Skip to content

MDX-010 Antibody, MDX-1379 Melanoma Vaccine, or MDX-010/MDX-1379 Combination Treatment for Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study Comparing MDX-010 Monotherapy, MDX-010 in Combination With a Melanoma Peptide Vaccine, and Melanoma Vaccine Monotherapy in HLA-A2*0201-Positive Patients With Previously Treated Unresectable Stage III or IV Melanoma

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00094653
Enrollment
1783
Registered
2004-10-22
Start date
2004-09-30
Completion date
2009-10-31
Last updated
2011-07-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Melanoma, Metastases

Keywords

melanoma, metastatic melanoma, skin cancer

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of MDX-010 (ipilimumab, BMS-734016) (anti-CTLA4) in combination with MDX-1379 (gp100, BMS-734019) in patients with previously treated, unresectable Stage III or IV melanoma. Survival time will be evaluated, as well as patient responses and time to disease progression. Eligible patients are those who in response to a single regimen containing interleukin-2 (IL-2), dacarbazine, and/or temozolomide, have 1) relapsed following an objective response (partial response/complete response \[PR/CR\]); 2) failed to demonstrate an objective response (PR/CR); or 3) could not tolerate such a regimen due to unacceptable toxicity. Patients will be randomized into one of three groups, and will receive one of the following treatments: MDX-010 alone, MDX-1379 alone, or MDX-010 in combination with MDX-1379.

Detailed description

Melanoma accounts for approximately 5% of all skin cancers in the United States, but it accounts for about 75% of all skin cancer deaths. In 2004, the expected prevalence of melanoma is 627,252, with about 119,178 of these cases being Stage III or IV (metastatic melanoma). First line treatments for metastatic melanoma, usually IL-2, dacarbazine and/or temozolomide, are associated with significant toxicities. MDX-010 (anti-CTLA4) antibodies are designed to keep the immune system running by blocking CTLA-4 from down-regulating T cell activation. MDX-1379 is made up of two peptides that are pieces of a bigger melanoma protein (gp100). These peptides bind to HLA-A2 which is then recognized by T cells.

Interventions

DRUGMDX-010 (anti-CTLA4) monoclonal antibody

3mg/kg (intravenous \[iv\] infusion over 90 minutes), every 3 weeks for 4 doses

BIOLOGICALMDX-1379 (gp100) Melanoma Peptide Vaccine

2mL (2 subcutaneous injections of 2 mL each, 1 to each thigh), every 3 weeks for 4 doses.

Sponsors

Bristol-Myers Squibb
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Diagnosed with malignant melanoma * Measurable unresectable Stage III or IV melanoma * HLA-A\*0201 positive * Previous treatment with & failure/relapse/inability to tolerate IL-2, dacarbazine and/or temozolomide * At least 4 weeks since prior treatment * Negative pregnancy * Life expectancy greater than 4 months * Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance of 0 or 1 * Required lab values * Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) negative

Exclusion criteria

* Prior malignancies which the patient has not been disease free for over 5 years, except treated and cured basal or squamous cell skin cancer, superficial bladder cancer, carcinoma in situ of the cervix, or any other cancer * Ocular melanoma * Active, untreated central nervous system (CNS) metastasis * Prior treatment with MDX-010 (anti-CTLA4) antibody * Prior treatment with any cancer therapeutic vaccine * Active autoimmune disease or history of autoimmune disease * Pregnancy or nursing * Hypersensitivity to Incomplete Freund's Adjuvant (IFA) (Montanide ISA-51) * Underlying medical conditions deemed hazardous if treated with study drug * Concomitant therapy with anti-melanoma drugs, chemotherapies, other investigational therapies, chronic use of systemic corticosteroids * Unable to provide informed consent

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Overall Survival (OS) (Time-to-Death) Difference Between MDX-010 in Combination With gp 100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Versus gp 100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine AloneFrom randomization until the end of the study, which was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed (264 weeks)OS was defined as the time from randomization until death from any cause. If a participant did not expire, the subject was censored at the time of last contact (last known alive date). 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median were computed using Brookmeyer and Crowley method.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
12-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival RatesMonth 12, Month 18, Month 24The probability that a subject is alive at 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months following randomization, estimated via the non-parametric method (Kaplan-Meier method). For calculating 95% CI, bootstrap method was used with 20000 simulated trials.
Progression Free Survival (PFS)From randomization until the end of the study, which was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed (264 weeks)PFS was defined as the number of days between the date of randomization and the date of the progression or the date of death. A subject who died without prior progression was considered to have progressed on the date of death. PFS was determined by investigator. 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median were computed using Brookmeyer and Crowley method.
Percentage of Participants With Progression Free Survival (PFS) at Week 12 and Week 24Week 12, Week 24PFS at Week 12 was defined as the probability that the subject was progression-free at 12 weeks and 24 weeks following the start of randomization. It was computed via Kaplan-Meier method, truncated at Week 12 and Week 24. PFS was determined by investigator. 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median were computed using Brookmeyer and Crowley method.
Time to Progression (TTP)from time of randomization to date of PD or death due to PD (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks])TTP was defined as the number of days between the date of the randomization and date of PD or death due to PD. For subjects who had not progression and remained alive, TTP was censored on the date of last assessment; those who remained alive and had no recorded post-baseline assessment, TTP was censored on the date of randomization; those who remained alive and had randomized but were not treated, TTP was censored at the date of randomization; for those who died without reported disease progression, TTP was censored on the date of death.
Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)BOR was determined between Weeks 12 and Week 24 confirmation at least 4 weeks later at Cycle 1.Investigator's assessment, modified World Health Organization criteria. CR: disappearance of all lesions by 2 consecutive observations \>=4 weeks apart, no evidence of PD. PR: \>=50% ↓ in sum of products of longest diameter & greatest perpendicular diameter of all target lesions compared to baseline by 2 observations \>=4 weeks apart. SD: Neither sufficient ↓ to qualify for PR nor sufficient ↑ to qualify for PD. PD: ↑ \>=25% in sum of products of longest diameter & greatest perpendicular diameter of target lesions compared to smallest recorded sum during study, or appearance of \>= 1 new lesion.
Determination of Best Overall Response Rate (BORR)Up to week 24Response was based on the investigators' assessment using modified WHO criteria. BORR is defined as the number of subjects whose BOR is complete or partial response (CR or PR) divided by the total number of subjects in the group. BORR was comprised of responder and non-responder. The definition of a responder in BORR was either confirmed CR or PR, and a non-responder was defined as stable disease (SD), progressed disease (PD), unconfirmed CR (uCR), unconfirmed PR (uPR), and not evaluated.
Time to ResponseFrom randomization until the end of the study, which was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed (264 weeks)Time to response was defined as the number of days from the date of randomization to the date when measurement criteria are met for BOR of CR or PR, as determined by investigator.
Duration of Responsefrom time of initial drug administration to date of PD or death due to PD (the end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks])Kaplan-Meier medians along with Brookmeyer and Crowley 95% confidence intervals (CI) for were computed. Duration of response was defined in subjects whose BOR was CR or PR as the number of days between the date of response (CR or PR) and the date of PD or the date of death (whichever occurs first).
Overall Survival (OS) (Time-to-Death) Difference Between MDX-010 Monotherapy Versus gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Alone and MDX-010 in Combination With gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Versus MDX-010 MonotherapyFrom randomization until the end of the study, which was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed (264 weeks)OS was defined as the time from randomization until death from any cause. If a participant did not expire, the subject was censored at the time of last contact (last known alive date). 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median were computed using Brookmeyer and Crowley method.
Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)from Week 24 to end of study (the end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks])Response was based on the investigators' assessment using modified World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Delayed response is defined as post Week 24 overall response for the subjects who have PD before or at Week 24. Evaluation of delayed overall response is compared to baseline assessment. Delayed response includes delayed late CR, delayed late PR, delayed late SD, continued PD, unknown, and missing after Week 24. The delayed response of CR and PR also must have been confirmed.
Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Baseline (Day 1, Cycle1), Week 12The 30 items were grouped into the following: 1 global QOL scale, 5 functional scales (Physical, Role, Cognitive, Emotional, Social), and 9 symptom scales/items (Fatigue, Nausea and Vomiting, Pain, Dyspnea, Sleep Disturbance, Appetite Loss, Constipation, Diarrhea, Financial Impact). All scores were linearly transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. For global QOL and functional items, a higher score represents a better level of functioning (100=best/0=worst). For symptom items, a higher score represents a higher level of symptoms (0=no symptom at all/100=very much severe).
Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathOn-study adverse events include all AEs reported between the first dose and 70 days after the last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).An AE was defined as any undesirable sign, symptom, clinically significant laboratory abnormality, or medical condition occurring after starting study treatment, even if the event was not considered to be treatment-related. Adverse events are graded using the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 3.0. If CTCAE grading does not exist for an adverse event, the intensity of mild (1), moderate (2), severe (3), and life-threatening (4) were used.
Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-study adverse events include all AEs reported between the first dose and 70 days after the last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).An immune related adverse event (irAE) was defined as an adverse event of unknown etiology, associated with study drug exposure and consistent with an immune phenomenon. The irAEs were programmatically determined from a predefined list of MedDRA version 12.0 high-level group terms, high-level terms and preferred terms of all ipilimumab related adverse event. The category of Other irAEs includes blood, eye, immune, infections, renal, and respiratory systems.
Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesOn-study laboratory results are results reported after the first dose date and within 70 days of last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).ANC=Absolute Neutrophil Count. CTCAE v3.0 Grades 0 through 4 of severity for each AE based on this general guideline: Grade 0=Normal, Grade 1=Mild AE, Grade 2=Moderate AE, Grade 3=Severe AE, Grade 4=Life-threatening or disabling AE.
Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesOn-study adverse events include all AEs reported between the first dose and 70 days after the last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).ALT=alanine aminotransferase; AST=aspartate aminotransferase. CTCAE v3.0 Grades 0 through 4 of severity for each AE based on this general guideline: Grade 0=Normal, Grade 1=Mild AE, Grade 2=Moderate AE, Grade 3=Severe AE, Grade 4=Life-threatening or disabling AE.
Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesOn-study adverse events include all AEs reported between the first dose and 70 days after the last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).CTCAE v3.0 Grades 0 through 4 of severity for each AE based on this general guideline: Grade 0=Normal, Grade 1=Mild AE, Grade 2=Moderate AE, Grade 3=Severe AE, Grade 4=Life-threatening or disabling AE.
Clinically Meaningful Changes in Vital Signs and Physical Examinationsvital signs and physical examination were evaluated at screening and at Weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 36, and every 3 months thereafterClinically meaningful changes were according to investigator. Vital sign measurements include height, weight, temperature, pulse, and resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
Disease Control Rate (DCR)Up to week 24Response was based on the investigators' assessment using modified WHO criteria. DCR is defined as the number of subjects whose BOR is CR, PR, or SD divided by the total number of subjects in the group.

Countries

Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

Of the 1783 participants who enrolled and were screened for study participation, a total of 676 subjects were randomized.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Ipilimumab Plus gp100
Ipilimumab was administered at a dosage of 3 mg/kg as an intravenous (IV) infusion administered over 90 minutes every 3 weeks for a total of 4 doses, together with gp100. Gp100 consisted of 2 separate peptide components: Peptide A, a peptide with sequence YLEPGPVTV (gp100:280-288\[288V\]) and Peptide B, a peptide with the sequence IMDQVPFSV (gp100:209-217\[210M\]). Each peptide was prepared with Montanide ISA-51. One dose of gp100 consisted of the administration of Peptide A, at a dosage of 2 mL or 1 mg, and Peptide B, at a dosage of 2 mL or 1 mg. After Week 12, subjects who met re-induction criteria could receive further cycles of their randomized study therapy.
403
Ipilimumab Monotherapy
Ipilimumab was administered at a dosage of 3 mg/kg as an intravenous (IV) infusion administered over 90 minutes every 3 weeks for a total of 4 doses, together with matching vaccine placebo. The vaccine placebo consisted of sterile 0.9% sodium chloride. After Week 12, subjects who met re-induction criteria could receive further cycles of their randomized study therapy.
137
gp100
Gp100 consisted of 2 separate peptide components: Peptide A, a peptide with sequence YLEPGPVTV (gp100:280-288\[288V\]) and Peptide B, a peptide with the sequence IMDQVPFSV (gp100:209-217\[210M\]). Each peptide was prepared with Montanide ISA-51. One dose of gp100 consisted of the administration of Peptide A, at a dosage of 2 mL or 1 mg, and Peptide B, at a dosage of 2 mL or 1 mg. After Week 12, subjects who met re-induction criteria could receive further cycles of their randomized study therapy.
136
Total676

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002
Overall StudyDeath306100119
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up321
Overall StudyOther222
Overall StudyProtocol Violation001
Overall StudySubject Withdrew Consent1023

Baseline characteristics

Characteristicgp100TotalIpilimumab Plus gp100Ipilimumab Monotherapy
Age Continuous57.4 years56.2 years55.6 years56.8 years
Age, Customized
< 65 years
94 participants480 participants291 participants95 participants
Age, Customized
>=65 years
42 participants196 participants112 participants42 participants
Duration of Melanoma5.65 years5.05 years5.09 years4.34 years
Lactate Dehydrogenase
<=ULN
81 Participants417 Participants252 Participants84 Participants
Lactate Dehydrogenase
unknown
3 Participants5 Participants2 Participants0 Participants
Lactate Dehydrogenase
>upper limit of normal (ULN)
52 Participants254 Participants149 Participants53 Participants
Melanoma Stage
M0
4 Participants10 Participants5 Participants1 Participants
Melanoma Stage
M1a
11 Participants62 Participants37 Participants14 Participants
Melanoma Stage
M1b
23 Participants121 Participants76 Participants22 Participants
Melanoma Stage
M1c
98 Participants483 Participants285 Participants100 Participants
Prior Interleukin-2 Therapy
No
103 Participants522 Participants314 Participants105 Participants
Prior Interleukin-2 Therapy
Yes
33 Participants154 Participants89 Participants32 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black
1 Participants5 Participants3 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic
5 Participants30 Participants18 Participants7 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
1 Participants3 Participants2 Participants0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
129 Participants638 Participants380 Participants129 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
63 Participants275 Participants156 Participants56 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
73 Participants401 Participants247 Participants81 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
124 / 131362 / 380124 / 132
serious
Total, serious adverse events
55 / 131155 / 38052 / 132

Outcome results

Primary

Overall Survival (OS) (Time-to-Death) Difference Between MDX-010 in Combination With gp 100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Versus gp 100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Alone

OS was defined as the time from randomization until death from any cause. If a participant did not expire, the subject was censored at the time of last contact (last known alive date). 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median were computed using Brookmeyer and Crowley method.

Time frame: From randomization until the end of the study, which was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed (264 weeks)

Population: Intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Overall Survival (OS) (Time-to-Death) Difference Between MDX-010 in Combination With gp 100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Versus gp 100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Alone9.95 months
gp100Overall Survival (OS) (Time-to-Death) Difference Between MDX-010 in Combination With gp 100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Versus gp 100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Alone6.44 months
p-value: 0.000495% CI: [0.55, 0.85]Stratified Log Rank
Secondary

12-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates

The probability that a subject is alive at 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months following randomization, estimated via the non-parametric method (Kaplan-Meier method). For calculating 95% CI, bootstrap method was used with 20000 simulated trials.

Time frame: Month 12, Month 18, Month 24

Population: Intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp10012-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates18-Month Survival Rate0.300 probability
Ipilimumab Plus gp10012-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates12-Month Survival Rate0.436 probability
Ipilimumab Plus gp10012-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates24-Month Survival Rate0.216 probability
gp10012-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates18-Month Survival Rate0.332 probability
gp10012-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates12-Month Survival Rate0.456 probability
gp10012-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates24-Month Survival Rate0.235 probability
gp10012-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates12-Month Survival Rate0.253 probability
gp10012-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates24-Month Survival Rate0.137 probability
gp10012-, 18-, and 24-Month Survival Rates18-Month Survival Rate0.163 probability
Secondary

Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)

Investigator's assessment, modified World Health Organization criteria. CR: disappearance of all lesions by 2 consecutive observations \>=4 weeks apart, no evidence of PD. PR: \>=50% ↓ in sum of products of longest diameter & greatest perpendicular diameter of all target lesions compared to baseline by 2 observations \>=4 weeks apart. SD: Neither sufficient ↓ to qualify for PR nor sufficient ↑ to qualify for PD. PD: ↑ \>=25% in sum of products of longest diameter & greatest perpendicular diameter of target lesions compared to smallest recorded sum during study, or appearance of \>= 1 new lesion.

Time frame: BOR was determined between Weeks 12 and Week 24 confirmation at least 4 weeks later at Cycle 1.

Population: Intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Progressed Disease239 participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Stable Disease58 participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Complete Response1 participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Partial Response22 participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Not Evaluated, Missing, or Unknown83 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Stable Disease24 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Complete Response2 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Partial Response13 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Progressed Disease70 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Not Evaluated, Missing, or Unknown28 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Not Evaluated, Missing, or Unknown32 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Progressed Disease89 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Complete Response0 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Stable Disease13 participants
gp100Best Overall Response (BOR): Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), Stable Disease (SD), Progressed Disease (PD)Partial Response2 participants
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12

The 30 items were grouped into the following: 1 global QOL scale, 5 functional scales (Physical, Role, Cognitive, Emotional, Social), and 9 symptom scales/items (Fatigue, Nausea and Vomiting, Pain, Dyspnea, Sleep Disturbance, Appetite Loss, Constipation, Diarrhea, Financial Impact). All scores were linearly transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. For global QOL and functional items, a higher score represents a better level of functioning (100=best/0=worst). For symptom items, a higher score represents a higher level of symptoms (0=no symptom at all/100=very much severe).

Time frame: Baseline (Day 1, Cycle1), Week 12

Population: All subjects who received at least 1 dose or any partial dose of study medication. N=number of participants analyzed, n=number of participants with measure at given time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Sleep Disturbance (n=225, 83, 76)6.5 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Social (n=227, 83, 76)-5.6 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Diarrhea (n=223, 82, 78)6.4 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Dyspnea (n=222, 81, 77)3.5 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Fatigue (n=226, 82, 78)10.6 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Role Change (n=226, 83, 78)-9.3 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Pain (n=227, 83, 78)5.6 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Nausea and Vomiting (n=226, 83, 78)4.6 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Financial Impact (n=226, 83, 76)0.0 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Constipation (n=225, 83, 77)5.2 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Cognitive (n=226, 83, 78)-3.1 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Physical (n=226 83, 78)-6.2 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Appetite Loss (n=225, 83, 78)8.5 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Emotional (n=227, 83, 78)-1.5 units on a scale
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Global QOL (n=226, 83, 77)-7.4 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Appetite Loss (n=225, 83, 78)11.6 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Global QOL (n=226, 83, 77)-8.8 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Physical (n=226 83, 78)-5.1 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Role Change (n=226, 83, 78)-10.5 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Cognitive (n=226, 83, 78)-4.3 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Emotional (n=227, 83, 78)-3.6 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Social (n=227, 83, 76)-7.5 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Fatigue (n=226, 82, 78)12.5 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Nausea and Vomiting (n=226, 83, 78)3.1 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Pain (n=227, 83, 78)7.9 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Dyspnea (n=222, 81, 77)5.3 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Sleep Disturbance (n=225, 83, 76)10.1 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Constipation (n=225, 83, 77)1.9 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Diarrhea (n=223, 82, 78)9.1 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Financial Impact (n=226, 83, 76)3.1 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Dyspnea (n=222, 81, 77)9.1 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Emotional (n=227, 83, 78)-1.5 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Diarrhea (n=223, 82, 78)2.1 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Sleep Disturbance (n=225, 83, 76)11.0 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Cognitive (n=226, 83, 78)-3.4 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Appetite Loss (n=225, 83, 78)10.3 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Role Change (n=226, 83, 78)-13.7 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Global QOL (n=226, 83, 77)-10.4 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Constipation (n=225, 83, 77)11.8 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Nausea and Vomiting (n=226, 83, 78)4.4 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Fatigue (n=226, 82, 78)14.5 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Physical (n=226 83, 78)-10.1 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Pain (n=227, 83, 78)11.9 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Social (n=227, 83, 76)-4.2 units on a scale
gp100Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Instrument at Week 12Financial Impact (n=226, 83, 76)1.7 units on a scale
Comparison: Role change, change from baselinep-value: 0.24895% CI: [-3, 11.7]ANCOVA
Comparison: Physical change from baselinep-value: 0.097895% CI: [-0.9, 11]ANCOVA
Comparison: Physical change from baselinep-value: 0.65995% CI: [-6, 3.8]ANCOVA
Comparison: Global quality of life change from baselinep-value: 0.280595% CI: [-2.5, 8.6]ANCOVA
Comparison: Global quality of life change from baselinep-value: 0.6395% CI: [-5, 8.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Global quality of life change from baselinep-value: 0.602695% CI: [-3.9, 6.8]ANCOVA
Comparison: Physical change from baselinep-value: 0.121995% CI: [-1.1, 8.9]ANCOVA
Comparison: Role change, change from baselinep-value: 0.474295% CI: [-5.6, 12]ANCOVA
Comparison: Role change, change from baselinep-value: 0.759795% CI: [-6.1, 8.3]ANCOVA
Comparison: Cognitive change from baselinep-value: 0.911995% CI: [-4.7, 5.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Cognitive change from baselinep-value: 0.761695% CI: [-6.9, 5]ANCOVA
Comparison: Cognitive change from baselinep-value: 0.626695% CI: [-3.6, 6]ANCOVA
Comparison: Emotional change from baselinep-value: 0.998495% CI: [-4.8, 4.8]ANCOVA
Comparison: Emotional change from baselinep-value: 0.487395% CI: [-7.8, 3.7]ANCOVA
Comparison: Emotional change from baselinep-value: 0.393895% CI: [-2.7, 6.7]ANCOVA
Comparison: Social change from baselinep-value: 0.669595% CI: [-8.1, 5.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Social change from baselinep-value: 0.404195% CI: [-11.3, 4.6]ANCOVA
Comparison: Social change from baselinep-value: 0.553895% CI: [-4.5, 8.3]ANCOVA
Comparison: Fatigue change from baselinep-value: 0.225995% CI: [-10.3, 2.4]ANCOVA
Comparison: Fatigue change from baselinep-value: 0.616895% CI: [-9.6, 5.7]ANCOVA
Comparison: Fatigue change from baselinep-value: 0.532995% CI: [-8.2, 4.3]ANCOVA
Comparison: Nausea and Vomiting change from baselinep-value: 0.939795% CI: [-4.7, 5]ANCOVA
Comparison: Nausea and Vomiting change from baselinep-value: 0.671695% CI: [-7.1, 4.6]ANCOVA
Comparison: Nausea and Vomiting change from baselinep-value: 0.549795% CI: [-3.3, 6.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Pain change from baselinep-value: 0.062595% CI: [-12.8, 0.3]ANCOVA
Comparison: Pain change from baselinep-value: 0.321495% CI: [-11.9, 3.9]ANCOVA
Comparison: Pain change from baselinep-value: 0.489895% CI: [-8.7, 4.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Dyspnea change from baselinep-value: 0.076195% CI: [-11.8, 0.6]ANCOVA
Comparison: Dyspnea change from baselinep-value: 0.318795% CI: [-11.2, 3.7]ANCOVA
Comparison: Dyspnea change from baselinep-value: 0.554895% CI: [-7.9, 4.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Sleep disturbance change from baselinep-value: 0.24595% CI: [-12.1, 3.1]ANCOVA
Comparison: Sleep disturbance change from baselinep-value: 0.846495% CI: [-10, 8.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Sleep Disturbance change from baselinep-value: 0.335195% CI: [-10.9, 3.7]ANCOVA
Comparison: Appetite loss change from baselinep-value: 0.629195% CI: [-9.1, 5.5]ANCOVA
Comparison: Appetite Loss change from baselinep-value: 0.767595% CI: [-7.4, 10.1]ANCOVA
Comparison: Appetite Loss change from baselinep-value: 0.391195% CI: [-10.2, 4]ANCOVA
Comparison: Constipation change from baselinep-value: 0.043195% CI: [-12.9, -0.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Constipation change from baselinep-value: 0.010195% CI: [-17.4, -2.4]ANCOVA
Comparison: Constipation change from baselinep-value: 0.279695% CI: [-2.8, 9.5]ANCOVA
Comparison: Diarrhea change from baselinep-value: 0.19495% CI: [-2.2, 10.8]ANCOVA
Comparison: Diarrhea change from baselinep-value: 0.082195% CI: [-0.9, 14.8]ANCOVA
Comparison: Diarrhea change from baselinep-value: 0.416995% CI: [-9, 3.8]ANCOVA
Comparison: Financial Impact change from baselinep-value: 0.571795% CI: [-7.5, 4.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Financial Impact change from baselinep-value: 0.694995% CI: [-5.6, 8.4]ANCOVA
Comparison: Financial Impact change from baselinep-value: 0.284995% CI: [-8.8, 2.6]ANCOVA
Secondary

Clinically Meaningful Changes in Vital Signs and Physical Examinations

Clinically meaningful changes were according to investigator. Vital sign measurements include height, weight, temperature, pulse, and resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

Time frame: vital signs and physical examination were evaluated at screening and at Weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 36, and every 3 months thereafter

Population: All subjects who received at least 1 dose or any partial dose of study medication.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Clinically Meaningful Changes in Vital Signs and Physical ExaminationsClinically Meaningful Vital Sign Changes0 participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Clinically Meaningful Changes in Vital Signs and Physical ExaminationsClinically Meaningful Physical Examination Changes0 participants
gp100Clinically Meaningful Changes in Vital Signs and Physical ExaminationsClinically Meaningful Vital Sign Changes0 participants
gp100Clinically Meaningful Changes in Vital Signs and Physical ExaminationsClinically Meaningful Physical Examination Changes0 participants
gp100Clinically Meaningful Changes in Vital Signs and Physical ExaminationsClinically Meaningful Vital Sign Changes0 participants
gp100Clinically Meaningful Changes in Vital Signs and Physical ExaminationsClinically Meaningful Physical Examination Changes0 participants
Secondary

Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)

Response was based on the investigators' assessment using modified World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Delayed response is defined as post Week 24 overall response for the subjects who have PD before or at Week 24. Evaluation of delayed overall response is compared to baseline assessment. Delayed response includes delayed late CR, delayed late PR, delayed late SD, continued PD, unknown, and missing after Week 24. The delayed response of CR and PR also must have been confirmed.

Time frame: from Week 24 to end of study (the end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks])

Population: Number of subjects with BOR of PR/SD (80 subjects ipi + gp100 , 37 ipi , 15 gp100) plus number of subjects with BOR of PD that had subsequent evaluation (8 ipi + gp100, 3 ipi, 3 gp100).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)Partial Response Beyond Week 243 participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)Complete Response Beyond Week 241 participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)Stable Disease Beyond Week 243 participants
gp100Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)Partial Response Beyond Week 242 participants
gp100Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)Complete Response Beyond Week 243 participants
gp100Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)Stable Disease Beyond Week 240 participants
gp100Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)Complete Response Beyond Week 240 participants
gp100Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)Stable Disease Beyond Week 240 participants
gp100Delayed Response (Response Beyond Week 24)Partial Response Beyond Week 240 participants
Secondary

Determination of Best Overall Response Rate (BORR)

Response was based on the investigators' assessment using modified WHO criteria. BORR is defined as the number of subjects whose BOR is complete or partial response (CR or PR) divided by the total number of subjects in the group. BORR was comprised of responder and non-responder. The definition of a responder in BORR was either confirmed CR or PR, and a non-responder was defined as stable disease (SD), progressed disease (PD), unconfirmed CR (uCR), unconfirmed PR (uPR), and not evaluated.

Time frame: Up to week 24

Population: Intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Determination of Best Overall Response Rate (BORR)5.7 percentage of participants
gp100Determination of Best Overall Response Rate (BORR)10.9 percentage of participants
gp100Determination of Best Overall Response Rate (BORR)1.5 percentage of participants
p-value: 0.0433Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
p-value: 0.0012Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
p-value: 0.0402Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Disease Control Rate (DCR)

Response was based on the investigators' assessment using modified WHO criteria. DCR is defined as the number of subjects whose BOR is CR, PR, or SD divided by the total number of subjects in the group.

Time frame: Up to week 24

Population: Intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Disease Control Rate (DCR)20.1 percentage of participants
gp100Disease Control Rate (DCR)28.5 percentage of participants
gp100Disease Control Rate (DCR)11.0 percentage of participants
p-value: 0.0179Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
p-value: 0.0002Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
p-value: 0.0429Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Duration of Response

Kaplan-Meier medians along with Brookmeyer and Crowley 95% confidence intervals (CI) for were computed. Duration of response was defined in subjects whose BOR was CR or PR as the number of days between the date of response (CR or PR) and the date of PD or the date of death (whichever occurs first).

Time frame: from time of initial drug administration to date of PD or death due to PD (the end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks])

Population: Responders only in intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study. Patients who did not progress or died were censored at the date of their last tumor assessment.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Duration of Response11.47 months
gp100Duration of ResponseNA months
gp100Duration of ResponseNA months
Secondary

Overall Survival (OS) (Time-to-Death) Difference Between MDX-010 Monotherapy Versus gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Alone and MDX-010 in Combination With gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Versus MDX-010 Monotherapy

OS was defined as the time from randomization until death from any cause. If a participant did not expire, the subject was censored at the time of last contact (last known alive date). 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median were computed using Brookmeyer and Crowley method.

Time frame: From randomization until the end of the study, which was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed (264 weeks)

Population: Intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Overall Survival (OS) (Time-to-Death) Difference Between MDX-010 Monotherapy Versus gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Alone and MDX-010 in Combination With gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Versus MDX-010 Monotherapy9.95 months
gp100Overall Survival (OS) (Time-to-Death) Difference Between MDX-010 Monotherapy Versus gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Alone and MDX-010 in Combination With gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Versus MDX-010 Monotherapy10.12 months
gp100Overall Survival (OS) (Time-to-Death) Difference Between MDX-010 Monotherapy Versus gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Alone and MDX-010 in Combination With gp100 Melanoma Peptide Vaccine Versus MDX-010 Monotherapy6.44 months
p-value: 0.002695% CI: [0.51, 0.87]Stratified Log Rank
p-value: 0.757595% CI: [0.83, 1.3]Stratified Log Rank
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)

An immune related adverse event (irAE) was defined as an adverse event of unknown etiology, associated with study drug exposure and consistent with an immune phenomenon. The irAEs were programmatically determined from a predefined list of MedDRA version 12.0 high-level group terms, high-level terms and preferred terms of all ipilimumab related adverse event. The category of Other irAEs includes blood, eye, immune, infections, renal, and respiratory systems.

Time frame: On-study adverse events include all AEs reported between the first dose and 70 days after the last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).

Population: All subjects who received at least 1 dose or any partial dose of study medication.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Skin irAEs (any grade)40.0 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Gastrointestinal irAEs6.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-Study Severe irAEs11.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Any On-Study irAEs58.2 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Liver irAEs (any grade)2.1 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Neurological irAEs0.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Endocrine irAEs1.1 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Liver irAEs1.1 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-Study irAEs Leading to Discontinuation5.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Endocrine irAEs (any grade)3.9 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Other irAEs1.6 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Neurological irAEs (any grade)0.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Death Due to irAEs1.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Other irAEs (any grade)3.2 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Skin irAEs2.4 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Gastrointestinal irAEs (any grade)32.1 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-Study Serious irAEs10.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Endocrine irAEs3.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Any On-Study irAEs61.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-Study Severe irAEs15.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-Study Serious irAEs13.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-Study irAEs Leading to Discontinuation8.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Death Due to irAEs1.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Gastrointestinal irAEs (any grade)29.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Gastrointestinal irAEs7.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Liver irAEs (any grade)3.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Liver irAEs0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Endocrine irAEs (any grade)7.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Skin irAEs (any grade)43.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Skin irAEs1.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Neurological irAEs (any grade)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Neurological irAEs0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Other irAEs (any grade)4.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Other irAEs2.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-Study Severe irAEs3.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Skin irAEs (any grade)16.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Death Due to irAEs0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Other irAEs0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Skin irAEs0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-Study irAEs Leading to Discontinuation0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Other irAEs (any grade)2.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Neurological irAEs (any grade)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)On-Study Serious irAEs0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Any On-Study irAEs31.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Liver irAEs2.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Neurological irAEs0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Endocrine irAEs (any grade)1.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Liver irAEs (any grade)4.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Gastrointestinal irAEs0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Severe (>= Grade 3) Endocrine irAEs0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs)Gastrointestinal irAEs (any grade)14.4 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of Death

An AE was defined as any undesirable sign, symptom, clinically significant laboratory abnormality, or medical condition occurring after starting study treatment, even if the event was not considered to be treatment-related. Adverse events are graded using the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 3.0. If CTCAE grading does not exist for an adverse event, the intensity of mild (1), moderate (2), severe (3), and life-threatening (4) were used.

Time frame: On-study adverse events include all AEs reported between the first dose and 70 days after the last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).

Population: All subjects who received at least 1 dose or any partial dose of study medication.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathOn-Study AEs Leading to Discontinuation9.2 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathAny On-Study AE98.4 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathSevere (>=Grade 3) On-Study AEs50.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathSerious On-Study AEs40.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathRelated On-Study AEs88.9 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathAEs with Outcome of Death6.1 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathRelated AE with Outcome of Death2.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathRelated On-Study AEs80.2 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathRelated AE with Outcome of Death3.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathAny On-Study AE96.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathSerious On-Study AEs42.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathAEs with Outcome of Death9.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathSevere (>=Grade 3) On-Study AEs55.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathOn-Study AEs Leading to Discontinuation13.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathSevere (>=Grade 3) On-Study AEs52.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathSerious On-Study AEs39.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathRelated AE with Outcome of Death1.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathRelated On-Study AEs78.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathOn-Study AEs Leading to Discontinuation3.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathAny On-Study AE97.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With On-Study Adverse Events (AEs) and AEs With an Outcome of DeathAEs with Outcome of Death6.1 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Progression Free Survival (PFS) at Week 12 and Week 24

PFS at Week 12 was defined as the probability that the subject was progression-free at 12 weeks and 24 weeks following the start of randomization. It was computed via Kaplan-Meier method, truncated at Week 12 and Week 24. PFS was determined by investigator. 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median were computed using Brookmeyer and Crowley method.

Time frame: Week 12, Week 24

Population: Intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Progression Free Survival (PFS) at Week 12 and Week 24Week 120.491 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Progression Free Survival (PFS) at Week 12 and Week 24Week 240.164 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Progression Free Survival (PFS) at Week 12 and Week 24Week 120.577 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Progression Free Survival (PFS) at Week 12 and Week 24Week 240.240 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Progression Free Survival (PFS) at Week 12 and Week 24Week 120.485 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Progression Free Survival (PFS) at Week 12 and Week 24Week 240.100 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological Abnormalities

ANC=Absolute Neutrophil Count. CTCAE v3.0 Grades 0 through 4 of severity for each AE based on this general guideline: Grade 0=Normal, Grade 1=Mild AE, Grade 2=Moderate AE, Grade 3=Severe AE, Grade 4=Life-threatening or disabling AE.

Time frame: On-study laboratory results are results reported after the first dose date and within 70 days of last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).

Population: All subjects who received at least 1 dose or any partial dose of study medication. N=Number of participants analyzed; n=number of participants with given laboratory evaluation.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 3 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)2.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 1-4(n=352, 121, 126)66.2 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 2 (n=349, 121, 126)0.6 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)48.9 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 1 (n=349, 121, 126)4.9 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)95.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)51.1 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 0 (n=349, 121, 126)94.6 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)2.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)12.2 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.9 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)0.9 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)15.1 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)4.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0.6 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)1.7 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)37.2 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)46.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)97.2 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.6 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)33.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)1.4 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)1.7 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 3-4 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)1.1 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 3-4(n=352, 121, 126)4.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 1-4 (n=349, 121, 126)5.4 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)4.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 4 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)14.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)44.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)40.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)14.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)55.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)95.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)1.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)2.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)4.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)93.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)3.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)2.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)6.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 0 (n=349, 121, 126)90.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 1 (n=349, 121, 126)9.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 2 (n=349, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 3 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 4 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 1-4 (n=349, 121, 126)9.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 3-4 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)34.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)47.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)2.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 1-4(n=352, 121, 126)65.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 3-4(n=352, 121, 126)2.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 1-4(n=352, 121, 126)77.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 2 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)9.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 3 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)15.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 4 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)1.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)46.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 1-4 (n=349, 121, 126)8.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)5.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 3-4 (n=349, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)92.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)34.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)22.2 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)4.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 3-4(n=352, 121, 126)9.5 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)42.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)53.2 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)4.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)2.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesANC, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)96.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesLymphocytes (absolute), Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)25.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 0 (n=349, 121, 126)91.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesHemoglobin, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)4.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesPlatelet Count, Grade 1 (n=349, 121, 126)8.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Hematological AbnormalitiesWhite Blood Cells, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)7.1 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver Abnormalities

ALT=alanine aminotransferase; AST=aspartate aminotransferase. CTCAE v3.0 Grades 0 through 4 of severity for each AE based on this general guideline: Grade 0=Normal, Grade 1=Mild AE, Grade 2=Moderate AE, Grade 3=Severe AE, Grade 4=Life-threatening or disabling AE.

Time frame: On-study adverse events include all AEs reported between the first dose and 70 days after the last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).

Population: All subjects who received at least 1 dose or any partial dose of study medication. N=Number of participants analyzed; n=number of participants with given laboratory evaluation.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0.9 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 1-4 (n=353, 121, 127)4.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)1.4 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)13.6 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 4 (n=353, 121, 127)0 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)1.1 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 3 (n=353, 121, 127)0.6 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)19.6 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 2 (n=353, 121, 127)1.4 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)1.7 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)83.2 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 1 (n=353, 121, 127)2.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 0 (n=353, 121, 127)95.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 3 (n=353, 121, 128)1.7 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)16.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 1-4 (n=353, 121, 128)26.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 2 (n=353, 121, 128)4.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)2.0 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 1 (n=353, 121, 128)19.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)80.4 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 3-4 (n=353, 121, 128)1.7 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 0 (n=353, 121, 128)73.7 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)16.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 4 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 3-4 (n=353, 121, 127)0.6 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)1.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 3 (n=353, 121, 128)3.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)76.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)19.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)3.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)1.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)24.0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)1.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)71.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)23.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)3.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)1.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)28.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)1.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 0 (n=353, 121, 127)93.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 1 (n=353, 121, 127)4.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 2 (n=353, 121, 127)1.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 3 (n=353, 121, 127)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 4 (n=353, 121, 127)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 1-4 (n=353, 121, 127)6.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 3-4 (n=353, 121, 127)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 0 (n=353, 121, 128)71.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 1 (n=353, 121, 128)20.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 2 (n=353, 121, 128)4.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 4 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 1-4 (n=353, 121, 128)28.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 3-4 (n=353, 121, 128)3.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 4 (n=353, 121, 127)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)2.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)84.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 1-4 (n=353, 121, 127)1.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)15.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 4 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 3-4 (n=353, 121, 127)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 0 (n=352, 121, 126)81.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 1 (n=352, 121, 126)12.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 0 (n=353, 121, 128)71.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 3-4 (n=353, 121, 128)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 1 (n=353, 121, 128)24.2 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)15.1 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 1-4 (n=353, 121, 128)28.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 2 (n=353, 121, 128)3.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 0 (n=353, 121, 127)98.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 3-4 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 1 (n=353, 121, 127)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 1-4 (n=352, 121, 126)18.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 2 (n=353, 121, 127)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 4 (n=352, 121, 126)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAlkaline Phosphatase, Grade 3 (n=353, 121, 128)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesTotal Bilirubin, Grade 3 (n=353, 121, 127)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesAST, Grade 3 (n=352, 121, 126)0.8 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Liver AbnormalitiesALT, Grade 2 (n=352, 121, 126)1.6 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal Abnormalities

CTCAE v3.0 Grades 0 through 4 of severity for each AE based on this general guideline: Grade 0=Normal, Grade 1=Mild AE, Grade 2=Moderate AE, Grade 3=Severe AE, Grade 4=Life-threatening or disabling AE.

Time frame: On-study adverse events include all AEs reported between the first dose and 70 days after the last dose of study therapy (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks]).

Population: All subjects who received at least 1 dose or any partial dose of study medication. N=Number of participants analyzed; n=number of participants with given laboratory evaluation.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 1 (n=353, 121, 128)8.8 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 4 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 3 (n=353, 121, 128)0.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 0 (n=353, 121, 128)89.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 3-4 (n=353, 121, 128)0.3 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 1-4 (n=353, 121, 128)10.5 percentage of participants
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 2 (n=353, 121, 128)1.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 3 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 0 (n=353, 121, 128)88.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 1 (n=353, 121, 128)9.9 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 2 (n=353, 121, 128)1.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 4 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 1-4 (n=353, 121, 128)11.6 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 3-4 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 4 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 1 (n=353, 121, 128)9.4 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 3-4 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 1-4 (n=353, 121, 128)11.7 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 3 (n=353, 121, 128)0 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 2 (n=353, 121, 128)2.3 percentage of participants
gp100Percentage of Participants With Worst On-Study Renal AbnormalitiesCreatinine, Grade 0 (n=353, 121, 128)88.3 percentage of participants
Secondary

Progression Free Survival (PFS)

PFS was defined as the number of days between the date of randomization and the date of the progression or the date of death. A subject who died without prior progression was considered to have progressed on the date of death. PFS was determined by investigator. 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median were computed using Brookmeyer and Crowley method.

Time frame: From randomization until the end of the study, which was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed (264 weeks)

Population: Intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study. Subjects who neither progressed nor died were censored at the date of the last tumor assessment.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Progression Free Survival (PFS)2.76 months
gp100Progression Free Survival (PFS)2.86 months
gp100Progression Free Survival (PFS)2.76 months
95% CI: [0.66, 1]
95% CI: [0.5, 0.83]
95% CI: [1.01, 1.53]
Secondary

Time to Progression (TTP)

TTP was defined as the number of days between the date of the randomization and date of PD or death due to PD. For subjects who had not progression and remained alive, TTP was censored on the date of last assessment; those who remained alive and had no recorded post-baseline assessment, TTP was censored on the date of randomization; those who remained alive and had randomized but were not treated, TTP was censored at the date of randomization; for those who died without reported disease progression, TTP was censored on the date of death.

Time frame: from time of randomization to date of PD or death due to PD (end of the study was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed [264 weeks])

Population: Intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Time to Progression (TTP)2.76 months
gp100Time to Progression (TTP)2.86 months
gp100Time to Progression (TTP)2.76 months
95% CI: [0.66, 1]
95% CI: [0.5, 0.83]
95% CI: [1.01, 1.53]
Secondary

Time to Response

Time to response was defined as the number of days from the date of randomization to the date when measurement criteria are met for BOR of CR or PR, as determined by investigator.

Time frame: From randomization until the end of the study, which was defined as the time at which 481 deaths were observed (264 weeks)

Population: Responder subjects in intent-to-treat population, as randomized. All subjects who were randomized to any treatment group in the study.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Ipilimumab Plus gp100Time to Response3.324 monthsFull Range 0.9561
gp100Time to Response3.176 monthsFull Range 0.7629
gp100Time to Response2.743 monthsFull Range 0.0697

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 31, 2026