Abstract 4370
Background
In the multi-center investigator-initiated OpACIN-neo trial, patients (pts) with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized (stratified by center) to 3 different dosing schemes of neoadjuvant (neoadj) IPI+NIVO. Two cycles IPI 1mg/kg + NIVO3 mg/kg was identified as the most favorable regimen with 20% grade 3-4 adverse events and a pathological response rate (pRR) of 77%. After a median follow-up (FU) of 8.3 months (mo) none (0/86) of the pts with a pathologic (path) response had relapsed, while 9/21 (43%) without a path response relapsed. Post-hoc analyses were conducted to investigate potential differences between pts treated in Europe (EU) and in Australia (AUS).
Methods
Baseline patient characteristics, safety and efficacy in terms of path response were evaluated in pts treated in EU (n = 48) and AUS (n = 38). Multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression method. Median FU was 9.3mo for EU pts and 6.9mo for AUS pts.
Results
Baseline characteristics (AUS vs EU) differed in age (median 60 vs 53 year [yr], p = 0.017) and AUS pts were more likely to be male (65.8 vs 50.0%, p = 0.142) and have an unknown primary melanoma (36.8 vs 20.8%, p = 0.100); no difference in PD-L1 expression was observed. There was a trend to a higher pRR for AUS pts than for EU pts (84.2% vs 68.1%, OR 2.50, p = 0.092). pRR was also higher for pts >60 yr compared to £60 yr (91.2% vs 64.7%, OR 5.64, p = 0.010) and males vs females (83.7% vs 63.9%, OR 2.90, p = 0.041). Multivariate analysis including continent, age and gender showed an adjusted OR for path response of 1.85 (p = 0.289) for AUS vs EU pts, an OR of 4.89 (p = 0.021) for pts >60yrs vs £60yrs and an OR of 2.50 (p = 0.095) for males vs females. The frequency of high grade toxicity was the same in pts <60 compared to pts >60 yr (42.3% vs 32.4%, p = 0.353).
Conclusions
The continental difference in path response appears mostly driven by differences in age and gender. It remains to be elucidated whether the higher pRRs in elderly pts and pts from AUS can be explained by differences in mutational burden (analysis in progress and will be presented). Our data also indicate that neoadj IPI+NIVO is safe and highly effective in the elderly.
Clinical trial identification
NCT02977052.
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Netherlands Cancer Institute.
Funding
BMS.
Disclosure
E.A. Rozeman: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString. A.M. Menzies: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. R.A. Scolyer: Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Neracare; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. A.C.J. van Akkooi: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck-Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC. J. Hansson: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. G.V. Long: Advisory / Consultancy: Aduro; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Mass-Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. C.U. Blank: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy: GenMab; Research grant / Funding (institution): NanoString. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1084 - Dissociated responses in patients with metastatic solid tumors treated with immunotherapy
Presenter: Pauline Vaflard
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4600 - Patterns and outcomes related to rapid progressive disease in a cohort of advanced solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).
Presenter: Lucio Ghiglione
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3547 - Real World Outcomes of Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs) among Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) in Hospital Settings
Presenter: Saby George
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1124 - Sex-based heterogeneity of efficacy of anticancer immunotherapy
Presenter: Fabio Conforti
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4133 - Comparative efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for patients with solid tumors: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis
Presenter: Qingyuan Huang
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2548 - Excess weight and efficacy of anti-PD-1 antibodies in advanced cancer patients
Presenter: Jacobo Rogado
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2228 - Safety and efficacy of anti-PD-1 inhibitor ABBV-181 in lung and head and neck carcinoma
Presenter: Antoine Italiano
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2333 - Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of advanced solid tumours in octogenarian patients
Presenter: Soraya Mebarki
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4847 - Association of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor therapy with overall survival (OS) in stage IV melanoma treated with targeted therapies
Presenter: Aracelis Torres
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2215 - Clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in older and younger patients with advanced solid tumours in a real-life setting
Presenter: Pauline Corbaux
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract