Biliary Tract Cancer Evaluation of Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Immunotherapy in Patients With Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers. Subgroup Analysis of a Phase 2 Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

Oliver Klein, MD1,2Damien Kee, MD1,3Adnan Nagrial, MD4etalBen Markman, MD5,6Craig Underhill, MD7Michael Michael, MD3Louise Jackett, MD8Caroline Lum, MD5Andreas Behren, PhD2,9Jodie Palmer, PhD2,9Niall C. Tebbutt, MD1,10Matteo S. Carlino, PhD4Jonathan Cebon, PhD1,2,9

Author Affiliations

JAMA Oncol. Published online July 30, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2814

Key Points

Question:  Is combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab associated with positive outcomes in patients with advanced biliary tract cancers?

Findings:  In this subgroup analysis of a phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial of 39 patients with advanced biliary tract cancers, 33 of whom had undergone previous systemic therapy, an objective response rate of 23% and a disease control rate of 44% was observed. Most of the responses were durable and limited to patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma.

Meaning:  These data indicate that nivolumab and ipilimumab combination treatment has significant activity in a subset of patients with advanced biliary tract cancers.

Abstract

Importance:  Biliary tract cancers represent a rare group of malignant conditions with very limited treatment options. Patients with advanced disease have a poor outcome with current therapies.

Objective:  To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with advanced biliary tract cancers.

Design, setting and participants: The CA209-538 prospective multicenter phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial included patients with advanced rare cancers including patients with biliary tract cancers. This subgroup analysis evaluated 39 patients from CA209-538 with biliary tract cancers who were enrolled from December 2017 to December 2019. Most of the patients (n = 33) had experienced disease progression after 1 or more lines of therapy and had tumor tissue available for biomarker research.

Interventions: Patients received treatment with nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and continued for up to 96 weeks until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxic events.

Main outcomes and measures:  The primary end point was disease control rate (complete remission, partial remission, or stable disease) as assessed by RECIST 1.1.

Results:  Among the 39 patients included in this subgroup analysis of a phase 2 clinical trial (20 men, 19 women; mean [range] age, 65 [37-81] years), the objective response rate was 23% (n = 9) with a disease control rate of 44% (n = 17); all responders had received prior chemotherapy, and none had a microsatellite unstable tumor. Responses were exclusively observed in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. The median duration of response was not reached (range, 2.5 to ≥23 months). The median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.2-4.6 months), and overall survival was 5.7 months (95% CI, 2.7-11.9 months). Immune-related toxic events were reported in 49% of patients (n = 19), with 15% (n = 6) experiencing grade 3 or 4 events.

Conclusions and relevance:  This subgroup analysis of a phase 2 clinical trial found that combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with substantial positive outcomes patients with advanced biliary tract cancers. This treatment compares favorably to single-agent anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD-1) therapy and warrants further investigation. Ongoing translational research is focused on identifying biomarkers that can predict treatment response.

Trial registration:  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02923934

You may also be interested in these resources

Video

Voice Of Customer – Episode 2

In this episode, Pr. Daniela Cesselli (University of Udine) discusses the strategic needs that drove the adoption of a CGP panel and the reasons behind choosing the 𝗢𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗗𝗘𝗘𝗣® 𝗞𝗶𝘁 solution. Was it to ensure timely...

Share This