Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long‐term follow‐up of the randomized, open‐label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial

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‐la...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer 2020-09, Vol.126 (18), p.4156-4167
Hauptverfasser: Motzer, Robert J., Escudier, Bernard, George, Saby, Hammers, Hans J., Srinivas, Sandhya, Tykodi, Scott S., Sosman, Jeffrey A., Plimack, Elizabeth R., Procopio, Giuseppe, McDermott, David F., Castellano, Daniel, Choueiri, Toni K., Donskov, Frede, Gurney, Howard, Oudard, Stéphane, Richardet, Martin, Peltola, Katriina, Alva, Ajjai S., Carducci, Michael, Wagstaff, John, Chevreau, Christine, Fukasawa, Satoshi, Tomita, Yoshihiko, Gauler, Thomas C., Kollmannsberger, Christian K., Schutz, Fabio A., Larkin, James, Cella, David, McHenry, M. Brent, Saggi, Shruti Shally, Tannir, Nizar M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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 
ISSN:0008-543X
1097-0142
DOI:10.1002/cncr.33033