Purpose: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings.

Patients And Methods: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS.

Results: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value.

Conclusions: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10472092PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3145DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

resected stage
12
adjuvant nivolumab
8
nivolumab versus
8
ipilimumab
8
versus ipilimumab
8
5-year efficacy
8
efficacy biomarker
8
checkmate 238
8
distant metastasis-free
8
metastasis-free survival
8

Similar Publications

Perioperative Chemotherapy or Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer.

N Engl J Med

January 2025

From Bielefeld University, Medical School and University Medical Center Ostwestfalen-Lippe, Campus Hospital Lippe, Detmold, Germany (J.H.); the Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria (T.B.); the Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany (C.S.); the Institute of Surgical Pathology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany (P.B.); the Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein-Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany (B.K., T.K.); Comprehensive Cancer Center Augsburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany (R.C.); the Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany (S.U.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (J.R.I.); the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute and San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan (I.G.); the Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic, and Endocrine Surgery, Johannes Wesling University Hospital Minden, Ruhr University Bochum, Minden, Germany (B.G.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany (M.G.); the Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic, Transplantation, and Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein-Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany (B.R.); the Department of General, Visceral, Transplantation, Vascular, and Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (J.F.L.); the Department of General, Visceral, Cancer, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (C.B.); the Department of Hematology and Oncology, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Offenbach am Main, Germany (E.R.); the Department of Surgery, Klinikum Dortmund, Klinikum der Universität Witten-Herdecke, Dortmund, Germany (M.S.); the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany (F.B.); the Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (G.F.); the Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Cancer Immunology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin (P.T.-P.); the Department of General, Visceral, Cancer, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany (U.P.N.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany (A.P.); the Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany (D.I.); the Division of Gastroenterology, Rheumatology, and Infectology, Department of Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin (S.D.); the Department of Surgery, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany (T.S.); the Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany (C.K.); the Department of Medicine II, Saarland University Medical Center, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany (S.Z.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Munich, Germany (J.W.); the Department of Internal Medicine I, Klinikum Mutterhaus der Borromaerinnen, Trier, Germany (R.M.); the Departments of Hematology, Oncology, and Palliative Care, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany (G.I.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany (P.G.); and the Department of Medicine II, University Cancer Center Leipzig, Cancer Center Central Germany, University Medical Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany (F.L.).

Background: The best multimodal approach for resectable locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is unclear. An important question is whether perioperative chemotherapy is preferable to preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Methods: In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma to receive perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) plus surgery or preoperative chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy at a dose of 41.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The development of surgical techniques, chemotherapy, biological agents, and multidisciplinary approaches have made patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases eligible for surgery. Many strategies have been developed to allow patients for surgical resection (percutaneous portal vein embolization, liver venous deprivation, parenchyma-sparing liver surgery, reverse strategy, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and liver transplantation), the only form of disease control and curative treatment.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

In patients with synchronic liver colorectal metastasis, resection of the primary tumor and liver metastases is the only potentially curative strategy. In such cases, there is no consensus on whether resection of the primary tumor and metastases should be performed simultaneously or whether a staged approach should be performed (resection of the primary tumor and after, hepatectomy, or hepatectomy first). Patients with no bowel occlusion and with extensive liver disease are advised neoadjuvant oncological therapy.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) are uncommon and heterogeneous neoplasms, often exhibiting indolent biological behavior. Their incidence is rising, largely due to the widespread use of high-resolution imaging techniques, particularly influencing the diagnosis of sporadic non-functioning tumors, which account for up to 80% of cases. While surgical resection remains the only curative option, the impact of factors such as tumor grade, size, and type on prognosis and recurrence is still unclear.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Poorly controlled type II diabetes mellitus significantly enhances postoperative chemoresistance in patients with stage III colon cancer.

World J Gastroenterol

January 2025

Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510080, Guangdong Province, China.

Background: Type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been associated with increased risk of colon cancer (CC) and worse prognosis in patients with metastases. The effects of T2DM on postoperative chemoresistance rate (CRR) and long-term disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage III CC who receive curative resection remain controversial.

Aim: To investigate whether T2DM or glycemic control is associated with worse postoperative survival outcomes in stage III CC.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!