Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39486424›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2025

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus carboplatin-based doublet as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer aged ≥70 years or with an ECOG performance status of 2 (GFPC 08-2015 ENERGY): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

Hervé Léna, Laurent Greillier, Claire Cropet, Olivier Bylicki, Isabelle Monnet, Clarisse Audigier-Valette, Lionel Falchero, Alain Vergnenègre, Pierre Demontrond, Margaux Geier and 7 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Hervé LénaService de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes, Université Rennes 1, INSERM, UMR_S 1242, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France. Electronic address: herve.lena@chu-rennes.fr.
Laurent GreillierMultidisciplinary Oncology and Therapeutic Innovations, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, INSERM, CNRS, CRCM, Hôpital Nord, Marseille, France.
Claire CropetUnité de Biostatistique-Direction de la Recherche et de l'Innovation, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
Olivier BylickiHôpital d'Instruction des Armées Desgenettes, Lyon, France.
Isabelle MonnetService de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal Créteil, Créteil, France.
Clarisse Audigier-ValetteService de Pneumologie, Orientation Oncologique, Hôpital Sainte-Musse, Toulon, France.
Lionel FalcheroService de Pneumologie et Cancérologie Thoracique, Hôpitaux Nord-Ouest, Villefranche sur Saône, France.
Alain VergnenègreUnité d'Oncologie Thoracique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Dupuytren, Limoges, France.
Pierre DemontrondCentre de Lutte Contre le Cancer François Baclesse, Caen, France.
Margaux GeierInstitut de Cancérologie et Imagerie, Hopital Cavale Blanche Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Brest, Brest, France.
Florian GuisierService de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rouen, Rouen, France.
Stéphane HominalService de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois, Epagny Metz-Tessy, France.
Chrystèle LocherService de Pneumologie, Grand Hôpital de l'Est Francilien (Meaux), Meaux, France.
Romain CorreCentre Hospitalier de Cornouaille, Service de Pneumologie, Quimper, France.
Christos ChouaidService de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal Créteil, Créteil, France.
Charles RicordelService de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes, Université Rennes 1, INSERM, UMR_S 1242, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France.
GFPC 08–2015 ENERGY investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombined treatment with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has shown superiority over chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but data for older patients (aged ≥70 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1 or those with an ECOG performance status of 2 are scarce. We aimed to test the superiority of the PD-1 antibody nivolumab and the CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab over platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with NSCLC aged 70 years or older or with an ECOG performance status of 2.

methodsThis open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 30 hospitals and cancer centres in France. Eligible patients had stage IV histologically proven NSCLC, with no known oncogenic alterations, and were either aged 70 years or older with ECOG performance status of 0-2 or younger than 70 years with an ECOG performance status of 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, using a computer-generated algorithm stratified by age (<70 vs ≥70 years), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), and histology (squamous vs non-squamous) to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve ≤700 mg] plus pemetrexed [500 mg/m

findingsThe trial was stopped early for futility on the basis of a pre-planned interim analysis after 33% of the expected events had occurred. Between Feb 12, 2018, and Dec 15, 2020, 217 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 216 patients were included in the final analysis, with 109 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 107 in the chemotherapy group; median age was 74 years (IQR 70-78). Median overall survival was 14·7 months (95% CI 8·0-19·7) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 9·9 months (7·7-12·3) in chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85 [95% CI 0·62-1·16]). Among patients aged 70 years or older with an ECOG performance status of 0-1 (median age 76 years [IQR 73-79]), median overall survival was longer in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the chemotherapy group: 22·6 months (95% CI 18·1-36·0) versus 11·8 months (8·9-20·5; HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·46-0·96]). Among patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 (median age 69 years [IQR 63-75]), median overall survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 1·4-4·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus 6·1 months (3·5-10·4) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·32 [95% CI 0·82-2·11]). No new safety signals were reported. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (28 [27%] of 103 patients) in the chemotherapy group and endocrine disorders (five [5%] of 105 patients), cardiac disorders (ten [10%] patients), and gastrointestinal disorders (11 [11%] patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group.

interpretationThe study showed no benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination in the overall study population. As a result of early stopping, the trial was underpowered for primary and secondary endpoints; however, the finding of better survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with platinum doublet in the subgroup of older patients with NSCLC with an ECOG performance status of 0-1 warrants further study.

fundingBristol-Myers Squibb.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarboplatinCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungIpilimumabLung NeoplasmsNivolumabAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalFemaleFranceHumansMaleAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalCarboplatinIpilimumabNivolumab

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.