Adjuvant Nivolumab/Cisplatin/RT Improves DFS in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

Fact checked by" Tim Cortese
News
Article

Results from the NIVOPOSTOP trial found improved DFS with adjuvant nivolumab plus cisplatin and RT for patients with LA-SCCHN.

Results from the NIVOPOSTOP trial found improved DFS with adjuvant nivolumab plus cisplatin and RT for patients with LA-SCCHN.

Results from the NIVOPOSTOP trial found improved DFS with adjuvant nivolumab plus cisplatin and RT for patients with LA-SCCHN.

Adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus cisplatin and radiotherapy appeared favorable and significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN) who are at high risk of relapse, according to results from the phase 3 NIVOPOSTOP trial (NCT03576417) presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

At the data cutoff of April 30, 2024, 252 DFS events were recorded. The median follow-up was 30.3 months (IQR, 16-44.9). The 3-year DFS rate was 63.1% (95% CI, 57.0%-68.7%) in the nivolumab arm and 52.5% (95% CI, 46.2%-58.4%) for patients in the standard of care (SOC) arm, which was cisplatin plus radiotherapy (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98; P = .034).

Of note, the 12-month DFS rate was 71.7% vs 64.7%, and the 24-month rates were 64.9% vs 56.2% in the nivolumab and SOC arms, respectively.

The cumulative incidence of loco-regional relapse at 1 year was 11% vs 16%, at 2 years it was 12% vs 19%, and at 3 years it was 13% vs 20% between the nivolumab and SOC arms, respectively (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.94).

“Post-operative nivolumab added to SOC cisplatin-[radiotherapy] improved patient outcomes for resected high-risk LA-SCCHN, that could be proposed as a new standard treatment,” Jean Bourhis, MD, PhD, professor and chief of radiation oncology at the Lausanne University Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland; medical director of GORTEC; and principal investigator of the study, said during the presentation.

The trial enrolled 680 patients and randomly assigned them 1:1 to either the nivolumab group (n = 332) or the SOC group (n = 334). Patients were given 1 dose of nivolumab at 240 mg, followed by 360 mg of nivolumab every 3 weeks for 3 doses plus 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin every 3 weeks and immune-modulated radiotherapy at 66 Gy, followed by 480 mg of nivolumab every 4 weeks for 6 doses. The SOC arm was given 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin every 3 weeks and immune-modulated radiotherapy at 66 Gy.

Patients were included in the trial if they were younger than 75, had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and had SCC of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or hypopharynx with: complete macroscopic surgical resection, pStage III or IV, or high-risk pathological features of relapse.

The median patient age was 59 in both arms, 75% and 77% of patients were male, 51% and 50% had an ECOG performance score of 0, 54% and 48% were current smokers, and 58% vs 58% had the main tumor site in the oral cavity between the nivolumab and SOC arms, respectively. Additionally, 45% vs 48% had a pStage of IVB, 57% vs 59% had extracapsular extension or positive margins, and 47% vs 42% had a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 to 19.

Investigators also looked at whether nivolumab compromised the compliance with SOC cisplatin. Overall, 301 patients in the nivolumab arm and 304 in the SOC arm received cisplatin, with 82% of the nivolumab arm getting the cumulative dose of 200 mg/m2 or more compared with 87% in the SOC arm, and 62% vs 68% received cisplatin for 3 cycles. Receipt of radiotherapy was also analyzed with 303 patients in the nivolumab arm and 306 in the SOC arm, with 95% of patients receiving radiotherapy for 55 days or less compared with 97%, and 91% vs 95% were given a dose of 66 Gy.

Of note, 310 patients were given nivolumab before or during radiotherapy, with 75% receiving it for 4 cycles. Additionally, 260 patients were started on nivolumab maintenance with a median number of 6 maintenance cycles. The median number of total nivolumab cycles was 10.

Grade 1/2 treatment-emergent adverse effects (TRAEs) noted in either the nivolumab or SOC arms included stomatitis (58% vs 58%), radiation skin injury (59% vs 63%), dysphagia (32% vs 33%), nausea (40% vs 45%), and dry mouth (38% vs 42%). Grade 3/4 TRAEs included stomatitis (25% vs 24%), dysphagia (24% vs 18%), neutropenia (23% vs 23%), renal disorder (11% vs 5%), and radiation skin injury (7% vs 7%).

Reference

Bourhis J, Auperin A, Borel C, et al. NIVOPOSTOP (GORTEC 2018-01): A phase III randomized trial of adjuvant nivolumab added to radio-chemotherapy in patients with resected head and neck squamous cell carcinoma at high risk of. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA2. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA2

Recent Videos
A third of patients had a response [to lifileucel], and of the patients who have a response, half of them were alive at the 4-year follow-up.
We are seeing that, in those patients who have relapsed/refractory melanoma with survival measured as a few weeks and no effective treatments, about a third of these patients will have a response.
We have the current CAR [T-cell therapies], which target CD19; however, we need others.
“Every patient [with multiple myeloma] should be offered CAR T before they’re offered a bispecific, with some rare exceptions,” said Barry Paul, MD.
Barry Paul, MD, listed cilta-cel, anito-cel, and arlo-cel as 3 of the CAR T-cell therapies with the most promising efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Jose Sandoval Sus, MD, discussed standard CAR T-cell therapies in patients across multiple high-risk lymphoma indications.
Elucidating nonresponses to bispecific T-cell engagers may be an important research consideration in the multiple myeloma field.
Barriers to access and financial toxicities are challenges that must be addressed for CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL, according to Jose Sandoval Sus, MD.
Fixed treatment durations with bispecific antibodies followed by observation may help in mitigating infection-related AEs, according to Shebli Atrash, MD.
Shebli Atrash, MD, stated that MRD should be considered carefully as an end point, given potential recurrence despite MRD negativity.
Related Content