Search

Background: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years., Methods: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed., Results: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age., Conclusions: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

We present an exploratory post hoc analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in a subgroup of 108 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, a population under-represented in clinical trials. Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized to NIVO+IPI every 3 wk for four doses followed by NIVO monotherapy, or sunitinib every day for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and primary tumor shrinkage were assessed. PFS and ORR were assessed per independent radiology review committee using RECIST version 1.1. With minimum study follow-up of 4 yr for intent-to-treat patients, OS favored NIVO+IPI (n = 53) over sunitinib (n = 55; hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.0) among patients without prior nephrectomy. ORR was higher (34% vs 15%; p = 0.0041) and median duration of response was longer with NIVO+IPI versus sunitinib (20.5 vs 14.1 mo); the best overall response was partial response in either arm. A ≥30% reduction in the diameter of intact target renal tumors was achieved in 35% of patients with NIVO+IPI versus 20% with sunitinib. Safety was consistent with the global study population. In conclusion, in patients with aRCC without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, NIVO+IPI showed survival benefits and renal tumor reduction versus sunitinib. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02231749. PATIENT SUMMARY: In an exploratory analysis of a large global trial (CheckMate 214), we observed positive outcomes (both survival and tumor response to treatment) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in a subgroup of patients with advanced kidney cancer who did not undergo removal of their primary kidney tumor. This subset of patients represents a population that has not been studied in clinical trials and for whom outcomes with new immunotherapy combination regimens are not yet known. We conclude that treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab offers these patients a survival benefit versus sunitinib, consistent with that observed in the overall study, as well as a notable kidney tumor reduction., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial demonstrated higher response rates and improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line therapy for advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). An unmet need exists to identify patients with RCC who are most likely to benefit from treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab., Methods: In exploratory analyses, pretreatment levels of programmed death ligand 1 were assessed by immunohistochemistry. Genomic and transcriptomic biomarkers (including tumor mutational burden and gene expression signatures) were also investigated., Results: Biomarkers previously associated with benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor-containing regimens in RCC were not predictive for survival in patients with RCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Analysis of gene expression identified an association between an inflammatory response and progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab., Conclusions: The exploratory analyses reveal relationships between molecular biomarkers and provide supportive data on how the inflammation status of the tumor microenvironment may be important for identifying predictive biomarkers of response and survival with combination immunotherapy in patients with RCC. Further validation may help to provide biomarker-driven precision treatment for patients with RCC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RJM reports consulting fees from Aveo, Calithera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Merck, Novartis AG, Pfizer, and Roche, and contracted research to employer MSKCC for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche. TC reports personal and institutional research undertaken for Alexion, Analysis Group, AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/ER Squibb & Sons LLC, Calithera, Cerulean, Corvus, Eisai, Exelixis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Roche, Roche Products Limited, Sanofi/Aventis, Takeda, and Tracon; consulting/honoraria or advisory roles from Alexion, Analysis Group, AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/ER Squibb & Sons LLC, Cerulean, Corvus, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine Inc, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Heron Therapeutics, Infinity Pharma, Ipsen, Jansen Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Merck, NCCN, NiKang, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Pionyr, Prometheus Labs, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Tempest, and Up-to-Date; travel, accommodations, expenses, and medical writing in relation to consulting, advisory roles, or honoraria; participation in CME-related events by OncLive, PVI, MJH Life Sciences, and in the NCI GU steering committee; owning Pionyr and Tempest stock; and patents filed, royalties, and other intellectual properties related to biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibitors and ctDNA. TC is also supported in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE and Program, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at DFCI. DM reports honoraria from Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Iovance, Merck, Pfizer, and Werewolf Therapeutics; and research support from Alkermes Inc, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, and X4 Pharma. TP reports honoraria for advisory/research boards from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; institutional grants and funding from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; and fees for travel and accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Roche, and Pfizer. YV reports no conflicts of interest. SG is employed by, and owns stock in, Bristol Myers Squibb. JY is employed by, and owns stock in, Bristol Myers Squibb. CH is employed by Bristol Myers Squibb. RA is employed by, and owns stock in, Bristol Myers Squibb. SP-C is employed by, and a shareholder of, Bristol Myers Squibb. SSS is employed by, and owns stock in, Bristol Myers Squibb. MBM is currently employed by BeiGene and owns stock in Bristol Myers Squibb. MW-R is currently employed by Agios Pharmaceuticals and owns stock in Agios Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb. MBM, MW-R, and PR-M were employees of Bristol Myers Squibb at the time this work was conducted., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC., Patients and Methods: Patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics., Results: Of 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged., Conclusions: NIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population. See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5 ., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The open-label phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 374., Methods: Eligible patients received 0 to 3 prior systemic therapies. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤24 months or until confirmed progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Forty-four patients had advanced nccRCC (papillary [n = 24], chromophobe [n = 7], unclassified [n = 8], other [n = 5]); 34.1% received ≥1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. With median follow-up of 11 (range, 0.4-27) months, no all-cause grade 3-5 IMAEs or treatment-related grade 5 adverse events were reported. ORR was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-27.4), with 1 complete response (chromophobe) and 5 partial responses (papillary [n = 2], chromophobe [n = 1], collecting duct [n = 1], and unclassified [n = 1] histology). Median PFS was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-5.4). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 9.2-not estimable)., Conclusions: Safety of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was consistent with previous results. Clinically meaningful efficacy was observed with responses in several histologies, supporting nivolumab as a treatment option for patients with advanced nccRCC, a patient population with high unmet need., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the CheckMate 374 advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cohort., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients received prior treatment regimens (1-2 antiangiogenic; 0-3 systemic) with progression on/after last treatment and ≤ 6 months of enrollment. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤ 24 months or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival., Results: Ninety-seven patients had advanced predominantly ccRCC; 75.3% received only 1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. After a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 0.4-26.9 months), no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, and 9.3% of patients reported grade 3/4 IMAEs (hepatitis, 4.1%; diabetes mellitus, 2.1%; nephritis and renal dysfunction, 1.0%; rash, 1.0%; adrenal insufficiency, 1.0%). The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.8%-32.3%). Three patients had a complete response; 19 had partial responses. The median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.5 months). The median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.4 months to not estimable)., Conclusions: This study validates the safety and efficacy of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W flat-dose monotherapy for previously treated advanced ccRCC and adds to previous safety and efficacy data using the 3 mg/kg Q2W dose., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phase 3 trial CA184-043 evaluated radiotherapy to bone metastases followed by Ipilimumab or placebo in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had received docetaxel previously. In a prior analysis, the trial's primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]) was not improved significantly., Objective: To report the final analysis of OS., Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 799 patients were randomized to receive a single dose of radiotherapy to one or more bone metastases followed by either Ipilimumab (n = 399) or placebo (n = 400)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. Prespecified and exploratory subset analyses based on Kaplan-Meier/Cox methodology were performed., Results and Limitations: During an additional follow-up of approximately 2.4 yr since the primary analysis, 721/799 patients have died. Survival analysis showed crossing of the curves at 7-8 mo, followed by persistent separation of the curves beyond that point, favoring the ipilimumab arm. Given the lack of proportional hazards, a piecewise hazard model showed that the hazard ratio (HR) changed over time: the HR was 1.49 (95% confidence interval 1.12, 1.99) for 0-5 mo, 0.66 (0.51, 0.86) for 5-12 mo, and 0.66 (0.52, 0.84) beyond 12 mo. OS rates were higher in the ipilimumab versus placebo arms at 2 yr (25.2% vs 16.6%), 3 yr (15.3% vs 7.9%), 4 yr (10.1% vs 3.3%), and 5 yr (7.9% vs. 2.7%). Disease progression was the most frequent cause of death in both arms. In seven patients (1.8%) in the ipilimumab arm and one (0.3%) in the placebo arm, the primary cause of death was reported as study drug toxicity. No long-term safety signals were identified., Conclusions: In this preplanned long-term analysis, OS favored ipilimumab plus radiotherapy versus placebo plus radiotherapy for patients with postdocetaxel mCRPC. OS rates at 3, 4, and 5 yr were approximately two to three times higher in the ipilimumab arm., Patient Summary: After longer follow-up, survival favored the group of men who received ipilimumab, with overall survival rates being two to three times higher at 3 yr and beyond., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC)., Methods: Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory)., Results: Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN., Conclusion: After long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety., Trial Registration Details: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LA reports consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Ipsen, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Merck, Amgen, Astellas and Exelixis; and other fees from Corvus Pharmaceuticals and Peloton Therapeutics. NMT reports research funding from BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Pfizer, Novartis, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Takeda, Epizyme and Eisai Medical Research; consulting and advisory fees from BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai Medical Research, Ipsen, Lilly Oncology, Neoleukin Therapeutics, Surface Oncology, ONO Pharmaceutical and Oncorena; and travel accommodations and expenses from BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai Medical Research, Ipsen, Lilly Oncology, Neoleukin Therapeutics, Surface Oncology, ONO Pharmaceutical and Oncorena. MB reports advisory and speaker fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. DM reports research funding from BMS, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Alkermes and Prometheus Laboratories; consulting or advisory fees from BMS, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Exelixis, Novartis, X4 Pharma, Array BioPharma, Peloton Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Jounce Therapeutics, Alkermes and Lilly; and other fees from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. ERP reports research funding (institutional) from BMS, AstraZeneca, Merck, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer and Astellas; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, Clovis, Exelixis, Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Flatiron Health, Infinity Pharma and McKesson; fees for development of educational presentations from BMS and Merck; and US Patent Application No. 14/588,503. PB reports consulting or advisory fees from BMS, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Ipsen, Roche and Janssen Cilag; travel accommodations and expenses from Amgen; and honoraria from Astellas Pharma. CP reports consulting or advisory fees from BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen Eusa, Eisai and General Electric; speaker fees from BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eusa, Eisai, General Electric, Janssen and AstraZeneca; research funding from Pfizer; expert testimony fees from Pfizer and Eusa; and travel accommodations and expenses from Roche. TP reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck/MSD, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck/MSD, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai and Roche; research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck/MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson and Eisai; and travel accommodations and expenses from Roche, Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca and Ipsen. FD reports research funding (institutional) from MSD, Pfizer and Ipsen. SG reports research funding from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Corvus, Pfizer, Acceleron, Merck, Agensys, Seattle Genetics, Calithera, Immunomedics, Corvus and Eisai; and consulting or advisory fees from Bayer, BMS, Exelixis, Corvus, Genentech, Sanofi/Genzyme, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Merck and EMD Serono. CKK reports advisory board fees from Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eisai, Roche, Merck and BMS; and lecture fees from Pfizer, Ipsen, Eisai and BMS. HG reports advisory board fees from Pfizer, Astellas, Ipsen, Roche and BMS. M-OG reports research funding from Novartis, BMS and Intuitive Surgical; advisory fees from Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Bayer HealthCare, Astellas, Intuitive Surgical, AstraZeneca, MSD, Janssen Cilag, ONO Pharmaceutical, Ipsen Pharma and Merck Serono; and lecture fees from Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Astellas, Hexal, Apogepha, AstraZeneca, MSD, ONO Pharmaceutical, Ipsen Pharma, Medac and Merck Serono. YT reports research funding from ONO Pharmaceutical, Pfizer and Takeda; consulting or advisory fees from ONO Pharmaceutical; and honoraria from ONO Pharmaceutical, BMS and Pfizer. DC reports research funding (institutional) from Janssen Oncology; consulting or advisory fees from Janssen Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS, MSD Oncology, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre and Boehringer Ingelheim; and travel accommodations and expenses from Pfizer, Roche, BMS and AstraZeneca Spain. BIR reports research funding from Pfizer, Merck, GNE/Roche, Aveo, AstraZeneca and BMS; consulting fees from BMS, Pfizer, GNE/Roche, Aveo, Novartis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Merck, Arravive, Surface Oncology and 3D Medicines; and stock ownership in PTC therapeutics. TKC reports clinical trial grants from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, GSK and EMD Serono; consulting or advisory fees from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, GSK and EMD Serono; manuscript preparation fees from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, GSK and EMD Serono; travel accommodations and expenses from BMS, Exelixis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Novartis, GSK and EMD Serono; and patent related to biomarkers of immune-oncology and cfmethDNA pending. SSS is an employee of and has stock ownership in BMS. MBM is an employee of and has stock ownership in BMS. RJM reports research funding (institutional) from Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, Genentech, Roche and BMS; and consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, Exelixis, Merck, Genentech, Incyte, Lilly, Roche and BMS., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus., Methods: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL)., Results: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus., Conclusions: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC., Lay Summary: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up., Methods: Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory., Results: Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports., Conclusions: NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response., Trial Registration Number: NCT02231749., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. RJM reports consulting or advisory roles with Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, and research funding/travel/accommodations/expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS), Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer. BE reports honoraria, consulting, or advisory roles with BMS, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. DFM reports consulting or advisory roles with Array BioPharma, BMS, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, and research finding from BMS (Inst), Genetech/Roche (Inst), Merck (Inst), Novartis (Inst), and Prometheus (Inst). OAF reports employment, stock or other ownership, and honoraria from Pfizer (I); consulting or advisory roles with BMS Chile and BMS Colombia; and travel, accommodations, expenses from Roche and Tecnofarma. BM reports honoraria from and advisory roles with Bayer, MSD, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Servie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Eisai, and Eli Lilly, and travel expenses from Merck Serono. TP reports honoraria from Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Ipsen, Novartis, Exelixis, and AstraZeneca, and research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Roche (Inst), and Novartis (Inst). FD reports research funding from Ipsen (Inst), Novartis (Inst), and Pfizer (Inst). ERP reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Clovis, Exelixis, Seattle Genetics, Incyte, Janssen, and Flatiron Health; research funding from Astellas Pharma (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst) BMS (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Merck (Inst), Peloton (Inst), and Pfizer (Inst); patents, royalties, and other intellectual property: US Patent Application No 14/588,503, pending, filed January 2, 2015; and the following other relationships: BMS (fees for development of educational presentations); Merck (fees for development of educational presentations); Roche (fees for development of educational presentations); Novartis (fees for development of educational presentations), and Exelixis (personal fees). PB reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Ipsen, Roche, Janssen Cilag, and EUSA Pharma, and honoraria from Astellas Pharma and Amgen. HJH reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Pfizer, Exelixis, Merck, Corvus, Surface Oncology, Armo Biosciences, and Novartis, and research funding from BMS and Merck. SG reports consulting or advisory roles with Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Bayer, Pfizer, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/Roche, EMD Serono, and Sanofi, and research funding from Pfizer (Inst), Acceleron Pharma (Inst), Merck (Inst), Agensys (Inst), Novartis (Inst), BMS (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Eisai (Inst), and Corvus (Inst). VG reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, and Onkowissen; consulting or advisory roles with Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca; stock or other ownership in MSD, BMS, and AstraZeneca; honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, Eisai, Bayer, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Roche, Lilly, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, EUSA Pharma, Janssen Cilag, Asklepios Clinics, Diakonie Clinic, Dortmund Hospital, and Clinic of Oldenburg; and research funding from Novartis (Inst). CP reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, EUSA, Eisai, and General Electric; speakers’ bureau fees from BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen EUSA, Eisai, General Electric, Janssen, and AstraZeneca; research funding from Pfizer (Inst); expert testimony fees from Pfizer and EUSA; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Roche. VN reports honoraria from MSD and TEVA. AR reports consulting or advisory roles with Pfizer, BMS, Roche, Ipsen, Merck, and AstraZeneca; research funding from Pfizer (Inst); and non-financial support from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, and AstraZeneca. TKC reports research (Institutional and personal) funding from AstraZeneca, Alexion, Bayer, BMS/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc, Exelixis, Ipsen, Tracon, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Calithera, Analysis Group, Sanofi/Aventis, and Takeda; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, BMS/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc, Exelixis, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Ipsen, UptoDate, Analysis Group, NCCN, Michael J Hennessy (MJH) Associates, Inc (Healthcare Communications Company with several brands such as OnClive, PeerView and PER), L-path, Kidney Cancer Journal, Clinical Care Options, Platform Q, Navinata Healthcare, Harborside Press, American Society of Medical Oncology, New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, Heron Therapeutics, and Lilly; consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, BMS/ER Squibb and Sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc, Exelixis, Genentech, Heron Therapeutics, Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Ipsen, UptoDate, NCCN, and Analysis Group; and the following patents, royalties or other intellectual properties: International Patent Application No PCT/US2018/12209, entitled 'PBRM1 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint Response', filed January 3, 2018, claiming priority to US Provisional Patent Application No 62/445,094, filed January 11, 2017, International Patent Application No PCT/US2018/058430, entitled 'Biomarkers of Clinical Response and Benefit to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy', filed October 31, 2018, claiming priority to US Provisional Patent Application No 62/581,175, filed November 3, 2017. BIR reports research funding from BMS, Pfizer, Merck, GNE, Roche, Aveo, and AstraZeneca; consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Pfizer, GNE/Roche, Aveo, Novartis, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Merck, Arravive, Surface Oncology, and 3D Medicines, and stock or other ownership in PTC Therapeutics. CKK reports honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Eisai; and consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Pfizer, Ipsen, Eisai, Roche, Astellas, and Janssen. SST reports consulting or advisory roles with BMS, Calithera Biosciences, and Prometheus Laboratories; and research funding from BMS (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Merck (Inst), Nektar Therapeutics (Inst), Peloton Therapeutics (Inst), Jounce Therapeutics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Prometheus Laboratories (Inst), ARGOS Therapeutics (Inst), and Clinigen (Inst). M-OG reports lecture or advisory roles with Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, Intuitive Surgical, Hexal, Apogepha, AstraZeneca, MSD Janssen Cilag, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Medac Merck, and Serono; and research funding from Novartis, BMS, and Intuitive Surgical. HG reports consulting or advisory roles with Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, and Roche. RL-A reports personal fees from BMS, MSD, and Pfizer. PFG reports research funding from BMS, Pfizer, Merck, MSD, and Roche. AA reports research funding from BMS, Pfizer, Merck, and Exelixis, and speakers’ bureau fees from Pfizer, Exelixis, BMS, and Merck. YT reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, ONO Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Astellas, BMS, and Chugai; consulting or advisory roles with ONO Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Novartis, and Taiho; and research funding from Takeda (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), ONO Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd (Inst), Astellas (Inst), Novartis (Inst), and Chugai (Inst). MBM reports employment with and stock or other ownership in BMS. SSS reports employment with and stock or other ownership in BMS. NMT reports research funding from BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Pfizer, Novartis, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Takeda, Epizyme, and Eisai Medical Research; consulting, advisory, travel accommodations and expenses from BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Nektar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai Medical Research, Ipsen, Lilly Oncology, Neoleukin Therapeutics, Surface Oncology, ONO Pharmaceutical, and Oncorena; and honoraria from BMS, Exelixis, Nektar Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai Medical Research, ONO Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Oncorena, Ipsen, and Surface Oncology., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 wk for four doses, then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 wk) had superior efficacy over sunitinib (50 mg once daily, 4 wk on, 2 wk off) in patients with untreated International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma; the benefits were sustained through extended follow-up. To better characterize the association between outcomes and IMDC risk in CheckMate 214, we completed a post hoc analysis (n = 1051) of efficacy by the number of IMDC risk factors. The investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 were evaluated. ORR with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was consistent across zero to six IMDC risk factors, whereas with sunitinib it decreased with increasing number of risk factors. Benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in terms of ORR (40-44% vs 16-38%), OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50-0.72), and PFS (HR 0.44-0.86) were consistently observed in subgroups with one, two, three, or four to six IMDC risk factors (p < 0.05 for treatment × no. of risk factors interaction). These results demonstrate the benefit of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib across all intermediate-risk and poor-risk groups, regardless of the number of IMDC risk factors. PATIENT SUMMARY: This report from the CheckMate 214 study describes a consistent efficacy benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab over first-line sunitinib in all groups of patients with intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, regardless of the number of risk factors they had before starting treatment. We conclude that there is a benefit of first-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab for all intermediate-risk patients, including those with one or two risk factors, and for all poor-risk patients, independent of the number of risk factors., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting., Methods: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment., Findings: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related., Interpretation: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits programmed cell death 1, is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treating advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other malignancies. Data on long-term survival among patients receiving nivolumab are limited., Objectives: To analyze long-term overall survival (OS) among patients receiving nivolumab and identify clinical and laboratory measures associated with tumor regression and OS., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of the phase 1 CA209-003 trial (with expansion cohorts), which was conducted at 13 US medical centers and included 270 patients with advanced melanoma, RCC, or NSCLC who received nivolumab and were enrolled between October 30, 2008, and December 28, 2011. The analyses were either specified in the original protocol or included in subsequent protocol amendments that were implemented between 2008 and 2012. Statistical analysis was performed from October 30, 2008, to November 11, 2016., Intervention: In the CA209-003 trial, patients received nivolumab (0.1-10.0 mg/kg) every 2 weeks in 8-week cycles for up to 96 weeks, unless they developed progressive disease, achieved a complete response, experienced unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrew consent., Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety and activity of nivolumab; OS was a post hoc end point with a minimum follow-up of 58.3 months., Results: Of 270 patients included in this analysis, 107 (39.6%) had melanoma (72 [67.3%] male; median age, 61 [range, 29-85] years), 34 (12.6%) had RCC (26 [76.5%] male; median age, 58 [range, 35-74] years), and 129 (47.8%) had NSCLC (79 [61.2%] male; median age, 65 [range, 38-85] years). Overall survival curves showed estimated 5-year rates of 34.2% among patients with melanoma, 27.7% among patients with RCC, and 15.6% among patients with NSCLC. In a multivariable analysis, the presence of liver (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.83; P = .02) or bone metastases (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.93; P = .04) was independently associated with reduced likelihood of survival at 5 years, whereas an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.43-5.27; P = .003) was independently associated with an increased likelihood of 5-year survival. Overall survival was significantly longer among patients with treatment-related AEs of any grade (median, 19.8 months; 95% CI, 13.8-26.9 months) or grade 3 or more (median, 20.3 months; 95% CI, 12.5-44.9 months) compared with those without treatment-related AEs (median, 5.8 months; 95% CI, 4.6-7.8 months) (P < .001 for both comparisons based on hazard ratios)., Conclusions and Relevance: Nivolumab treatment was associated with long-term survival in a subset of heavily pretreated patients with advanced melanoma, RCC, or NSCLC. Characterizing factors associated with long-term survival may inform treatment approaches and strategies for future clinical trial development., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00730639.

Background: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma., Methods: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk., Results: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups., Conclusions: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.

Background: Nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W) has shown benefit versus the standard of care in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, flat dosing is expected to shorten preparation time and improve ease of administration. With knowledge of nivolumab safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics across a wide dose range in body weight (BW) dosing, assessment of the benefit-risk profile of a 240-mg flat dose relative to the approved 3-mg/kg dose was approached by quantitative clinical pharmacology., Patients and Methods: A flat dose of 240 mg was selected based on its equivalence to the 3-mg/kg dose at the median BW of ∼80 kg in patients in the nivolumab program. The benefit-risk profile of nivolumab 240 mg was evaluated by comparing exposures at 3 mg/kg Q2W and 240 mg Q2W across BW and tumor types; clinical safety at 3 mg/kg Q2W by BW and exposure quartiles in melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC; and safety and efficacy at 240 mg Q2W relative to 3 mg/kg Q2W in melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC., Results: The median nivolumab exposure and its distribution at 240 mg Q2W were similar to 3 mg/kg Q2W in the simulated population. Safety analyses did not demonstrate a clinically meaningful relationship between BW or nivolumab exposure quartiles and frequency or severity of adverse events. The predicted safety and efficacy were similar across nivolumab exposure ranges achieved with 3 mg/kg Q2W or 240 mg Q2W flat dose., Conclusion: Based on population pharmacokinetic modeling, established flat exposure-response relationships for efficacy and safety, and clinical safety, the benefit-risk profile of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was comparable to 3 mg/kg Q2W. The quantitative clinical pharmacology approach provided evidence for regulatory decision-making on dose modification, obviating the need for an independent clinical study., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: Nivolumab improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the phase III CheckMate 025 study (minimum follow-up: 14 months). We report efficacy and safety in the global and Japanese populations (minimum follow-up: 26 months)., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or everolimus 10-mg tablet orally once daily. Primary endpoint: OS, key secondary endpoints: ORR, progression-free survival and safety., Results: Of 410 (nivolumab) and 411 (everolimus) patients, 37 (9%) and 26 (6%), respectively, were Japanese. Median OS for the global population was 26.0 months (nivolumab) and 19.7 months (everolimus; hazard ratio 0.73 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.88]; P = 0.0006), with medians not reached for Japanese patients. ORR for the global population was 26% (nivolumab) versus 5% (everolimus; odds ratio 6.13; 95% CI: 3.77-9.95); ORR for Japanese patients: 43% versus 8% (odds ratio 9.14; 95% CI: 1.76-88.33). In Japanese patients, any-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 78% (Grade 3-4, 19%; most common, anemia [5%]) treated with nivolumab and 100% (Grade 3-4, 58%; most common, hypertriglyceridemia [12%]) treated with everolimus; the most common with nivolumab was diarrhea (19%) and with everolimus was stomatitis (77%). Quality of life was stable in the nivolumab arm., Conclusions: With >2 years of follow-up, Japanese patients had a higher response rate with nivolumab versus everolimus that was more pronounced yet consistent with the global population, with median OS not reached, and a favorable safety profile., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose Ipilimumab increases antitumor T-cell responses by binding to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. We evaluated treatment with ipilimumab in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without visceral metastases. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo maintenance therapy was administered to nonprogressing patients every 3 months. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to ipilimumab and 202 to placebo; 399 were treated with ipilimumab and 199 with placebo. Median OS was 28.7 months (95% CI, 24.5 to 32.5 months) in the ipilimumab arm versus 29.7 months (95% CI, 26.1 to 34.2 months) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95.87% CI, 0.88 to 1.39; P = .3667). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the ipilimumab arm versus 3.8 with placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95.87% CI, 0.55 to 0.81). Exploratory analyses showed a higher prostate-specific antigen response rate with ipilimumab (23%) than with placebo (8%). Diarrhea (15%) was the only grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) reported in ≥ 10% of ipilimumab-treated patients. Nine (2%) deaths occurred in the ipilimumab arm due to treatment-related AEs; no deaths occurred in the placebo arm. Immune-related grade 3 to 4 AEs occurred in 31% and 2% of patients, respectively. Conclusion Ipilimumab did not improve OS in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The observed increases in progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response rates suggest antitumor activity in a patient subset.

Background: This report provides a survival update at a follow-up of >5 years (5.5-6 years) for patients with advanced melanoma who previously received ipilimumab in phase II clinical trials. Safety and efficacy data following ipilimumab retreatment are also reported., Patients and Methods: Patients who previously received ipilimumab 0.3, 3, or 10 mg/kg in one of six phase II trials (CA184-004, CA184-007, CA184-008, CA184-022, MDX010-08, and MDX010-15) were eligible to enroll in the companion study, CA184-025. Upon enrollment, patients initially received ipilimumab retreatment, extended maintenance therapy, or were followed for survival only. Overall survival (OS) rates were evaluated in patients from studies CA184-004, CA184-007, CA184-008, and CA184-022. Safety and best overall response during ipilimumab retreatment at 10 mg/kg were assessed in study CA184-025., Results: Five-year OS rates for previously treated patients who received ipilimumab induction at 0.3, 3, or 10 mg/kg were 12.3%, 12.3%-16.5%, and 15.5%-28.4%, respectively. Five-year OS rates for treatment-naive patients who received ipilimumab induction at 3 or 10 mg/kg were 26.8% and 21.4%-49.5%, respectively. Little to no change in OS was observed from year 5 up to year 6. The objective response rate among retreated patients was 23%. Grade 3/4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 25%, 5.9%, and 13.2% of retreated patients who initially received ipilimumab 0.3, 3, and 10 mg/kg, with the most common being observed in the skin (4.2%, 2.9%, 3.8%) and gastrointestinal tract (12.5%, 2.9%, 3.8%), respectively., Conclusions: At a follow-up of 5-6 years, ipilimumab continues to demonstrate durable, long-term survival in a proportion of patients with advanced melanoma. In some patients, ipilimumab retreatment can re-establish disease control with a safety profile that is comparable with that observed during ipilimumab induction. Further studies are needed to determine the contribution of ipilimumab retreatment to OS., Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT00162123., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy., Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861614., Findings: From May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 9·5-12·7) with ipilimumab and 10·0 months (8·3-11·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 0·72-1·00; p=0·053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0·0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0-5 months was 1·46 (95% CI 1·10-1·95), for 5-12 months was 0·65 (0·50-0·85), and beyond 12 months was 0·60 (0·43-0·86). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 [16%] of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven [2%] of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 [11%] vs 35 [9%]), anaemia (40 [10%] vs 43 [11%]), and colitis (18 [5%] vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group., Interpretation: Although there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This phase I/II study in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) explored ipilimumab as monotherapy and in combination with radiotherapy, based on the preclinical evidence of synergistic antitumor activity between anti-CTLA-4 antibody and radiotherapy., Patients and Methods: In dose escalation, 33 patients (≥6/cohort) received ipilimumab every 3 weeks × 4 doses at 3, 5, or 10 mg/kg or at 3 or 10 mg/kg + radiotherapy (8 Gy/lesion). The 10-mg/kg cohorts were expanded to 50 patients (ipilimumab monotherapy, 16; ipilimumab + radiotherapy, 34). Evaluations included adverse events (AEs), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, and tumor response., Results: Common immune-related AEs (irAEs) among the 50 patients receiving 10 mg/kg ± radiotherapy were diarrhea (54%), colitis (22%), rash (32%), and pruritus (20%); grade 3/4 irAEs included colitis (16%) and hepatitis (10%). One treatment-related death (5 mg/kg group) occurred. Among patients receiving 10 mg/kg ± radiotherapy, eight had PSA declines of ≥50% (duration: 3-13+ months), one had complete response (duration: 11.3+ months), and six had stable disease (duration: 2.8-6.1 months)., Conclusions: In mCRPC patients, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg ± radiotherapy suggested clinical antitumor activity with disease control and manageable AEs. Two phase III trials in mCRPC patients evaluating ipilimumab 10 mg/kg ± radiotherapy are ongoing. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00323882.

The aim of this phase II trial was to estimate the objective response rate (ORR) of two different schedules of ixabepilone [weekly or every 3 weeks (Q3W)] combined with bevacizumab, relative to a reference arm of weekly paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, chemotherapy-naïve metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were randomized 3:3:2 to ixabepilone 16 mg/m(2) weekly plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg Q2W (Arm A: n = 46); ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) Q3W (reduced to 32 mg/m(2) after four cycles of treatment) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg Q3W (Arm B: n = 45); or paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) weekly plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion Q2W (Arm C: n = 32). Of 123 randomized patients, 122 were treated. All were followed for ≥19 months; 5 % of patients remained on study treatment at the time of this analysis. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common in Arm B (60 %) than Arms A (16 %) or C (22 %); other adverse events were similar. The investigator-assessed ORR was 48, 71, and 63 % for Arms A, B, and C, respectively. Median progression-free survival (randomized patients) was 9.6 months in Arm A, 11.9 months in Arm B, and 13.5 months in Arm C. In conclusion, ixabepilone Q3W plus bevacizumab has clinical activity as first-line therapy for MBC relative to paclitaxel plus bevacizumab, but with significantly greater risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. In addition, these data suggest that weekly dosing of ixabepilone may be less active than Q3W dosing, but with less neutropenia.

Background: The aim of this phase 2 study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ixabepilone plus cetuximab in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer., Methods: Eligible patients had advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma that was metastatic or not amenable to resection, a Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and no prior therapy for advanced disease. Patients received ixabepilone 32 mg/m(2) (3-hour IV infusion) every 3 weeks and cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) (1-hour IV infusion) weekly. The primary efficacy end point was the 6-month survival rate. Secondary end points included tumor response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival, and tolerability., Results: A total of 54 patients were enrolled on this study. The 6-month survival rate was 57% (31/54: 95% CI: 43-71%) with a median overall survival of 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.5-12.2 months). Patients who developed acneiform rash (n = 36) had a median survival of 8.8 months, compared with 2.6 months for those without rash (n = 18). Of 31 patients with measurable disease (defined as response-evaluable), 4 had confirmed partial responses and an additional 24 had stable disease. The combination was generally well-tolerated with the most common grade 3/4 hematological toxicities being leucopenia (39%) and neutropenia (33%). The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicity was fatigue (17%)., Conclusions: The combination of ixabepilone and cetuximab was active and had acceptable toxicity. The efficacy results are similar to single-agent ixabepilone and gemcitabine-based combination therapies in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Exploratory analyses suggest a trend toward improved survival for patients who experienced rash.

We develop a novel empirical Bayesian framework for the semiparametric additive hazards regression model. The integrated likelihood, obtained by integration over the unknown prior of the nonparametric baseline cumulative hazard, can be maximized using standard statistical software. Unlike the corresponding full Bayes method, our empirical Bayes estimators of regression parameters, survival curves and their corresponding standard errors have easily computed closed-form expressions and require no elicitation of hyperparameters of the prior. The method guarantees a monotone estimator of the survival function and accommodates time-varying regression coefficients and covariates. To facilitate frequentist-type inference based on large-sample approximation, we present the asymptotic properties of the semiparametric empirical Bayes estimates. We illustrate the implementation and advantages of our methodology with a reanalysis of a survival dataset and a simulation study.

Objective: We explored the relevance and significance of connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) as a determinant of renal and vascular complications among type 1 diabetic patients., Methods and Results: We measured the circulating and urinary levels of CTGF and CTGF N fragment in 1050 subjects with type 1 diabetes from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study cohort. We found that hypertensive diabetic subjects have significantly higher levels of plasma log CTGF N fragment relative to normotensive subjects (P = 0.0005). Multiple regression analysis showed a positive and independent association between CTGF N fragment levels and log albumin excretion rate (P < 0.0001). In categorical analysis, patients with macroalbuminuria had higher levels of CTGF N fragment than diabetic subjects with or without microalbuminuria (P < 0.0001). Univariate and multiple regression analyses demonstrated an independent and significant association of log CTGF N fragment with the common and internal carotid intima-media thickness. The relative risk for increased carotid intima-media thickness was higher in patients with concomitantly elevated plasma CTGF N fragment and macroalbuminuria relative to patients with normal plasma CTGF N fragment and normal albuminuria (relative risk = 4.76; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-10.25; P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that plasma CTGF is a risk marker of diabetic renal and vascular disease.

Diabetic nephropathy (DN), the leading cause of end-stage renal failure, is clinically manifested by albuminuria and a progressive decline in glomerular filtration rate. The factors and mechanisms that contribute to progression of DN are still undefined. To address the contribution of B(2)-kinin receptors (B2KR) to the development of DN, we studied B2KR knockout mice (B2KR(-/-)) and their wild-type littermates (B2KR(+/+)). Diabetes was induced by daily injections of streptozotocin (50 mg/kg body wt) for 3-5 days. A total of 48 mice divided into 4 groups were used: group 1, wild-type control (B2KR(+/+) C); group 2, wild-type diabetic (B2KR(+/+) D); group 3, B2KR knockout control (B2KR(-/-) C); and group 4, B2KR knockout diabetic (B2KR(-/-) D). Glucose levels and albumin excretion rate (AER) were measured at predetermined intervals. Half of the mice were killed at 3 mo, and the remaining half, at 6 mo. Plasma glucose levels were markedly elevated in both B2KR(+/+) D and B2KR(-/-) D groups of mice compared with their controls. Diabetic B2KR(-/-) mice displayed reduced AER as well as reduced glomerular and tubular injury compared with diabetic B2KR(+/+) mice. The renoprotection conferred by deletion of B2KR was associated with increased renal expression of B(1)-kinin and angiotensin II AT(2) receptors and decreased expression of connective tissue growth factor. At a cellular level, our findings demonstrate that bradykinin downregulates the expression of AT(2) receptors in mesangial cells. These findings provide the first evidence that targeted deletion of B2KR protects against the development of DN.

Modified lipoproteins induce autoimmune responses including the synthesis of autoantibodies with pro-inflammatory characteristics. Circulating modified lipoprotein autoantibodies combine with circulating antigens and form immune complexes (IC). We now report the results of a study investigating the role of circulating IC containing modified lipoproteins in the progression of carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients enrolled in the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Trial, a follow-up study of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). This cohort includes 1229 patients with type 1 diabetes in whom B-mode ultrasonography of internal and common carotid arteries was performed in 1994-1996 and in 1998-2000. Conventional CHD risk factors, antibodies against modified forms of LDL and modified lipoprotein IC were determined in 1050 of these patients from blood collected in 1996-1998. Cholesterol and apolipoprotein B content of IC (surrogate markers of modified ApoB-rich lipoproteins) were significantly higher in patients who showed progression of the internal carotid IMT than in those showing no progression, regression or mild progression. Multivariate linear and logistic regression modeling using conventional and non-conventional risk factors showed that the cholesterol content of IC was a significant positive predictor of internal carotid IMT progression. In conclusion these data demonstrate that increased levels of modified ApoB-rich IC are associated with increased progression of internal carotid IMT in the DCCT/EDIC cohort of type 1 diabetes.

Aims: To relate nuclear magnetic resonance lipoprotein subclass profiles (NMR-LSP) and other lipoprotein-related factors with carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in Type 1 diabetes., Methods: Lipoprotein-related factors were determined in sera (obtained in 1997-1999) from 428 female [age 39 +/- 7 years (mean +/- SD)] and 540 male (age 40 +/- 7 years) Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) participants. NMR quantifies chylomicrons, three very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) subclasses, intermediate density lipoprotein (IDL), three low-density lipoprotein (LDL) subclasses, two high-density lipoprotein (HDL) subclasses, mean VLDL, LDL and HDL size, and LDL particle concentration. Conventional lipids, ApoA1, ApoB and Lp(a) and in vitro LDL oxidizibility were also measured. IMT was determined (in 1994-1995) using high-resolution B-mode ultrasound. Relationships between IMT and lipoproteins were analysed by multiple linear regression, controlling for age, diabetes-related factors, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors., Results: IMT associations with lipoproteins were stronger for the internal than the common carotid artery, predominantly involving LDL. Internal carotid IMT was positively (P < 0.05) associated with NMR-based LDL subclasses and particle concentration, and with conventional LDL-cholesterol and ApoB in both genders. Common carotid IMT was associated, in men only, with large VLDL, IDL, conventional LDL cholesterol and ApoB., Conclusions: NMR-LSP reveals significant associations with carotid IMT in Type 1 diabetic patients, even 4 years after IMT measurement. NMR-LSP may aid early identification of high-risk diabetic patients and facilitate monitoring of interventions. Longer DCCT/EDIC cohort follow-up will yield CVD events and IMT progression, permitting more accurate assessment of pre-morbid lipoprotein profiles as determinants of cardiovascular risk in Type 1 diabetes.

Aim: We investigated the associations of apolipoprotein C-III (apoCIII) protein and apoCIII gene variation with microvascular disease complications in Type 1 diabetes., Methods: The serum apoCIII concentration, and both a T(-455)-->C and a SacI gene polymorphisms were determined in 409 patients in the DCCT/EDIC cohort of patients with Type 1 diabetes. Correlations with albumin excretion rate (AER) and the severity of retinopathy were investigated., Results: Higher apoCIII concentrations were associated (P<.0001) with increased triglycerides (r=.78), total (r=.61) and LDL (r=.40) cholesterol, apoAI (r=.26), and apoB (r=.50), AER (r=.08), and the severity of retinopathy (ETDRS score, r=.11), and these relationships persisted after controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and HbA1c level. The apoCIII concentration was significantly higher in the group of patients with macroalbuminuria (AERs 300 mg/24 h) compared to the groups with microalbuminuria (AER 40-299 mg/24 h; P<.0001) or normoalbuminuria (AER <40 mg/24 h) (P<.0001). The apoCIII concentration also was significantly higher in the group of patients with severe retinopathy (ETDRS 10-23) compared to those with moderate (ETDRS 4-9; P<.02) or mild retinopathy (ETDRS 1-3; P<.0001). Neither the T(-455)-->C polymorphism nor a SacI polymorphism in the 3' UTR were associated with circulating apoCIII concentrations, nor the severity of nephropathy or retinopathy., Conclusions: Elevated apoCIII levels have been associated with increased macrovascular disease risk. In the DCCT/EDIC cohort of patients, there was an independent positive association of apoCIII level with microvascular complications of Type 1 diabetes.

Serum apolipoprotein C-III (apoCIII) concentration and apoCIII gene polymorphisms have been shown to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease; however, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. In addition, no studies have been performed that address these issues in type 1 diabetes. The current study investigated apoCIII protein and apoCIII gene variation in a normotriglyceridemic (82 +/- 57 mg/dL) population of patients with type 1 diabetes, the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Intervention and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) cohort. Blood samples were obtained in 409 patients after an overnight fast. Serum apoCIII concentration was highly correlated with multiple changes in lipids and lipoproteins that resulted in an adverse cardiovascular disease risk profile. Higher apoCIII concentrations were associated (P < .0001) with increased triglycerides (r = 0.78), total (r = 0.61) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (r = 0.40) cholesterol, apoA-I (r = 0.26), and apoB (r = 0.50), and these relationships persisted after controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) lipoprotein subclass analyses demonstrated that apoCIII was correlated with an increase in very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) subclasses (P = .0001). There also was a highly significant positive relationship between serum apoCIII concentration and the LDL particle concentration in both men (r = 0.49, P = .001) and women (r = 0.40, P = .001), and a highly significant negative relationship between serum apoCIII levels and average LDL particle size in both men (r = -0.37, P = .001) and women (r = -0.22, P = .001) due primarily to an augmentation in the small L1 subclass (r = 0.42, P = .0001). Neither the T(-455) --> C polymorphism affecting an insulin response element in the apoCIII gene promoter nor a SacI polymorphism in the 3'UTR were associated with any alterations in circulating apoCIII concentrations, serum lipids, apolipoprotein concentrations, lipoprotein composition, or parameters measured by NMR lipoprotein subclass analyses. In summary, elevated apoCIII concentration was associated with risk factors for cardiovascular disease in normolipidemic type 1 diabetic patients through associated changes in lipoprotein subfraction distributions, which were independent of apoCIII genotype.

As part of the 1992 update of an historical cohort study of 32,110 workers employed for at least 1 year in any of 10 US fiberglass manufacturing plants, a nested case-control study was done in which data on tobacco smoking were obtained for 631 male case subjects with respiratory system cancer (RSC) and 570 control subjects matched on age and year of birth. In this more extensive analysis of the nested case-control data, we provide a detailed assessment of the most prominent findings from the initial report. We expand the scope of the analysis to consider quantitative measures of exposure to respirable fibers (RFib), formaldehyde (FOR), and silica (Sil) and consider these and other exposures together in the same model. We investigate the functional form of possible exposure-response relationships between RSC risk, RFib, and FOR. In addition, we address the statistical issues of collinearity, effect modification, and potential confounding by coexposures. All analyses are adjusted for smoking. Neither measure of exposure to RFib (average intensity of exposure or cumulative exposure) was statistically significantly associated with RSC risk in any of the hundreds of fractional polynomial models considered. This more extensive analysis has substantiated our initial finding of no apparent exposure-response relationship between RSC risk and either cumulative or average intensity of exposure to RFib at the levels experienced by these workers. This study provides some evidence of increased RSC risk among workers at the higher observed levels of average intensity of exposure to FOR and/or Sil. No positive associations were identified between RSC risk and any of the other exposures considered in this case-control study.