Randomized dose evaluation of nivolumab + relatlimab (NIVO + RELA) in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma: Results from RELATIVITY-020.
Abstract
9526 Background: NIVO + RELA is approved at 480 mg NIVO + 160 mg RELA Q4W (480/160) dosing for treatment of advanced melanoma based on RELATIVITY-047. A higher dose of 480 mg NIVO + 480 mg RELA (480/480) is under investigation in other tumor types. Here, we report results from RELATIVITY-020 Part E, which aimed to compare efficacy and safety of first-line (1L) 480/480 vs 480/160 dosing in pts with treatment-naive advanced melanoma and evaluate 480/480 dosing in pts with advanced melanoma who progressed on prior anti–PD-1 therapy (PD-1 refractory [RF]). Methods: RELATIVITY-020 (NCT01968109) is a phase 1/2a, dose-escalation and cohort-expansion, open-label trial. For Part E, pts with treatment-naïve advanced melanoma were randomized 1:1 to 480/480 vs 480/160 A single-arm cohort was enrolled to evaluate 480/480 dosing in pts with PD-1 RF advanced melanoma. Primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR) per BICR using RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR) and PFS. Exploratory analyses included OS and pharmacodynamics. Results: As of clinical cutoff (May 22, 2024, min follow-up 33 mo), ORR was higher with the 1L 480/480 vs the 480/160 dose, while median (m) DOR, mPFS, and mOS were similar across the two arms, with numerically lower mPFS and 24-mo PFS/OS rates with the 480/480 dose (Table). With the 1L 480/480 vs 480/160 doses, 34% vs 36% of pts had grade 3–4 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs), and any grade TRAEs led to treatment discontinuation (d/c) in 29% vs 19% of pts, respectively. There was 1 treatment-related death (immune-mediated lung disease) in the 1L 480/480 arm vs none in the 480/160 arm. Treatment duration was shorter with the 1L 480/480 (m 5.6 mo) vs 480/160 dose (m 8.3 mo). Higher LAG-3 occupancy was observed with 1L 480/480 vs 480/160 dosing; however, there was no difference in Th1-associated cytokine levels. For the RF 480/480 arm (Table), outcomes were similar to published Part D data for RF 480/160 dosing. Conclusions: Although the 480/480 dose yielded higher ORR and LAG-3 occupancy levels than the 480/160 dose, it did not translate into improved survival outcomes or differences in Th1 cytokine levels. The 1L 480/480 dose also led to a higher rate of d/c due to TRAEs than the 480/160 dose. RF 480/480 dosing yielded similar results to RF 480/160 dosing from RELATIVITY-020 Part D. Clinical trial information: NCT01968109 . NIVO + RELA480/480(N = 77) NIVO + RELA480/160(N = 77) NIVO + RELARF 480/480(N = 95) ORR, % (95% CI) 61.0 (49.2–72.0) 48.7 (37.0–60.4) 10.6 (5.2–18.7) mDOR, mo (95% CI) NR (40.3–NR NR (32.3–NR) NR (3.1–NR) mPFS, mo (95% CI) 26.8 (11.1–NR) 33.3 (11.0–NR) 1.8 (1.8–3.4) PFS rate, % (95% CI)12 mo24 mo 61 (49–71)51 (39–62) 61 (49–72)56 (43–67) 19 (12–28)10 (5–19) mOS, mo (95% CI) NR (29.0–NR) NR (40.0–NR) 12.9 (8.2–16.6) OS rate, % (95% CI)12 mo24 mo 83 (73–90)66 (54–75) 82 (71–89)73 (62–82) 51 (40–60)30 (21–40) Grade 3/4 TRAEs, % 34 36 17 Any grade TRAE leading to d/c, % 29 19 9 NR, not reached.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Georgina V. Long
Stéphane Dalle
Hussein A. Tawbi
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Katriina Johanna Jalkanen
Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
Paolo Antonio Ascierto
Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II” and Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione “G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy
Reinhard Dummer
Sofie Wilgenhof
Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Paul Lorigan
Brigitte Dreno
University Hospital of Nantes, Nantes, France
Andrew Graham Hill
Tasman Oncology Research, Southport Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
Evan J. Lipson
James Larkin
Uwe Marc Martens
SLK Clinics Heilbronn GmbH, Heilbronn, Germany
Eva Muñoz Couselo
Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO) and Vall d’Hebron Hospital Medical Oncology Department, Barcelona, Spain
Julius Strauss
Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ
Diane Wolf
Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ
Sourav Mukherjee
Sonia Dolfi
Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ
Satyendra Suryawanshi
Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ
Caroline Gaudy-Marqueste
From the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center (J.D.W.) and the Department of Medicine (J.D.W., M.A.P.), Weill Cornell Medicine, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (M.A.P.) — both in New York; Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IRCCS, Padua (V.C.-S.), European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan (P.Q.), Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, IRCCS, Meldola (M.G.), University of Siena and the Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Siena (M.M.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) — all in Italy; Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.); Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.); University Hospital Essen, the German Cancer Consortium, the National Center for Tumor Diseases–West, the Research Alliance Ruhr, Research Center One Health, and University Duisburg-Essen — all in Essen, Germany (D.S.); the College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea (J.W.), Brist...