Long-term Outcomes with Nivolumab as First-line Treatment in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer: Subgroup Analysis of CheckMate 141

In the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 141 trial, nivolumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus investigator's choice (IC) of chemotherapy at primary analysis among 361 patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) post-platinum therapy. Nivolumab versus IC as first-line treatment also improved OS among patients with R/M SCCHN who progressed on platinum therapy for locally advanced disease in the adjuvant or primary setting at 1-year follow-up. In the present long-term follow-up analysis of patients receiving first-line treatment, OS benefit with nivolumab (n = 50) versus IC (n = 26) was maintained (median: 7.7 months versus 3.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94) at 2 years. No new safety signals were identified. In summary, this long-term 2-year analysis of CheckMate 141 supports the use of nivolumab as a first-line treatment for patients with platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN.

Abstract CT116: Nivolumab (Nivo) vs investigator's choice (IC) in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN): 2-yr outcomes in the overall population and PD-L1 subgroups of CheckMate 141

Aim: Nivo is the only immunotherapy to significantly improve overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with R/M SCCHN who have progressed on or after platinum-based therapy. Here we report long-term data from the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 141 study (NCT02105636).

Patients: Pts with R/M SCCHN who progressed on or after platinum-based therapy were randomized 2:1 to nivo 3 mg/kg q2wk (n = 240) or IC (methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab; n = 121). Endpoints: OS (primary), progression-free survival (PFS), safety. Minimum follow-up: 24.2 mo (data cut: Sep 2017).

Results: Nivo improved OS significantly vs IC in the overall population (median [95% CI]: 7.7 [5.7, 8.8] mo vs 5.1 [4.0, 6.2] mo; HR [95% CI]: 0.68 [0.54, 0.86]). 2-yr OS rate (95% CI) was 16.9% (12.4, 22.0) with nivo vs 6.0% (2.7, 11.3) with IC. 8.3% of pts in the IC arm received subsequent immunotherapy. Outcomes by PD-L1 and HPV subgroups are shown in the Table. In pts with tumor PD-L1 <1%, risk of death at 2 yrs was reduced by 27% with nivo vs IC with the HR trending lower with longer follow-up; HR (95% CI) = 0.89 (0.54, 1.45), 0.83 (0.54, 1.29), and 0.73 (0.49, 1.09) at 6 mo (Dec 2015 data cut), 1 yr (Sep 2016 data cut), and 2 yrs of follow-up, respectively. Nivo also continued to improve OS vs IC in pts with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1%. Complete responses were noted in both PD-L1 ≥ 1% and <1% groups. Key baseline characteristics, including PD-L1 expression and HPV status, were similar among patients who survived 2 yrs compared with all patients in the nivo arm. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 15.3% (nivo) vs 36.9% (IC) of pts; toxicity-related deaths in 2 pts (0.8%) and 1 pt (0.9%), respectively.

Conclusion: With 2-yr follow-up, nivo continued to significantly improve OS and maintain a favorable safety profile vs IC. Nivo is the only immunotherapy to demonstrate OS benefit irrespective of PD-L1 expression in pts with SCCHN.

Table: Outcomes by PD-L1 expression and HPV statusMedian OS (95% CI), monthsMedian PFS (95% CI), monthsNivoICHR (95% CI)NivoICHR (95% CI)PD-L1 < 1%6.5 (4.4, 11.7)5.5 (3.7, 8.5)0.73 (0.49, 1.09)2.0 (1.9, 2.1)2.7 (2.0, 4.6)1.13 (0.75, 1.71)PD-L1 ≥ 1%8.2 (6.7, 9.5)4.7 (3.8, 6.2)0.55 (0.39, 0.78)2.1 (2.0, 3.5)2.0 (1.9, 3.1)0.59 (0.41, 0.84)HPV+9.1 (6.5, 11.8)4.4 (3.0, 9.8)0.60 (0.37, 0.97)2.0 (1.9, 3.3)2.0 (1.6, 2.8)0.75 (0.46, 1.23)HPV−7.7 (4.8, 13.0)6.5 (3.9, 8.7)0.59 (0.38, 0.92)2.1 (1.9, 3.1)3.3 (1.9, 4.0)1.01 (0.65, 1.56)

Citation Format: Robert L. Ferris, George R. Blumenschein, Jerome Fayette, Joel Guigay, A Dimitrios Colevas, Lisa Licitra, Kevin J. Harrington, Stefan Kasper, Everett E. Vokes, Caroline Even, Francis Worden, Nabil F. Saba, Lara Carmen Iglesias Docampo, Robert Haddad, Tamara Rordorf, Naomi Kiyota, Makoto Tahara, Mark Lynch, Vijayvel Jayaprakash, Li Li, Maura L. Gillison. Nivolumab (Nivo) vs investigator's choice (IC) in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN): 2-yr outcomes in the overall population and PD-L1 subgroups of CheckMate 141 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT116.

CheckMate 141: 1-Year Update and Subgroup Analysis of Nivolumab as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) vs investigator's choice (IC) of chemotherapy at the primary analysis of randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 141 in patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Here, we report that OS benefit with nivolumab was maintained at a minimum follow-up of 11.4 months. Further, OS benefit with nivolumab vs IC was also noted among patients who received first-line treatment for R/M SCCHN after progressing on platinum therapy for locally advanced disease in the adjuvant or primary (i.e., with radiation) setting.

Nivolumab vs investigator's choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: 2-year long-term survival update of CheckMate 141 with analyses by tumor PD-L1 expression

OBJECTIVES

We report 2-year results from CheckMate 141 to establish the long-term efficacy and safety profile of nivolumab and outcomes by tumor PD-L1 expression in patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M),platinum-refractory squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).

METHODS

Patients with R/M SCCHN with tumor progression/recurrence within 6 months of platinum therapy were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or investigator's choice (IC). Primary endpoint: overall survival (OS). Data cutoff: September 2017.

RESULTS

With 24.2 months' minimum follow-up, nivolumab (n = 240) continued to improve OS vs IC (n = 121), hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86). Nivolumab nearly tripled the estimated 24-month OS rate (16.9%) vs IC (6.0%), and demonstrated OS benefit across patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥1% (HR [95% CI] = 0.55 [0.39-0.78]) and  < 1% (HR [95% CI] = 0.73 [0.49-1.09]), and regardless of tumor HPV status. Estimated OS rates at 18, 24, and 30 months with nivolumab were consistent irrespective of PD-L1 expression (<1%/≥1%). In the nivolumab arm, there were no observed differences in baseline characteristics or safety profile between long-term survivors and the overall population. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 15.3% and 36.9% for nivolumab and IC, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab significantly improved OS at the primary analysis and demonstrated prolonged OS benefit vs IC and maintenance of a manageable and consistent safety profile with 2-year follow-up. OS benefit was observed with nivolumab irrespective of PD-L1 expression and HPV status. (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02105636).

Nivolumab (Nivo) vs investigator’s choice (IC) for platinum-refractory (PR) recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN; Checkmate 141): Outcomes in first-line (1L) R/m patients and updated safety and efficacy

6019

Background: In CheckMate 141, a randomized, phase 3 trial, nivo demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and better tolerability in patients (pts) with PR R/M SCCHN compared with IC. Pts with SCCHN progressing within 6 mos of platinum in the primary treatment setting have dismal prognosis. We report outcomes in pts who were PR in the primary or adjuvant setting, and updated results in the overall population. Methods: Pts (N = 361) with PR R/M SCCHN were randomized 2:1 to nivo 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or weekly IC (methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab). Primary endpoint was OS estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs). Additional endpoints include objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Outcomes were analyzed overall and post hoc in pts who were PR in the primary/adjuvant setting and received nivo/IC as 1L R/M therapy. Results: Characteristics of the 78 (21.6%) pts who received nivo (n = 52) or IC (n = 26) in the 1L R/M setting were similar to the overall population.Nivo significantly improved OS vs IC among 1L R/M pts (median [95% CI]: 7.7 mo [3.1, 13.8] vs 3.3 mo [2.1, 6.4]; HR [95% CI] = 0.56 [0.33, 0.95]); 12-mo OS rate: 39.2% vs 15.4%. ORR was 19.2% for nivo vs 11.5% for IC in this subgroup. At 11.4-mo minimum follow-up, updated efficacy and safety in the overall population were similar to the primary analysis. Median OS (95% CI) was 7.7 mo (5.7, 8.8) for nivo vs 5.1 mo (4.0, 6.2) for IC; HR (95% CI) = 0.71 (0.55, 0.90); P = 0.0048. For nivo vs IC, the 18-mo OS rate was 21.5% vs 8.3% and ORR was 13.3% vs 5.8%. Nivo doubled the median duration of response vs IC (9.7 vs 4.0 mo). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse event rates for nivo vs IC were 15.3% vs 36.0% overall and 27.5% vs 32.0% for 1L R/M pts; there were no new deaths due to study drug toxicity. Conclusions: Nivo significantly improved OS and increased ORR vs IC in a 1L R/M subgroup, supporting its use as 1L therapy for pts with PR R/M SCCHN. Nivo continued to show a significant survival benefit and better tolerability vs IC in pts with PR R/M SCCHN. Clinical trial information: NCT02105636.