This site is intended for US healthcare professionals

Efficacy

hero imagehero image

Primary analysis: UNPRECEDENTED OS benefit with 1L KIMMTRAK2-8

Largest phase 3 trial in metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) evaluated first-line treatment with KIMMTRAK vs investigator’s choice (IC)2,9

  • Investigator’s choice included checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab and ipilimumab) or chemotherapy (dacarbazine)2,9

First-line treatment with KIMMTRAK significantly extended median overall survival (mOS) by 6 months vs IC2,9

Chart
Chart
≈50% reduction in the risk of death2,9
At the time of the data cutoff for the first interim analysis, median duration of follow-up was 14.1 months.2

HISTORIC 5-YEAR follow-up analysis of OS10

KIMMTRAK doubled the likelihood of being alive at 5-years: 16% vs (8%) with investigator's choice10,

A graph that shows KIMMTRAK efficacy data and its impact on mUM over a 69-month period vs the investigator's choice
Pinch to zoom

Patients assigned to KIMMTRAK showed a long-term survival advantage at 5 years (KIMMTRAK median overall survival 21.6 months [19.0-24.3] vs 16.9 months [12.9-19.5] with investigator’s choice, 95% CI).10

As of July 2, 2025, all study participants had the opportunity for at least 60 months of follow-up, with a median follow-up of 62.4 months.10

Of the patients surviving at least 5 years10,11:

  • 44% (11 of 25) in the KIMMTRAK arm reported ONLY receiving KIMMTRAK
  • 86% (6 of 7) in the control group received subsequent KIMMTRAK

The planned exploratory 5-YEAR overall survival analysis occurred after the protocol-specified final analysis and was not tested for statistical significance. No statistical conclusions can be drawn.

CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival.

  • *Based on Komodo US medical claims from February 2022-July 2024 and calibrated with actual vials sold.1
  • Investigator’s choice included checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab and ipilimumab) or chemotherapy (dacarbazine).10

The OS benefit observed with KIMMTRAK was only in the 1L setting.10

Pivotal trial

Select secondary endpoints

  • Progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 12,9
  • A statistically significant PFS benefit was seen with KIMMTRAK compared to investigator’s choice* (3.3 months vs 2.9 months respectively, HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.94; P = 0.0139)2,9

At the time of the data cutoff for this first interim analysis, median duration of follow-up was 14.1 months.2

A graph that shows KIMMTRAK efficacy data surrounding ORR, DCR, and SD vs the investigator's choice
Pinch to zoom

3-YEAR follow-up analysis

Time to objective response
2.9 months with KIMMTRAK
(range, 1.2 to 22.2)
vs 4.1 months with
IC* (range, 2.0 to 11.8).12

Median duration of response
11.1 months with KIMMTRAK
vs 9.7
months with IC.12,*

  • In the 3-YEAR follow-up analysis, only ORR (11%) and SD (35%) with KIMMTRAK changed12
  • Select secondary endpoints remained consistent at the 5-YEAR follow-up analysis10

SD, DCR, time to objective response, and duration of response data are not includedin the Prescribing Information. The statistical significance of SD, DCR, and time to objective response data is not known, and data should be interpreted with caution.

  • * Investigator’s choice: checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab and ipilimumab) or chemotherapy (dacarbazine).2,9,10,12
  • aNot formally tested.2
  • bDCR was defined as a complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + SD.2,13

Subgroup analyses of OS

KIMMTRAK was favored numerically in the subgroup analyses of OS per largest metastatic lesion10,13

PRIMARY, PRESPECIFIED13

PRIMARY, PRESPECIFIED subgroup analysis of OS chartPRIMARY, PRESPECIFIED subgroup analysis of OS chart

5-YEAR FOLLOW-UP, PRESPECIFIED10

3-YEAR FOLLOW-UP, PRESPECIFIED subgroup analysis of OS chartPRIMARY, PRESPECIFIED subgroup analysis of OS chart

The prespecified patient subgroup analyses were not powered to detect treatment effect differences between subgroups. Data are for informational purposes only.

In the subgroup analyses of OS per metastatic disease location, KIMMTRAK was favored numerically in hepatic and hepatic plus extrahepatic patients10,14

PRIMARY, POST HOC14

PRIMARY, POST HOC subgroup analysis of OS chartPRIMARY, PRESPECIFIED subgroup analysis of OS chart

5-YEAR FOLLOW-UP, POST HOC10

3-YEAR FOLLOW-UP, POST HOC subgroup analysis of OS chartPRIMARY, PRESPECIFIED subgroup analysis of OS chart

The updated analyses with additional 5-years of follow-up are provided only as descriptive clinical information, and no conclusions can be drawn.

Subgroup analyses were exploratory in nature. This study was not powered to detect differences between treatments based on subgroups. Results of the post hoc analyses are descriptive, are not controlled for type 1 error, and should be interpreted with caution.

CI, confidence interval; ITT, intention-to-treat.

* Post 2021 NEJM publication (Nathan et al.), 2 patients were reclassified from hepatic only to hepatic plus extrahepatic disease.14

Additional analysis

5-YEAR follow-up analysis

Post hoc analysis of patients with a best overall response of progressive disease (PD) by day 100

100-day landmark analysis10
A graph that shows KIMMTRAK efficacy data surrounding mOS vs the investigator's choice over a 60-month period
Pinch to zoom

The post hoc overall survival among patients with best overall response of disease progression analysis by day 100 after randomization occurred after the protocol-specified final analysis and was not tested for statistical significance. These data are not included in the Prescribing Information. The statistical significance is not known and data should be interpreted with caution.

Patients who continued treatment after initial radiographic progression experienced longer post-progression survival compared to those who stopped treatment.10

Treatment with KIMMTRAK should be continued while patient is deriving clinical benefit and in the absence of unacceptable toxicities.9

  • Median follow-up: 70.8 months (95% CI, 47.4-Not Calculated (NC))10
  • Over half (57%; n = 139) of patients who received KIMMTRAK were treated beyond initial radiographic progression vs 25% (n = 28) in the control group12
  • *Investigator’s choice: checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab and ipilimumab) or chemotherapy (dacarbazine).10
BadgeBadge
Indication
 
Important Safety Information Including Boxed Warning

KIMMTRAK is indicated for the treatment of HLA-A*02:01-positive adult patients with unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma.

WARNING: CYTOKINE RELEASE SYNDROME
Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS), which may be serious or life-threatening, occurred in patients receiving KIMMTRAK. Monitor for at least 16 hours following first three infusions and then as clinically indicated.

Indication and Important Safety Information Including Boxed Warning

Indication

KIMMTRAK is a bispecific gp100 peptide-HLA-directed CD3 T cell engager indicated for the treatment of HLA-A*02:01-positive adult patients with unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma.

Important Safety Information Including Boxed Warning

WARNING: CYTOKINE RELEASE SYNDROME
Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS), which may be serious or life-threatening, occurred in patients receiving KIMMTRAK. Monitor for at least 16 hours following first three infusions and then as clinically indicated.
Manifestations of CRS may include fever, hypotension, hypoxia, chills, nausea, vomiting, rash, elevated transaminases, fatigue, and headache. CRS occurred in 89% of patients who received KIMMTRAK with 0.8% being grade 3 or 4. Ensure immediate access to medications and resuscitative equipment to manage CRS. Ensure patients are euvolemic prior to initiating the infusions. Closely monitor patients for signs or symptoms of CRS following infusions of KIMMTRAK. Monitor fluid status, vital signs, and oxygenation level and provide appropriate therapy. Withhold or discontinue KIMMTRAK depending on persistence and severity of CRS.

Skin ReactionsSkin reactions, including rash, pruritus, and cutaneous edema occurred in 91% of patients treated with KIMMTRAK. Monitor patients for skin reactions. If skin reactions occur, treat with antihistamine and topical or systemic steroids based on persistence and severity of symptoms. Withhold or permanently discontinue KIMMTRAK depending on the severity of skin reactions.

Elevated Liver Enzymes Elevations in liver enzymes occurred in 65% of patients treated with KIMMTRAK. Monitor alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and total blood bilirubin prior to the start of and during treatment with KIMMTRAK. Withhold KIMMTRAK according to severity.

Embryo-Fetal ToxicityKIMMTRAK may cause fetal harm. Advise pregnant patients of potential risk to the fetus and patients of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with KIMMTRAK and 1 week after the last dose.

The most common adverse reactions (≥30%) in patients who received KIMMTRAK were cytokine release syndrome, rash, pyrexia, pruritus, fatigue, nausea, chills, abdominal pain, edema, hypotension, dry skin, headache, and vomiting. The most common (≥50%) laboratory abnormalities were decreased lymphocyte count, increased creatinine, increased glucose, increased AST, increased ALT, decreased hemoglobin, and decreased phosphate.

Please see full Prescribing Information, including BOXED WARNING for CRS.

References: 1. Data on file. Immunocore. [2024-C019]. 2. Nathan P, Hassel JC, Rutkowski P, et al; IMCgp100-202 Investigators. Overall survival benefit with tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(13):1196-1206. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2103485 3. Khoja L, Atenafu EG, Suciu S, et al. Meta-analysis in metastatic uveal melanoma to determine progression free and overall survival benchmarks: an International Rare Cancers Initiative (IRCI) ocular melanoma study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(8):1370-1380. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz176 4. Rantala ES, Hernberg M, Kivelä TT. Overall survival after treatment for metastatic uveal melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Melanoma Res. 2019;29(6):561-568. doi:10.1097/CMR.0000000000000575 5. Carvajal RD, Sacco JJ, Jager MJ, et al. Advances in the clinical management of uveal melanoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023;20(2):99-115. doi:10.1038/s41571-022-00714-1 6. Augsburger JJ, Corrêa ZM, Shaikh AH. Effectiveness of treatments for metastatic uveal melanoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(1):119-127. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.01.023 7. Carvajal RD, Schwartz GK, Tezel T, et al. Metastatic disease from uveal melanoma: treatment options and future prospects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(1):38-44. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309034 8. Petzold A, Steeb T, Wessely A, et al. Is tebentafusp superior to combined immune checkpoint blockade and other systemic treatments in metastatic uveal melanoma? A comparative efficacy analysis with population adjustment. Cancer Treat Rev. 2023;115:102543. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102543 9. Kimmtrak. Prescribing information. Immunocore Ltd; 2024 10. Nathan P. Five-year survival with tebentafusp in previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma in a phase 3 trial. Presented at: American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting; April 19, 2026; San Diego, CA 11. Data on file. Immunocore. [2026-C002]. 12. Hassel JC, Piperno-Neumann S, Rutkowski P, et al. Three-year overall survival with tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(24):2256-2266. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2304753 13. Nathan P, Hassel JC, Rutkowski P, et al; IMCgp100-202 Investigators. Overall survival benefit with tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(13)(suppl):1196-1206. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2103485 14. Data on file. Immunocore. [2026-C001].