Cited by 1,159Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementMelanoma and MAPK Pathways

Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study

Open access
Robert, Caroline, Ribas, Antoni, Schachter, Jacob, Arance, Ana, Grob, Jean-Jacques, Mortier, Laurent, Daud, Adil, Carlino, Matteo S +12 more·2019·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Background Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006.Methods KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAF V600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319.Findings Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7-59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5-41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3-22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61-0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6-11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9-4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48-0·67, p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96 (17%) of 555 patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 50 (20%) of 256 patients in the ipilimumab group; the most common of these events were colitis (11 [2%] vs 16 [6%]), diarrhoea (ten [2%] vs seven [3%]), and fatigue (four [<1%] vs three [1%]). Any-grade serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (14%) patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 45 (18%) patients in the ipilimumab group. One patient assigned to pembrolizumab died from treatment-related sepsis.Interpretation Pembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma.Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30388-2

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robert, C., Ribas, A., Schachter, J., Arance, A., Grob, J.-J., Mortier, L., Daud, A., Carlino, M. S., McNeil, C. M., Lotem, M., Larkin, J. M. G., Lorigan, P., Neyns, B., Blank, C. U., Petrella, T. M., Hamid, O., Su, S.-C., Krepler, C., Ibrahim, N., & Long, G. V.
Affiliations
  • Université Paris-Sud (FR)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Sheba Medical Center (IL)
  • Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (ES)
  • Aix-Marseille Université (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (FR)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (AU)
  • Hadassah Medical Center (IL)
  • Royal Marsden Hospital (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (BE)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • Angeles Clinic and Research Institute (US)
  • Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Robert, Caroline
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
20
Issue
9
Pages
1239-1251
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963476376
Cited by
1,159
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 78 · 2025: 103 · 2024: 157 · 2023: 187 · 2022: 205 · 2021: 243 · 2020: 169 · 2019: 15
FWCI
65.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Merck Sharp and Dohme
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
Keywords
ab, ipilimumab, advanced melanoma, anti-PD-1 therapy, CTLA-4 blockade, long-term follow-up, overall survival, progression-free survival, treatment duration, dosing regimen, immune checkpoint inhibitors, five-year outcomes, relapse after treatment discontinuation, safety and tolerability, immune-related adverse events
MeSH terms
Ipilimumab, Progression-Free Survival, Adult, Aged, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Proportional Hazards Models, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review