Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27269740›Full record

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.

Jeffrey S Weber, Geoff Gibney, Ryan J Sullivan, Jeffrey A Sosman, Craig L Slingluff, Donald P Lawrence, Theodore F Logan, Lynn M Schuchter, Suresh Nair, Leslie Fecher and 7 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
171citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
26.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01783938 phase2completednot on this map

An Open-Label, Randomized, Phase 2 Study of Nivolumab Given Sequentially With Ipilimumab in Subjects With Advanced or Metastatic Melanoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorBristol-Myers SquibbRan2013 to 2020Enrolled138ConditionsAdvanced or Metastatic MelanomaArmsNivolumab, Ipilimumab
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

171 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 332 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. 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 · 2021
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

111 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffrey S WeberNew York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Geoff GibneyH Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA; Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Ryan J SullivanMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Jeffrey A SosmanVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Craig L SlingluffUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Donald P LawrenceMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Theodore F LoganIndiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Lynn M SchuchterUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Suresh NairLehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA, USA.
Leslie FecherIndiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Elizabeth I BuchbinderBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Elmer BerghornBristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Mary RuisiBristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
George KongBristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Joel JiangBristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Christine HorakBristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
F Stephen HodiDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: stephen_hodi@dfci.harvard.edu.
Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USLehigh Valley Hospital-Pocono · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Virginia · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

Rational Sequencing of PD-1 and CTLA-4 Antibodies in Metastatic MelanomaR01CA175732 · NCI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI WEBER, JEFFREY S · 2013 to 2017
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA175732
6 · The paper itself

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

AgedAntibodies, MonoclonalAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIpilimumabMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNivolumabPrognosisSkin NeoplasmsSurvival RateAntibodies, MonoclonalIpilimumabNivolumab

Identifiers

PMID27269740
PMCPMC5474305
OpenAlexW2412250098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.