Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Melanoma and other skin tumours

3985 - Quality-adjusted survival of combined nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) or NIVO alone vs IPI among treatment-naïve patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL): a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis

Date

11 Sep 2017

Session

Melanoma and other skin tumours

Presenters

Marc Botteman

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2017) 28 (suppl_5): v428-v448. 10.1093/annonc/mdx377

Authors

M. Botteman1, R. Shah1, K. Gupte-Singh2, L. Luo1, J. Sabater2, S. Rao3, D.F. McDermott4, M.B. Atkins5, M. Regan6

Author affiliations

  • 1 Global Health Economics And Outcomes Research, Pharmerit International, Inc, 20814 - Bethesda/US
  • 2 Health Economics Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton/US
  • 3 Health Economics Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 08648 - Princeton/US
  • 4 Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston/US
  • 5 Oncology, Lombardi Cancer Center Georgetown University, 20007 - Washington, DC/US
  • 6 Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston/US
More

Resources

Abstract 3985

Background

We compared quality-adjusted survival (OS) of combined NIVO+IPI or NIVO alone vs IPI among treatment-naïve pts with advanced MEL enrolled in the CheckMate 067 trial.

Methods

The Q-TWiST approach was used to partition OS into 3 health states: time without disease progression or symptoms of toxicity (TWiST), time with grade ≥3 treatment-related AE toxicity after randomization but before progression (TOX), and time after progression (REL). Q-TWiST was calculated by multiplying mean time spent in each state at 36 months (mos) by their utility (TWiST=1.0, TOX=0.5, and REL=0.5). Q-TWiST differences were assessed at various times ranging from 3 to 36 mos. A ≥ 15% relative Q-TWiST gain (vs mean IPI OS) was considered clearly clinically important.

Results

Compared with IPI, NIVO+IPI pts had longer (difference in mean mos, 95% CI) TWiST (9.6, 7.4 to 11.7) and TOX (0.3, 0.1 to 0.4) but shorter REL time (-5.2, -7.1 to -3.2). Compared with IPI, NIVO pts had a longer TWiST (7.3, 5.0 to 9.6), shorter REL time (-3.4, -5.5 to -1.3), and shorter TOX (-0.1, -0.2 to 0.1). Q-TWiST was highest for NIVO+IPI, followed by NIVO, and IPI (Table). Relative Q-TWiST gains were also favorable for NIVO+IPI (+34.0% v IPI) and NIVO (+26.4% v IPI) and increased as follow-up increased from 3 to 36 months for all comparisons.

Conclusions

At 36 months, NIVO and NIVO+IPI pts had a clinically important improvement in Q-TWiST vs IPI. As these benefits continue to accrue over time, future analyses with longer follow-up are planned.Table:

1223PD

Mean (95% CI) time, mos
NIVO+IPI (n = 314)NIVO (n = 316)IPI (n = 315)
TOX0.6 (0.4 to 0.7)0.2 (0.1 to 0.3)0.3 (0.2 to 0.4)
TWiST19.1 (17.4 to 20.8)16.8 (15.1 to 18.5)9.5 (8.1, 10.9)
REL6.1 (4.7 to 7.6)7.9 (6.5 to 9.3)11.3 (9.8 to 12.8)
Q-TWiST22.4 (21.0 to 23.9)20.9 (19.4 to 22.3)15.3 (14.1 to 16.5)

Clinical trial identification

QoL study based on the 067 trial NCT01844505 protocol number is CA209-067 (CheckMate 067)

Legal entity responsible for the study

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Funding

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Disclosure

M. Botteman: Employed by and owns stock in Pharmerit International. Pharmerit International has received research funding from BMS to conduct this research. Pharmerit International is a global health economics and outcomes research consulting firm that receives researching funding and fees related to consulting and other advisory roles from numerous private organizations from the pharmaceutical, biotech, device, and medical industry. R. Shah, L. Luo: Employed by Pharmerit International. Pharmerit International has received research funding from BMS to conduct this research. K. Gupte-Singh, J. Sabater, S. Rao: Employed by and owns stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb. D.F. McDermott: David McDermott served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer and Genentech. M.B. Atkins: Served as a consultant or advisor for GNE, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, C-Cam, X4 Pharma, Amgen, Lilly, Alkermes, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Genoptix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nektar, Merck; received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.