Identification of the optimal combination dosing schedule of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma (OpACIN-neo): a multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial
- PMID: 31160251
- DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30151-2
Identification of the optimal combination dosing schedule of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma (OpACIN-neo): a multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial
Abstract
Background: The outcome of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma is poor. Neoadjuvant treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab at the standard dosing schedule induced pathological responses in a high proportion of patients in two small independent early-phase trials, and no patients with a pathological response have relapsed after a median follow up of 32 months. However, toxicity of the standard ipilimumab plus nivolumab dosing schedule was high, preventing its broader clinical use. The aim of the OpACIN-neo trial was to identify a dosing schedule of ipilimumab plus nivolumab that is less toxic but equally effective.
Methods: OpACIN-neo is a multicentre, open-label, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0-1, had resectable stage III melanoma involving lymph nodes only, and measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were enrolled from three medical centres in Australia, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by site, to one of three neoadjuvant dosing schedules: group A, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks intravenously; group B, two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks intravenously; or group C, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks directly followed by two cycles of nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks intravenously. The investigators, site staff, and patients were aware of the treatment assignment during the study participation. Pathologists were masked to treatment allocation and all other data. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with grade 3-4 immune-related toxicity within the first 12 weeks and the proportion of patients achieving a radiological objective response and pathological response at 6 weeks. Analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02977052, and is ongoing with an additional extension cohort and to complete survival analysis.
Findings: Between Nov 24, 2016 and June 28, 2018, 105 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 89 (85%) eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Three patients were excluded after randomisation because they were found to be ineligible, and 86 received at least one dose of study drug; 30 patients in group A, 30 in group B, and 26 in group C (accrual to this group was closed early upon advice of the Data Safety Monitoring Board on June 4, 2018 because of severe adverse events). Within the first 12 weeks, grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events were observed in 12 (40%) of 30 patients in group A, six (20%) of 30 in group B, and 13 (50%) of 26 in group C. The difference in grade 3-4 toxicity between group B and A was -20% (95% CI -46 to 6; p=0·158) and between group C and group A was 10% (-20 to 40; p=0·591). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated liver enzymes in group A (six [20%)]) and colitis in group C (five [19%]); in group B, none of the grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in more than one patient. One patient (in group A) died 9·5 months after the start of treatment due to the consequences of late-onset immune-related encephalitis, which was possibly treatment-related. 19 (63% [95% CI 44-80]) of 30 patients in group A, 17 (57% [37-75]) of 30 in group B, and nine (35% [17-56]) of 26 in group C achieved a radiological objective response, while pathological responses occurred in 24 (80% [61-92]) patients in group A, 23 (77% [58-90]) in group B, and 17 (65% [44-83]) in group C.
Interpretation: OpACIN-neo identified a tolerable neoadjuvant dosing schedule (group B: two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg) that induces a pathological response in a high proportion of patients and might be suitable for broader clinical use. When more mature data confirm these early observations, this schedule should be tested in randomised phase 3 studies versus adjuvant therapies, which are the current standard-of-care systemic therapy for patients with stage III melanoma.
Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Neoadjuvant therapy for melanoma: is it ready for prime time?Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20(7):892-894. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30377-8. Epub 2019 Jun 3. Lancet Oncol. 2019. PMID: 31171445 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):1480-1492. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30700-9. Epub 2018 Oct 22. Lancet Oncol. 2018. PMID: 30361170 Clinical Trial.
-
Combination nivolumab and ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in melanoma brain metastases: a multicentre randomised phase 2 study.Lancet Oncol. 2018 May;19(5):672-681. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30139-6. Epub 2018 Mar 27. Lancet Oncol. 2018. PMID: 29602646 Clinical Trial.
-
Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus placebo in patients with resected stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (IMMUNED): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1558-1568. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30417-7. Lancet. 2020. PMID: 32416781 Clinical Trial.
-
Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jan 17;1(1):CD012974. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012974.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 36648215 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Unmasking of intracranial metastatic melanoma during ipilimumab/nivolumab therapy: case report and literature review.BMC Cancer. 2018 May 9;18(1):549. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4470-y. BMC Cancer. 2018. PMID: 29743050 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable esophageal cancer: A review.Front Immunol. 2022 Dec 8;13:1051841. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1051841. eCollection 2022. Front Immunol. 2022. PMID: 36569908 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Cognitive adverse effects of chemotherapy and immunotherapy: are interventions within reach?Nat Rev Neurol. 2022 Mar;18(3):173-185. doi: 10.1038/s41582-021-00617-2. Epub 2022 Feb 9. Nat Rev Neurol. 2022. PMID: 35140379 Review.
-
The Role and Necessity of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Invasive Melanoma.Front Med (Lausanne). 2019 Oct 22;6:231. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00231. eCollection 2019. Front Med (Lausanne). 2019. PMID: 31696119 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Dendritic cell-mediated cross presentation of tumor-derived peptides is biased against plasma membrane proteins.J Immunother Cancer. 2022 Jul;10(7):e004159. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-004159. J Immunother Cancer. 2022. PMID: 35820727 Free PMC article.
-
Relatlimab, an Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor that Blocks LAG-3, the Latest Drug to be Added to the Arsenal of Systemic Therapies for Melanoma: What Does a Surgical Oncologist Need to Know?Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Jan;31(1):1-3. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14416-0. Epub 2023 Oct 16. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024. PMID: 37843663 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical