Cited by 9Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

First results of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) vs NIVO monotherapy for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) from CheckMate 8HW.

Andre, Thierry, Elez, Elena, Lenz, Heinz-Josef, Jensen, Lars Henrik, Touchefeu, Yann, Van Cutsem, Eric, Garcia-Carbonero, Rocio, Tougeron, David +12 more·2025·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

LBA143 Background: The CheckMate 8HW study met its dual primary endpoint with NIVO + IPI demonstrating superior progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR mCRC in the first-line (1L) setting (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.14–0.32; P < 0.0001). We report first results from the other dual primary endpoint of PFS for NIVO + IPI vs NIVO across all lines of therapy in pts with centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Methods: Immunotherapy-naive pts with unresectable or mCRC and MSI-H/dMMR status by local testing who had received 0 or 1 prior line of therapy were randomized 2:2:1 to (i) NIVO (240 mg) Q2W (6 doses, then NIVO 480 mg Q4W), (ii) NIVO (240 mg) + IPI (1 mg/kg) Q3W (4 doses, then NIVO 480 mg Q4W), or (iii) chemo ± targeted therapies. Pts who had received ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy were randomized 1:1 to the NIVO + IPI or NIVO arms. Treatments continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (all arms), or a maximum of 2 years (NIVO ± IPI arms). Results: Across all lines of therapy,707 pts were randomized to NIVO + IPI (n = 354) or NIVO (n = 353); 55% and 52% received study treatment in the 1L setting, respectively. Of all randomized pts, 296 in the NIVO + IPI arm and 286 in the NIVO arm had centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR status. With 47.0 months (mo) of median follow-up (range, 16.7–60.5), NIVO + IPI demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in PFS by BICR vs NIVO (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.48–0.81; P = 0.0003) and higher 12-, 24-, and 36-mo PFS rates vs NIVO (Table). Objective response rate (ORR) by BICR was significantly higher with NIVO + IPI vs NIVO (71% vs 58%; P = 0.0011; Table); best overall response of progressive disease was reported in 10% and 19% of pts, respectively. No new safety concerns were identified (Table). Conclusions: In the first randomized study to compare dual- vs single-agent immunotherapy in MSI-H/dMMR mCRC, NIVO + IPI demonstrated superior PFS vs NIVO across all lines of therapy, with a manageable safety profile. These results establish NIVO + IPI as the potential new standard-of-care treatment for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT04008030 . Efficacy by BICR (all lines; centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR by IHC and/or PCR test) NIVO + IPI(n = 296) NIVO(n = 286) Median PFS (95% CI), mo NR (53.8–NE) 39.3 (22.1–NE) HR (95% CI); P value 0.62 (0.48–0.81); 0.0003 PFS rate (12/24/36-mo), % 76/71/68 63/56/51 ORR, n (%); 95% CI, % 209 (71); 65–76 165 (58); 52–64 P value 0.0011 Safety (all lines; all treated), n (%) NIVO + IPI (n = 352) NIVO (n = 351) Any-grade/grade 3–4 TRAEs 285 (81)/78 (22) 249 (71)/50 (14) Any-grade/grade 3–4 TRAEs leading to discontinuation 48 (14)/33 (9) 21 (6)/14 (4) Treatment-related deaths 2 (< 1) 1 (< 1) IHC, immunohistochemistry; NE, not estimable; NR, not reached; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; TRAE, treatment-related adverse event.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2025.43.4_suppl.lba143

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andre, T., Elez, E., Lenz, H.-J., Jensen, L. H., Touchefeu, Y., Van Cutsem, E., Garcia-Carbonero, R., Tougeron, D., Mendez, G., Schenker, M., De La Fouchardiere, C., Limon, M. L., Yoshino, T., Li, J., Aubin, F., Cela, E., Chen, T., Lei, M., Jin, L., & Lonardi, S.
Affiliations
  • Sorbonne Université, and Hôpital Saint Antoine, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
  • Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
  • USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
  • Vejle Sygehus (DK)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes (FR)
  • University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
  • Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre Imas12, UCM, Madrid, Spain
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers (FR)
  • Fundacion Favaloro Hospital Universitario (AR)
  • University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova (RO)
  • Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon Cedex, France
  • Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain
  • National Cancer Center Hospital East (JP)
  • Shanghai East Hospital (CN)
  • Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
  • Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IT)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-02
Volume
43
Issue
4_suppl
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W4406869831
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bristol Myers Squibb
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
nivolumab, ipilimumab, metastatic colorectal cancer, microsatellite instability-high, mismatch repair deficiency, immune checkpoint inhibitors, combination immunotherapy, progression-free survival, first-line therapy, immune-related adverse events, immunotherapy-naive patients, PD-1/PD-L1 blockade

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