Abstract
Objective
Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 programmed cell death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in Japanese patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC.
Methods
In this multicentre phase II study, patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC, which had progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy, were treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, intravenously every 2 weeks until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity was observed. The primary end point was independent radiology review committee (IRC) assessed overall response rate (ORR) and the secondary endpoints included ORR (investigator assessed), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response, time to response, best overall response, and safety.
Results
76 patients were enrolled across 19 sites in Japan. The ORR (IRC assessed) was 22.4% (95% CI 14.5% to 32.9%). The median PFS and OS were 2.8 months (95% CI 1.4 to 3.4) and 17.1 months (95% CI 13.3 to 23.0), respectively. The OS rate at 1 year was 68.0% (95% CI 56.2% to 77.3%). Current/former smokers were more responsive to treatment than non-smokers (ORR 29.1% vs 4.8%). Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation wild type/unknown showed higher ORR compared with EGFR mutation-positive patients (ORR 28.6% vs 5.0%) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression was likely associated with higher ORR, longer PFS and OS. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 17 patients; these events resolved or were resolving with appropriate treatment including steroid therapy or discontinuation of nivolumab.
Conclusions
Nivolumab was well tolerated and showed clinical efficacy in Japanese patients with non-squamous NSCLC progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy, especially in those with a history of smoking, wild type/unknown EGFR mutation status or positive PD-L1 expression.
Trial registration number
JapicCTI-132073.
Keywords: nivolumab, non-small cell lung cancer, programmed cell death-1, non-squamous histology, PD-L1
Key questions.
What is already known about this subject?
Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 programmed death receptor-1 blocking antibody.
It is currently approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
What does this study add?
Nivolumab is associated with clinical efficacy and manageable tolerability in Japanese patients with advanced/recurrent non-squamous NSCLC.
Patients with programmed cell death ligand-1-positive, current or former smokers, and patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation wild type/unknown can experience greater benefit with nivolumab.
How might this impact on clinical practice?
Nivolumab may be effectively used in the treatment of Japanese patients with advanced/recurrent non-squamous NSCLC and further studies with a larger patient population are warranted.
Introduction
Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. In Japan, 113 237 cases of malignant neoplasm of the lungs are reported annually, with death reported in 73 396 of these cases.1 2 Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85–90% of the reported lung cancer cases and is further classified based on histology as squamous or non-squamous NSCLC.3 Treatment of stage IIIB/IV or recurrent NSCLC progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy remains a challenge as therapeutic efficacy of currently available treatment regimens is limited.4–6
Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) is a receptor expressed on the surface of activated T cells;7 it binds to its ligands programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and PD-L2, causing downregulation of the activated T cells.8 Expression of PD-L1 in NSCLC generates an immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment and promotes tumour immune escape, thus leading to poor prognosis of the disease.9 Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 anti-PD-1 blocking monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of NSCLC. The randomised phase III CheckMate-057 study conducted globally except in Japan, Korea and Taiwan compared nivolumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC with disease progression during or after platinum-containing doublet chemotherapy and reported superior efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab over docetaxel.10 The present study evaluated the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in Japanese patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, which progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy.
Patients and methods
Study design
This multicentre, open-label, phase II study (see online supplementary figure S1A) conducted in Japan enrolled adults (aged ≥20 years), with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–1, histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC (according to Union for International Cancer Control-TNM Classifications, Seventh Edition11) or recurrent Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) after surgical resection. Eligible patients had (1) ≥1 measurable lesion by RECIST criteria (V.1.1); (2) a history of prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation wild type/unknown and an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation negative/unknown; or two regimens of platinum-containing chemotherapy and any EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor for EGFR mutation-positive patients or two regimens of platinum-containing chemotherapy and any ALK inhibitor for ALK translocation-positive patients and percutaneous oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≥94%. Treatment could continue beyond initial disease progression if the investigator assessed that the patient was having clinical benefit and did not have an unacceptable level of side effects from the study drug.
esmoopen-2016-000108supp001.pdf (159.2KB, pdf)
Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg administered intravenously every 2 weeks in each 6-week cycle until radiographically confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each study site and was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to the study. The data cut-off date was 17 December 2015 (Clinical trial registration: JapicCTI-132073).
Efficacy assessments
Tumour response was assessed during the treatment and follow-up periods at predefined time points according to the RECIST guidelines (V.1.1). The primary end point was the independent radiology review committee (IRC) assessed confirmed overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included confirmed ORR (investigator assessed), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), time to response, best overall response (BOR) and change in tumour size.
Safety assessments
Adverse events (AEs) reported during the study were rated using the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, V.4.0. Select AEs (those with a potential immunological cause) were grouped according to prespecified categories.
Subgroup analysis
A prespecified subgroup analysis for ORR and a post-hoc subgroup analysis for PFS and OS were performed to determine the association between these efficacy variables and the patients' age, gender, ECOG performance status, brain metastasis, disease stage, smoking status, and EGFR mutation status.
PD-L1 analysis
Tumour PD-L1 expression was assessed retrospectively in pretreatment (archival or recent) tumour-biopsy specimens using a validated, automated immunohistochemical assay (Dako North America) that used a rabbit anti-human PD-L1 antibody (clone 28–8, Epitomics). Tumour PD-L1 expression was confirmed when the tumour cell membranes were stained (at any intensity) at predetermined expression levels of ≥1%, ≥5%, and ≥10% in a section that included at least 100 tumour cells that could be evaluated.
Statistical analysis
The expected response rate for nivolumab was set at 20%. Assuming a threshold response rate of 9%,6 67 patients were needed in order to ensure a power of ≥80% at a one-sided significance level of 0.025 in binominal tests (normal approximation). If a tumour response was achieved in at least 11 of the 67 patients, the null hypothesis was rejected. The study planned to enrol 75 patients to allow for non-evaluable patients.
The baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the study were summarised using frequency distributions and summary statistics. The primary efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in all patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. AEs and Grade observed between the date of the first administration of nivolumab and 28 days after the last dose or the start of subsequence anti-cancer therapy after the last dose, whichever comes first, were tabulated.
Results
The study enrolled 76 patients from 19 sites in Japan between April and October 2013 (table 1, online supplementary figure S1B). The number of patients with EGFR mutation-positive status was 20 (26.3%). After discontinuation of treatment, 53.9% of the patients received subsequent systemic cancer therapy. 21.1% of the patients received subsequent docetaxel (see online supplementary table S7).
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics and prior treatment received by the study patients
| Baseline characteristics | N=76 |
|---|---|
| Age, years | |
| Median | 64.0 |
| Range | 39–78 |
| Age category, n (%) (years) | |
| <65 | 40 (52.6) |
| ≥65 | 36 (47.4) |
| Gender, n (%) | |
| Males | 49 (64.5) |
| Females | 27 (35.5) |
| ECOG PS, n (%) | |
| 0 | 28 (36.8) |
| 1 | 48 (63.2) |
| Tumour type, n (%) | |
| Large cell carcinoma | 2 (2.6) |
| Adenocarcinoma | 74 (97.4) |
| Disease stage, n (%) | |
| IIIB | 0 (0.0) |
| IV | 62 (81.6) |
| Recurrent | 14 (18.4) |
| Brain metastasis, n (%) | |
| Yes | 21 (27.6) |
| No | 55 (72.4) |
| Prior systemic regimens, n (%) | |
| 1 | 57 (75.0) |
| 2 | 19 (25.0) |
| Smoking status, n (%) | |
| Never | 21 (27.6) |
| Former | 51 (67.1) |
| Current | 4 (5.3) |
| EGFR mutation status, n (%) | |
| Positive | 20 (26.3) |
| Wild type or unknown | 56 (73.7) |
| Prior treatment, n (%) | |
| Platinum-containing chemotherapy | 76 (100.0) |
| Carboplatin | 40 (52.6) |
| Cisplatin | 34 (44.7) |
| Carboplatin+cisplatin | 2 (2.6) |
| EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor | 20 (26.3) |
| Gefitinib | 12 (15.8) |
| Erlotinib | 7 (9.2) |
| Afatinib | 1 (1.3) |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; PS, performance status.
Efficacy
The IRC-assessed and investigator-assessed ORRs were 22.4% (95% CI 14.5% to 32.9%) and 25.0% (95% CI 16.6% to 35.8%), respectively (table 2). The IRC assessed disease control rate (complete response (CR)+partial response (PR)+stable disease (SD)) was 47.4%.
Table 2.
Tumour response and survival in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC treated with nivolumab
| Best overall response | IRC assessed, n (%) | Investigator assessed, n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| CR | 2 (2.6) | 1 (1.3) |
| PR | 15 (19.7) | 18 (23.7) |
| Stable disease | 19 (25.0) | 17 (22.4) |
| Progressive disease | 38 (50.0) | 40 (52.6) |
| Not evaluable | 1 (1.3) | 0 (0) |
| No measurable lesion | 1 (1.3) | 0 (0) |
| ORR (CR+PR), % (95% CI) | 17, 22.4% (14.5% to 32.9%) | 19, 25.0% (16.6% to 35.8%) |
| Progression-free survival (IRC assessed) | ||
| Median, months (95% CI) | 2.8 (1.4 to 3.4) | |
| Range, months | 0.4–31.4* | |
| Rate at 1 year, % (95% CI) | 24.2 (14.9 to 34.7) | |
| Overall survival | ||
| Median, months (95% CI) | 17.1 (13.3 to 23.0) | |
| Range, months | 0.9–31.9* | |
| Rate at 1 year, % (95% CI) | 68.0 (56.2 to 77.3) | |
| Time to response | ||
| Responders, n | 17 | |
| Median, months (range) | 1.4 (1.3–14.8) | |
| Duration of response | ||
| Median, months (range) | NR (1.6*–29.1*) | |
*A censored value.
CR, complete response; IRC, independent radiology review committee; NR, not reached; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; ORR, overall response rate; PR, partial response.
The lower limit of the 95% CI of the ORR with nivolumab exceeded the threshold response rate of 9% (null hypothesis) which was based on the ORR (8.8%) for docetaxel.6 No substantial difference was observed between the IRC and investigators' assessment of PFS (median PFS (IRC assessment) 2.8 months (95% CI 1.4 to 3.4); (investigator's assessment) 2.8 months (95% CI 1.4 to 3.4); figure 1A). The median OS was 17.1 months (95% CI 13.3 to 23.0; figure 1B), corresponding with an OS rate at 1 year of 68.0% (95% CI 56.2% to 77.3%). Tumour size shrinkage was observed in >50% of patients and the median DOR was not reached (range 1.6–29.1 months; figure 1C, D). The median time to response was 1.4 months (range 1.3–14.8) in the 17 patients with treatment response. The median follow-up for OS was 16.6 months (range 0.9–31.9).
Figure 1.
Efficacy of nivolumab in Japanese patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (A) Kaplan-Meier curve for PFS, (B) Kaplan-Meier curve for OS, (C) duration of response (arrows indicate censored data), and (D) change in tumour size from baseline. CR, complete response; OS, overall survival; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free survival; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.
Safety
Treatment-related AEs were observed in 64 patients (84.2%) during the study (table 3). Treatment-related AEs reported in ≥10% of patients were malaise (n=11, 14.5%), had pyrexia (n=11, 14.5%), rash (n=11, 14.5%), decreased appetite (n=11, 14.5%), fatigue (n=9, 11.8%), nausea (n=9, 11.8%), and pruritus (n=8, 10.5%). Events in which interstitial shadows was confirmed by chest CT were reported in six patients (interstitial lung disease (n=4, 5.3%), lung disorder (n=2, 2.6%)). Treatment-related AEs of ≥grade 3 were observed in 17 patients (22.4%) and included interstitial lung disease, colitis, liver disorder, and pruritus (table 3).
Table 3.
A summary of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) with an incidence of ≥5% in the study population, and treatment-related select AEs
| All grade |
Grade 3–4 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment-related AEs, n (%) | n | Per cent | n | Per cent |
| Overall | 64 | 84.2 | 17 | 22.4 |
| Malaise | 11 | 14.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Pyrexia | 11 | 14.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Rash | 11 | 14.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Decreased appetite | 11 | 14.5 | 1 | 1.3 |
| Fatigue | 9 | 11.8 | 1 | 1.3 |
| Nausea | 9 | 11.8 | 0 | 0 |
| Pruritus | 8 | 10.5 | 1 | 1.3 |
| Hypothyroidism | 7 | 9.2 | 0 | 0 |
| Lymphocyte count decreased | 7 | 9.2 | 3 | 3.9 |
| Constipation | 6 | 7.9 | 0 | 0 |
| Diarrhoea | 5 | 6.6 | 0 | 0 |
| Dizziness | 5 | 6.6 | 1 | 1.3 |
| Arthralgia | 4 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Dermatitis acneiform | 4 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Hyponatraemia | 4 | 5.3 | 2 | 2.6 |
| Interstitial lung disease | 4 | 5.3 | 2 | 2.6 |
| Platelet count decreased | 4 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Rash maculopapular | 4 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Stomatitis | 4 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Vomiting | 4 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Treatment-related select AEs | ||||
| Endocrine disorders | 11 | 14.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Infusion reactions | 3 | 3.9 | 0 | 0 |
| Gastrointestinal toxicity | 7 | 9.2 | 1 | 1.3 |
| Hepatotoxicity | 5 | 6.6 | 1 | 1.3 |
| Pulmonary toxicity* | 6 | 7.9 | 2 | 2.6 |
| Nephrotoxicity | 4 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Skin toxicity | 22 | 28.9 | 1 | 1.3 |
AEs and grade observed between the start date of the first administration of the study drug and 28 days after the last dose or the start date of subsequence anticancer therapy after the last dose whichever comes first were tabulated.
*Pulmonary toxicity included lung disorder.
Serious treatment-related AEs developed in 15 patients (19.7%); these events resolved or were resolving with appropriate treatment including steroid therapy or discontinuation of nivolumab (see online supplementary table S1).
Twelve patients (15.8%) were withdrawn from treatment due to treatment-related AEs (see online supplementary table S2). No treatment-related deaths were reported, but two patients (2.6%) died due to an aggravated underlying disease and cerebral infarction within 28 days after the last dose or shortly before starting post-study treatment after the last dose.
Subgroup analysis
The subgroup analysis showed an association between ORR and smoking history. The ORR was significantly higher in current/former smokers than non-smokers (odds ratio [OR] 8.21; 95% CI 1.01 to 66.40). In contrast, other factors were not associated with ORR (table 4). The HR for PFS and OS for non-smokers relative to current/former smokers was 0.45 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.80; see online supplementary table S3A) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.35; see online supplementary table S3B).
Table 4.
Subset analysis for IRC assessed ORR by baseline characteristics of the patients and PD-L1 expression level
| Baseline characteristics/PD-L1 expression | Number of responders (n/N) | ORR (%) | 95% CI | OR* | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||||
| <65 | 12/40 | 30.0 | 18.1 to 45.4 | 2.66 | 0.83 to 8.49 |
| ≥65 | 5/36 | 13.9 | 6.1 to 28.7 | ||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 12/49 | 24.5 | 14.6 to 38.1 | 1.43 | 0.44 to 4.59 |
| Female | 5/27 | 18.5 | 8.2 to 36.7 | ||
| ECOG PS | |||||
| 0 | 5/28 | 17.9 | 7.9 to 35.6 | 0.65 | 0.20 to 2.10 |
| 1 | 12/48 | 25.0 | 14.9 to 38.8 | ||
| Brain metastasis | |||||
| Yes | 4/21 | 19.0 | 7.7 to 40.0 | 0.76 | 0.22 to 2.66 |
| No | 13/55 | 23.6 | 14.4 to 36.3 | ||
| Disease stage | |||||
| IV | 13/62 | 21.0 | 12.7 to 32.6 | 0.66 | 0.18 to 2.46 |
| Recurrent | 4/14 | 28.6 | 11.7 to 54.6 | ||
| Smoking status† | |||||
| Yes | 16/55 | 29.1 | 18.8 to 42.1 | 8.21 | 1.01 to 66.40 |
| No | 1/21 | 4.8 | 0.8 to 22.7 | ||
| EGFR mutation status | |||||
| Positive | 1/20 | 5.0 | 0.9 to 23.6 | 0.13 | 0.02 to 1.07 |
| Wild type or unknown | 16/56 | 28.6 | 18.4 to 41.5 | ||
| PD-L1 expression level | |||||
| ≥1% | 9/27 | 33.3 | 18.6 to 52.2 | 1.67 | 0.37 to 7.60 |
| <1% | 3/13 | 23.1 | 8.2 to 50.3 | ||
| ≥5% | 9/19 | 47.4 | 27.3 to 68.3 | 5.40 | 1.18 to 24.64 |
| <5% | 3/21 | 14.3 | 5.0 to 34.6 | ||
| ≥10% | 9/18 | 50.0 | 29.0 to 71.0 | 6.33 | 1.37 to 29.20 |
| <10% | 3/22 | 13.6 | 4.7 to 33.3 | ||
| Not quantifiable | 2/5 | 40.0 | 11.8 to 76.9 | ||
*Odds ratio of first category relative to second category.
†Smoking status was classified as current/former smokers (yes) or never smokers (no).
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; IRC, independent radiology review committee; ORR, overall response rate; PD-L1, programmed cell death ligand-1; PS, performance status.
A total of 20 patients were positive for EGFR mutation. Although the ORR in these patients did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.07), it was higher in EGFR mutation wild type/unknown than positive patients (28.6% (n=16/56) vs 5.0% (n=1/20); table 4). Interestingly, one patient who had response to nivolumab in the EGFR mutation-positive group had a smoking history (see online supplementary table S4). The HR for OS of EGFR mutation-positive patients relative to EGFR mutation wild type/unknown patients was 2.10 (95% CI 1.14 to 3.88; see online supplementary table S3B). Further, stratification of ORR by smoking history and EGFR mutation status showed that EGFR mutation wild type or unknown/current or former smokers had highest response rate (ORR 31.9%, n=15/47), whereas none of EGFR mutation-positive/non-smokers responded to nivolumab treatment.
The association between response and OS was also examined. The survival rate at 24 months was 88.2% in the CR/PR (n=17) group, 36.8% in the SD (n=19) group and 13.5% in the progressive disease (PD, n=38) group (see online supplementary figure S2B). Median OS of patients with PD, SD, and CR/PR after nivolumab treatment was 12.4 months, 17.1 months, and not reached, respectively. PFS in patients with nivolumab treatment based on BOR is shown online supplementary figure S2A. Survivors with CR/PR at 24 months (n=15) included PD-L1-negative patients (n=2), EGFR mutation-positive patients (n=1), and non-smokers (n=1; see online supplementary table S4).
PD-L1 subgroup analysis
Of the 76 patients included in the study, 45 (59.2%) patients had a tissue sample collected at baseline, of which the PD-L1 levels were quantifiable in 40 (88.9%) patients. The total number of patients positive for PD-L1 expression of 1%, 5%, and 10% were 27 (67.5%), 19 (47.5%), and 18 (45.0%), respectively. Higher PD-L1 status was associated with better outcomes (table 4, online supplementary table S5). The subset analysis for ORR, PFS and OS by EGFR and PD-L1 status is shown in online supplementary table S6.
Discussion
In the present study, nivolumab treatment resulted in an ORR of 22.4%, with a median PFS of 2.8 months and median OS of 17.1 months. The median OS observed in this study was well above median OS values previously reported (12.2 and 9.9 months).10 12 Tumour size shrinkage was observed in >50% of patients; patients with CR/PR showed long DOR and the treatment was well tolerated. These results clearly coincide with previously reported results of nivolumab and other immune checkpoint inhibitors.10 12–15
Consistent with an earlier report,12 treatment-related AEs were reported in 84.2% of patients in this study. These AEs resolved after discontinuation of nivolumab or with appropriate treatment, with no treatment-related deaths. Thus, continuous monitoring of patients can ensure early detection and appropriate clinical management of any treatment-related AEs and maintain overall safety.
The Kaplan-Meier curve of responders showed that nearly 90% of patients survived at 24 months, suggesting that responders benefited with nivolumab treatment. Additionally, 36.8% of patients with SD survived at 24 months. Future studies with biomarker analysis are needed which can be expanded to both responders and patients with SD, if OS in these patients is significantly longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel.
The results of the study also showed that EGFR mutation status and smoking status were associated with greater efficacy of nivolumab. The ORR was significantly higher in current/former smokers than never smokers and positive EGFR mutations were associated with reduced OS in the treated patients. Thus, smoking and EGFR mutation status seem to be a predictive factor of nivolumab efficacy.
It has been reported that NSCLC in smokers has a distinct mutation signature leading to increased neoantigen generation which contributes to the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors so that former or current smokers with NSCLC have a significantly higher response rate to PD-1 inhibitors compared with patients with minimal/no tobacco exposure.16–18 Assuming that NSCLC with a driver gene mutation may harbour fewer mutations than smokers, EGFR mutation-positive tumours may have less neoantigen and may be less responsive to nivolumab. However, in this study, characteristics of 17 patients who showed CR/PR with nivolumab suggested that EGFR mutation-positive patients or never smokers also respond to nivolumab. Thus, patient selection by smoking and/or EGFR mutation status needs to be carefully evaluated in the near future.
In the present study, although only 52.6% of patients were evaluated for PD-L1 status, the ORR of PD-L1-positive patients was higher compared with PD-L1-negative patients. These results are in accordance with previous studies, including one where nivolumab was associated with greater efficacy in PD-L1-positive patients while nivolumab and docetaxel had similar efficacies in PD-L1-negative patients.10 Despite some inconsistencies across studies, the association between higher clinical activity in response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and PD-L1 tumour overexpression was reported in a pooled analysis of seven clinical studies in pretreated NSCLC patients.19 In the present study, the rate of PD-L1-expression was higher compared with the Checkmate-057 study (67.5% vs 53.2%), which could be considered responsible for the longer OS. In contrast, the results of the present study showed that even PD-L1-negative patients responded to nivolumab treatment, suggesting that these patients may still benefit from nivolumab treatment.
The main limitations of the study were the small sample size and the absence of a comparator group; this study was designed as an open-label study with no control group with the intention of providing benefit to all patients included in the study.
Overall, the results of the present study are in line with the outcomes of the CheckMate-057 study and demonstrate that nivolumab is associated with clinical efficacy and manageable tolerability in Japanese patients with advanced/recurrent non-squamous NSCLC and patients with PD-L1-positive, current or former smokers, and patients with EGFR mutation wild type/unknown can experience greater benefit with nivolumab. Further studies with larger patient populations and comparator groups are warranted.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all of the patients who participated in this study and their families as well as all investigators, physicians, nurses and clinical research coordinators who helped with this study. They would also like to thank Dr Hironobu Minami (Kobe University, Hyogo) who was the medical consultant as well as Dr Noriyuki Masuda (Kitasato University, Kanagawa), Dr Yoichi Nakanishi (Kyusyu University, Fukuoka), Dr Masashi Takahashi (Yujin-Yamazaki Hospital, Siga) and Dr Terufumi Kato (Kanagawa Cancer Center, Kanagawa) for their strict review of the clinical data as members of the Independent Data-Monitoring Committee. They also acknowledge the statistical support of Akira Takazawa (Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Osaka). They thank Nishad Parkar, PhD, and Cécile Duchesnes, PhD, of Springer Healthcare Communications for preparing the outline and first and subsequent drafts of this manuscript.
Footnotes
Contributors: TTam contributed to the study design. MN, THid, SA, HSakai , KN, TTak, NN, HSaka, MT, MM, YO, HN, THir, HT, SF, KT, KG, MS, HI and KM contributed to patient recruitment and data collection. All authors approved the final version of the report.
Funding: This study was supported by Ono Pharmaceutical Co.
Competing interests: MN received honoraria from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical and AstraZeneca. MN also has been a consultant/advisor for Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Daiichi Sankyo, and received research funding from Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Astellas Pharma and AstraZeneca. THid received honoraria from Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Clovis. THid also received research funding from Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eisai, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Abbvie, Merck Serono, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Daiichi Sankyo and Astellas Pharma. SA received honoraria from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. SA also received funding from AstraZeneca and Taiho Pharmaceutical for participating in a speakers' bureau. SA also received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Merck Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Yakult and Eli Lilly. HSakai received honoraria and funding to participate in a speakers' bureau from Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb. KN received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, EPS Holdings, Ono Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Showa Yakuhin Kako, SymBio Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. KN also received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, EPS Associates, Quintiles, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan Clinical Research Operations, Eisai, PPD-SNBL, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Kyowa Hakko Kirin and OncoTherapy Science. TTak received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Chugai Pharmaceutical and Ono Pharmaceutical. TTak also received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical and MSD. NN received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer. HSaka received research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, MSD, Linical, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi. MT received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Ono Pharmaceutical and Taiho Pharmaceutical. MT also received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and Ono Pharmaceutical. MM received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly. MM also received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim. YO’s immediate family member is an employee of Chugai Pharmaceutical. YO also has an immediate family member with an ownership of interest with Ono Pharmaceutical. YO received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Nippon Kayaku, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, MSD, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Clovis and Sanofi. YO has also been a consultant/advisor for AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Eli Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical and Novartis, and received funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Novartis and Merck Serono. YO has also been paid by AstraZeneca to provide expert testimony. HN received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Chugai Pharmaceutical. HN also received research funding from Merck Serono, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Yakult, Quintiles, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Ono Pharmaceutical. THir received research funding from MSD, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Serono, Eli Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin and Takeda Pharmaceutical. HT received research funding from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical and Boehringer Ingelheim. KT received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo and Kyowa Hakko Kirin. KT also has been a consultant/advisor for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Novartis, and received research funding from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck Serono. KG received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Nippon Kayaku, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim. KG also has been a consultant/advisor for Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, and Daiichi Sankyo, and received research funding from MSD, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline, OxOnc, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Astellas Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Amgen Astellas BioPharma, Pizer, Riken Genesis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. MS received honoraria from Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim Novartis and MSD. MS also received research funding from Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD and Astellas Pharma. HI received funding to participate in a speakers' bureau from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Chugai Pharmaceutical and Boehringer Ingelheim. KM received research funding from Ono Pharmaceutical and Chugai Pharmaceutical. NS is an employee of Ono Pharmaceutical. TTam received honoraria from Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Yakult, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo and Astellas Pharma.
Patient consent: Obtained.
Ethics approval: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each study site and was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.
References
- 1.Cancer Information Service NCC, Japan. Cancer registry and statistics [in Japanese]. Secondary Cancer registry and statistics [in Japanese] 2015. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/kakutei14/dl/11_h7.pdf (accessed 28 Jul 2016).
- 2.Cancer Information Service NCC, Japan. Cancer registry and statistics [in Japanese]. Secondary Cancer registry and statistics [in Japanese] 2016. http://ganjoho.jp/data/reg_stat/statistics/dl/cancer_incidence(1975-2012).xls (accessed 28 Jul 2016).
- 3.Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M, et al. International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society International Multidisciplinary Classification of Lung Adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:244–85. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318206a221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Krzakowski M, Ramlau R, Jassem J, et al. Phase III trial comparing vinflunine with docetaxel in second-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2167–73. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.4146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Pallis AG, Agelaki S, Agelidou A, et al. A randomized phase III study of the docetaxel/carboplatin combination versus docetaxel single-agent as second line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. BMC Cancer 2010;10:633 10.1186/1471-2407-10-633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hanna N, Shepherd FA, Fossella FV, et al. Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1589–97. 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2012;12:252–64. 10.1038/nrc3239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Keir ME, Butte MJ, Freeman GJ, et al. PD-1 and its ligands in tolerance and immunity. Annu Rev Immunol 2008;26:677–704. 10.1146/annurev.immunol.26.021607.090331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zhang Y, Huang S, Gong D, et al. Programmed death-1 upregulation is correlated with dysfunction of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T lymphocytes in human non-small cell lung cancer. Cell Mol Immunol 2010;7:389–95. 10.1038/cmi.2010.28 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1627–39. 10.1056/NEJMoa1507643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mirsadraee S, Oswal D, Alizadeh Y, et al. The 7th lung cancer TNM classification and staging system: review of the changes and implications. World J Radiol 2012;4:128–34. 10.4329/wjr.v4.i4.128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gettinger SN, Horn L, Gandhi L, et al. Overall survival and long-term safety of nivolumab (anti-programmed death 1 antibody, BMS-936558, ONO-4538) in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2004–12. 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.3708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wolchok JD, Weber JS, Maio M, et al. Four-year survival rates for patients with metastatic melanoma who received ipilimumab in phase II clinical trials. Ann Oncol 2013;24:2174–80. 10.1093/annonc/mdt161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Prieto PA, Yang JC, Sherry RM, et al. CTLA-4 blockade with ipilimumab: long-term follow-up of 177 patients with metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:2039–47. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rizvi NA, Mazières J, Planchard D, et al. Activity and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, for patients with advanced, refractory squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 063): a phase 2, single-arm trial. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:257–65. 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70054-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hellmann MD, Creelan BC, Woo K, et al. Smoking history and response to nivolumab in patients with advanced NSCLCs. Ann Oncol 2014;25:iv426–70. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Govindan R, Ding L, Griffith M, et al. Genomic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in smokers and never-smokers. Cell 2012;150:1121–34. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A, et al. Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science 2015;348:124–8. 10.1126/science.aaa1348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Passiglia F, Bronte G, Bazan V, et al. PD-L1 expression as predictive biomarker in patients with NSCLC: a pooled analysis. Oncotarget 2016;7:19738–47. 10.18632/oncotarget.7582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
esmoopen-2016-000108supp001.pdf (159.2KB, pdf)