This Phase II trial enrolled 30 cisplatin-ineligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, split into two cohorts of 15 patients each. The intervention was neoadjuvant nivolumab alone or neoadjuvant nivolumab with ipilimumab, with a primary outcome of eligibility for cystectomy within 60 days after the last treatment.
For the primary outcome, 12 of 15 patients (80%) receiving nivolumab alone were eligible for cystectomy within 60 days, compared to 8 of 15 patients (53%) receiving nivolumab with ipilimumab. Secondary outcomes included pathologic complete response (pCR), downstaging (<ypT2ypN0), durable clinical complete response without cystectomy, and 12-month recurrence-free survival (RFS).
With nivolumab alone, downstaging occurred in 4 of 15 patients (26%) and pCR in 2 of 15 patients (13%). With combination therapy, downstaging occurred in 3 of 15 patients (20%) and pCR in 1 of 15 patients (7%). Durable clinical complete response without cystectomy was observed in 1 patient with nivolumab alone and 2 patients with combination therapy. The 12-month RFS was 79% (95% CI, 61-100) with nivolumab alone and 61% (95% CI, 39-95) with combination therapy.
Safety data indicated that ipilimumab/nivolumab caused toxicity that delayed cystectomy, while nivolumab alone was well tolerated. Key limitations include that cohort 3 was not initiated due to cohort 2's failure to meet the primary endpoint, cases of progression before cystectomy indicated insufficient efficacy for unselected patients, and correlative analyses used an independent dataset. Practice relevance was not reported, and sequencing analyses suggest associations but do not establish causality.
View Original Abstract ↓
PURPOSE: Many patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy. We conducted a phase II trial of neoadjuvant nivolumab ± ipilimumab for cisplatin-ineligible patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MIBC were enrolled in two consecutive cohorts: (i) nivolumab alone and (ii) ipilimumab/nivolumab. A third cohort with alternative dosing was planned. The primary endpoint was eligibility for cystectomy ≤60 days after last treatment. Correlative analyses were performed, with the PURE-01 trial used as an independent dataset.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients enrolled onto each cohort. In cohorts 1 and 2, 12 of 15 and eight of 15 were eligible for cystectomy within 60 days, respectively. Due to cohort 2's failure to meet the primary endpoint, cohort 3 was not initiated. With nivolumab alone, four patients achieved <ypT2ypN0 (26%), with two pathologic complete responses (pCR; 13%). With ipilimumab/nivolumab, three achieved <ypT2ypN0 (20%), with one pCR (7%). One patient after nivolumab and two after ipilimumab/nivolumab had durable clinical complete responses (CR) without cystectomy. Twelve-month recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 79% with nivolumab [95% confidence interval (CI), 61-100] and 61% with ipilimumab/nivolumab (95% CI, 39-95). Sequencing analyses suggest that NCOR1 alterations may be associated with improved clinical outcomes. Gene expression profiling indicated a potential association between tumor-infiltrating immune cells and longer RFS (log-rank P = 0.18); this was also observed in PURE-01 (P = 0.022).
CONCLUSIONS: Among cisplatin-ineligible patients with MIBC, nivolumab alone was well tolerated. Ipilimumab/nivolumab caused toxicity that delayed cystectomy. Cases of progression before cystectomy indicated insufficient efficacy of pure neoadjuvant immunotherapy for unselected patients. Despite low response rates, some patients experienced sustained clinical CR without cystectomy.