English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

PURPOSE   In this phase II response-adaptive trial, we investigated the rational application of immune checkpoint blockade in renal cell carcinoma (RCC; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03203473 ).METHODS   We enrolled patients with metastatic RCC with no prior checkpoint inhibitor exposure. All patients received nivolumab alone with subsequent arm allocation based on response. Patients with a confirmed partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) within 6 months discontinued nivolumab and were observed (arm A). Patients with stable disease or progressive disease (PD) after no more than 6 months of nivolumab received two doses of ipilimumab (arm B). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with PR/CR at 1 year after nivolumab discontinuation (arm A) and proportion of nivolumab nonresponders who converted to PR/CR after ipilimumab (arm B).RESULTS   Overall, 83 patients initiated treatment, of whom 96% had clear-cell histology, 51% were treatment naïve, and 67% had intermediate/poor-risk disease. Median follow-up was 19.5 months. Within 6 months, induction nivolumab resulted in a confirmed PR in 12% of patients (n = 10). Fourteen patients were not allocated to a study arm (seven because of toxicity, seven because of PD). Twelve patients (14%) were allocated to arm A and discontinued nivolumab, of whom five (42%; 90% CI, 18% to 68%) remained off nivolumab at ≥ 1 year. Of 57 patients (69%) allocated to arm B, two patients converted to a confirmed PR (4%; 90% CI, 1% to 11%), and no CRs were observed.CONCLUSION   In this study, nivolumab followed by two doses of ipilimumab resulted in no CRs and a low PR/CR conversion. The number of patients evaluated for nivolumab discontinuation was too small to assess the value of this approach. Currently, our data do not support a response-adaptive strategy for checkpoint blockade in advanced RCC.

Optimized Management of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Response-Based Phase II Study (OMNIVORE)