Category: Immuno Oncology

Emerging Biomarker Insights in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: NOTCH1 Mutations as a Predictor of Anti–PD-1 Benefit

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2025, about 22,070 new cases of esophageal cancer will be diagnosed in the US and about 16,250 individuals will die of the disease. It is the sixth most common cause of global cancer death. Squamous Cell Carcinoma is the most common type of cancer of the esophagus among African Americans, while Adenocarcinoma is more common in Caucasians. Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) accounts for approximately 85% of cases. Majority of esophageal cancers are unresectable at diagnosis, and most patients treated with curative intent eventually will relapse, and only about 20% of patients will survive at least 5 years following diagnosis. Patients with advanced esophageal cancer have a median survival of less than a year when treated with the standard Fluoropyrimidine plus Platinum based chemotherapy. For those patients progressing on first line chemotherapy, treatment options are limited, with a 5-year relative survival rate of 8% or less.

Recent advancements in the treatment of advanced or metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC) have firmly positioned Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) as a cornerstone of second-line therapy. Numerous agents targeting PD-1 have demonstrated superior clinical outcomes compared to chemotherapy.

Tislelizumab (TEVIMBRA®)  is a humanized immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) anti-Programmed cell Death protein- 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody with high affinity and binding specificity against PD-1. It is uniquely designed to minimize binding to Fc-gamma receptors on macrophages, helping to aid immune cells of the body to detect and fight tumors, while minimizing off-target effects. The FDA in 2024 approved Tislelizumab in combination with platinum-containing chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of adults with unresectable or metastatic ESCC whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1) and also as a single agent in adults with unresectable or metastatic ESCC after prior systemic chemotherapy that did not include a PD-(L)1 inhibitor.

RATIONALE-302 is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, Phase 3 study in which 512 patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC whose tumor progressed after first-line systemic treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Tislelizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks or chemotherapy (investigators choice of Paclitaxel, Docetaxel, or Irinotecan). The trial met its Primary endpoint, demonstrating a significant improvement in Overall Survival (OS) with Tislelizumab over chemotherapy.

A comprehensive biomarker analysis stemming from the pivotal RATIONALE-302 trial has shed light on a promising genomic signal that could shape future treatment pathways. Researchers conducted extensive tumor profiling using PD-L1 ImmunoHistoChemistry (N=359), Gene Expression Profiling (N=346), and Mutation analysis (N=209) on tumor samples from patients enrolled in the RATIONALE-302 trial. The aim of this study was to uncover molecular determinants of response to Tislelizumab.

Clinical Findings: NOTCH1 as a Predictive Biomarker
Among the 209 patients with available mutation data, 22% harbored NOTCH1 mutations. This subgroup demonstrated a markedly improved Overall Survival (OS) with Tislelizumab, compared to chemotherapy:

  • Median OS with tislelizumab: 18.4 months
  • Median OS with chemotherapy: 5.3 months
  • Hazard Ratio: 0.35 (95% CI, 0.17–0.71)

In contrast, patients with wild-type NOTCH1 derived minimal OS benefit from tislelizumab (6.0 vs 6.9 months; HR 0.81), underscoring the potential of NOTCH1 status to guide therapeutic decisions.

Mechanistic Insights: An Immunologically Favorable TME
Transcriptomic data linked NOTCH1 mutations to increased expression of Type I interferon (IFN-I) and Toll-Like Receptor (TLR) signatures—hallmarks of an activated Tumor MicroEnvironment (TME). Concurrently, these tumors exhibited reduced infiltration by B cells and neutrophils, which have been associated with resistance to immunotherapy.

Further validation using murine models showed that NOTCH1 deficiency promotes a TME, more permissive to anti–PD-1 activity, supporting a biological rationale for these clinical findings.

Independent of PD-L1 and TMB
Importantly, the survival benefit associated with NOTCH1 mutations was independent of PD-L1 expression levels and Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB). Even among patients with low PD-L1 tumor positivity (<10%), those with NOTCH1 mutations showed a trend toward improved OS with Tislelizumab over chemotherapy.

Broader Genomic Context
In addition to NOTCH1, alterations in genes such as KMT2D also correlated with improved response to Tislelizumab compared to investigator chosen chemotherapy, while EGFR alterations were associated with diminished benefit. The frequently mutated genes in the RATIONALE-302 cohort – TP53, CCND1, FGF3/4/19, CDKN2A, PIK3CA, KMT2D, NFE2L2, and TP63- fall into functional categories including cell cycle regulation, differentiation, PI3K signaling, and chromatin remodeling consistent with previous reports.

Clinical Implications
These findings strongly suggest that NOTCH1 mutation status should be evaluated in patients with advanced ESCC being considered for anti–PD-1 therapy. Routine integration of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) may enhance treatment personalization by identifying patients most likely to derive significant benefit from immunotherapy, beyond the current reliance on PD-L1 ImmunoHistoChemistry or TMB alone.

Next Steps
While these results are promising, prospective validation is needed. A clinical trial is currently being planned to assess whether patients with NOTCH1-mutated ESCC may be optimally treated with ICI monotherapy. Additional translational studies are underway to further clarify resistance mechanisms and inform future biomarker-driven strategies.

NOTCH1 Mutation and Survival Analysis of Tislelizumab in Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Biomarker Analysis From the Randomized, Phase III, RATIONALE-302 Trial. Lu Z, Du W, Jiao X, et al. J Clin Oncol. Published online April 3, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO-24-01818

 

Adjuvant KEYTRUDA® Improves Disease Free Survival in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that in the United States for 2024, about 83,190 new cases of bladder cancer were diagnosed and approximately 16,840 patients died of the disease. Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men, but it is less common in women. Bladder cancer accounts for 90% of urothelial cancers, and urothelial cancer can also be found in the renal pelvis, ureter and urethra.

A third of the patients initially present with locally invasive disease. The standard treatment for Cisplatin-eligible patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC) is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy. However, the high relapse rate and risk of death despite this treatment has prompted further research into optimizing outcomes. There is presently no clear consensus with regards to the routine use of adjuvant Cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Further, not all patients are eligible for adjuvant or neoadjuvant Cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Immune checkpoints are cell surface inhibitory proteins/receptors that are expressed on activated T cells. They harness the immune system and prevent uncontrolled immune reactions. By inhibiting checkpoint proteins and their ligands, T cells are unleashed, resulting in T cell proliferation, activation and a therapeutic response. It has been noted that PD-L1 is widely expressed in tumor and immune cells of patients with urothelial carcinoma. This in turn helps cancer cells to evade detection from the immune system by binding to the PD-1 receptor on cytotoxic T lymphocytes.

Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®) is a fully humanized, Immunoglobulin G4, anti-PD-1, monoclonal antibody, that binds to the PD-1 receptor and blocks its interaction with ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. By doing so, it unleashes the tumor-specific effector T cells, and is thereby able to undo PD-1 pathway-mediated inhibition of the immune response.

AMBASSADOR trial (Alliance A031501) is a randomized Phase 3 study, conducted to evaluate whether Pembrolizumab could enhance Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Overall Survival (OS) in patients with high-risk Muscle Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma (MIUC) after radical surgery, compared to observation alone. This study enrolled 702 patients with high-risk MIUC who underwent radical surgery (cystectomy or nephroureterectomy) within 4-16 weeks before registration. Patients were considered to have high-risk MIUC if they were not eligible for or declined neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy and had pT3 or higher, or pN+, or microscopic positive surgical margins, or if they have persistent muscle-invasive disease (defined as a pathological stage of ypT2 or higher or ypN+ or microscopic positive surgical margins) despite the receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy at the time of radical surgery. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio, to receive Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for 1 year (N=354) or to undergo observation (N=348). Both treatment groups were well balanced and stratification factors for randomization included PD-L1 status (positive or negative, with positivity defined as a Combined Positive Score of 10 or more using the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay), prior receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and pathological stage. The median age was 69 years and patients with upper tract and urethral urothelial carcinoma were included in this study. The coPrimary endpoints were DFS and OS, and key Secondary endpoints included DFS and OS stratified by PD-L1 expression.

As of July 2024, with a median follow-up of 44.8 months, the median DFS was significantly longer in the Pembrolizumab group (29.6 months) compared to the observation group (14.2 months). The Hazard Ratio (HR) for disease progression or death was 0.73 (P=0.003), demonstrating a clear benefit. The DFS benefit was observed across all subgroups, regardless of age, PD-L1 status, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathological stage, or tumor location. PD-L1 status therefore should not be used to select patients for treatment with adjuvant Pembrolizumab. The Overall Survival data remain immature. The safety profile of Pembrolizumab was consistent with previous studies, though Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more frequent in the Pembrolizumab group (50.6%) compared to the observation group (31.6%).

In conclusion, adjuvant Pembrolizumab significantly improves DFS in patients with high-risk MIUC post-radical surgery, offering a promising treatment option for this population. These results, together with emerging tools such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may enable more precise patient selection and stratification, optimizing the use of adjuvant therapies. As Overall Survival data mature and biomarker research evolves, the role of Pembrolizumab may become even more defined within the broader context of urothelial carcinoma treatment.

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus Observation in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma. Apolo AB, Ballman KV, Sonpavde G, et al. N Engl J Med 2025;392:45-55

Ongoing Benefit with Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that in the United States for 2025, about 84,870 new cases of bladder cancer will be diagnosed and approximately 17,420 patients will die of the disease. Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men, but it is less common in women. Bladder cancer accounts for 90% of urothelial cancers, and urothelial cancer can also be found in the renal pelvis, ureter and urethra. Approximately 12% of urothelial cancer cases at diagnosis are locally advanced or metastatic.

Patients with urothelial carcinoma are currently treated in the first line setting with a Platinum based chemotherapy regimen, and a checkpoint Inhibitor (PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor) in the second line setting. However, approximately 50% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma are ineligible for Cisplatin-based chemotherapy due to toxicities, and responses are rarely durable. There is therefore a critical need for effective and tolerable first line treatment options in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (PADCEV®) is a first-in-class Antibody-Drug Conjugate (ADC) that targets Nectin-4, a cell adhesion molecule highly expressed in urothelial cancers and other solid tumors. Nectin-4 has been implicated in tumor cell growth and proliferation. Following binding to Nectin-4 on the cell surface, Enfortumab vedotin becomes internalized and is processed by lysosomes, with the liberation of its cytotoxic payload, MonoMethyl Auristatin E (MMAE), which in turn disrupts microtubule assembly, leading to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. Enfortumab vedotin resulted in significantly longer Overall Survival, Progression Free Survival, and a higher Overall Response Rate, than standard chemotherapy, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, who had previously received Platinum-based treatment and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Preclinical studies with Enfortumab vedotin have shown hallmarks of immune cell death potentially augmented by PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the rationale for this clinical trial was based on results from a previous cohort study.

Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®) is a fully humanized, Immunoglobulin G4, anti-PD-1, monoclonal antibody, that binds to the PD-1 receptor and blocks its interaction with ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. By doing so, it unleashes the tumor-specific effector T cells, and is thereby able to undo PD-1 pathway-mediated inhibition of the immune response. Pembrolizumab is the first agent to improve Overall Survival over chemotherapy, in the second line setting, for patients with recurrent, advanced urothelial carcinoma, and a significant proportion of patients who respond, have very durable responses.

EV-302 is a landmark Phase III, global, open-label, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Enfortumab vedotin and Pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy, in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. A total of 886 eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of Enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 and Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV on day 1 of every 3-week cycle (N=442) or chemotherapy consisting of Gemcitabine and either Cisplatin or Carboplatin (N=444), determined on the basis of eligibility to receive Cisplatin, for a maximum of 6 cycles. The maximum number of Pembrolizumab cycles allowed was 35 and there was no maximum number of cycles set for Enfortumab vedotin. The treatment groups were well balanced. The median age was 69 yrs and randomization was stratified according to eligibility to receive Cisplatin (eligible or ineligible), PD-L1 expression status (High-CPS 10 or more versus Low-CPS less than 10), and liver metastases (present or absent). The co-Primary end points were Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR). Secondary end points included Overall Response Rate (ORR) as assessed by BICR, Duration of Response, and Safety.

In the primary analysis of EV-302 (KEYNOTE-A39) study, the combination of Enfortumab vedotin plus Pembrolizumab group nearly doubled median PFS (12.5 months versus 6.3 months) and OS (31.5 months versus to 16.1 months), when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

In this report, the researchers reported the outcomes of EV-302 study after 1 year of additional follow-up (about 2.5 years of median follow-up), and an exploratory analysis of patients with confirmed Complete Response.

The PFS benefit with Enfortumab vedotin plus Pembrolizumab was maintained with an additional year of follow-up (12.5 versus 6.3 months; HR=0.48; P<0.00001). The OS benefit was also maintained with Enfortumab vedotin plus Pembrolizumab with a 49% reduction in the risk of death, when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (33.8 versus 15.9 months; HR=0.51; P<0.00001). The PFS and OS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups, including the Cisplatin-eligible and ineligible patients.

The ORR in the Enfortumab vedotin plus Pembrolizumab group was 67.5% versus 44.2% in the chemotherapy group (P<0.0.001) and the median Duration of Response was 23.3 months versus 7.0 months, respectively. A Complete Response was observed in 30.4% of patients treated with Enfortumab vedotin plus Pembrolizumab versus 14.5% among patients treated with chemotherapy. The median duration of Complete Response was not reached for Enfortumab vedotin plus Pembrolizumab and 15.2 months for chemotherapy. The probability of maintaining a Complete Response at 2 years with Enfortumab vedotin plus Pembrolizumab was 74%. For patients with a confirmed Complete Response, the 2-year PFS and OS rates were 78% and 95% in the Enfortumab vedotin plus Pembrolizumab group, respectively, versus 54% and 86% in the chemotherapy group, respectively.

It was concluded that, these data with longer follow up suggests that treatment with Enfortumab vedotin plus Pembrolizumab resulted in significantly superior outcomes, compared to chemotherapy, in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, emerging as a potential new standard of care, irrespective of Cisplatin eligibility. The results from this study mark a significant paradigm shift in the management of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, offering new hope for patients and clinicians alike.

EV-302: Updated analysis from the phase 3 global study of enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab (EV+P) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). Powles T, Van Der Heijden M, Loriot Y, et al. 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Abstract 664. Journal of Clinical Oncology. Volume 43, Number 5_suppl February 2025.

Late Breaking Abstract – 2025 ASCO GI Symposium: Personalized Neoantigen Vaccine in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: ColoRectal Cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed in both men and women in the United States. The American Cancer Society estimates that approximately 154,270 new cases of CRC will be diagnosed in the United States in 2025 and about 52,900 patients will die of the disease. The lifetime risk of developing CRC is about 1 in 23.

The majority of CRC cases (about 75 %) are sporadic whereas the remaining 25 % of the patients have a family history of the disease. Only 5-6 % of patients with CRC with a family history background are due to inherited mutations in major CRC genes, while the rest are the result of accumulation of both genetic mutations and epigenetic modifications of several genes. Colorectal Cancer is a heterogeneous disease classified by its genetics, and even though the diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer in the US is dropping among people 65 years and older, the incidence has been rising in the younger age groups, with 12% of Colorectal Cancer cases diagnosed in people under age 50.

The DNA MisMatchRepair (MMR) system is responsible for molecular surveillance and works as an editing tool that identifies errors within the microsatellite regions of DNA and removes them. Defective MMR system leads to MSI (Micro Satellite Instability) and hypermutation, with the expression of tumor-specific neoantigens at the surface of cancer cells, triggering an enhanced antitumor immune response. MSI is therefore a hallmark of defective/deficient DNA MisMatchRepair (dMMR) system and occurs in 15% of all colorectal cancers. MSI testing is performed using a PCR or NGS based assay and MSI-High refers to instability at 2 or more of the 5 mononucleotide repeat markers and MSI-Low refers to instability at 1 of the 5 markers. Patients are considered Micro Satellite Stable (MSS) if no instability occurs. MSI-L and MSS are grouped together because MSI-L tumors are uncommon and behave similar to MSS tumors.

Checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer treatment. They are however not as effective in patients with “cold tumors” (MSS), as these tumors effectively hide themselves from the immune system and do not trigger an immune response following treatment with checkpoint inhibitors.

GRANITE is a personalized neoantigen immunotherapy designed to trigger a strong T-cell immune response against a patient’s tumor. A biopsy of the tumor is performed to identify unique mutations (neoantigens) present in the tumor of patients. An AI platform, EDGE, developed and designed by Gritstone Bio is able to identify critical T-cell vaccine targets, and predict which neoantigens are most likely to be recognized by the immune system of patients. The system has an 80% accuracy rate in selecting the top 20 most immunogenic neoantigens, most likely to generate an immune response in a given patient. The selected neoantigens are incorporated into a chimpanzee adenovirus-based primer vaccine and a Self-Amplifying mRNA (SAM) booster vaccine to train the immune system that leads to an induction of both cytotoxic T-lymphocyte and memory T-cell dependent immune responses, that specifically target and destroy the patients cancer cells that express these neoantigens. This vaccine (GRANITE) is administered via intramuscular injection alongside immune checkpoint inhibitors. Thus GRANITE primes the immune system to recognize and attack these tumors. This vaccine is customized for each patient based on the unique mutations of their tumor. In essence, GRANITE helps make the “cold tumors” visible to the immune system, potentially improving patient outcomes.

GRANITE immunotherapy regimen was evaluated in combination with Nivolumab and Ipilimumab, and compared to the combination of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab alone in a Phase1/2 involving patients with advanced metastatic solid tumors. This study demonstrated robust T-cell activation against targeted neoantigens with no dose-limiting toxicities, and over 50% of patients had a reduction in their circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and improved Overall Survival (Palmer CD, et al. Nature 2022).

GRANITE immunotherapy regimen is now being studied as first line metastatic treatment in a randomized Phase 2 trial, among patients with Microsatellite-Stable (MSS) Colorectal cancer patients. GO-010 is an ongoing Phase 2/3, randomized, open-label, multi-center study evaluating the efficacy and safety of GRANITE immunotherapy regimen in combination with Checkpoint Inhibitors (CPIs) as an add-on to Fluoropyrimidine/Bevacizumab as maintenance treatment, following first line therapy with FOLFOX/Bevacizumab, in patients with mCRC. In this study, 104 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio, and 67 patients were included in this treated analysis with 39 patients assigned to the GRANITE arm and 28 patients to the control arm. (36 patients withdrew from the study primarily due to early progressive disease or withdrawal of consent, and one patient has yet to begin study treatment). The vaccine manufacturing success rate was 100%. Both treatment groups were well balanced with regards to demographics, clinical characteristics stage, sidedness and presence of liver metastases. Approximately 75% of patients had liver metastases. For the Phase 2 portion of this study, the Primary end point being assessed is molecular response defined as 30% or more decrease from baseline in ctDNA. For the Phase 3 portion of this trial, the Primary end point is Progression Free Survival (PFS). Secondary end points for both Phase 2 and 3 include Adverse Events, Overall Survival (OS), Overall Response Rate (ORR), Duration of Response (DoR) and Clinical Benefit Rate.

Preliminary data from the Phase 2 portion of a Phase 2/3 study showed a positive early trend in PFS for GRANITE immunotherapy patients with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.82 in all patients, HR of 0.52 in high-risk patients1 (more than 90% with liver metastases). The median PFS was 12 months with GRANITE immunotherapy versus 7 months for the control group. Long-term ctDNA responses aligned with positive PFS trend favoring GRANITE immunotherapy patients versus control patients.

In the high-risk group, between first blood draw (time of randomization) and last blood draw (most recent study visit), the ctDNA shifted from high (more than 2% VAF-Variant Allele Frequency) to low (2% or less VAF) in 56% of patients treated with GRANITE immunotherapy versus 22% of control patients. Progressive disease was observed in 44% versus 78% respectively, within this group.

In the low-risk group of patients whose ctDNA was negative after induction chemotherapy, sustained ctDNA negativity was observed in 67% of GRANITE immunotherapy recipients versus 38% in the control patients. Progressive disease was observed in 11% and 38% of these patients, respectively. GRANITE immunotherapy was well tolerated and vast majority of adverse events were Grade1/2 and no patients discontinued study treatment due to an adverse event.

In conclusion, this preliminary Phase 2 results are highly encouraging and suggested that GRANITE immunotherapy demonstrated positive early PFS and long-term ctDNA responses, compared with Fluoropyrimidine/Bevacizumab alone, in front-line metastatic MSS-Colorectal cancer, providing the rationale for a confirmatory Phase 3 trial.

A randomized phase 2 study of an individualized neoantigen-targeting immunotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic microsatellite stable colorectal cancer (MSS-CRC). Hecht JR, Spira AI, Nguyen AV, et al. J Clin Oncol 43, 2025 (suppl 4; abstr LBA13). DOI 10.1200/JCO.2025.43.4_suppl.LBA13

Survival Benefits with Perioperative IMFINZI® Combined with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that in the United States for 2025, about 84,870 new cases of bladder cancer will be diagnosed and approximately 17,420 patients will die of the disease. Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men, but it is less common in women. Bladder cancer accounts for 90% of urothelial cancers, and urothelial cancer can also be found in the renal pelvis, ureter and urethra. Approximately 12% of urothelial cancer cases at diagnosis are locally advanced or metastatic.

The standard treatment for Cisplatin-eligible patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC) is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy. However, the high relapse rate and risk of death despite this treatment has prompted further research into optimizing outcomes. Perioperative immunotherapy, particularly with immune checkpoint inhibitors, has shown promise in improving these outcomes. Immune checkpoints are cell surface inhibitory proteins/receptors that are expressed on activated T cells. They harness the immune system and prevent uncontrolled immune reactions. By inhibiting checkpoint proteins and their ligands, T cells are unleashed, resulting in T cell proliferation, activation and a therapeutic response. It has been noted that PD-L1 is widely expressed in tumor and immune cells of patients with Urothelial Carcinoma. This in turn helps cancer cells to evade detection from the immune system by binding to the PD-1 receptor on cytotoxic T lymphocytes.

Durvalumab (IMFINZI®) is a selective, high-affinity human IgG1 monoclonal antibody directed against PD-L1 and blocks the interaction of PD-L1 with PD-1 and CD80. A preceding single-group, Phase 2 trial indicated that perioperative Durvalumab, combined with neoadjuvant Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin chemotherapy followed by radical surgery, was both safe and effective. Building on these findings, the Phase 3 NIAGARA trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative Durvalumab combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin), followed by radical cystectomy, compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone followed by radical cystectomy, in Cisplatin-eligible MIBC patients.

The NIAGARA trial was an open-label, randomized, multicenter, Phase 3 study, enrolling 1,063 (N=1063) Cisplatin-eligible patients with Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (clinical stage cT2–T4aN0/1M0). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive one of two treatment regimens. The experimental arm (Durvalumab group) included neoadjuvant Durvalumab 1500 mg IV alongside Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by radical cystectomy and adjuvant Durvalumab monotherapy 1500 mg IV every 4 weeks for up to 8 cycles (N=533). The comparison arm consisted of neoadjuvant Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin followed by radical cystectomy alone, without the addition of Durvalumab (N=530). Patients were stratified by clinical tumor stage (cT2N0 vs more than cT2N0), renal function (CrCl 60 mL/min or more vs 40 or more to less than 60 mL/min), and PD-L1 status (high vs low/negative). The dual Primary endpoints of the trial were Event-Free Survival (EFS) and pathological Complete Response (pCR), with Overall Survival (OS) as a key Secondary endpoint, as well as Metastasis Free Survival and Disease-Specific Survival. Event-Free Survival was defined as the time from randomization until progression that precluded surgery, failure to undergo surgery, recurrence after cystectomy, or death from any cause.

In the pre-planned interim analysis, the results demonstrated a significant improvement in both EFS and OS in the Durvalumab group compared to the chemotherapy-alone group. At 24 months, the estimated EFS was 67.8% in the Durvalumab group, compared to 59.8% in the comparison group (HR=0.68; P<0.001). Furthermore, the estimated OS at 24 months was 82.2% in the Durvalumab group versus 75.2% in the comparison group (HR for death=0.75; P=0.01). A pathological Complete Response (pCR) as assessed by central pathology review was noted in 37.3% of the patients in the Durvalumab group and in 27.5% of those in the comparison group. Notably, the percentage of patients who underwent radical cystectomy was similar between the two groups, with 88% in the Durvalumab group and 83% in the comparison group, indicating that the addition of Durvalumab did not reduce surgical completion rates.

An exploratory post hoc analysis of EFS and OS in patients with pCR versus those without pCR was also performed in the intent-to-treat population. The researchers herein reported additional outcomes and exploratory analysis results from NIAGARA study.

Patients in the Durvalumab group had a 33% reduction in risk of developing distant metastases or death (HR=0.67; P<0.001), and 31% reduction in risk of death from bladder cancer (HR=0.69; P=0.008) versus patients in the comparator group. More patients in the Durvalumab group achieved a pCR at the time of surgery versus the comparator (37% versus 28%) and patients who achieved a pCR had better EFS and OS, compared to those who did not. Patients in the Durvalumab group derived greater EFS and OS benefit versus the comparator group in both pCR group (EFS HR=0.58; OS HR=0.72), reducing the risk of disease progression or death by 42% and the risk of death by 28%, as well as non-pCR group (EFS HR=0.77; OS HR=0.84), reducing the risk of disease progression or death by 23% and risk of death by 16%. The most common immune-related adverse events included hypothyroidism in 10% of patients treated with Durvalumab compared to 1% in the comparator group, and hyperthyroidism in 3% versus 0.8% respectively. All immune mediated adverse events resolved in 41% of affected patients in the Durvalumab group and 44% in the comparator group.

It was concluded that the addition of perioperative Durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved EFS and OS in both pCR and non-pCR groups, compared to chemotherapy alone, without compromising the ability to perform radical cystectomy. Further, perioperative Durvalumab combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy reduced the risk of developing metastases and death from bladder cancer. These results are practice-changing, marking a major advancement in the treatment of MIBC. The findings support the hypothesis that perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitors, by priming the immune system before surgery and targeting residual micrometastatic disease post-surgery, improve long-term clinical outcomes. Biomarkers like circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) could be pivotal in guiding treatment decisions, as emerging data suggests that negative ctDNA status post-neoadjuvant therapy correlates with reduced relapse risk.

Additional efficacy and safety outcomes and an exploratory analysis of the impact of pathological complete response (pCR) on long-term outcomes from NIAGARA. Galsky M, Van Der Heijden M, Catto J, et al. J Clin Oncol 43, 2025 (suppl 5; abstr 659). DOI 10.1200/JCO.2025.43.5_suppl.659

AI Tool SCORPIO Predicts Overall Survival in Patients Receiving Therapy with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

RR

SUMMARY: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically transformed the management and prognosis of various malignancies. By enhancing the ability of the immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells, ICIs have provided significant improvements in treatment outcomes across a range of tumor types.

Currently, Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) and PD-L1 expression are the primary biomarkers approved by the FDA for predicting ICI efficacy. While these biomarkers have shown promise, they exhibit limited accuracy and face significant practical limitations, such as the need for sufficient tumor tissue for TMB analysis and the lack of standardized protocols for PD-L1 ImmunoHistoChemistry (IHC). These challenges underscore the need for a predictive model that is more accessible, cost-effective, and applicable across diverse healthcare settings.

Machine learning is a a branch of artificial intelligence that enables algorithms to learn from data, and identify key patterns and make predictions based on available clinical and biological data. SCORPIO is an AI-based model that was developed to address this clinical need, and provides an accurate and scalable tool for predicting patient responses to ICIs.

Study Design: The present study employed a machine learning approach to predict the efficacy of ICIs across a range of cancer types. By using routine blood tests as well as clinical characteristics, and utilizing data from diverse populations and cancer types, SCORPIO aimed to provide a broadly applicable predictive tool that could be used in real-world clinical settings to guide treatment decisions, with the goal of improving precision medicine. SCORPIO was developed and validated using retrospective data from multiple cohorts, including internal data from two major cancer centers (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Mount Sinai Health System, as well as data from 10 global Phase 3 clinical trials.

Participants: This study encompassed a total of 9,745 patients treated with ICIs across 21 different cancer types. The participants came from diverse backgrounds, including varying ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, comorbidities, and health literacy levels, which added to the robustness of this model and real-world applicability. The study included data from patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (2,000 patients), Mount Sinai Health System (1,159 patients), and global clinical trials (4,447 patients), representing the largest dataset in cancer immunotherapy to date.

Data Collection Methods: The SCORPIO model was trained using routine blood test results and basic clinical variables such as age, gender, cancer type, and prior treatments. The model was validated across multiple datasets to ensure that it could accurately predict both overall survival (OS) and Clinical Benefits (Response Rate and stable disease) for patients treated with ICIs. This study utilized machine learning algorithms to identify patterns in this data and make predictions about patient outcomes.

Analysis Techniques: Time-dependent Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of SCORPIO for OS across different time points (6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months). The performance of this model was compared to existing FDA-approved biomarkers, including TMB and PD-L1 immunostaining, to assess its superiority in predicting patient outcomes.

Results: The SCORPIO model demonstrated strong predictive performance in multiple cohorts. In internal testing, SCORPIO achieved median time-dependent AUC values of 0.763 and 0.759 for predicting OS at various time points, significantly outperforming TMB, which achieved AUC values of 0.503 and 0.543. SCORPIO also outperformed TMB for predicting clinical benefit, with AUCs of 0.714 and 0.641, compared to TMB’s 0.546 and 0.573. Additionally, SCORPIO was able to predict clinical outcomes more accurately than PD-L1 IHC. 
External validation using data from 10 global phase 3 clinical trials and a real-world cohort from Mount Sinai Health System further supported the predictive power of SCORPIO. Despite the heterogeneity in the Mount Sinai Health System cohort, performance of SCORPIO remained consistent, demonstrating its potential for broad applicability in different patient populations and healthcare settings. While SCORPIO performed consistently well for Overall Survival prediction, its ability to predict Clinical Benefit varied across cancer types and cohorts, indicating that while the model is reliable for survival prognosis, there may still be challenges in accurately predicting Response Rate or stable disease in some contexts.

Conclusion: The SCORPIO model represents a significant advancement in the field of cancer immunotherapy. By leveraging routine blood tests and basic clinical data, SCORPIO provides a highly accurate and accessible method for predicting patient response to ICIs, surpassing the performance of existing FDA-approved biomarkers like TMB and PD-L1 IHC. Its consistent performance across diverse patient populations and cancer types makes it a promising tool for precision oncology.

This model could revolutionize the way physicians identify patients who are most likely to benefit from ICIs, offering a cost-effective, scalable alternative to current biomarkers that rely on complex genomic and immunologic assays. The widespread use of SCORPIO in clinical practice could improve patient outcomes by guiding more personalized treatment decisions, especially in settings where resources for advanced biomarker testing are limited. Future studies will focus on further refining the model to enhance its ability to predict clinical benefit across all cancer types and patient cohorts.

Prediction of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy efficacy for cancer using routine blood tests and clinical data. Yoo, S-K, Fitzgerald CW, Cho BA, et al. Nat Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03398-5

Late Breaking Abstract – 2025 ASCO GI Symposium: OPDIVO® Plus YERVOY® Superior to OPDIVO® Alone in MSI-H/MMR Deficient Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

RR

SUMMARY: ColoRectal Cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed in both men and women in the United States. The American Cancer Society estimates that approximately 154,270 new cases of CRC will be diagnosed in the United States in 2025 and about 52,900 patients will die of the disease. The lifetime risk of developing CRC is about 1 in 23.

The majority of CRC cases (about 75 %) are sporadic whereas the remaining 25 % of the patients have a family history of the disease. Only 5-6 % of patients with CRC with a family history background are due to inherited mutations in major CRC genes, while the rest are the result of accumulation of both genetic mutations and epigenetic modifications of several genes. Colorectal Cancer is a heterogeneous disease classified by its genetics, and even though the diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer in the US is dropping among people 65 years and older, the incidence has been rising in the younger age groups, with 12% of Colorectal Cancer cases diagnosed in people under age 50.

The DNA MisMatchRepair (MMR) system is responsible for molecular surveillance and works as an editing tool that identifies errors within the microsatellite regions of DNA and removes them. Defective MMR system leads to MSI (Micro Satellite Instability) and hypermutation, with the expression of tumor-specific neoantigens at the surface of cancer cells, triggering an enhanced antitumor immune response. MSI is therefore a hallmark of defective/deficient DNA MisMatchRepair (dMMR) system and occurs in 15% of all colorectal cancers. Defective MMR can be a sporadic or heritable event. Approximately 65% of the MSI high colon tumors are sporadic and when sporadic, the DNA MMR gene is MLH1. Defective MMR can manifest as a germline mutation occurring in MMR genes including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. This produces Lynch Syndrome often called Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Carcinoma – HNPCC, an Autosomal Dominant disorder that is often associated with a high risk for Colorectal and Endometrial carcinoma, as well as several other malignancies including Ovary, Stomach, Small bowel, Hepatobiliary tract, Brain and Skin. MSI is a hallmark of Lynch Syndrome-associated cancers. MSI high tumors tend to have better outcomes and this has been attributed to the abundance of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in these tumors from increase immunogenicity. These tumors therefore are susceptible to blockade with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

MSI testing is performed using a PCR or NGS based assay and MSI-High refers to instability at 2 or more of the 5 mononucleotide repeat markers and MSI-Low refers to instability at 1 of the 5 markers. Patients are considered Micro Satellite Stable (MSS) if no instability occurs. MSI-L and MSS are grouped together because MSI-L tumors are uncommon and behave similar to MSS tumors. Tumors considered MSI-H have deficiency of one or more of the DNA MMR genes. MMR gene deficiency can be detected by ImmunoHistoChemistry (IHC). NCCN Guidelines recommend MMR or MSI testing for all patients with a history of Colon or Rectal cancer. Unlike Colorectal and Endometrial cancer, where MSI-H/dMMR testing is routinely undertaken, the characterization of Lynch Syndrome across heterogeneous MSI-H/dMMR tumors is unknown.

Nivolumab (OPDIVO®) is a fully human, immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody that binds to the PD-1 receptor and blocks its interaction with PD-L1 and PD-L2, whereas Ipilimumab (YERVOY®) is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that blocks Immune checkpoint protein/receptor CTLA-4 (Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4, also known as CD152). Blocking the Immune checkpoint proteins unleashes the T cells, resulting in T cell proliferation, activation and a therapeutic response. The FDA in 2018, granted accelerated approval to Ipilimumab for use in combination with Nivolumab, based on CheckMate-142, for the treatment of patients with MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC, that has progressed following treatment with a Fluoropyrimidine, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan. The FDA in July, 2017, granted accelerated approval to single agent Nivolumab for treatment of this same group of patients.

The CheckMate 8HW is an ongoing Phase III, multinational, open-label, randomized trial evaluating Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab as compared with Nivolumab alone or chemotherapy, in patients with MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC. In this study, patients with unresectable or mCRC and MSI-H/dMMR status by local testing who had received 0-1 prior line of therapy were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive either Nivolumab monotherapy (N=353), Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab combination therapy (N=354), or the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without Bevacizumab or Cetuximab (N=132). Patients who had previously received two or more prior lines of therapy for unresectable or metastatic disease were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab or Nivolumab alone. In the Nivolumab monotherapy arm, patients received Nivolumab 240 mg IV once every two weeks for six doses, followed by 480 mg IV every four weeks. In the Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab arm, patients were given Nivolumab 240 mg IV plus Ipilimumab 1mg/kg IV every three weeks for four doses, followed by Nivolumab 480 mg IV every four weeks. The median patient age was 64 years and tumor location was in the right colon in two thirds of the patients. Treatments continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity in all treatment groups or a maximum of 2 years. The dual Primary end points were Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as determined by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) comparing Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab to chemotherapy in the first-line therapy setting, and PFS comparing Nivolumab monotherapy to Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab across all lines of therapy, in patients with centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC. At a median follow-up of 31.5 months the results from the prespecified interim analysis (the primary analysis) showed that the PFS outcomes were significantly better with Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab than with chemotherapy (HR=0.21; P<0.001).

The researchers herein reported the first results from the other dual Primary endpoint of PFS for Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Nivolumab monotherapy across all lines of therapy in patients with centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC. Of all the randomized patients 296 in the Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab group and 286 in the Nivolumab monotherapy group had centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR status. With a median follow-up of 47.0 months, Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in PFS by BICR versus Nivolumab monotherapy, with a median PFS Not Reached (NR) in the Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab group, compared to 39.3 months for those on Nivolumab monotherapy (HR=0.62; P= 0.0003). The PFS rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were higher in the Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab group at 76%, 71%, 68% versus 63%, 56%, 51% for Nivolumab monotherapy.

The Objective Response Rate (ORR) was significantly higher with Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab at 71%, compared to 58% with Nivolumab alone (P=0.0011). No new safety concerns were identified

It was concluded that the CheckMate 8HW study met its dual Primary endpoints, with Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS compared to Nivolumab monotherapy across all lines of therapy in MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC. Moreover, Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab was associated with higher ORR, confirming its potential as a new standard of care for patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC. The CheckMate 8HW study is a pivotal contribution to the treatment landscape of MSI-H/dMMR metastatic Colorectal cancer, providing compelling evidence for the use of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in the first-line and beyond.

First results of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) vs NIVO monotherapy for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) from CheckMate 8HW. Andre T, Elez E, Lenz H-J, et al. J Clin Oncol 43, 2025 (suppl 4; abstr LBA143)

Adjuvant KEYTRUDA® Improves Disease Free Survival in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that in the United States for 2024, about 83,190 new cases of bladder cancer were diagnosed and approximately 16,840 patients died of the disease. Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men, but it is less common in women. Bladder cancer accounts for 90% of urothelial cancers, and urothelial cancer can also be found in the renal pelvis, ureter and urethra.

A third of the patients initially present with locally invasive disease. The standard treatment for Cisplatin-eligible patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC) is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy. However, the high relapse rate and risk of death despite this treatment has prompted further research into optimizing outcomes. There is presently no clear consensus with regards to the routine use of adjuvant Cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Further, not all patients are eligible for adjuvant or neoadjuvant Cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Immune checkpoints are cell surface inhibitory proteins/receptors that are expressed on activated T cells. They harness the immune system and prevent uncontrolled immune reactions. By inhibiting checkpoint proteins and their ligands, T cells are unleashed, resulting in T cell proliferation, activation and a therapeutic response. It has been noted that PD-L1 is widely expressed in tumor and immune cells of patients with urothelial carcinoma. This in turn helps cancer cells to evade detection from the immune system by binding to the PD-1 receptor on cytotoxic T lymphocytes.

Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®) is a fully humanized, Immunoglobulin G4, anti-PD-1, monoclonal antibody, that binds to the PD-1 receptor and blocks its interaction with ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. By doing so, it unleashes the tumor-specific effector T cells, and is thereby able to undo PD-1 pathway-mediated inhibition of the immune response.

AMBASSADOR trial (Alliance A031501) is a randomized Phase 3 study, conducted to evaluate whether Pembrolizumab could enhance Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Overall Survival (OS) in patients with high-risk Muscle Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma (MIUC) after radical surgery, compared to observation alone. This study enrolled 702 patients with high-risk MIUC who underwent radical surgery (cystectomy or nephroureterectomy) within 4-16 weeks before registration. Patients were considered to have high-risk MIUC if they were not eligible for or declined neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy and had pT3 or higher, or pN+, or microscopic positive surgical margins, or if they have persistent muscle-invasive disease (defined as a pathological stage of ypT2 or higher or ypN+ or microscopic positive surgical margins) despite the receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy at the time of radical surgery. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio, to receive Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for 1 year (N=354) or to undergo observation (N=348). Both treatment groups were well balanced and stratification factors for randomization included PD-L1 status (positive or negative, with positivity defined as a Combined Positive Score of 10 or more using the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay), prior receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and pathological stage. The median age was 69 years and patients with upper tract and urethral urothelial carcinoma were included in this study. The coPrimary endpoints were DFS and OS, and key Secondary endpoints included DFS and OS stratified by PD-L1 expression.

As of July 2024, with a median follow-up of 44.8 months, the median DFS was significantly longer in the Pembrolizumab group (29.6 months) compared to the observation group (14.2 months). The Hazard Ratio (HR) for disease progression or death was 0.73 (P=0.003), demonstrating a clear benefit. The DFS benefit was observed across all subgroups, regardless of age, PD-L1 status, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathological stage, or tumor location. PD-L1 status therefore should not be used to select patients for treatment with adjuvant Pembrolizumab. The Overall Survival data remain immature. The safety profile of Pembrolizumab was consistent with previous studies, though Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more frequent in the Pembrolizumab group (50.6%) compared to the observation group (31.6%).

In conclusion, adjuvant Pembrolizumab significantly improves DFS in patients with high-risk MIUC post-radical surgery, offering a promising treatment option for this population. These results, together with emerging tools such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may enable more precise patient selection and stratification, optimizing the use of adjuvant therapies. As Overall Survival data mature and biomarker research evolves, the role of Pembrolizumab may become even more defined within the broader context of urothelial carcinoma treatment.

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus Observation in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma. Apolo AB, Ballman KV, Sonpavde G, et al. N Engl J Med 2025;392:45-55

10 Year Survival Benefit in Advanced Melanoma with OPDIVO® plus YERVOY®

RR

SUMMARY: The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2024, about 100,640 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in the United States and 8,290 people died of the disease. The rates of melanoma have been rising rapidly over the past few decades, but this has varied by age.

A better understanding of Immune checkpoints has opened the doors for the discovery of novel immune targets. Immune checkpoints are cell surface inhibitory proteins/receptors that harness the immune system and prevent uncontrolled immune reactions. Survival of cancer cells in the human body may be related to their ability to escape immune surveillance, by inhibiting T lymphocyte activation. Under normal circumstances, inhibition of an intense immune response and switching off the T cells of the immune system is accomplished by Immune checkpoints or gate keepers. With the recognition of Immune checkpoint proteins and their role in suppressing antitumor immunity, antibodies have been developed that target the membrane bound inhibitory Immune checkpoint proteins/receptors such as CTLA-4 (Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4, also known as CD152), PD-1(Programmed cell Death 1), etc. By blocking the Immune checkpoint proteins, T cells are unleashed, resulting in T cell proliferation, activation and a therapeutic response.

YERVOY® (Ipilimumab) is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that blocks Immune checkpoint protein/receptor CTLA-4, and was the first systemic therapy in randomized Phase III trials, to show prolonged Overall Survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma. YERVOY® in a pooled analysis of data from 12 studies showed a 3-year Overall Survival of 26% among treatment naive patients, and survival up to 10 years in approximately 20% of all patients, with advanced melanoma. The two PD-1 inhibitors of interest are OPDIVO® (Nivolumab) and KEYTRUDA® (Pembrolizumab), which are fully human, Immunoglobulin G4, anti-PD-1 targeted monoclonal antibodies that bind to the PD-1 receptor, and block its interaction with ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, following which the tumor-specific effector T cells are unleashed. They are thus able to undo PD-1 pathway-mediated inhibition of the immune response. When compared with YERVOY® in patients with advanced melanoma, PD-1 inhibitors, both OPDIVO® and KEYTRUDA® have demonstrated superior Overall Survival (OS), Progression Free Survival (PFS), and Objective Response Rate (ORR), with a better safety profile. OPDIVO® in combination with YERVOY® in a Phase I study resulted in an Overall Survival of 68% at 3 years among patients with advanced melanoma, regardless of prior therapies.

CheckMate 067 is a double-blind Phase III study in which patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive one of the three regimens: OPDIVO® 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus YERVOY® 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by OPDIVO® 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (N=314); OPDIVO® 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus placebo (N=316); or YERVOY® 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo (N=315). Randomization was stratified according to BRAF mutation status, metastasis stage, and Programmed cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities. The two Primary end points were PFS and OS in the OPDIVO® plus YERVOY® group, and in the OPDIVO® group versus the YERVOY® group.

The researchers had previously reported the results from the 6.5 year analysis, which showed durable improved outcomes with OPDIVO® plus YERVOY®, and OPDIVO® alone, when compared to single agent YERVOY®, among patients with advanced melanoma. The authors in this publication reported the final 10-year results for the CheckMate 067 trial, including results for Overall Survival and Melanoma-Specific Survival, as well as Durability of Response.

With a minimum follow-up of 10 years, median Overall Survival for patients treated with OPDIVO® plus YERVOY® combination therapy was 71.9 months, for those treated with single agent OPDIVO® was 36.9 months, and 19.9 months with single agent YERVOY®. The Hazard Ratio for death was 0.53 for OPDIVO® plus YERVOY® as compared with YERVOY® and was 0.63 for single agent OPDIVO® as compared with YERVOY®. Median Melanoma-Specific Survival was more than 120 months with OPDIVO® plus YERVOY® combination therapy (Not Reached, with 37% of the patients alive at the end of the trial), 49.4 months with single agent OPDIVO®, and 21.9 months with YERVOY®. Among patients who had been alive and progression free at 3 years, 10-year Melanoma-Specific Survival was 96% with OPDIVO® plus YERVOY®, 97% with single agent OPDIVO®, and 88% with YERVOY®.

In conclusion, these 10-year data have shown ongoing survival benefits with OPDIVO® plus YERVOY® and with single agent OPDIVO®, as compared with YERVOY® monotherapy, in patients with advanced melanoma, potentially offering a curative therapy for responding patients.

Final, 10-Year Outcomes with Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Rutkowsk P, et al. for the CheckMate 067 Investigators. N Engl J Med 2025;392:11-22.

FDA Approves OPDIVO Qvantig® for Subcutaneous Injection

RR

SUMMARY: The FDA on December 27, 2024, approved Nivolumab and hyaluronidase-nvhy (OPDIVO Qvantig®) for subcutaneous injection across approved adult, solid tumor Nivolumab indications as monotherapy, monotherapy maintenance following completion of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab (YERVOY®) combination therapy, or in combination with chemotherapy or Cabozantinib. The approval includes indications for renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, esophageal carcinoma, gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. OPDIVO Qvantig® is not indicated in combination with intravenous Ipilimumab.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 81,610 new cases of kidney and renal pelvis cancers were diagnosed in the United States in 2024 and about 14,390 people died from the disease. Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) is by far the most common type of kidney cancer and is about twice as common in men as in women. Modifiable risk factors include smoking, obesity, workplace exposure to certain substances and high blood pressure. The five year survival of patients with advanced RCC is less than 10% and there is a significant unmet need for improved therapies for this disease.

OPDIVO® (Nivolumab) is a fully human, immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody that binds to the PD-1 receptor and blocks its interaction with PD-L1 and PD-L2. Blocking the Immune checkpoint proteins unleashes the T cells, resulting in T cell proliferation, activation, and a therapeutic response. The emergence of immunotherapy has offered new avenues for patients, with Nivolumab demonstrating efficacy across various tumor types. However, the conventional Intravenous (IV) administration of Nivolumab has been associated with significant treatment burden, prompting the exploration of alternative delivery methods. The CheckMate 67T trial aimed to address this challenge by assessing the efficacy and convenience of Subcutaneous (SC) Nivolumab compared to its IV counterpart.

The CheckMate 67T trial is an international, multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase III study, conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of Subcutaneous OPDIVO Qvantig® versus Intravenous delivery of Nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic clear cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC). In this study, a total of 495 patients (N=495) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive Nivolumab 1200 mg SC plus recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (OPDIVO Qvantig®) every 4 weeks (N=248), or Nivolumab 3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks (N=247), until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or completion of 2 years of treatment. The median age was 65 years, 67% were men and enrolled patients had measurable disease that progressed during or after 1–2 prior systemic regimens, had no prior immunotherapy treatment, and had a Karnofsky Performance Score of 70 or more. Hispanic patients accounted for at least 34% of study participants in both treatment arms, ensuring diverse representation.

The Primary objective of the study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of  OPDIVO Qvantig® versus IV delivery of Nivolumab, which included whether blood levels of the drug were comparable in the two groups over time and whether OPDIVO Qvantig® was noninferior to IV Nivolumab. The daily average concentration of the drug in the blood over 28 days and the concentration of the drug at the end of the dosing cycle were measured. Key Secondary endpoint included Objective Response Rate (ORR) by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR).

The trial revealed compelling findings, indicating that OPDIVO Qvantig® not only matched the pharmacokinetic profile (noninferior) and Objective Response Rate of IV Nivolumab, but also drastically reduced administration time. The ORR for the OPDIVO Qvantig® group was noninferior to the Intravenous group, at 24.2% versus 18.2%, respectively. The Median Progression Free Survival was 7.23 months for the OPDIVO Qvantig® group versus 5.65 months for the IV group. The median treatment duration was under 5 minutes for the OPDIVO Qvantig® group, in contrast to the 30-minute infusion sessions required for IV therapy. Local injection site reactions occurred in 8.1% of patients. Reactions were low grade and transient and most deaths were due to disease progression.

It was concluded that Subcutaneous OPDIVO Qvantig® showed comparable pharmacokinetic profile and Overall Response Rates (ORR) compared to Intravenous Nivolumab, in addition to significant reduction in administration time. With over 20 FDA-approved indications for Nivolumab, the convenience of Subcutaneous administration and its potential impact extends far beyond Renal Cell Carcinoma, promising greater accessibility and streamlined treatment experiences for patients nationwide. By alleviating treatment burdens and enhancing efficiency, this innovative formulation heralds a new era in oncology, offering hope to patients and clinicians alike.

Subcutaneous nivolumab (NIVO SC) vs intravenous nivolumab (NIVO IV) in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and safety results from CheckMate 67T. George S, Bourlon MT, Chacon MR, et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology. Volume 42, Number 4_suppl. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2024.42.4_suppl.LBA360.