Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated. RESULTS: Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF–wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) is approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma in several countries. We conducted a phase IIIb/IV study (CheckMate 511) to determine if nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) improves the safety profile of the combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 360) age 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO3+IPI1 or NIVO1+IPI3 once every 3 weeks for four doses. After 6 weeks, all patients received NIVO 480 mg once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was a comparison of the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) between groups. Secondary end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The study was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy end points. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 AEs was 34% with NIVO3+IPI1 versus 48% with NIVO1+IPI3 ( P = .006). In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 50.6% in the NIVO1+IPI3 group, with complete responses in 15.0% and 13.5% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 8.9 months in the NIVO1+IPI3 group. Median overall survival was not reached in either group. CONCLUSION: The CheckMate 511 study met its primary end point, demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs with NIVO3+IPI1 versus NIVO1+IPI3. Descriptive analyses showed that there were no meaningful differences between the groups for any efficacy end point, although longer follow up may help to better characterize efficacy outcomes.

Sarcomas are rare but aggressive diseases. Specialized multidisciplinary management is not implemented for all patients in most countries. We investigated the impact of a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) presentation before treatment in a nationwide study over 5 years. NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized MDTB, funded by the French National Cancer Institute to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients. Since 2010, presentation to an MDTB and second pathological review are mandatory for sarcoma patients in France. Patients’ characteristics and follow-up are collected in a database regularly monitored and updated. The management and survival of patients presented to these MDTB before versus after initial treatment were analyzed. Out of the 12 528 patients aged ≥15 years, with a first diagnosis of soft tissue and visceral sarcoma obtained between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014, 5281 (42.2%) and 7247 (57.8%) were presented to the MDTB before and after the initiation of treatment, respectively. The former group had generally worse prognostic characteristics. Presentation to a MDTB before treatment was associated with a better compliance to clinical practice guidelines, for example, biopsy before surgery, imaging, quality of initial surgery, and less reoperations (all P < 0.001). Local relapse-free survival and relapse-free survival were significantly better in patients presented to a MDTB before initiation of treatment, both in univariate and multivariate analysis. The compliance to clinical practice guidelines and relapse-free survival of sarcoma patients are significantly better when the initial treatment is guided by a pre-therapeutic specialized MDTB.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare skin cancer that is associated with Merkel cell polyomavirus infection in most cases. Incidence rates of MCC have increased in past decades. Risk factors for MCC include ultraviolet light exposure, immunosuppression and advanced age. MCC is an aggressive malignancy with frequent recurrences and a high mortality rate, although patient outcomes are generally more favourable if the patient is referred for treatment at an early stage. Although advances have been made recently in the MCC field, large gaps remain with regard to definitive biomarkers and prognostic indicators. Although MCC is chemosensitive, responses in advanced stages are mostly of short duration, and the associated clinical benefit on overall survival is unclear. Recent nonrandomised phase 2 clinical trials with anti-PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies have demonstrated safety and efficacy; however, there are still no approved treatments for patients with metastatic MCC. Patients with advanced disease are encouraged to participate in clinical trials for treatment, indicating the largely unmet need for durable, safe treatment within this population.

Background Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer associated with poor survival outcomes in patients with distant metastatic disease (mMCC). In an initial analysis from JAVELIN Merkel 200, a phase 2, prospective, open-label, single-arm trial in mMCC, avelumab—a human anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody—showed promising efficacy and a safety profile that was generally manageable and tolerable. Here, we report the efficacy of avelumab after ≥1 year of follow-up in patients with distant mMCC that had progressed following prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients and methods Patients received avelumab 10 mg/kg by 1-h intravenous infusion every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was best overall response. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results Patients (N = 88) were followed for a minimum of 12 months. The confirmed objective response rate was 33.0% (95% CI, 23.3%-43.8%; complete response: 11.4%). An estimated 74% of responses lasted ≥1 year, and 72.4% of responses were ongoing at data cutoff. Responses were durable, with the median DOR not yet reached (95% CI, 18.0 months-not estimable), and PFS was prolonged; 1-year PFS and OS rates were 30% (95% CI, 21%-41%) and 52% (95% CI, 41%-62%), respectively. Median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI, 7.5-not estimable). Subgroup analyses suggested a higher probability of response in patients receiving fewer prior lines of systemic therapy, with a lower baseline disease burden, and with PD-L1–positive tumors; however, durable responses occurred irrespective of baseline factors, including tumor Merkel cell polyomavirus status. Conclusions With longer follow-up, avelumab continues to show durable responses and promising survival outcomes in patients with distant mMCC whose disease had progressed after chemotherapy. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02155647.