n) Mois Nivolumab Docétaxel 135 137 68 62 48 26 33 9 21 6 15 2 6 1 2 ASCO® D’après Spiegel D et al., abstr. 8009, actualisé


Télécharger ppt "Étude de phase III, CheckMate 017 comparant en seconde ligne nivolumab et docétaxel dans les cancers épidermoïdes (1) Nivolumab 3 mg/kg toutes les 2."

Présentations similaires


Annonces Google