pathology | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
---|
gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (advanced) | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ATTRACTION-2, 2017 | nivolumab vs placebo | OS 0.63 [0.51; 0.78] median 5.26 vs. 4.14 | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ATTRACTION-2, 2017 | nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=330) vs. placebo (n=163) | patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal
junction cancer who had been previously been treated with two or more chemotherapy regimens | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 330/163 Primary endpoint: OS FU duration: |
|
Head and neck cancer | versus nivolumab superior to standard treatment in terms of OS in Checkmate-141, 2016 (2L patients) | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Checkmate-141, 2016 | nivolumab vs standard treatment | OS 0.70 [0.51; 0.96] median 7.5 mo vs. 5.1 mo Demonstrated | | PFS 0.89 [0.70; 1.13] median 2.0 mo vs. 2.3 mo |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Checkmate-141, 2016 | nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks (n=361) vs. standard, single-agent systemic therapy (methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab). (n=0) | patients with recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck whose disease had progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 361/0 Primary endpoint: overall survival FU duration: |
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 227 (nivolumab + CT), 2018 | nivolumab + CT vs platinum-based CT | PFS 0.74 [0.58; 0.94] median 5.6 vs. 4.7 | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 227 (nivolumab + CT), 2018 | Nivolumab + chemotherapy (n=177) vs. chemotherapy (n=186) 4 arms: Nivolumab, or Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab, or Nivolumab Plus Platinum-doublet Chemotherapy, Compared to Platinum Doublet Chemotherapy
| Subjects With Chemotherapy-Naïve Stage IV or Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer <1% tumor PD-L1 expression
| No masking Sample size: 177/186 Primary endpoint: Overall survival (OS) FU duration:
|
|
lung cancer (metastatic) | versus standard of care No demonstrated result for efficacy | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 057, 2015 | nivolumab vs docetaxel | overall survival 0.73 [0.59; 0.90] median 12.2 mo vs. 9.4 mo grade 3–5 drug-related AEs 0.19 [0.14; 0.28] | | PFS 0.92 [0.77; 1.10] median 2.3 mo vs. 4.2 mo | CheckMate 026, 2016 | nivolumab vs platinum-based CT | | | overall survival 1.02 [0.80; 1.30] median 14.4 mo vs. 13.2 mo PFS 1.15 [0.91; 1.45] median 4.2 mo vs. 5.9 mo | CheckMate 017, 2015 | nivolumab vs docetaxel | overall survival 0.59 [0.44; 0.79] median 9.2 mo vs. 6.0 mo PFS 0.62 [0.47; 0.81] median 3.5 mo vs. 2.8 mo ORR 2.28 [1.21; 4.32] grade 3–5 drug-related AEs 0.12 [0.07; 0.24] | | Endocrine disorders ∞ [NaN; ∞] Hypothyroidism ∞ [NaN; ∞] Pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease 6.89 [0.86; 55.24] Severe skin reactions 1.07 [0.49; 2.35] Colitis ∞ [NaN; ∞] | CheckMate 227 (High Tumor Mutational Burden), 2018 | nivolumab + ipilimumab vs platinum-based CT | PFS 0.58 [0.41; 0.82] median 7.2 mo vs. 5.5 mo | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 057, 2015 | Nivolumab 3 mg/kg solution intravenously every 2 weeks until documented disease progression (n=292) vs. Docetaxel 75 mg/m² concentrate for solution for intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until documented disease progression (n=290) | patients with advanced nonsquamous nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had progressed on platinum-doublet chemotherapy | open Parallel groups Sample size: 292/290 Primary endpoint: OS FU duration: | CheckMate 026, 2016 | Nivolumab solution for Injection 3 mg/kg Intravenous every 2 weeks until disease progression (n=271) vs. platinum-based chemotherapy (administered once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles). (n=270) Patients who progressed on chemotherapy could crossover to nivolumab as second line treatment.
| patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors expressed PD-L1 at >5% (>1%???). Patients with EGFR activating mutations and ALK translocations, which are sensitive to targeted therapy, were excluded.
| open design Parallel groups Sample size: 271/270 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: cross over were permitted, a total of 128 of 212 patients
(60%) in the chemotherapy group received nivolumab as subsequent therapy | CheckMate 017, 2015 | Nivolumab 3 mg/kg solution intravenously every 2 weeks until documented disease progression (n=135) vs. Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 solution intravenously every 3 weeks until documented disease progression (n=137) | patients with advanced SQ NSCLC who fail platinum-based doublet chemotherapy | open Sample size: 135/137 Primary endpoint: OS FU duration: | CheckMate 227 (High Tumor Mutational Burden), 2018 | nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=139) vs. chemotherapy (n=160) 4 arms: Nivolumab, or Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab, or Nivolumab Plus Platinum-doublet Chemotherapy, Compared to Platinum Doublet Chemotherapy | patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC that was not previously treated
with chemotherapy and high tumor mutational burden (>=10 mutations
per megabase), irrespective of PD-L1 expression level Tumor mutational burden was determined by the FoundationOne CDx assay | No masking Parallel groups Sample size: 139/160 Primary endpoint: PFS, OS FU duration: |
|
melanoma | versus anti-CTLA-4 nivolumab superior to ipilimumab in terms of recurrence free survival in CheckMate 238, 2017 (adjuvant patients) | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 238, 2017 | nivolumab vs ipilimumab | recurrence free survival 0.65 [0.51; 0.83] Demonstrated PFS 0.65 [0.51; 0.83] Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug 0.23 [0.17; 0.31] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.31 [0.24; 0.40] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 238, 2017 | nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (n=453) vs. ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (n=453) | patients with Complete Resection of Stage IIIb/c or Stage IV Melanoma | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 453/453 Primary endpoint: Recurrence free survival FU duration: 18 months (median) |
|
melanoma | versus anti-PD-1 No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs nivo), 2015 | nivolumab + ipilimumab vs nivolumab | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs nivo), 2015 | Nivolumab + ipilumab
(n=314) vs. nivolumab alone
(n=316) 3 arms: nivolumab alone, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab, ipilumab alone
| Previously Untreated Advanced Melanoma
| double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 314/316 Primary endpoint: PFS, OS FU duration: this comparison (nivo+ipi versus nivo) was not planned and could not be considered as interential |
|
melanoma | versus chemotherapy nivolumab superior to dacarbazine in terms of OS in CheckMate 066 (Robert), 2015 (1L patients) nivolumab inferior to dacarbazine in terms of Vitiligo any grade in CheckMate 066 (Robert), 2015 (1L patients) | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 066 (Robert), 2015 | nivolumab vs dacarbazine | OS 0.42 [0.25; 0.71] median not reached vs. 10.8 mo Demonstrated PFS 0.43 [0.34; 0.55] median 5.1 mo vs. 2.2 mo | Vitiligo any grade 21.89 [2.98; 160.92] | Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug 0.58 [0.31; 1.09] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.66 [0.41; 1.07] Vitiligo grade 3-4 NaN [NaN; NaN] | CheckMate 037 (Weber), 2015 | nivolumab vs chemotherapy | overall response rate 3.72 [1.41; 9.85] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.29 [0.18; 0.46] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 066 (Robert), 2015 | nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (n=210) vs. dacarbazine at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks (n=208) | previously untreated patients who had unresectable metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation (stage III or IV) | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 210/208 Primary endpoint: OS FU duration: | CheckMate 037 (Weber), 2015 | ntravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2
weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic eff ects (n=272) vs. investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m² every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m² combined with carboplatin area under the
curve 6 every 3 weeks) (n=133) | patients with advanced
melanoma who progressed after ipilimumab, or
ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAFV mutation-positive (second-line or later-line treatment) | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 272/133 Primary endpoint: ORR, OS FU duration: phase 3 |
|
melanoma | versus ipilimumab nivolumab + ipilimumab superior to ipilimumab in terms of PFS in CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 (1L patients) nivolumab superior to ipilimumab in terms of PFS in CheckMate 067 (nivo vs ipi), 2015 (1L patients) nivolumab + ipilimumab inferior to ipilimumab in terms of Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug in CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 (1L patients) nivolumab + ipilimumab inferior to ipilimumab in terms of Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events in CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 (1L patients) | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 | nivolumab + ipilimumab vs ipilimumab | PFS 0.42 [0.31; 0.57] median 11.5 mo vs. 2.9 mo Demonstrated | Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug 2.46 [1.82; 3.34] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 2.01 [1.63; 2.47] | | Postow, 2015 | nivolumab + ipilimumab vs ipilimumab | | | | CheckMate 067 (nivo vs ipi), 2015 | nivolumab vs ipilimumab | PFS 0.57 [0.43; 0.76] median 6.9 mo vs. 2.9 mo Demonstrated Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug 0.52 [0.32; 0.83] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.60 [0.44; 0.81] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 | 1mg of nivolumab per kilogram every 3 weeks plus 3 mg
of ipilimumab per kilogram every 3 weeks for
4 doses, followed by 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram every 2 weeks for cycle 3 and beyond (n=314) vs. 3 mg of ipilimumab per kilogram every 3 weeks
for 4 doses (n=315) 3 arms: nivolumab alone, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab, ipilumab alone | Previously Untreated Advanced Melanoma | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 314/315 Primary endpoint: PFS, OS FU duration: | Postow, 2015 | nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram)and ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined once every 3 weeks for four doses followed
by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until the occurrence
of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with metastatic melanoma who
had not previously received treatment, | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response FU duration: phase 2. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors | CheckMate 067 (nivo vs ipi), 2015 | 3 mg
of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight every
2 weeks
(n=316) vs. 3 mg of ipilimumab per kilogram every 3 weeks
for 4 doses (n=315) 3 arms: nivolumab alone, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab, ipilumab alone
| Previously Untreated Advanced Melanoma
| double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 316/315 Primary endpoint: PFS, OS FU duration:
|
|
melanoma | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 238 subgroup IIIB-C | nivolumab vs ipilimumab | PFS 0.65 [0.51; 0.82] recurrence free survival 0.65 [0.51; 0.82] distant metastasis free survival 0.73 [0.56; 0.96] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 238 subgroup IIIB-C | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
renal-cell carcinoma (advanced) | versus nivolumab + ipilimumab superior to sunitinib in terms of OS in CheckMate-214, 2017 (1L patients) | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Chekmate 025 (Motzer), 2015 | nivolumab vs everolimus | OS 0.73 [0.57; 0.93] median 25.0 mo vs. 19.6 mo | | PFS 0.88 [0.75; 1.03] median 4.6 mo vs. 4.4 mo | CheckMate-214, 2017 | nivolumab + ipilimumab vs sunitinib | OS 0.68 [0.49; 0.95] median not reached vs. 32.9 mo Demonstrated | | PFS 0.82 [0.64; 1.05] median 11.56 mo vs. 8.38 mo |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Chekmate 025 (Motzer), 2015 | 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks (n=-9) vs. 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily (n=-9) | patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: OS FU duration: | CheckMate-214, 2017 | nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses followed by Opdivo 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=-9) vs. sunitinib 50 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off before continuation of treatment (n=-9) | intermediate and poor-risk patients previously untreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: ORR, PFS, OS FU duration: phase 3 |
|
urothelial carcinoma (advanced) | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Checkmate 275 | nivolumab vs nil | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Checkmate 275 | nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression and clinical deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons (n=270) vs. (n=-9) | patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy | Single-arm study Sample size: 270/-9 Primary endpoint: ORR FU duration: |
|