ESMO open · 2024
A phase Ib randomized multicenter trial of isolated hepatic perfusion in combination with ipilimumab and nivolumab for uveal melanoma metastases (SCANDIUM II trial).
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеКлиническое исследование I фазыНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Olofsson Bagge R, Nelson A, Shafazand A, Cahlin C, Carneiro A, Helgadottir H, Levin M, Rizell M, Ullenhag G, Wirén S, Lindnér P, Nilsson J A, Ny L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare malignancy where 50% of patients develop metastatic disease primarily affecting the liver. Approximately 40% of patients with metastatic UM respond to one-time isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) with high-dose melphalan. This phase I trial investigates the safety and clinical efficacy of IHP combined with ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Immunotherapy-naïve patients were randomized in this phase I trial to receive either IHP followed by IPI 3 mg/kg and NIVO 1 mg/kg (IPI3/NIVO1) for four cycles (post-operative arm), or one cycle of preoperative IPI3/NIVO1, IHP and then three cycles of IPI3/NIVO1 (pre-post-operative arm), followed by maintenance therapy with NIVO 480 mg for 1 year.
RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled and randomized. Three patients did not undergo IHP as planned. In total, 11/18 patients (6 in the post-operative arm and 5 in the pre-post-operative arm) did not complete the planned four cycles of IPI3/NIVO1. Toxicity to IHP was similar in both groups, but the number of immune-related adverse events (AEs) was higher in the pre-post-operative arm. Among assessable patients, overall response rate was 57% in the post-operative arm (4/7) and 22% in the pre-post-operative arm (2/9).
CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with IHP and IPI3/NIVO1 was associated with severe AEs. The efficacy of this combination is encouraging with high response rates. One cycle of preoperative IPI/NIVO before IHP did not show potential benefits in terms of safety or efficacy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Immunotherapy-naïve patients were randomized in this phase I trial to receive either IHP followed by IPI 3 mg/kg and NIVO 1 mg/kg (IPI3/NIVO1) for four cycles (post-operative arm), or one cycle of preoperative IPI3/NIVO1, IHP and then three cycles of IPI3/NIVO1 (pre-post-operative arm), followed by maintenance therapy with NIVO 480 mg for 1 year.
RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled and randomized. Three patients did not undergo IHP as planned. In total, 11/18 patients (6 in the post-operative arm and 5 in the pre-post-operative arm) did not complete the planned four cycles of IPI3/NIVO1. Toxicity to IHP was similar in both groups, but the number of immune-related adverse events (AEs) was higher in the pre-post-operative arm. Among assessable patients, overall response rate was 57% in the post-operative arm (4/7) and 22% in the pre-post-operative arm (2/9).
CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with IHP and IPI3/NIVO1 was associated with severe AEs. The efficacy of this combination is encouraging with high response rates. One cycle of preoperative IPI/NIVO before IHP did not show potential benefits in terms of safety or efficacy.