Model‐based population pharmacokinetic and exposure response analyses for safety and efficacy of nivolumab as adjuvant treatment in subjects with resected oesophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer

• Published in: British journal of clinical pharmacology Vol. 90; no. 11; pp. 2920 - 2930
• Main Authors: Zhao, Yue, Tsujimoto, Akihide, Ide, Takafumi, Zhang, Jenny, Feng, Yan, Gao, Ling, Bello, Akintunde, Roy, Amit
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.11.2024
• Subjects: adjuvant treatment; immuno‐oncology; model‐based analysis; resected oesophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer; resected oesophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer; immuno‐oncology; adjuvant treatment; model‐based analysis
• ISSN: 0306-5251; 1365-2125; 1365-2125
• DOI: 10.1111/bcp.16188

Aims Nivolumab is approved as adjuvant treatment in subjects with resected oesophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (EC/GEJC) based on results from the pivotal CheckMate 577 trial. We present a model‐based clinical pharmacology profiling and benefit–risk assessment of nivolumab as adjuvant treatment in subjects with resected EC/GEJC supporting a less frequent dosing regimen. Methods Population pharmacokinetic (popPK) analysis was conducted to characterize nivolumab pharmacokinetics (PK) using clinical data from 1493 subjects from seven monotherapy clinical studies across multiple solid tumours. The exposure‐response (E‐R) analyses included data from 756 patients from CheckMate 577. E‐R relationships for efficacy and safety were characterized by evaluating the relationship between nivolumab exposure and disease‐free survival (DFS) for efficacy; and time to first occurrence of Grade ≥2 immune‐mediated adverse events (Gr2 + IMAEs) for safety. Results Nivolumab exposure was found to be associated with both DFS and risk of Gr2 + IMAEs. However, the hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) at the 5th and 95th percentiles of nivolumab exposure were similar for DFS and Gr2 + IMAEs, indicating flat E‐R relationships within the exposure range produced by the studied regimen. Model‐predicted probability of DFS and Gr2 + IMAEs were similar between the two regimens of 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks followed by 480 mg Q4W up to 1 year. Conclusions The analyses demonstrated a flat E‐R relationship over the range of exposures produced by the studied regimen and supported the approval of an alternative dosing regimen with less frequent dosing in patients with adjuvant EC/GEJC.