BACKGROUND: Combination immune checkpoint inhibition with ipilimumab plus nivolumab (NIVO + IPI) has shown promising efficacy in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate648 trial. However, real-world evidence regarding its safety, efficacy as first-line therapy, and host-related biomarkers relevant to immunotherapy remains limited. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study evaluated a large cohort of 111 patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent ESCC who received first-line NIVO + IPI therapy. Treatment response, treatment-related adverse events, and prognostic factors were analyzed. RESULTS: The objective response and disease control rates in cases with target lesions were 44.0% and 70.7%, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events ≥ Grade 2 occurred in 58 (52.3%) patients, including one Grade 4 event (type 1 diabetes) and two Grade 5 events (biliary infection and myocarditis). The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were 22 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13-not reached) and 5 months (95% CI 3-8), respectively. OS was significantly affected by lymph node metastasis in unresectable advanced disease and by liver metastasis in recurrent disease. Multivariate analysis of OS identified the C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CAR), a marker of host immune-inflammatory status, as the only independent prognostic parameter (hazard ratio = 2.99, 95% CI 1.35-6.63, P = 0.0071). CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world cohort, first-line NIVO + IPI therapy demonstrated meaningful clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile in advanced ESCC. Treatment outcomes varied according to metastatic patterns, suggesting an influence of organ-specific immune microenvironments, and CAR emerged as a simple and robust prognostic biomarker. These findings support the real-world applicability of dual immune checkpoint blockade and highlight the importance of host immune context in patient selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hara et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: