FDA Announces Nivolumab Dose Change for RCC, NSCLC, Metastatic Melanoma

Article

The FDA announced a modification to the recommended dosage regimen for nivolumab (Opdivo) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), metastatic melanoma, and non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a modification to the recommended dosage regimen for nivolumab (Opdivo) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), metastatic melanoma, and non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nivolumab was originally approved at a single dose of 3 mg/kg intravenously (IV) every 2 weeks. For all three diseases, the new dosage is 240 mg IV every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

According to the FDA announcement, the approval of the dosage modification was based on population pharmacokinetics analyses and dose/exposure-response analyses that demonstrated the comparability of the pharmacokinetics exposure, safety, and efficacy of the proposed new dosing regimen with the 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks regimen.

Using simulations in the population pharmacokinetics model, the FDA determined that exposure to nivolumab at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks was similar to the 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks dose-less than a 6% difference in exposure. The differences in exposure are not likely to have a clinically meaningful effect on safety and efficacy, since dose/exposure response relationships appear to be relatively flat in these three indications.

The FDA announcement noted that the dose of nivolumab used in combination with ipilimumab for melanoma will not be changing. That dose will remain at 1 mg/kg IV followed by ipilimumab on the same day every 3 weeks for four doses. However, once the ipilimumab treatment is completed, the recommended nivolumab dose will be the new dosage of 240 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

Finally, the recommended dose for classical Hodgkin lymphoma will remain 3 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

Recent Videos
A review of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma shows radiological tumor burden as an independent prognostic factor for survival.
A phase 2 trial is assessing ubamatamab in patients with MUC16-expressing SMARCB1-deficient renal medullary carcinoma and epithelioid sarcoma.
Analysis of 2 phase 1 trials compared gut biome diversity between standard of care with or without CBM588 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Although no responses were observed in 11 patients receiving abemaciclib monotherapy, combination therapies with abemaciclib may offer clinical benefit.
Findings show no difference in overall survival between various treatments for metastatic RCC previously managed with immunotherapy and TKIs.
An epigenomic profiling approach may help pick up the entire tumor burden, thereby assisting with detecting sarcomatoid features in those with RCC.
Ongoing research may clarify the potential benefit of avelumab when administered in combination with other agents in advanced urothelial carcinoma.
Spatial analyses may help determine factors that influence responses to sacituzumab govitecan-containing regimens in urothelial carcinoma.
Attending educational sessions may help with understanding how to manage toxicities associated with enfortumab vedotin in rare genitourinary cancers.
Related Content