0 375

Cited 0 times in

Cited 0 times in

LBA1_PR - Nivolumab (nivo) plus ipilimumab (ipi), nivo, or placebo (pbo) as maintenance therapy in patients (pts) with extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) after first-line (1L) platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo): Results from the double-blind, randomized phase III CheckMate 451 study

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author김혜련-
dc.contributor.author김현창-
dc.contributor.author박성하-
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-10T02:04:58Z-
dc.date.available2023-03-10T02:04:58Z-
dc.date.issued2019-04-
dc.identifier.issn0923-7534-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/193279-
dc.description.abstractBackground: In pts with ED-SCLC, response rates to 1L platinum-based chemo are high but lack durability. Treatments (txs) that prolong response duration and improve survival are needed. CheckMate 451 (NCT02538666) is a global, double-blind, phase 3 study of nivo+ipi or nivo vs pbo as maintenance therapy in pts with ED-SCLC who did not progress on 1L platinum-based chemo. Methods: Pts (N = 834) with ED-SCLC, ECOG performance status (PS) ≤ 1 and response or stable disease after 4 cycles of 1L platinum-based chemo were randomized 1:1:1 (3–9 weeks from last dose of 1L chemo or 3–11 weeks for pts who received prophylactic cranial irradiation [PCI]) to nivo 1 mg/kg + ipi 3 mg/kg Q3W intravenously (IV; 4 doses followed by nivo 240 mg Q2W IV; n = 279), nivo 240 mg Q2W IV (n = 280), or pbo (n = 275), stratified by PS, sex and prior PCI. Pts were treated up to 2 years or until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) for nivo+ipi vs pbo. Secondary endpoints included OS for nivo vs pbo and progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review for nivo+ipi vs pbo and nivo vs pbo. Results: Minimum study follow-up was 9 months. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. OS was not significantly prolonged with nivo+ipi vs pbo (HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.75–1.12; P = 0.3693). OS was also not prolonged for nivo vs pbo (HR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.69–1.02), although not formally tested due to statistical hierarchy. PFS HRs vs pbo were: nivo+ipi, 0.72 (0.60–0.87); nivo, 0.67 (0.56–0.81). Rates of all-grade (grade 3–4) tx-related adverse events were: nivo+ipi, 86% (52%); nivo, 61% (12%); pbo, 50% (8%). Rates of discontinuation due to tx toxicity were: nivo+ipi, 31%; nivo, 9%; pbo, <1%. Tx-related deaths were: nivo+ipi, 7 (2.5%); nivo, 1 (<1%); pbo, 1 (<1%). Conclusions: In CheckMate 451, maintenance therapy with nivo+ipi (primary endpoint) or nivo did not prolong OS vs pbo for ED-SCLC patients who did not progress on 1L chemo. Safety profiles of nivo+ipi and nivo were consistent with previous reports at this dose/schedule in SCLC. Clinical trial identification: NCT02538666; Release date: 2 September 2015.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherOxford University Press-
dc.relation.isPartOfANNALS OF ONCOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.titleLBA1_PR - Nivolumab (nivo) plus ipilimumab (ipi), nivo, or placebo (pbo) as maintenance therapy in patients (pts) with extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) after first-line (1L) platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo): Results from the double-blind, randomized phase III CheckMate 451 study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorT.K. Owonikoko-
dc.contributor.googleauthorH.R. Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorR. Govindan-
dc.contributor.googleauthorN. Ready-
dc.contributor.googleauthorM. Reck-
dc.contributor.googleauthorS. Peters-
dc.contributor.googleauthorS.R. Dakhil-
dc.contributor.googleauthorA. Navarro-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJ. Rodriguez-Cid-
dc.contributor.googleauthorM. Schenker-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJ.S. Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorV. Gutierrez-
dc.contributor.googleauthorI. Percent-
dc.contributor.googleauthorD. Morgensztern-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJ. Fairchild-
dc.contributor.googleauthorC. Baudelet-
dc.contributor.googleauthorK. Park-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/annonc/mdz094-
dc.contributor.localIdA01166-
dc.contributor.localIdA01142-
dc.contributor.localIdA01512-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00171-
dc.identifier.eissn1569-8041-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923753419302595-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Hye Ryun-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김혜련-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김현창-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor박성하-
dc.citation.volume30-
dc.citation.numberSuppl.2-
dc.citation.startPageii77-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, Vol.30(Suppl.2) : ii77, 2019-04-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.