Quality-of-life outcomes and risk prediction for patients randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab on LungMAP-S1400I

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundAn important issue for patients with cancer treated with novel therapeutics is how they weigh the effects of treatment on survival and quality of life (QOL). We compared QOL in patients enrolled to SWOG S1400I, a substudy of the LungMAP biomarker-driven master protocol.MethodsSWOG S1400I was a randomized phase III trial comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab for treatment of immunotherapy-naïve disease in advanced squamous cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Lung Cancer severity score at week 7 and week 13 with a target difference of 1.0 points, assessed using multivariable linear regression. A composite risk model for progression-free and overall survival was derived using best-subset selection.ResultsAmong 158 evaluable patients, median age was 67.6 years and most were male (66.5%). The adjusted MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Lung Cancer severity score was 0.04 points (95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.44 to 0.51 points; P = .89) at week 7 and 0.12 points (95% CI = −0.41 to 0.65; P = .66) at week 13. A composite risk model showed that patients with high levels of appetite loss and shortness of breath had a threefold increased risk of progression or death (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.06, 95% CI = 1.88 to 4.98; P < .001) and that those with high levels of both appetite loss and work limitations had a fivefold increased risk of death (HR = 5.60, 95% CI = 3.27 to 9.57; P < .001)—compared with those with neither risk category.ConclusionsWe found no evidence of a benefit of ipilimumab added to nivolumab compared with nivolumab alone for QOL in S1400I. A risk model identified patients at high risk of poor survival, demonstrating the prognostic relevance of baseline patient-reported outcomes even in those with previously treated advanced cancer.