Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39098455›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2024

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 8-year follow-up results of efficacy and safety from the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

N M Tannir, L Albigès, D F McDermott, M Burotto, T K Choueiri, H J Hammers, P Barthélémy, E R Plimack, C Porta, S George and 15 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07686744 (A Phase I Clinical Trial of Personalized Neoantigen Peptide Vaccine in Combination With Pembrolizumab for the Safety and Efficacy in Patients With Advanced, Recurrent or Refractory Renal Cell Carcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 137 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
137citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07686744 phase1not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Phase I Clinical Trial of Personalized Neoantigen Peptide Vaccine in Combination With Pembrolizumab for the Safety and Efficacy in Patients With Advanced, Recurrent or Refractory Renal Cell Carcinoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorJian LinRan2026 to 2029Enrolled8ConditionsRenal Cell Carcinoma, Advanced, Recurrent, RefractoryArmsPersonalized Neoantigen Polyepitope Peptide Vaccine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

137 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

N M TannirDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. Electronic address: ntannir@mdanderson.org.
L AlbigèsDepartment of Medical Oncology (Département de Médecine Oncologique), Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
D F McDermottDivision of Medical Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, USA.
M BurottoDepartment of Oncology, Bradford Hill Clinical Research Center, Santiago, Chile.
T K ChoueiriDepartment of Medical Oncology, Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston; Harvard Medical School, Boston.
H J HammersDepartment Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Kidney Cancer Program, Dallas, USA.
P BarthélémyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Medical Oncology Unit, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe, Strasbourg, France.
E R PlimackDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, USA.
C PortaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
S GeorgeDepartment of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, USA.
F DonskovDepartment of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus; University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark.
M B AtkinsDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA.
H GurneyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Westmead Hospital and Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
C K KollmannsbergerDepartment of Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada.
M-O GrimmDepartment of Urology, Jena University Hospital and Comprehensive Cancer Center Central Germany (CCCG), Campus Jena, Jena, Germany.
C BarriosDepartment of Internal Medicine and Oncology Research Center, Hospital São Lucas, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Y TomitaDepartments of Urology and Molecular Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan.
D CastellanoMedical Oncology Department, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, CIBER-ONC, Madrid, Spain.
V GrünwaldInterdisciplinary Genitourinary Oncology, Clinic for Internal Medicine (Tumor Research) and Clinic for Urology, West-German Cancer Center Essen, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
B I RiniDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville.
R JiangGlobal Biometrics and Data Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton.
H DesilvaLate Clinical Development, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton.
V FedorovOncology Late Clinical Development, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton.
C-W LeeDepartment of Clinical Trials, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton.
R J MotzerDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
VectorP30CA006516 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI JENNIFER W MACK · 1985 to 2026
$330.6M
Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Treating the P13-Kinase/AKTP50CA101942 · NCI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI David McDermott · 2003 to 2026
$53.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006516NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P50 CA101942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years of median follow-up from CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients with aRCC (N = 1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and IRRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients.

resultsWith 8 years (99.1 months) of median follow-up, the hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). The median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1 months-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2 months] in ITT patients, 82.8 versus 19.8 months (54.1 months-NE versus 16.4-26.4 months) in I/P patients, and 61.5 versus 33.2 months (27.8 months-NE versus 24.8-51.4 months) in FAV patients. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time.

conclusionsSuperior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Renal CellIpilimumabKidney NeoplasmsNivolumabSunitinibAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalIpilimumabNivolumabSunitinibadvanced renal cell carcinomaCheckMate 214dual checkpoint inhibitionlong-term follow-upNivolumab, ipilimumabphase III

Identifiers

PMID39098455
PMCPMC11907766

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.