Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

Evaluation of Two Dosing Regimens for Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 511 Trial

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review


  1. The real-world outcome of metastatic melanoma: Unknown primary vs. known cutaneous

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Arginase-1-based vaccination against the tumor microenvironment: the identification of an optimal T-cell epitope

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  3. Chimeric antigen receptor-T-cellebehandling

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Real-World Impact of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Celeste Lebbé
  • Nicolas Meyer
  • Laurent Mortier
  • Ivan Marquez-Rodas
  • Caroline Robert
  • Piotr Rutkowski
  • Alexander M Menzies
  • Thomas Eigentler
  • Paolo A Ascierto
  • Michael Smylie
  • Dirk Schadendorf
  • Mazhar Ajaz
  • Inge Marie Svane
  • Rene Gonzalez
  • Linda Rollin
  • Jennifer Lord-Bessen
  • Abdel Saci
  • Elena Grigoryeva
  • Jacopo Pigozzo
View graph of relations

PURPOSE: Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) is approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma in several countries. We conducted a phase IIIb/IV study (CheckMate 511) to determine if nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) improves the safety profile of the combination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 360) age 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO3+IPI1 or NIVO1+IPI3 once every 3 weeks for four doses. After 6 weeks, all patients received NIVO 480 mg once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was a comparison of the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) between groups. Secondary end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The study was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy end points.

RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 AEs was 34% with NIVO3+IPI1 versus 48% with NIVO1+IPI3 ( P = .006). In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 50.6% in the NIVO1+IPI3 group, with complete responses in 15.0% and 13.5% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 8.9 months in the NIVO1+IPI3 group. Median overall survival was not reached in either group.

CONCLUSION: The CheckMate 511 study met its primary end point, demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs with NIVO3+IPI1 versus NIVO1+IPI3. Descriptive analyses showed that there were no meaningful differences between the groups for any efficacy end point, although longer follow up may help to better characterize efficacy outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
Issue number11
Pages (from-to)867-875
Number of pages9
Publication statusPublished - 10 Apr 2019

ID: 57730469