Second or 3rd line nivolumab (Nivo) versus nivo plus ipilimumab (Ipi) in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients: Updated results of the IFCT-1501 MAPS2 randomized phase 2 trial

  • Zalcman G
  • Mazieres J
  • Greillier L
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: No treatment is currently recommended inMPMpts progressing after 1st-line pemetrexed platinum doublet. Disease control rate (DCR) is<30% with all drugs tested in this setting. Anti-PD1 or anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 combo efficacy deserves confirmation in MPM. Methods: Multicenter randomized non-comparative phase 2 trial. Eligible pts: age>18, PS 0-1, histologically provedMPM relapsing after 1 or 2 prior lines including pemetrexed/ platinum doublet, measurable disease. Randomized pts (1:1) received Nivo 3 mg/kg q2w, or Nivo 3 mg/kg q2w plus Ipi 1 mg/kg q6w, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was DCR at 12 weeks. Results: From April to August 2016, 125 pts were accrued in 20 centers. Males: 80%, median age: 71.8 years (range 32.5-88.1), PS 1: 62.4%, epithelioïd 83.2%, 1 previous line: 69.6%.70%of pts received at least 3 cycles of either treatment. 12 weeks-DCR assessed by BICR in the first 108 pts was 44.4% [CI95%: 31.2-57.7%] with Nivo (n=54), and 50.0% [36.7-63.3%] with Nivo+Ipi (n=54). ORR was 18.5% [8.2- 28.9%] with Nivo, and 27.8% [15.8-39.7%] with Nivo+Ipi. Grade 3/4 toxicities were slightly increased in the combo arm (Nivo: 12.7%/0% vs. Nivo+Ipi: 22.9%/3.3%) with 3 treatment-related deaths in the combo arm. Median follow-up was15 months (July, 31th 2017), median PFS was 4.0 months, 95%CI[2.8-5.7] and 5.6 months 95%CI[3.2- 8.4] in Nivo and Nivo+Ipi arms, respectively. Median OS was 13.6 months, 95%CI[6.7-NR] and not reached in Nivo and Nivo+Ipi arms, respectively. 12-months OS were 51% and 58% in Nivo and Nivo+Ipi arms respectively. PD-L1 IHC (mAb 28.8) available in 99/125 patients, was positive (>1% PDL1+ tumor cells) in 41.4%. Positive PD-L1 IHC did not predict longer PFS or OS, either in the whole population or in each treatment group separately. Conclusions: Both Nivo or Nivo+Ipi reached their endpoint in 2nd/3rd lineMPM pts without any unexpected toxicity, leading to meaningful progression-free and overall survivals. These updated results support the efficacy of checkpoints inhibitors inMPM patients, deserving future phase 3 trials.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zalcman, G., Mazieres, J., Greillier, L., Lantuejoul, S., Dô, P., Bylicki, O., … Scherpereel, A. (2017). Second or 3rd line nivolumab (Nivo) versus nivo plus ipilimumab (Ipi) in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients: Updated results of the IFCT-1501 MAPS2 randomized phase 2 trial. Annals of Oncology, 28, v648. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx440.074

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free