Real-world comparison of ipilimumab–nivolumab dosing strategies in melanoma brain metastases.

D Dina Elantably (Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) J Joseph Brandon Parker (Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) J Jakob Skyler Hamilton (Division of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) D Donnell White (Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) A Ahmed Abdel-Hakeem (Department of Hematology & Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) O Oluwatayo Adeoye (1Mayo Clinic, Hematology/Oncology, Rochester, United States) S Saivaishnavi Kamatham (Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) A Alina Maleski (Division of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) F Frederick Ashby W Winston Tan S Svetomir Markovic (Mayo Clinic) A Arkadiusz Z. Dudek (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN) M Matthew Stephen Block R Robert R. McWilliams A Anastasios Dimou M Mahesh Seetharam (Division of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) R Roxana Stefania Dronca (Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) R Ruqin Chen (Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL)

Abstract

9558 Background: Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg (Ipi3+Nivo1) is the standard immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma with brain metastases (MBM) but is associated with significant immune-related toxicity, particularly neurologic toxicity. Ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg (Ipi1+Nivo3) has demonstrated improved tolerability in extracranial melanoma, though comparative data in MBM are limited. We compared efficacy and toxicity of these dosing strategies in a multisite real-world cohort. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with MBM treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab across three Mayo Clinic sites between 2016 and 2024. Patients were classified by induction dosing as Ipi1+Nivo3 or Ipi3+Nivo1. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Best overall response (BOR) and toxicity outcomes were summarized descriptively. Results: Among 147 patients (Ipi1+Nivo3 n=32; Ipi3+Nivo1 n=115), 144 were evaluable for survival. Median age was higher in the Ipi1+Nivo3 group (69.5 vs 66.0 years); males predominated in both groups (71.9% vs 61.7%), and the cohort was predominantly White (>96%). Most patients had ECOG 0–1 in both groups (84.4% in Ipi1+ Nivo3 and 90.4% in Ipi3+Nivo1). BRAF mutation status was balanced between regimens, with approximately half of patients harboring BRAF-mutant disease (51.6% vs 53.2%). Median OS was 18.5 months (95% CI, 5.7–54.7) with Ipi1+Nivo3 versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 6.5–19.1) with Ipi3+Nivo1 (log-rank p=0.25). Two-year OS was 45.9% and 35.0%, and five-year OS was 24.5% and 19.2%, respectively. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI, 1.8–10.9) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.1–4.4) (log-rank p=0.16). BOR was available for 138 patients; objective response rates were 35.5% and 31.8%, respectively. 3–5 adverse events occurred in 24.1% of Ipi1+Nivo3 versus 30.5% of Ipi3+Nivo1 patients. Hospitalizations were less frequent (16.7% vs 36.1%), and neurologic adverse events occurred only with Ipi3+Nivo1 (11.9% vs 0%). Conclusions: In this multisite real-world MBM cohort, Ipi1+Nivo3 demonstrated comparable efficacy, numerically longer survival, and a more favorable toxicity profile compared with standard Ipi3+Nivo1. Notably, no neurologic toxicity was observed with the Ipi1+Nivo3 regimen. These findings support further prospective evaluation of lower dose ipilimumab strategies. Response and survival outcomes. Outcome Ipi1 + Nivo3 Ipi3 + Nivo1 Complete response (CR) 2 / 31 (6.5%) 8 / 107 (7.5%) Partial response (PR) 9 / 31 (29.0%) 26 / 107 (24.3%) Objective response rate (ORR = CR+PR) 11 / 31 (35.5%) 34 / 107 (31.8%) Disease control rate (DCR = CR+PR+SD) 18 / 31 (58.1%) 51 / 107 (47.7%) Median PFS, months (95% CI) 7.3 (1.8–10.9) 2.8 (2.1–4.4) 2-year PFS 27.6% 22.3% Median OS, months (95% CI) 18.5 (5.7–54.7) 10.6 (6.5–19.1) 2-year OS 45.9% 35.0% 5-year OS 24.5% 19.2%

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
Pages 9558-9558
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (18)

D

Dina Elantably

Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

J

Joseph Brandon Parker

Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

J

Jakob Skyler Hamilton

Division of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

D

Donnell White

Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

A

Ahmed Abdel-Hakeem

Department of Hematology & Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

O

Oluwatayo Adeoye

1Mayo Clinic, Hematology/Oncology, Rochester, United States

S

Saivaishnavi Kamatham

Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

A

Alina Maleski

Division of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

F

Frederick Ashby

W

Winston Tan

S

Svetomir Markovic

Mayo Clinic

A

Arkadiusz Z. Dudek

Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN

M

Matthew Stephen Block

R

Robert R. McWilliams

A

Anastasios Dimou

M

Mahesh Seetharam

Division of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

R

Roxana Stefania Dronca

Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

R

Ruqin Chen

Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL