
Nivolumab/Chemo Combo Sustains Clinical Benefit in Frontline Gastric/GEJ Cancer, But Nivolumab/Ipilimumab Arm Misses Mark
Key Takeaways
- Nivolumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in advanced gastric/GEJ/esophageal cancer compared to chemotherapy alone.
- The nivolumab/ipilimumab combination did not significantly enhance overall survival compared to chemotherapy, showing limited benefit.
The frontline combination of nivolumab and chemotherapy upheld its improvement in progression-free and overall survival vs chemotherapy alone with longer follow-up of patients with advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal cancer, according to data from the phase 3 CheckMate-649 trial.
The frontline combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and chemotherapy upheld its improvement in progression-free and overall survival (OS) vs chemotherapy alone with longer follow-up of patients with advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), or esophageal cancer, according to data from the phase 3 CheckMate-649 trial (NCT-02872116) that were presented during the 2021 ESMO Congress.1 However, the combination of nivolumab/ipilimumab (Yervoy) did not significantly improve OS compared with chemotherapy in this patient population.
The median OS for patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of at least 5 was 14.4 months (95% CI, 13.1-16.2) with nivolumab/chemotherapy (n = 473) compared with 11.1 months (95% CI, 10.0-12.1) with chemotherapy alone (n = 482), leading to a 30% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81). The 2-year OS rates were 31% and 19%, respectively.
Progression-free survival (PFS) was also improved with nivolumab/chemotherapy vs chemotherapy in the PD-L1 CPS 5 or greater subset, with a median PFS of 8.1 months (95% CI, 7.0-9.2) and 6.1 months (95% CI, 5.6-6.9), respectively (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81). The 2-year PFS rates were 19% and 11%, respectively.
However, in the arm of nivolumab/ipilimumab vs chemotherapy, the median OS for patients with PD-L1 CPS of 5 or higher (n = 234 and 239, respectively) was 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.2-13.4) and 11.6 months (95% CI, 10.1-12.7), respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.10; P = .2302), not meeting this secondary end point. The 2-year OS rates were 25% and 17%, respectively.
The longer follow-up findings further support nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard frontline treatment for patients with advanced gastric/GEJ/esophageal cancer, Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, chief of Gastrointestinal Oncology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, explained in a virtual presentation during the meeting.
“Nivolumab/chemotherapy continues to demonstrate clinically meaningful benefit in our first-line treated patients; we demonstrated sustained OS, PFS, and objective response rate improvement compared to chemotherapy, and these data have already changed practice; it’s nice to have an additional 12 months of follow-up,” Janjigian said. “Nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly OS vs chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS 5 or greater.”
At a 12-month minimum follow-up, results had showed that nivolumab/chemotherapy led to a median OS of 14.4 months (95% CI, 13.1-16.2) vs 11.1 months with chemotherapy alone (95% CI, 10-12.1) in patients who had a PD-L1 CPS of 5 or greater (HR, 0.71; 98.4% CI, 0.59-0.86; P <.0001).3 Moreover, the nivolumab/chemotherapy regimen was also associated with a 32% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.81; P <.0001).
The third arm of CheckMate-649 included the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab and was compared with chemotherapy in this patient population. Previously, in the phase 1/2 CheckMate-032 trial, this regimen showed clinically meaningful and durable activity and tolerability in heavily pretreated patients with advanced gastric, GEJ, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.4
In the open-label, international, phase 3 CheckMate-649 trial, 2031 patients with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced or metastatic gastric/GEJ/esophageal adenocarcinoma, irrespective of PD-L1 status, were randomized 1:1:1 to 3 arms: nivolumab at 360 mg plus XELOX chemotherapy every 3 weeks or nivolumab at 240 mg plus FOLFOX every 2 weeks (n = 789); XELOX every 3 weeks or FOLFOX every 2 weeks (n = 833); or nivolumab at 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks (n = 409).
“It’s important to note that the [Data Monitoring Committee] recommended that we stop that study early due to higher toxicity and early death compared to the other 2 arms,” Janjigian noted regarding the smaller size of the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm.
Patients had to have an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 as well as no known HER2-positive status. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (≥1 vs <1%), region (Asia vs United States/Canada vs rest of world), ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), and chemotherapy regimen (XELOX vs FOLFOX).
At the 2021 ESMO Congress, Janjigian presented the first results of the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm, as well as long-term follow-up from the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm of CheckMate-649.
The coprimary end points were PFS and OS via blinded independent central review (BICR; PD-L1 CPS ≥5) with nivolumab/chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. Secondary end points included OS in the nivolumab/chemotherapy vs chemotherapy comparison for patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 1 and in all randomized patients, and OS for nivolumab/ipilimumab vs chemotherapy for patients with a PD-L1 CPS of at least 5 and in all randomized patients.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced across the 3 arms and were consistent with the PD-L1 CPS 5 or greater population. When comparing nivolumab/chemotherapy (n = 789) with chemotherapy alone (n = 792), the median age was 61.5 years (range, 53-69), 69.5% of patients were male, and 76% of patients were non-Asian. Fifty-eight percent of patients had an ECOG performance status of 1, 70% of patients had gastric cancer as their primary tumor location, and 95.5% of patients had metastatic disease; 39% had liver metastases and 17.5% had signet ring cell carcinoma. A total 60.5% of patients had a PD-L1 CPS of at least 5, 16% had PD-L1 n at least 1% of tumor cells, and 87% of patients had microsatellite stable (MSS) disease; 53.5% of patients received FOLFOX or XELOX on study.
In the nivolumab/ipilimumab (n = 409) vs chemotherapy (n = 404) comparison, the median age was also 61.5 years (range, 22-90), 68.5% of patients were male, and 30% of patients were Asian; 53% had an ECOG performance status of 1 and 69.5% had gastric cancer as the primary tumor location. Ninety-six percent of patients had metastatic disease, 38% had liver metastases, and 19% had signet ring cell carcinoma. A total 59% of patients had PD-L1 CPS 5 or greater, 17% had PD-L1 on at least 1% of tumor cells, and 86% of patients had MSS disease. Forty-seven percent of patients (all on the chemotherapy arm) received FOLFOX/XELOX on study.
At the data cutoff date of May 27, 2021, the minimum follow-up was 24.0 months in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 35.7 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm. The median duration of treatment was 6.8 months (range, 0.1-45.0) for nivolumab chemotherapy, 1.0 months (range, 0.0-24.1) for nivolumab/ipilimumab, and 4.9 months (range, 0.0-45.5) for chemotherapy alone. Most patients across all arms discontinued treatment, most commonly for disease progression in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy vs chemotherapy (69% vs 71%) and the nivolumab/ipilimumab vs chemotherapy comparisons (63% vs 72%, respectively).
Forty-two percent and 47% of all randomized patients to nivolumab/chemotherapy vs chemotherapy and nivolumab/ipilimumab vs chemotherapy, respectively, received subsequent treatment; this was predominantly chemotherapy. Subsequent immunotherapy was given in 2% to 3% of patients in the nivolumab arms and in 9% to 12% of the chemotherapy-alone arms.
Nivolumab/Chemotherapy Data: Practice-Affirming
Further results showed that, in all randomized patients, the median OS with nivolumab/chemotherapy (n = 789) was 13.8 months (95% CI, 12.4-14.5) vs 11.6 months (95% CI, 10.9-12.5) with chemotherapy (n = 792), which showed a 21% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.88). The 2-year OS rates were 28% and 19%, respectively.
The median PFS in all randomized patients with 7.7 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.6) with nivolumab/chemotherapy and 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.7-7.2) with chemotherapy, respectively (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89). The 2-year PFS rates were 16% and 10%, respectively.
With longer follow-up in the PD-L1 CPS 5 or greater subset, the ORR was 60% (55%-65%) with nivolumab/chemotherapy (n = 378) vs 45% (95% CI, 40%-50%) with chemotherapy alone (n = 390). The 60% ORR comprised a 13% complete response (CR) rate and a 47% partial response (PR) rate; 28% and 7% of patients experienced stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD), respectively. The median duration of response (DOR) was 9.7 months (95% CI, 8.2-12.4) with nivolumab/chemotherapy vs 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.9) with chemotherapy alone, respectively.
The responses were similar in the all randomized population with nivolumab/chemotherapy (n = 603) vs chemotherapy alone (n = 607) with ORRs of 58% (95% CI, 54%-62%) and 46% (95% CI, 42%-50%), respectively. The 58% ORR included an 11% CR rate and a 47% PR rate; the SD and PR rates were 29% and 7%, respectively. The median DOR was 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.7-10.2) with nivolumab/chemotherapy and 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.8-7.2) with chemotherapy alone.
The magnitude of benefit was greater in patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, with a median OS of 38.7 months (95% CI, 8.4-44.8) with nivolumab/chemotherapy (n = 23) vs 12.3 months (95% CI, 4.1-16.5) with chemotherapy alone (n = 21; unstratified HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.84). The ORRs were 55% (95% CI, 32%-77%) and 39% (95% CI, 17%-64%), respectively.
For patients with MSS tumors, the median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI, 12.4-14.5) and 11.5 months (95% CI, 10.8-12.5) for nivolumab/chemotherapy (n = 696) and chemotherapy alone (n = 682), respectively (unstratified HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88). Here, the ORRs were 59% (95% CI, 55%-63%) and 46% (95% CI, 42%-51%), respectively.
Nivolumab/Ipilimumab Results: End Points Not Met
In addition to the secondary end point not being met with the nivolumab/ipilimumab in the PD-L1 CPS of 5 or greater subset, the median OS was not improved with the immunotherapy regimen (n = 409) vs chemotherapy (n = 404) in all-randomized patients, at 11.7 months (95% CI, 9.6-13.5) and 11.8 months (95% CI, 11.0-12.7), respectively (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.07; P = not tested). The 2-year OS rates were 23% and 19%, respectively.
“After long-term follow-up after 12 months, there is a crossover in favor of nivolumab/ipilimumab, although this difference was not meaningful or statistically significant,” said Janjigian.
Moreover, in the PD-L1 CPS of 5 or greater subset, the median PFS with nivolumab/ipilimumab was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.6-4.0) vs 6.3 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.1) with chemotherapy, (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.76). The 2-year PFS rates were 10% and 11%, respectively.
Responses were evaluated in all randomized patients who had target lesion measurements at baseline per BICR assessment. The ORR was 27% (20%-33%) with nivolumab/ipilimumab (n = 196), which included a 5% CR rate and a 21% PR rate; the SD and PD rates were 27% and 32%, respectively. The ORR with chemotherapy was 47% (95% CI, 40%-54%). Additionally, the median DOR was improved with nivolumab/ipilimumab at 13.2 months (95% CI, 8.3-18.3) vs 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.2-7.6) with chemotherapy, respectively.
In all-randomized patients, the median PFS was 2.8 months (range, 2.6-3.6) and 7.1 months (range, 6.9-8.2 months), respectively (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.40-1.95). Here, the 2-year PFS rates were 8% and 12%, respectively.
The ORRs with nivolumab/ipilimumab (n = 333) and chemotherapy (n = 299) were 23% (95% CI, 18%-28%) and 47% (95% CI, 41%-53%), respectively. The 23% ORR comprised a 6% CR rate and a 17% PR rate; 27% and 34% of patients had SD and PD, respectively. A similar benefit with DOR was seen in the all randomized population, with the median DOR being 13.8 months (95% CI, 9.4-17.7) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.2) with nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy, respectively.
There was also a greater OS benefit in patients with MSI-H tumors on nivolumab/ipilimumab (n = 11) vs chemotherapy (n = 10), in which the median OS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 2.7–NR) and 10.0 months (95% CI, 2.0-28.2), respectively (unstratified HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08-0.92). The ORRs were 70% (95% CI, 35%-93%) and 57% (95% CI, 18%-90%), respectively.
In patients with MSS disease, the median OS was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.4-13.5) for those on nivolumab/ipilimumab (n = 355) compared with 12.0 months (95% CI, 11.0-12.9) for those on chemotherapy (n = 344; unstratified HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.81-1.12). The ORRs were 20% (95% CI, 16%-25%) and 48% (95% CI, 42%-54%), respectively.
Regarding safety across all 3 groups, the most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) with nivolumab/chemotherapy was neutropenia (15%), decreased neutrophil count (11%), and anemia (6%). The most common grade 3/4 TRAEs with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was increase lipase (7%), increased amylase (4%), and increase alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (4% each). With chemotherapy, these TRAEs were neutropenia (11%-13%), decreased neutrophil count (9%-10%), and diarrhea (3%-4%).
Treatment-related deaths occurred in 16 patients on nivolumab/chemotherapy, 10 patients on nivolumab/ipilimumab, and 7 patients on chemotherapy.
Janjigian noted that the incidence of TRAEs in patients with PD-L1 CPS of 5 or greater was consistent with all treated patients across the study arms.
“It’s important to note that serious TRAEs were highest in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm, 23%, which is expected with a higher dose of ipilimumab,” Janjigian said, adding that immunologic etiology AEs were mainly grade 1/2. “The side effect profile with nivolumab-containing arms really depends on what you’re going to combine it with. With nivolumab/chemotherapy combination, there are both side effects from chemotherapy and immune-related side effects, and clearly with nivolumab/ipilimumab, these are mostly immune-related side effects.”
References
- Janjigian YY, Ajani JA, Moehler M, et al. Nivolumab (nivo) plus chemotherapy (chemo) or ipilimumab (ipi) vs chemo as first-line (1L) Treatment for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC/EAC): CheckMate 649 study. Presented at: 2021 ESMO Congress; September 16-21; 2021; Virtual. LBA7.
- FDA approves first immunotherapy for initial treatment of gastric cancer. News release. FDA. April 16, 2021. Accessed September 19, 2021.
https://bit.ly/3tqsjKA - Moehler M. Shitara K, Garrido M, et al. Nivolumab (NIVO) plus chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC)/esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC): first results of the CheckMate 649 study. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(4):S1191. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2296
- Janjigian YY, Bendell J, Calvo E, et al. CheckMate-032 study: efficacy and safety of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(28):2836-2844. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.76.6212



































