Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial Journal Article


Authors: Motzer, R. J.; Escudier, B.; George, S.; Hammers, H. J.; Srinivas, S.; Tykodi, S. S.; Sosman, J. A.; Plimack, E. R.; Procopio, G.; McDermott, D. F.; Castellano, D.; Choueiri, T. K.; Donskov, F.; Gurney, H.; Oudard, S.; Richardet, M.; Peltola, K.; Alva, A. S.; Carducci, M.; Wagstaff, J.; Chevreau, C.; Fukasawa, S.; Tomita, Y.; Gauler, T. C.; Kollmannsberger, C. K.; Schutz, F. A.; Larkin, J.; Cella, D.; McHenry, M. B.; Saggi, S. S.; Tannir, N. M.
Article Title: Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial
Abstract: Background: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. Methods: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Results: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P <.001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P =.0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. Conclusions: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term. © 2020 American Cancer Society
Keywords: everolimus; immune checkpoint inhibitor; nivolumab; checkmate 025; advanced renal cell carcinoma (arcc); previously treated
Journal Title: Cancer
Volume: 126
Issue: 18
ISSN: 0008-543X
Publisher: Wiley Blackwell  
Date Published: 2020-09-15
Start Page: 4156
End Page: 4167
Language: English
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33033
PUBMED: 32673417
PROVIDER: scopus
PMCID: PMC8415096
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 1 September 2020 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Robert Motzer
    1246 Motzer