Niraparib Plus Ipilimumab Yields Enhanced 6-Month PFS vs Niraparib Plus Nivolumab in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Article

Results from a phase 1b/2 trial indicated that niraparib plus nivolumab yielded superior progression-free survival at 6 months vs niraparib and ipilimumab for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced pancreatic cancer.

Niraparib (Zejula) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) yielded superior progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months compared with niraparib plus nivolumab (Opdivo) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had not progressed at least 16 weeks follow platinum-based therapy, according to results from a phase 1b/2 trial (NCT03404960) published in The Lancet Oncology.

The 6 months PFS was 20.6% (95% CI, 8.3%-32.9%; P = .0002) in the niraparib plus nivolumab group and 59.6% (95% CI, 44.3%-74.9%; P = .045) in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group. The median follow-up was 23.0 months.

A total of 91 patients were randomly assigned to either the niraparib plus nivolumab group (n = 46) or the niraparib plus ipilimumab group (n = 45).Overall, 84 patients were evaluable for the primary end point. Of those included in the efficacy analysis, 96% of patients had germline testing results available and 51% had undergone clinical somatic next-generation sequencing.

In the niraparib and nivolumab group, 16% of patients had a germline or somatic mutation in BRCA1/2 or PALB2 vs 18% in the niraparib and ipilimumab group. In patients with a DNA damage repair variant 56% vs 50% of those in the niraparib plus nivolumab and niraparib plus ipilimumab groups had a personal or family history of BRCA1/2-related cancer.

In total, 15 patients in the niraparib plus nivolumab group and 14 in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group were rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. In this population 40% vs 57% had achieved stable disease was observed in the niraparib plus nivolumab arm vs the niraparib plus ipilimumab arm, respectively.

Patients did not experience any dose-limiting toxicities in the phase 1b portion of the study. Patients were treated with 200 mg of niraparib per day and 240 mg of nivolumab every 2 weeks or 200 mg of nivolumab every 2 weeks plus 3 mg/kg of ipilimumab.

At the time of the data cutoff, 55 patients had died, and the median overall survival was 13.2 months (95% CI, 8.1-16.7) in the niraparib plus nivolumab group vs 17.3 months (95% CI, 12.8-21.9) in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group. In the niraparib plus nivolumab group, the objective response rate was 7.7% (95% CI, 1.5%-19.5%) compared with 15.4% (95% CI, 5.9%-30.5%) in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group.

The most common treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) in the niraparib plus nivolumab group were thrombocytopenia (30%), arthralgia (26%), nausea (24%), and fatigue (24%). In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, the most common TRAEs were thrombocytopenia (44%), anemia (42%), fatigue (42%), nausea (40%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (36%), rash (33%), and alanine aminotransferase increase (30%).

Grade 3 or higher AEs included hypertension (8%), anemia (4%), and thrombocytopenia (4%) in the niraparib plus nivolumab arm compared with fatigue (14%), anemia (11%), and hypertension (9%) were observed between and niraparib plus ipilimumab groups, respectively.

Nivolumab was discontinued prematurally in 11% of patients due to AEs, and 24% discontinued ipilimumab. Discontinuation of niraparib was necessary in 5 patients because of thrombocytopenia, anemia, and fatigue. Of note, no patient discontinued treatment with both investigational drugs because of AEs.

Serious treatment-related AEs occurred in 11% of patients vs 24% in the niraparib plus nivolumab group vs the niraparib plus ipilimumab group, respectively. Grade 3 immune-mediate AEs included rash (n = 3), pneumonitis (n = 2), and colitis (n = 1) in the niraparib plus ipilimumab. In the niraparib plus nivolumab group, 1 patient experienced grade 3 immune-mediated colitis.

Overall, 55 patients had died, none of which were related to treatment.

Reference

Reiss KA, Mick R, Teitelbaum U, et al. Niraparib plus nivolumab or niraparib plus ipilimumab in patients with platinum-sensitive advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomised, phase 1b/2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(8):1009-1020. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00369-2

Recent Videos
Differences in pancreatic cancer responses to treatment elicits a need to better educate patients on expectations in treatment, particularly chemotherapy.
Increasing patient awareness of modifiable risk factors for pancreatic cancer may help mitigate incidence of pancreatic cancers.
It may be crucial to test every patient for markers such as BRAF V600E mutations, NRG1 fusions, and KRAS G12C mutations to help manage pancreatic cancers.
Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, emphasizes the idea of moving targeted therapies to earlier lines of treatment to further improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer.
Experts from Vanderbilt University Medical Center emphasize gathering a second opinion to determine if a tumor is resectable in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Experts from Vanderbilt University Medical Center discuss the use of intraoperative radiation therapy in a 64-year-old patient with pancreatic cancer.
Investigators are assessing the use of IORT in patients with borderline resectable or unresectable pancreatic cancer as part of the phase 2 PACER trial.
Kamran Idrees, MD, MSCI, MMHC, FACS, discusses how factors such as vessel involvement can influence the decision to proceed with surgical therapy.
Milad Baradaran, PhD, DABR, outlines the design of Mobetron as an option for administering intraoperative radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer care.
Intraoperative radiation therapy may allow surgical and radiation oncologists to collaboratively visualize at-risk areas in patients with cancer.
Related Content