Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) vs sunitinib (S) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Results from 55-month follow-up of the CheckMate 9ER trial.

Maria Teresa Bourlon,Bernard Escudier,Mauricio Burotto,Thomas Powles,Andrea B. Apolo,Amishi Yogesh Shah,Camillo Porta,Cristina Suárez,Carlos H. Barrios,Martin Richardet,Howard Gurney,Elizabeth R. Kessler,Yoshihiko Tomita,Jens Bedke,Fong Wang,Peter Wang,Julie Panzica,Viktor Fedorov,Robert J. Motzer,Toni K. Choueiri
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.362
IF: 45.3
2024-02-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:362 Background: N+C demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) vs S in patients (pts) with previously untreated aRCC in the primary analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 mo median follow-up). N+C maintained efficacy benefits vs S with 44.0 mo median follow-up. Here, we report updated efficacy in intent-to-treat (ITT) pts and by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk, and safety with extended follow-up. Methods: Pts with aRCC were randomized to N 240 mg every 2 weeks + C 40 mg QD vs S 50 mg QD (4 weeks of 6-week cycles) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, with up to 2 y of N. The primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included OS, ORR per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, and safety. Results: Overall, 323 pts were randomized to N+C and 328 to S (ITT). With 55.6 mo median (48.1 mo min.) follow-up for OS, median PFS was 16.4 vs 8.4 mo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.70) and median OS was 46.5 vs 36.0 mo (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.95) with N+C vs S. ORR (95% CI) was 55.7% (50.1-61.2) vs 27.7% (23.0-32.9); 13.6% vs 4.6% of pts achieved complete response (CR); 6.5% vs 13.7% had progressive disease (PD), respectively. Median (range) time to response (TTR) was 2.8 (1.0-22.2) vs 4.3 (1.7-30.4) mo for N+C vs S, and median (95% CI) duration of response (DOR) was 22.0 (18.0-25.2) vs 15.2 (10.9-19.3) mo. Efficacy by IMDC favorable (FAV) and intermediate/poor (I/P) risk groups is reported in the Table. Among all treated pts (320 pts each arm), any-grade (grade ≥ 3) treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 97.5% (67.5%) vs 93.1% (55.3%) with N+C vs S. Any-grade TRAEs led to discontinuation of N or C in 28.1% of pts (N only, 10.0%; C only, 10.3%; N+C simultaneously, 6.6%; N+C sequentially, 1.3%) and of S in 10.9% of pts. Additional analyses in subgroups of clinical interest will be presented. Conclusions: With 55.6 mo median follow-up, N+C continues to maintain meaningful long-term efficacy benefits over S. No new safety concerns were identified. These results continue to support N+C as a standard of care for previously untreated aRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177 . [Table: see text]
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?