A chance for durable survival with OPDIVO® IV + YERVOY® IV followed by OPDIVO Qvantig®
monotherapy maintenance1-3*

Kidney icon

*OPDIVO Qvantig was not evaluated in Checkmate 214. The use of OPDIVO Qvantig is supported by the pivotal trials of OPDIVO IV and Checkmate 67T. In Checkmate 67T, OPDIVO Qvantig demonstrated non-inferiority to OPDIVO IV with a comparable PK and ORR profile. OPDIVO Qvantig is not indicated in combination with ipilimumab.1,4

Please see Checkmate 67T trial data below

INDICATIONS

  • OPDIVO® (nivolumab), in combination with YERVOY® (ipilimumab), is indicated for the first-line treatment of adult patients with intermediate or poor risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
  • OPDIVO QVANTIG® (nivolumab and hyaluronidase-nvhy), as monotherapy, is indicated for the first-line treatment of adult patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), following treatment with intravenous nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy.

Limitations of Use: OPDIVO QVANTIG is not indicated in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

CHECKMATE 214: 1L INTERMEDIATE- OR POOR-RISK ADVANCED RENAL CELL CARCINOMA (aRCC)

Extended Follow-up Data

OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV showed enduring overall survival and a hazard ratio of 0.69 at an unprecedented 9 years of follow-up5*

9-YEAR MEDIAN FOLLOW-UP: OVERALL SURVIVAL IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH INTERMEDIATE-/POOR-RISK aRCC5†‡
Checkmate 214 OS in Patients with Intermediate/Poor Risk aRCC at 9 Year Follow-Up, Chart

OS rates at this extended follow-up were not pre-specified within the study protocol and the analyses were not powered to detect differences between treatment arms.7
 
In the primary analysis, the pre-specified 12-month overall survival rate was 80% (95% CI: 76–84) with OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV vs 72% (95% CI: 67–76) with sunitinib. The median follow-up time was 25.2 months.7

mOS at extended follow-up analysis (median follow-up time of 111.1 months)5

  • OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: 46.7 months (95% CI: 35.0–55.7)
  • Sunitinib: 26.0 months (95% CI: 21.8–32.6)
  • HR=0.69 (95% CI: 0.59–0.81)

*Based on extended follow-up analysis in patients receiving OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV at a median follow-up time of 111.1 months (range: 103.0–119.3).5
OS rates are based on Kaplan-Meier estimates.5
Performance status is based on IMDC prognostic score (0=favorable, 1–2=intermediate, 3+=poor).2,5,6

IMDC=International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Select Important Safety Information
Serious Adverse Reactions

In Checkmate 214, serious adverse reactions occurred in 59% of patients receiving OPDIVO plus YERVOY (n=547). The most frequent serious adverse reactions reported in ≥2% of patients were diarrhea, pyrexia, pneumonia, pneumonitis, hypophysitis, acute kidney injury, dyspnea, adrenal insufficiency, and colitis.

Common Adverse Reactions

In Checkmate 214, the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) reported in patients treated with OPDIVO plus YERVOY (n=547) were fatigue (58%), rash (39%), diarrhea (38%), musculoskeletal pain (37%), pruritus (33%), nausea (30%), cough (28%), pyrexia (25%), arthralgia (23%), decreased appetite (21%), dyspnea (20%), and vomiting (20%).

Please see additional Important Safety Information below.

Progression-free survival data at 9 years of follow-up5*

9-YEAR MEDIAN FOLLOW-UP: PFS IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH INTERMEDIATE-/POOR-RISK aRCC5†‡
Checkmate 214 PFS in Adult Patients with Intermediate/Poor Risk aRCC at 9 Year Follow-Up, Chart

PFS rates at follow-up analyses were not pre-specified within the study protocol and analyses were not powered to detect differences between treatment arms.7

mPFS at primary analysis (median follow-up time of 25.2 months)2,6

  • OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: 11.6 months (95% CI: 8.7–15.5)2,6
  • Sunitinib: 8.4 months (95% CI: 7.0–10.8)2,6
  • HR=0.82 (99.1% CI: 0.64–1.05)2,6
  • Per a pre-specified analysis, PFS did not meet statistical significance

mPFS at extended follow-up analysis (median follow-up time of 111.1 months)5

  • OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: 12.4 months (95% CI: 8.7–16.8)5
  • Sunitinib: 8.5 months (95% CI: 7.0–11.1)5
  • HR=0.73 (95% CI: 0.61–0.87)5

*Based on extended follow-up analysis results at a median follow-up time of 111.1 months (range: 103.0–119.3).5
Performance status is based on IMDC prognostic score (0=favorable, 1–2=intermediate, 3+=poor).5,6
PFS was assessed by an independent radiographic review committee per RECIST v1.1.2,5,6

NS=not significant.

OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: More than 4X median DOR vs sunitinib, a TKI therapy, at 9 years of follow-up5*

9-YEAR MEDIAN FOLLOW-UP: DOR IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH INTERMEDIATE- OR POOR-RISK aRCC5†
Checkmate 214 Duration of Response (DOR) in Adult Patients with Intermediate/Poor Risk aRCC at 9 Year Follow-Up, Chart

DOR rates at follow-up analyses were not pre-specified within the study protocol and analyses were not powered to detect differences between treatment arms.7

mDOR at extended follow-up analysis (median follow-up time of 111.1 months)5

  • OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: 82.8 months (95% CI: 54.1–NE)5
  • Sunitinib: 19.8 months (95% CI: 16.4–26.4)5
  • HR=0.48 (95% CI: 0.33–0.69)5

ORR at primary analysis (median follow-up time of 25.2 months)2,6

  • OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: 41.6% (n=177/425 [95% CI: 36.9–46.5]; CR: 9.4% [n=40]; PR: 32.2% [n=137])2,6
  • Sunitinib: 26.5% (n=112/422 [95% CI: 22.4–31.0]; CR: 1.2% [n=5]; PR: 25.4% [n=107])2,6
  • P<0.0001 for ORR2

ORR at extended follow-up analysis (median follow-up time of 111.1 months)5

  • OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: 42.4% (n=180/425 [95% CI: 37.6–47.2]; CR: 11.8% [n=50]; PR: 30.6% [n=130])5
  • Sunitinib: 27.5% (n=116/422 [95% CI: 23.3–32.0]; CR: 2.6% [n=11]; PR: 24.9% [n=105])5

*Based on extended follow-up analysis results at a median follow-up time of 111.1 months (range 103.0–119.3).5
Based on Kaplan-Meier estimates of duration of response.7
ORR was assessed by an independent radiographic review committee per RECIST v1.1.2,5,6

TKI=tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

With OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV, 84.0% of complete responses were ongoing at 9 years of follow-up5*

OPDIVO + YERVOY RESPONSE DATA AT 9 YEARS
Checkmate 214 Response Data at 9 Year Follow-Up, Graphic

ORR at primary analysis (median follow-up time of 25.2 months)2,6

  • OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: ORR: 41.6% (n=177/425 [95% CI: 36.9–46.5]; CR: 9.4% [n=40]; PR: 32.2% [n=137])2,6
  • Sunitinib: ORR: 26.5% (n=112/422 [95% CI: 22.4–31.0]; CR: 1.2% [n=5]; PR: 25.4% [n=107])2,6
  • P<0.0001 for ORR2

ORR at extended follow-up analysis (median follow-up time of 111.1 months)5

  • OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: 42.4% (n=180/425 [95% CI: 37.6–47.2]; CR: 11.8% [n=50]; PR: 30.6% [n=130])5
  • Sunitinib: 27.5% (n=116/422 [95% CI: 23.3–32.0]; CR: 2.6% [n=11]; PR: 24.9% [n=105])5

*Based on extended follow-up analysis results at a median follow-up time of 111.1 months (range 103.0–119.3).5
ORR was assessed by an independent radiographic review committee per RECIST v1.1.2,5,6

Among responders to OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV, 51% were treatment free at 8 years of follow-up8*

Exploratory analysis
Long-term treatment outcomes in advanced RCC responders.

ORR at primary analysis (median follow-up time of 25.2 months)2,6

  • OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV: ORR: 41.6% (n=177/425 [95% Cl: 36.9-46.5]; CR: 9.4 [n=40]; PR: 32.2% [n=137])2,6
  • Sunitinib: ORR: 26.5% (n=112/422 [95% Cl: 22.4–31.0]; CR: 1.2% [n=5]; PR: 25.4% [n=107])2,6
  • P<0.0001 for ORR2

Response data from the follow-up analysis (minimum follow-up time of 48 months)4,9

  • Of those responders who received sunitinib (26.8%; n=113/422), 5.3% (n=6/113) remained on treatment, 23.0% (n=26/113) were treatment free, and 71.7% (n=81/113) received 2L treatment

Response data from follow-up analysis (median follow-up time of 99.1 months)10

  • ORR: 42% (n=180; 95% Cl: 37.6—47.2) for OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV vs 28% (n=116; 95% Cl: 23.3-32.0) for sunitinib10
  • In the 8-year median follow-up analysis, treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation while patients were receiving the assigned treatment within 30 days after the last dose of study treatment occurred in 23.6% of patients with OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV (n=129/547) and in 13.3% of patients with sunitinib (n=71/535)10

*Based on extended follow-up analysis results in patients receiving OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV at a median follow-up time of 99.1 months (range: 91.0–107.3).9
Discontinued protocol treatment for any reason and never received subsequent systematic therapy.10
In both treatment analysis and the extended follow-up analysis, ORR was assessed by an independent radiographic review committee per RECIST v1.1.2,6,9

A pivotal, phase 3, head-to-head trial vs sunitinib2,6

CHECKMATE 214 STUDY DESIGN2,6
Checkmate 214 Study Design in Intermediate or Poor Risk advanced RCC
  • Short-term induction dosing with OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV during the combination phase followed by OPDIVO IV monotherapy during the maintenance phase2,6
  • Similar to trials reflective of the real-world population, 77% of patients in Checkmate 214 were intermediate-/poor-risk as measured by IMDC6,11-14
  • Patients were included regardless of their PD-L1 status. Patients were excluded due to any history of—or concurrent—brain metastases, active autoimmune disease, or medical conditions requiring systemic immunosuppression2
  • Median follow-up for the primary analysis was 25.2 months6
  • The safety analysis included 1,082 patients. The efficacy analysis of the co-primary endpoints included 425 patients in the OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV arm and 422 patients in the sunitinib arm6

*In the primary analysis at a median follow-up of 25.2 months, ORR and PFS were assessed by an independent radiographic review committee.2,6
Checkmate 214 is no longer recruiting.10

IV=intravenous; PD-L1=programmed death-ligand 1; PO=orally; q2w=every 2 weeks; q3w=every 3 weeks; qd=once a day.

Checkmate 214 baseline characteristics2,6

IMDC INTERMEDIATE- OR POOR-RISK PATIENTS
CHARACTERISTICS OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV (n=425) SUNITINIB (n=422)
Median age, years6,14
≥65 years, % 
≥75 years, %
62 
38 
8
61 
39 
7
Male, %6,14 74 71
IMDC prognostic score, %6,14
  Intermediate (1–2) 
  Poor (3–6)

 

79 
21

 

79 
21
No. of sites with 
≥1 target/non-target lesion
, %6,14

≥2


21 
79


20 
80
Quantifiable tumor 
PD-L1 expression,
%6,14 
<1% 
≥1%

(n=384) 
74 
26

(n=392) 
71 
29
Most common site of metastasis, %6,14
Lung 
Lymph node 
Bone 
Liver

69 
45 
22 
21

70 
51 
23 
21

Approximately 75%–80% of 1L aRCC patients qualify as
intermediate or poor risk11†

Checkmate 214 baseline characteristics

*Of evaluable patients (n=284/384).6
Based on large, retrospective, population-based studies.11

No.=number.

Up to 80% of 1L aRCC patients qualify as intermediate or poor risk11*

IMDC RISK FACTORS
IMDC Risk Factors, Graphic

Intermediate- or poor-risk patients have ≥1 prognostic risk factor per the IMDC criteria.11

*Based on large, retrospective, population-based studies.11

LLN=lower limit of normal; PS=performance status; ULN=upper limit of normal.

Checkmate 67T Study Information

Study design: Checkmate 67T was a phase 3, randomized (1:1), open-label, non-inferiority trial evaluating OPDIVO Qvantig (1,200 mg of nivolumab and 20,000 units of hyaluronidase) compared with OPDIVO IV, in adult patients with advanced or metastatic ccRCC who received prior systemic therapy. Patients were stratified by weight (<80 kg versus ≥80 kg) and IMDC risk score (favorable vs intermediate vs poor risk). A total of 495 patients were randomized to receive either OPDIVO Qvantig every 4 weeks subcutaneously (n=248) or OPDIVO 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks intravenously (n=247). The co-primary endpoints were time-averaged serum concentration over 28 days (Cavgd28) and minimum serum concentration at steady state (Cminss). The key powered secondary endpoint was ORR, as assessed by BICR. The minimum follow-up time was 8 months.1,4

Results: Co-primary PK endpoints: Cavgd28 GMR of 2.10 (90% CI: 2.00–2.20) and Cminss GMR of 1.77 (90% CI: 1.63–1.93). ORR was 24% (95% CI: 19–30) for OPDIVO Qvantig (n=248) and 18% (95% CI: 14–24) for OPDIVO IV (n=247) with a risk ratio of 1.33 (95% CI: 0.94–1.87). Both PK and ORR met the predefined acceptance margin for non-inferiority. The most common adverse reactions (≥10%) in patients treated with OPDIVO Qvantig were musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, pruritus, rash, hypothyroidism, diarrhea, cough, and abdominal pain. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 28% of patients who received OPDIVO Qvantig. Serious adverse reactions in >1% of patients included pleural effusion, pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, hyperkalemia, hemorrhage, and diarrhea.1,4

OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV in the short-term induction phase followed by OPDIVO Qvantig in the monotherapy maintenance phase

OPDIVO is still available as an IV infusion in the monotherapy maintenance phase.1 View OPDIVO IV dosing schedule >

OPDIVO® (nivolumab) + YERVOY® (ipilimumab) + OPDIVO Qvantig® (nivolumab+hyaluronidase-nvhy) Dosing Options

INDICATION OPDIVO Qvantig (nivolumab + hyaluronidase-nvhy), as monotherapy, is indicated for the first-line treatment of adult patients with intermediate-or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), following treatment with intravenous nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy.

Limitations of Use: OPDIVO Qvantig is not indicated in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

  • The first dose of OPDIVO Qvantig monotherapy should be administered after completing OPDIVO IV and YERVOY IV combination therapy
  • Review the Full Prescribing Information for OPDIVO, OPDIVO Qvantig, and YERVOY for recommended dosage information
  • No premedications required with OPDIVO + YERVOY or OPDIVO Qvantig1-3

*OPDIVO IV is administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes.2
YERVOY IV is administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes.3
OPDIVO Qvantig is administered over 3 to 5 minutes as a subcutaneous injection.1

q4w=every 4 weeks.

Dr Alan Tan, M.D., discusses OPDIVO® IV + YERVOY® IV as a first-line treatment for adult patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma.
Dr. Alan Tan, M.D. on O+Y as a 1L Treatment for Intermediate/Poor Risk aRCC
Bar graph with magnifying glass icon
Safety Data

View a selected safety profile of adverse reactions seen in clinical trials.

OPDIVO® (nivolumab) vial with timer icon
Dosing Schedules

Find dosing information to get patients started on therapy. 

Kidney icon
Another Advanced RCC Option

Learn more about another OPDIVO-based combination for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

See OPDIVO IV + YERVOY IV dual I-O efficacy data in multiple tumor types

References:

  1. OPDIVO Qvantig [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
  2. OPDIVO [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
  3. YERVOY [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
  4. Albiges L, Bourlon MT, Chacón M, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab for renal cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2025;36(1):99-107.
  5. Choueiri TK, Escudier B, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: Final analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Oral Presentation at ASCO; May 30–June 3, 2025; Chicago, IL.
  6. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al; for CheckMate 214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-1290.
  7. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al; for CheckMate 214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-1290 [protocol].
  8. Tannir NM, Albiges L, McDermott OF, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 8-year follow-up results of efficacy and safety from the phase CheckMate trial. Ann Oncol. 2024. [supplementary appendix].
  9. Tannir NM, Escudier B, McDermott OF, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: long-term follow-up data from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Oral presentation at ASCO GU 2024. Abstract
  10. Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT02231749. Accessed October 11, 2022.
  11. Heng DY, Xie W, Regan MM, et al. External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(2):141-148.
  12. Ko JJ, Xie W, Kroeger N, et al. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model as a prognostic tool in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma previously treated with first-line targeted therapy: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(3):293-300.
  13. Yip SM, Wells C, Moreira R, et al. Real world experience of immuno-oncology agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC). Poster presentation at ASCO GU 2017. Abstract 492.
  14. Data on file. NIVO 441. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2019.


466-US-2600097 04/26