CheckMate 012: Safety and Efficacy of First Line Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Similar documents
Conversations in Oncology. November Kerry Hotel Pudong, Shanghai China

Weitere Kombinationspartner der Immunotherapie

NSCLC: immunotherapy as a first-line treatment. Paolo Bironzo Oncologia Polmonare AOU S. Luigi Gonzaga Orbassano (To)

Immune checkpoint blockade in lung cancer

Nivolumab: esperienze italiane nel carcinoma polmonare avanzato

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Lung Cancer William N. William Jr.

Patient Selection: The Search for Immunotherapy Biomarkers

Metastatic NSCLC: Expanding Role of Immunotherapy. Evan W. Alley, MD, PhD Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Presbyterian

AACR 2018 Investor Meeting

Immunotherapy in Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma: Where Do We Stand? Sanjiv S. Agarwala, MD St. Luke s Cancer Center Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy in Combination Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

Immunotherapy for NSCLC: Current State of the Art and Future Directions. H. Jack West, MD Swedish Cancer Institute Seattle, Washington, United States

II sessione. Immunoterapia oltre la prima linea. Alessandro Tuzi ASST Sette Laghi, Varese

Immunotherapy in the clinic. Lung Cancer. Marga Majem 20 octubre 2017

Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine-l Alleud, Belgium; 12 MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

III Sessione I risultati clinici

Updates From the European Lung Cancer Conference: Immunotherapy and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Immunotherapy in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Melanoma: From Chemotherapy to Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy. What every patient needs to know. James Larkin

NSCLC: Terapia medica nella fase avanzata. Paolo Bidoli S.C. Oncologia Medica H S. Gerardo Monza

Checkpoint-Inhibitoren beim Lungenkarzinom. Dr. Helge Bischoff Thoraxklinik Heidelberg

Incorporating Immunotherapy into the treatment of NSCLC

Nivolumab in Patients With DNA Mismatch Repair Deficient/Microsatellite Instability High Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Update From CheckMate 142

Immunotherapy for Melanoma. Michael Postow, MD Melanoma and Immunotherapeutics Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

ASCO 2014 Highlights*

Atezolizumab Is a Humanized Anti-PDL1 Antibody That Inhibits the Binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 and B7.1

Principles and Application of Immunotherapy for Cancer: Advanced NSCLC

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer

OUR EXPERIENCES WITH ERLOTINIB IN SECOND AND THIRD LINE TREATMENT PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED STAGE IIIB/ IV NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER

Melanoma: Immune checkpoints

Targeted Agents as Maintenance Therapy. Karen Kelly, MD Professor of Medicine UC Davis Cancer Center

Il ruolo di PD-L1 (42%) tra la prima e la seconda linea di trattamento

Recent Therapeutic Advances for Thoracic Malignancies

Nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc): Results of a phase I trial

Immunotherapeutic Advances in the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Squamous Cell Carcinoma Standard and Novel Targets.

Monthly Oncology Tumor Boards: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Individualized Patient Care Lung Cancer: Advanced Disease March 8, 2016

Practice changing studies in lung cancer 2017

Immunotherapy of Melanoma Sanjiv S. Agarwala, MD

Immunoterapia di 1 linea Evidenze e Prospettive Future

Immunotherapy in NSCLC

PD-(L)1 Inhibitors and CTLA-4 Inhibitors: Rationale for Combinations and Recent Data in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

ASCO 2014: The Future is Here. What I Will Talk About. George W. Sledge MD Stanford University School of Medicine

Overview: Immunotherapy in CNS Metastases

Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

La revolución de la inmunoterapia: dónde la posicionamos? Javier Puente, MD, PhD

Management Guidelines and Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Oncologist s Perspective

2 nd line Therapy and Beyond NSCLC. Alan Sandler, M.D. Oregon Health & Science University

Immunotherapies for Advanced NSCLC: Current State of the Field. H. Jack West Swedish Cancer Institute Seattle, Washington

Maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Egbert F. Smit MD PhD Dept Thoracic Oncology Netherlands Cancer Institute

Largos Supervivientes, Tenemos datos?

Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Multidisciplinary Role: Role of Medical Oncologist

LONDON CANCER NEW DRUGS GROUP RAPID REVIEW. Erlotinib for the third or fourth-line treatment of NSCLC January 2012

Presentation Number: LBA18_PR. Lecture Time: 09:15-09:27. Speakers: Heinz-Josef J. Lenz (Los Angeles, US) Background

Checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Índice. Melanoma Cáncer de Pulmón Otros tumores

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Webinar. Thursday, September 13, p.m. EDT

Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer

Lead team presentation:

EGFR inhibitors in NSCLC

6/7/16. Melanoma. Updates on immune checkpoint therapies. Molecularly targeted therapies. FDA approval for talimogene laherparepvec (T- VEC)

Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapies: The new face of cancer treatment

Second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC

Immunotherapies in melanoma: regulatory perspective. Jorge Camarero (AEMPS)

Recent Advances in Lung Cancer: Updates from ASCO Updates from ESMO, AACR and ASCO

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Melanoma. Marlana Orloff, MD Thomas Jefferson University Hospital

Immunotherapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma. James Larkin

Immunotherapeutic Approaches in the Treatment of NSCLC. Keith Kerr, MBChB, FRCPath. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

Out of 129 patients with NSCLC treated with Nivolumab in a phase I trial, the OS rate at 5-y was about 16 %, clearly higher than historical rates.

PTAC meeting held on 5 & 6 May (minutes for web publishing)

The Current Status of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Arvin Yang, MD PhD Oncology Global Clinical Research Bristol-Myers Squibb

Inmunoterapia en cáncer de pulmón. Mariano Provencio Servicio de Oncología Médica Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro

Cancer Immunotherapy Patient Forum. for the Treatment of Melanoma, Leukemia, Lymphoma, Lung and Genitourinary Cancers - November 7, 2015

Immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

Successes and Challenges in Treating Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung

WHY LOOK FOR ADDITIONAL DATA TO ENRICH THE KAPLAN-MEIER CURVES? Immuno-oncology, only an example

Current Trends in Melanoma Theresa Medina, MD UCD Cutaneous Oncology

Immunotherapy for Melanoma. Caroline Robert, MD, PhD Gustave Roussy and Université Paris Sud Villejuif, France

Inmunoterapia en cáncer renal metastásico: redefiniendo el tratamiento de segunda línea

Virtual Journal Club: Front-Line Therapy and Beyond Recent Perspectives on ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Pembrolizumab for Patients With PD-L1 Positive Advanced Carcinoid or Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results From the KEYNOTE-028 Study

Cancer Immunotherapy: Exploring the Role of Novel Agents in Cancer Treatment

Alessandro Inno. IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Negrar, Verona

Checkpointinhibitoren in der Uro-Onkologie. Carsten Grüllich

Melanoma: Therapeutic Progress and the Improvements Continue

New Systemic Therapies in Advanced Melanoma

Reflex Testing Guidelines for Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

IMMUNE CHECKPOINT THERAPY FOR GENITOURINARY CANCERS: KIDNEY CANCER AND TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA

Update on Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma. Ragini Kudchadkar, MD Assistant Professor Winship Cancer Institute Emory University Sea Island 2017

Harnessing the immune system to combat cancer. Gary Middleton, University of Birmingham

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC

The Really Important Questions Current Immunotherapy Trials are Not Answering


Slide 1. Slide 2 Maintenance Therapy Options. Slide 3. Maintenance Therapy in the Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Maintenance Chemotherapy

Current Issues in Checkpoint Immunotherapy for NSCLC: A Perspective from January 2018

Immunoterapia e farmaci innovativi

Immunotherapy in the Adjuvant Setting for Melanoma: What You Need to Know

Debate 1 Are treatments for small cell lung cancer getting better? No:

Maintenance Therapy for Advanced NSCLC: When, What, Why & What s Left After Post-Maintenance Relapse?

The road less travelled: what options are available for patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma?

Transcription:

CheckMate 12: Safety and Efficacy of First Line Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Abstract 31 Hellmann MD, Gettinger SN, Goldman J, Brahmer J, Borghaei H, Chow LQ, Ready NE, Gerber DE, Juergens R, Shepherd FA, Laurie SA, Young T, Geese WJ, Agrawal S, Li X, Antonia SJ

Rationale for Combined Immune Checkpoint Blockade With Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Nivolumab and ipilimumab enhance T-cell antitumor activity through distinct and complementary mechanisms 1 The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab is approved in the US and EU for metastatic melanoma and has demonstrated encouraging clinical benefit across a number of tumor types 2- PFS With Nivo or Nivo + Ipi vs Ipi Alone in Previously Untreated Advanced Melanoma Proportion Alive and Progression-Free 1..9.8.7.6..4.3.2.1. Nivo + Ipi Nivo Ipi 3 6 9 12 1 18 21 Months Nivolumab monotherapy is approved in the US and EU for adults with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC with progression either during or after platinum-doublet chemotherapy 1. Callahan MK, et al. Front Oncol. 21;4:38. 2. Wolchok JD, et al. N Engl J Med. 213;369(2):122-133. 3. Hammers HJ, et al. J Clin Oncol. 21;33(suppl):416. 4. Larkin J, et al. N Engl J Med. 21;373(1):23-34.. Rizvi NA, et al. Presented at: The 16 th World Conference on Lung Cancer, September 6-9, 21; Denver, CO, United States: ORAL2.. Ipi, ipilimumab; Nivo, nivolumab; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PFS, progression-free survival

Phase I CheckMate 12 Study Design: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line NSCLC Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC (any histology), no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease, ECOG PS or 1 Previous cohorts: Nivo 1 + Ipi 3 q 3 w x 4 Nivo 3 + Ipi 1 q 3 w x 4 Nivo 1 + Ipi 1 q 3 w x 4 Nivo 1 q 2 w + Ipi 1 q 6 w Nivo 3 q 2 w + Ipi 1 q 12 w Nivo 3 q 2 w + Ipi 1 q 6 w Nivo 3 q 2 w until disease progression a or unacceptable toxicity Until disease progression a or unacceptable toxicity Primary endpoint: safety and tolerability Secondary endpoints: ORR (RECIST v1.1) and PFS rate at 24 weeks Exploratory endpoints: OS, efficacy by PD-L1 expression The safety and tolerability of the nivo ipi combination was improved with less frequent ipilimumab dosing Schedules with nivolumab 3 mg/kg also showed increased clinical efficacy in a previous analysis Here, we report longer follow-up on nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab schedules b ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival, PD-L1, programmed cell-death ligand 1; RECIST, response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. Rizvi NA, et al. Presented at: The 16 th World Conference on Lung Cancer, September 6-9, 21; Denver, CO, United States: ORAL2.. a Patients tolerating study treatment permitted to continue treatment beyond RECIST v1.1-defined progression if considered to be deriving clinical benefit; b February 216 database lock; Ipilimumab and nivolumab dosing are shown in mg/kg IV (eg, nivo 1 = nivolumab 1 mg/kg IV)

Phase I CheckMate 12 Study Design: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line NSCLC Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC (any histology), no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease, ECOG PS or 1 Previous cohorts: Nivo 1 + Ipi 3 q 3 w x 4 Nivo 3 + Ipi 1 q 3 w x 4 Nivo 1 + Ipi 1 q 3 w x 4 Nivo 1 q 2 w + Ipi 1 q 6 w Nivo 3 q 2 w + Ipi 1 q 12 w Nivo 3 q 2 w + Ipi 1 q 6 w Nivo 3 q 2 w until disease progression a or unacceptable toxicity Until disease progression a or unacceptable toxicity Primary endpoint: safety and tolerability Secondary endpoints: ORR (RECIST v1.1) and PFS rate at 24 weeks Exploratory endpoints: OS, efficacy by PD-L1 expression The safety and tolerability of the nivolumab ipilimumab combination was improved with less frequent ipilimumab dosing Schedules with nivolumab 3 mg/kg also showed increased clinical efficacy in a previous analysis Here, we report longer follow-up on nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab schedules b. Rizvi NA, et al. Presented at: The 16 th World Conference on Lung Cancer, September 6-9, 21; Denver, CO, United States: ORAL2.. a Patients tolerating study treatment permitted to continue treatment beyond RECIST v1.1-defined progression if considered to be deriving clinical benefit; b February 216 database lock; Ipilimumab and nivolumab dosing are shown in mg/kg IV (eg, nivo 1 = nivolumab 1 mg/kg IV)

Phase I CheckMate 12 Study Design: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line NSCLC Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC (any histology), no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease, ECOG PS or 1 Previous cohorts: Nivo 1 + Ipi 3 q 3 w x 4 Nivo 3 + Ipi 1 q 3 w x 4 Nivo 1 + Ipi 1 q 3 w x 4 Nivo 1 q 2 w + Ipi 1 q 6 w Nivo 3 q 2 w + Ipi 1 q 12 w Nivo 3 q 2 w + Ipi 1 q 6 w Nivo 3 q 2 w until disease progression a or unacceptable toxicity Until disease progression a or unacceptable toxicity Primary endpoint: safety and tolerability Secondary endpoints: ORR (RECIST v1.1) and PFS rate at 24 weeks Exploratory endpoints: OS, efficacy by PD-L1 expression The safety and tolerability of the nivolumab ipilimumab combination was improved with less frequent ipilimumab dosing Schedules with nivolumab 3 mg/kg also showed increased clinical efficacy in a previous analysis Here, we report longer follow-up on nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab schedules b. Rizvi NA, et al. Presented at: The 16 th World Conference on Lung Cancer, September 6-9, 21; Denver, CO, United States: ORAL2.. a Patients tolerating study treatment permitted to continue treatment beyond RECIST v1.1-defined progression if considered to be deriving clinical benefit; b February 216 database lock; Ipilimumab and nivolumab dosing are shown in mg/kg IV (eg, nivo 1 = nivolumab 1 mg/kg IV)

Baseline Patient Characteristics Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 12 W (n = 38) Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 W (n = 39) Median age, years (range) 68 (-91) 62 (47-87) Male, % 4 62 Nonsquamous histology, % 82 8 Disease stage, % Stage IIIB Stage IV ECOG PS, % 1 Smoking status, % Never Former/current EGFR mutation status, % Mutant Wildtype Unknown PD-L1 quantifiable, N (%) 1%, n/n (%) %, n/n (%) 1%, n/n (%) 2%, n/n (%) %, n/n (%) 11 89 32 68 9 11 74 16 31 (82) 21/31 (68) 16/31 (2) 13/31 (42) 1/31 (32) 6/31 (19) 3 97 41 4 23 74 1 67 23 3 (77) 23/3 (77) 19/3 (63) 1/3 () 8/3 (27) 7/3 (23)

Baseline Patient Characteristics Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 12 W (n = 38) Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 W (n = 39) Median age, years (range) 68 (-91) 62 (47-87) Male, % 4 62 Nonsquamous histology, % 82 8 Disease stage, % Stage IIIB Stage IV ECOG PS, % 1 Smoking status, % Never Former/current EGFR mutation status, % Mutant Wildtype Unknown PD-L1 quantifiable, N (%) 1%, n/n (%) %, n/n (%) 1%, n/n (%) 2%, n/n (%) %, n/n (%) 11 89 32 68 9 11 74 16 31 (82) 21/31 (68) 16/31 (2) 13/31 (42) 1/31 (32) 6/31 (19) 3 97 41 4 23 74 1 67 23 3 (77) 23/3 (77) 19/3 (63) 1/3 () 8/3 (27) 7/3 (23)

Baseline Patient Characteristics Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 12 W (n = 38) Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 W (n = 39) Median age, years (range) 68 (-91) 62 (47-87) Male, % 4 62 Nonsquamous histology, % 82 8 Disease stage, % Stage IIIB Stage IV ECOG PS, % 1 Smoking status, % Never Former/current EGFR mutation status, % Mutant Wildtype Unknown PD-L1 quantifiable, N (%) 1%, n/n (%) %, n/n (%) 1%, n/n (%) 2%, n/n (%) %, n/n (%) 11 89 32 68 9 11 74 16 31 (82) 21/31 (68) 16/31 (2) 13/31 (42) 1/31 (32) 6/31 (19) 3 97 41 4 23 74 1 67 23 3 (77) 23/3 (77) 19/3 (63) 1/3 () 8/3 (27) 7/3 (23)

Safety Summary Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 12 W (n = 38) Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 W (n = 39) Any Grade Grade 3-4 Any Grade Grade 3-4 Treatment-related AEs, % 82 37 72 33 Treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation, % 11 13 8 There were no treatment-related deaths Treatment-related grade 3-4 AEs led to discontinuation at a third of the rate seen with older combination arms using higher or more frequent doses of ipilimumab 6 Combination data based on a February 216 database lock; monotherapy data based on a March 21 database lock AE, adverse event 6. Antonia SJ, et al. Presented at: The Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 214 Annual Meeting; October 3-November 1, 214; Chicago, IL, United States: Poster 168.

Safety Summary Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 12 W (n = 38) Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 W (n = 39) Nivo 3 Q 2 W (n = 2) Any Grade Grade 3-4 Any Grade Grade 3-4 Any Grade Grade 3-4 Treatment-related AEs, % 82 37 72 33 71 19 Treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation, % 11 13 8 1 1 There were no treatment-related deaths Treatment-related grade 3-4 AEs led to discontinuation at a third of the rate seen with older combination arms using higher or more frequent doses of ipilimumab 6 Combination data based on a February 216 database lock; monotherapy data based on a March 21 database lock 6. Antonia SJ, et al. Presented at: The Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology 214 Annual Meeting; October 3-November 1, 214; Chicago, IL, United States: Poster 168.

Treatment-Related Select AEs Nivo 33 Q Q2W 2 W + Ipi 1 Q Q12W W Nivo 3 Q Q2W 2 W + Ipi 1 Q6WQ 6 W Nivo 3 Q Q2W2 W 6 (n = 38) (n = 39) (n = 2) Total Patients With an Event, % 4 3 2 1 3 8 18 3 3 3 37 1 18 3 3 8 31 14 2 1 2 2 4 4 21 Grade 1 2 Grade 3 4 All treatment-related pulmonary events were pneumonitis Grade 1-2 hypersensitivity/infusion reaction occurred in % and 6% of patients in the nivo 3 q 2 w + ipi 1 q 12 w and monotherapy groups, respectively Combination data based on a February 216 database lock; monotherapy data based on a March 21 database lock; Select AEs are those with potential immunologic etiology that require frequent monitoring/intervention

Summary of Efficacy Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 12 W (n = 38) Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 W (n = 39) Nivo 3 Q 2 W (n = 2) Confirmed ORR, % (9% CI) 47 (31, 64) 39 (23, ) 23 (13, 37) Median duration of response, months (9% CI) NR (11.3, NR) NR (8.4, NR) NR (.7, NR) Median length of follow-up, months (range) 12.9 (.9-18.) 11.8 (1.1-18.2) 14.3 (.2-3.1) Best overall response, % Complete response Partial response Stable disease Progressive disease Unable to determine Median PFS, months (9% CI) 8.1 (.6, 13.6) 3.9 (2.6, 13.2) 3.6 (2.3, 6.6) 1-year OS rate, % (9% CI) NC 69 (2, 81) 73 (9, 83) Combination data based on a February 216 database lock; monotherapy data based on a March 21 database lock except for OS data, which are based on an August 21 database lock 47 32 13 8 39 18 28 1 8 1 27 38 12 NC, not calculated (when >2% of patients are censored); NR, not reached 8

Kinetics of Response Change in Target Lesion Size From Baseline, % 6 4 2 Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 W Time, Months 12/1 responders (8%) in the q 6 w arm and 14/18 responders (78%) in the q 12 w arm had a response by time of first scan (week 11) 12/1 responders (8%) in the q 6 w arm and 12/18 responders (67%) in the q 12 w arm had an ongoing response at time of database lock PD, progressive disease; SD, stable disease 2 4 6 8 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 No response (PD + SD) Response First response Includes all patients with baseline target lesion and 1 post-baseline assessment of target lesion (n = 33)

Efficacy by Tumor PD-L1 Expression ORR, % (n/n) <1% PD-L1 1% PD-L1 % PD-L1 Median PFS (9% CI), months <1% PD-L1 1% PD-L1 % PD-L1 1-year OS rate (9% CI), % <1% PD-L1 1% PD-L1 % PD-L1 Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 12 W 3 (3/1) 7 (12/21) 1 (6/6) 4.7 (.9, NR) 8.1 (.6, NR) 13.6 (6.4, NR) NC 9 (66, 97) NC Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 W Nivo 3 Q 2 W (/7) 7 (13/23) 86 (6/7) 2.4 (1.7, 2.9) 1.6 (3.6, NR) NR (7.8, NR) NC 83 (6, 93) 1 (1, 1) 14 (2/14) 28 (9/32) (6/12) 6.6 (2., 11.2) 3. (2.2, 6.6) 8.4 (2.2, NR) 79 (47, 93) 69 (, 82) 83 (48, 96) Combination data based on a February 216 database lock; monotherapy data based on a March 21 database lock except for OS data, which are based on an August 21 database lock

Efficacy Across all Tumor PD-L1 Expression Levels 1 Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 / 12 W (pooled) Nivo 3 Q 2 W 92 8 78 64 ORR, % 6 4 2 43 23 18 14 7 28 4 31 4 44 n = 77 2 17 14 44 32 3 26 28 2 18 18 13 12 All <1% 1% % 1% 2% % Overall <1% 1% % 1% PD-L1 Expression 2% % Combination data based on a February 216 database lock; monotherapy data based on a March 21 database lock

Efficacy By Smoking and EGFR Mutation Status 1 Smoking Status 1 EGFR Mutation Status 8 Nivo 3 Q2W + Ipi 1 Q6/12W (pooled) a 8 Nivo 3 Q2W + Ipi 1 Q6/12W (pooled) ORR, % 6 4 27 Nivo 3 Q2W 46 27 ORR, % 6 4 c Nivo 3 Q2W b 41 3 2 2 14 9 n 11 11 6 41 Never smoked Current/former smoker n 8 Mutant 7 4 Wild-type 3 Never Smoker Current/Former Smoker EGFR Mutant EGFR Wild-Type Combination data based on a February 216 database lock; monotherapy data based on a March 21 database lock a Excludes 1 patient with unknown smoking status (nivo 3 q 2 w + ipi 1 q 6 w) b In patients with non-squamous histology only c Must be interpreted with caution: of these 4 responders, 1 did not have a classical exon 19 deletion or L88R EGFR activating mutations, 3 were former/current smokers, and 3 had high PD-L1 expression levels

Case of Pathological Complete Response in One Patient Treated With Nivo 3 Q 2 W + Ipi 1 Q 6 W 4-year-old male (former smoker, 2 packyear) with metastatic large-cell lung cancer (PD-L1 <1% a ) 3% total tumor size reduction by RECIST Radiographic residual lesions in the lung and mediastinal lymph nodes, without distant disease Change From Baseline, % 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 1 Partial Response Treatment Initiated Treatment Discontinuation (due to rash and grade 2 pneumonitis) Date Resection Before Nivo + Ipi Therapy Following Nivo + Ipi Therapy No Viable Tumor in Resected Residual Lesion Right upper lobe wedge resection (nodule #1) Mar-216 a Patient was included as having partial response and PD-L1 expression unknown in analysis at time of database lock Courtesy of Dr. William Travis, MSKCC

Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line NSCLC: Conclusions Nivolumab 3 mg/kg q 2 w plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (q 6 w or q 12 w) is well tolerated Frequency of treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation was similar to nivolumab monotherapy (11% 13%) There were no treatment-related deaths Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has promising efficacy 39% 47% ORR; median duration of response not reached Efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab is enhanced with increasing PD-L1 expression 1% tumor PD-L1 expression: 7% ORR; 83% 9% 1-year OS rates % tumor PD-L1 expression: 92% (12/13) ORR Nivolumab 3 mg/kg q 2 w plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg q 6 w schedule is being evaluated in further studies, including the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT2477826)