Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2016
Sequential administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab with a planned switch in patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 064): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.
Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT01783938 (An Open-Label, Randomized, Phase 2 Study of Nivolumab Given Sequentially With Ipilimumab in Subjects With Advanced or Metastatic Melanoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 171 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
An Open-Label, Randomized, Phase 2 Study of Nivolumab Given Sequentially With Ipilimumab in Subjects With Advanced or Metastatic Melanoma
Who cites it
171 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 332 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy Analysis of Targeted and Immune Combination Therapy in Advanced Melanoma-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2023Guideline
- Treatment-Related Serious Adverse Events of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Association of Sex, Age, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status With Survival Benefit of Cancer Immunotherapy in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2020Pooled it
- Potential Immune-Related Adverse Events Associated With Monotherapy and Combination Therapy of Ipilimumab, Nivolumab, and Pembrolizumab for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated pituitary-adrenal dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- French Endocrine Society Guidance on endocrine side effects of immunotherapy.Endocrine-related cancer · 2019Guideline
- Evaluation of classical clinical endpoints as surrogates for overall survival in patients treated with immune checkpoint blockers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2018Pooled it
- Chemotherapy and immunotherapy for recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancer: a systematic review.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2018Pooled it
- Risk of hematologic toxicities with programmed cell death-1 inhibitors in cancer patients: a meta-analysis of current studies.Drug design, development and therapy · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- PD-1 inhibitors increase the incidence and risk of pneumonitis in cancer patients in a dose-independent manner: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Pooled it
- Cellular Neighborhoods Govern Antitumor T-cell Infiltration Following Anti-CTLA-4 in Melanoma with Primary Resistance to Anti-PD-1.Cancer discovery · 2026Trial
- Gotistobart or docetaxel in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer: stage 1 of the randomized phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- PD-1 and TIGIT downregulation distinctly affect the effector and early memory phenotypes of CD19-targeting CAR T cells.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2022Trial
- A Phase Ib Study of Atezolizumab with Radium-223 Dichloride in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021Trial
- Combining a Universal Telomerase Based Cancer Vaccine With Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma - Five-Year Follow Up of a Phase I/IIa Trial.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Trial
- Nivolumab and ipilimumab are associated with distinct immune landscape changes and response-associated immunophenotypes.JCI insight · 2020Trial
- Spatiotemporally programmed nanomedicine engineering to resolve conflicting immunosignals in triple-negative breast cancer.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Article
111 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConcurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy.
methodsWe did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients.
findingsBetween April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65).
interpretationNivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events.
fundingBristol-Myers Squibb.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.