Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: Final analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4505 Background: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) provided substantial long-term survival benefits over sunitinib (SUN) in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in the CheckMate 214 trial. We now report final efficacy and safety data in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk. Methods: Pts with clear cell aRCC were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W×4 then NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN 50 mg once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), and independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), ITT (secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) pts. Response was assessed using RECIST v1.1. Results: With 9 years median follow-up, OS was improved with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (HR 0.71) and I/P (HR 0.69) pts. The probability of OS at 108 months was 31% vs 20% in ITT pts and 30% vs 19% in I/P pts, respectively. In pts with FAV risk, the HR for OS improved from 1.45 at first report (Motzer NEJM 2018) to 0.80 at 9 years, showing a delayed benefit with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. OS probabilities at 108 months were 35% vs 22% in FAV pts, respectively (Table). The probability of PFS at 96 months with NIVO+IPI vs SUN was 23% vs 9% in ITT pts, 25% vs 9% in I/P pts, and 13% vs 11% in FAV pts. The probability of remaining in response through 96 months with NIVO+IPI vs SUN was 48% vs 19% in ITT pts, 50% vs 23% in I/P pts, and 36% vs not available (NA) in FAV pts. No new treatment-related deaths occurred in either arm. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented. Conclusions: In the longest and final phase 3 follow-up (9 years) of a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination in aRCC, milestone rates of OS and PFS and durable response remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. No new safety signals emerged. NIVO+IPI remains a standard first-line option in aRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT02231749 . ITT I/P FAV Arm; n NIVO+IPI; 550 SUN; 546 NIVO+IPI; 425 SUN; 422 NIVO+IPI; 125 SUN; 124 mOS (95% CI), mo 53 (46–64) 38 (32–44) 47 (35–56) 26 (22–33) 78 (65–92) 67 (56–80) 108-mo OS probabilities (95% CI), % 31 (27–35) 20 (16–23) 30 (26–35) 19 (15–23) 35 (27–44) 22 (15–30) mPFS (95% CI), mo 12 (10–16) 12 (10–15) 12 (9–17) 9 (7–11) 13 (10–18) 29 (23–43) 96-mo a PFS probabilities (95% CI), % 23 (18–27) 9 (5–15) 25 (20–31) 9 (4–15) 13 (6–22) 11 (3–27) ORR per IRRC (95% CI); CR, % 39 (35–44); 12 33 (29–37); 3 42 (38–47); 12 27 (23–32); 3 30 (22–38); 13 52 (43–61); 6 mDOR (95% CI), mo 76 (59–NE) 25 (20–33) 83 (54–NE) 20 (16–26) 61 (23–NE) 33 (25–51) 96-mo a DOR probabilities (95% CI), % 48 (39–55) 19 (10–31) 50 (41–58) 23 (13–36) 36 (17–56) NA b </
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".