Review Article
Combination Therapies for the Treatment of Advanced Melanoma: A Review of Current Evidence
Table 2
A comparison between CTLA-4 inhibitor monotherapy studies and the combination study of ipilimumab and nivolumab.
| | Drug + target | Study
(author, date) | Patient number | Phase | Regimen + drugs (doses) | Response rate (%) (CR or PR) | Response duration | Drug related toxicity
G3/4 AEs | Treatment related mortality | PFS (months) | OS (months) |
| Ipilimumab
CTLA-4 | Hodi et al., 2010 [12]
Previously treated | 676 |
3 | Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) versus ipilimumab + gp100 versus gp100 | 10.9
5.7
1.5 | 60% >26.5 months
17% >27.9 months
0% >2 years | 22.9%
17.4%
11.4% | 3.1%
2.1%
1.5% | 2.86
2.76
2.76 | 10.1
10.0
6.4 |
| | | Robert et al., 2011 [13]
Previously untreated | 502 |
3 | Ipilimumab (10 mg/kg) + dacarbazine versus dacarbazine | 15.2
10.3 | 19.3 months (median)
8.1 months (median) | 56.3%
27.5% | NR | <3
<3 | 11.2
9.1 |
| Lambrolizumab
CTLA-4 |
Hamid et al., 2013 [14] | 655 |
1 | Lambrolizumab | 38 | 81% still responding at 11-month follow-up | 13% | NR | >7 | Not reached |
| Ipilimumab + nivolumab
CTLA-4 + PD-1 | Wolchok et al., 2013 [15] | 86 |
1 | Ipilimumab + nivolumab (concurrent or sequenced therapy) | 40a
20b | 90.5% of patients with a response had an ongoing response at time of analysis (6.1 to 72.1 weeks) | 53%a
18%b | Nil
Nil | NR | NR |
|
|
Concurrent therapy; bSequenced therapy; NR: not reported.
|
