Severe Demyelinating Neuropathy in an Advanced Melanoma Patient Treated with Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab Combined Therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly prolong survival in patients with metastatic melanoma but can lead to serious immune-related adverse events. In this report, we described a case of atypical neuropathy caused by nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy before primary tumor resection. In our case, not only demyelinating neuropathy, but also muscle weakness and unilateral facial nerve palsy developed and manifested as severe and diverse symptoms. Moreover, unlike spontaneously developing demyelinating peripheral neuropathy, the present case suggested the therapeutic effects of high-dose methylprednisolone monotherapy for the treatment of ICIs-induced immune-related demyelinating peripheral neuropathy.

Metastatic melanoma: therapeutic agents in preclinical and early clinical development

Introduction: Advanced melanoma historically had a very poor outcome but targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors (IC) have changed the course of the disease and made durable responses possible. However, most patients will develop progressive disease, so further strategies to overcome treatment resistance are needed. Areas covered: Current treatment strategies and landmark trials are discussed. Novel targeted agents, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and further immune-modulatory drugs, cancer vaccines and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and their potential role in the treatment of melanoma are described. Current trials investigating these emerging agents and treatment strategies were searched for on ClinicalTrials.gov and are presented on the background of the current literature explaining the rationale for employing these new agents and strategies. Combinations of tumor-directed agents with those causing immune augmentation as well as a new adjuvant and neoadjuvant strategies are discussed. Expert opinion: Questions regarding treatment combination, personalization, and sequence of treatment will become increasingly important and will be guided by new biomarkers. New treatment settings will broaden the patient selection and will highlight the need for further discussions regarding toxicity in long-term survivorship.

Talimogene laherparepvec treatment to overcome loco-regional acquired resistance to immune checkpoint blockade in tumor stage IIIB-IV M1c melanoma patients

BACKGROUND

Resistance to immune checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy in melanoma patients is currently one of the major clinical challenges. With the approval of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), oncolytic viruses are now in clinical practice for locally advanced or non-resectable melanoma. Here, we describe the usage of T-VEC in stage IVM1b-M1c melanoma patients, who achieved complete remission or stable disease upon systemic treatment but suffered from a loco-regional recurrence. To our knowledge, there are no case reports so far describing T-VEC as a means to overcome acquired resistance to immune checkpoint blockade or targeted therapy.

METHODS

All melanoma patients in our department treated with T-VEC in the period of 2016-2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Data on clinicopathological characteristics, treatment response, and toxicity were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fourteen melanoma patients were treated with T-VEC in our center. Six patients (43%) received T-VEC first-line. In eight patients (57%), T-VEC followed a prior systemic therapy. Three patients with M1b stage and one patient with M1c stage melanoma were treated with T-VEC. These patients suffered from loco-regional progress, whilst distant metastases had regressed during prior systemic treatment. 64% of patients showed a benefit from therapy with T-VEC. The durable response rate was 36%.

CONCLUSION

T-VEC represents an effective and tolerable treatment option. This is true not only for loco-regionally advanced melanoma patients, but also for patients with stable or regressive systemic metastases who develop loco-regionally acquired resistance upon treatment with immune checkpoint blockade or targeted therapy. A sensible selection of suitable patients seems to be crucial.

Influence of 18F-FDG PET/CT on clinical management and outcome in patients with advanced melanoma not primarily selected for surgery based on a linked evidence approach

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical benefit of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in patients with advanced melanoma, primarily not selected for surgery based on management changes and survival data using the linked evidence approach (LEA).

METHODS

A total of 201 ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT examinations (n = 33, stage III and n = 168, stage IV) in 119 melanoma patients, primarily not scheduled for surgery, were analysed regarding their impact on clinical management. Patients were selected from a prospective oncological PET/CT registry. The three PET/CT indication groups included unclear lesions in conventional imaging (n = 8), routine follow-up after multiple surgeries (n = 115) and therapy response evaluation of systemic therapy (n = 78). PET/CT-induced management changes were categorized either as major (change from follow-up to surgical or systemic treatment or vice versa, change from surgery to systemic therapy or vice versa) or minor (modifications in systemic therapy). The expected benefit of changes was determined via the linked evidence approach (LEA) connecting registry data, outcome data including overall survival and evidence of diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT based on existing literature.

RESULTS

Related to the total study cohort, a change of management after PET/CT was observed in 48% of scans, including 10% minor and 38% major changes. Major changes involved a shift either from follow-up (33/201) or therapy pause (7/201) to systemic therapy, to surgical or other local therapy (26/201) and BSC (2/201). Nine out of 201 cases resulted in treatment pause of systemic therapy. We could confirm the prognostic value of PET/CT-based management by observing a 5-year survival rate more than roughly doubled in patients followed up after tumour exclusion or under local therapy compared with patients under systemic therapy. We could argue for a patient benefit from PET/CT-based management changes using results on accuracy and therapeutic effects from the literature.

CONCLUSION

The use of PET/CT in advanced melanoma patients, primarily not considered for surgery, resulted in frequent changes of management associated with a relevant expected clinical benefit especially in patients classified by PET/CT as tumour-free or eligible for radical surgery.

Surgical Considerations and Systemic Therapy of Melanoma

Recent advances in effective medical therapies have markedly improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma. This article aims to highlight the current era of integrated multidisciplinary care of patients with advanced melanoma by outlining current approved therapies, including immunotherapy, targeted therapy, radiation therapy, and other strategies used in both the adjuvant and the neoadjuvant setting as well as the evolving role of surgical intervention in the changing landscape of advanced melanoma.

Successful Treatment of Multiple Metastatic Melanoma with Nivolumab, Ipilimumab plus Denosumab Combined Therapy

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined therapy is one of the promising drugs that enhance the anti- immune response in patients with advanced melanoma. Therefore, to increase its response rate is of great interest to dermatologists. Recent reports suggested that, since CD8+ T cells after the administration of ICIs increase the RANKL expression to induce an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in melanoma, denosumab might enhance the anti-tumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab and ipilimumab. In this report, we present a case of multiple metastatic melanoma with nivolumab, ipilimumab plus denosumab combined therapy.

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes in advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.

Predicting response to pembrolizumab in metastatic melanoma by a new personalization algorithm

BACKGROUND

At present, immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab, are widely used in the therapy of advanced non-resectable melanoma, as they induce more durable responses than other available treatments. However, the overall response rate does not exceed 50% and, considering the high costs and low life expectancy of nonresponding patients, there is a need to select potential responders before therapy. Our aim was to develop a new personalization algorithm which could be beneficial in the clinical setting for predicting time to disease progression under pembrolizumab treatment.

METHODS

We developed a simple mathematical model for the interactions of an advanced melanoma tumor with both the immune system and the immunotherapy drug, pembrolizumab. We implemented the model in an algorithm which, in conjunction with clinical pretreatment data, enables prediction of the personal patient response to the drug. To develop the algorithm, we retrospectively collected clinical data of 54 patients with advanced melanoma, who had been treated by pembrolizumab, and correlated personal pretreatment measurements to the mathematical model parameters. Using the algorithm together with the longitudinal tumor burden of each patient, we identified the personal mathematical models, and simulated them to predict the patient's time to progression. We validated the prediction capacity of the algorithm by the Leave-One-Out cross-validation methodology.

RESULTS

Among the analyzed clinical parameters, the baseline tumor load, the Breslow tumor thickness, and the status of nodular melanoma were significantly correlated with the activation rate of CD8+ T cells and the net tumor growth rate. Using the measurements of these correlates to personalize the mathematical model, we predicted the time to progression of individual patients (Cohen's κ = 0.489). Comparison of the predicted and the clinical time to progression in patients progressing during the follow-up period showed moderate accuracy (R² = 0.505).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show for the first time that a relatively simple mathematical mechanistic model, implemented in a personalization algorithm, can be personalized by clinical data, evaluated before immunotherapy onset. The algorithm, currently yielding moderately accurate predictions of individual patients' response to pembrolizumab, can be improved by training on a larger number of patients. Algorithm validation by an independent clinical dataset will enable its use as a tool for treatment personalization.

A retrospective chart review study describing metastatic melanoma patients profile and treatment patterns in Spain

PURPOSE

To describe patient characteristics by disease stage, resectability status and current treatment management after first diagnosis of IIIB to IV1c advanced (AM)/metastatic melanoma (MM).

METHODS/PATIENTS

Multicentre, retrospective study based on data from medical charts of patients > 18 years at MM first diagnosis, visited by oncologists at 4 reference centres in Spain: Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón (Madrid), Hospital General de Valencia (Valencia), Clínica Universidad de Navarra (Pamplona), and Hospital Clínic (Barcelona).

RESULTS

Metastatic non-visceral melanoma (IIIB, IIIC, IV M1a) was reported in 139 (48.6%) patients and 40.9% (n = 117) were diagnosed with IV-M1c disease. 160 (55.9%) metastases were resectable. Available therapies under clinical practice were used in 210 patients; 74 were treated under clinical trials (CT). Intention-to-cure surgery (47.6%) was the most common treatment at time of MM diagnosis. Systemic (45.1% overall) therapy included chemo-, targeted- and immunotherapy (19.6%, 14.3%, 8.4%, respectively). At time of data collection, 26 patients were still alive and 120 had progressed to IV-M1c. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly larger in IIIB patients, 28.9 m (25.2-32.7); the shortest for IV-M1c patients, 11.0 m (8.7-13.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Novel treatments are undoubtedly a major step forward in AM/MM, however these are often only available in the CT setting because early stages of development or country-specific regulations. Further prospective studies and multifactorial analysis should be performed to clearly identify possible clinical associations for outcome in Spanish patients with AM/MM.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in patients with rare melanoma subtypes who progressed on or after ipilimumab treatment: a single-arm, open-label, phase II study (CheckMate 172)

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab has been widely studied in non-acral cutaneous melanoma; however, limited data are available in other melanoma subtypes. We report outcomes by melanoma subtype in patients who received nivolumab after progression on prior ipilimumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CheckMate 172 was a phase II, single-arm, open-label, multicentre study that evaluated nivolumab in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed on or after ipilimumab. Patients received 3 mg/kg of nivolumab, every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary end-point was incidence of grade ≥3, treatment-related select adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Among 1008 treated patients, we report data on patients with non-acral cutaneous melanoma (n = 723 [71.7%]), ocular melanoma (n = 103 [10.2%]), mucosal melanoma (n = 63 [6.3%]), acral cutaneous melanoma (n = 55 [5.5%]) and other melanoma subtypes (n = 64 [6.3%]). There were no meaningful differences in the incidence of grade ≥3, treatment-related select AEs among melanoma subtypes or compared with the total population. No new safety signals emerged. At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, median overall survival was 25.3 months for non-acral cutaneous melanoma and 25.8 months for acral cutaneous melanoma, with 18-month overall survival rates of 57.5% and 59.0%, respectively. Median overall survival was 12.6 months for ocular melanoma and 11.5 months for mucosal melanoma, with 18-month overall survival rates of 34.8% and 31.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety profile of nivolumab after ipilimumab is similar across melanoma subtypes. Compared with non-acral cutaneous melanoma, patients with acral cutaneous melanoma had similar survival outcomes, whereas those with ocular and mucosal melanoma had lower median overall survival. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV ID

NCT02156804.

Healthcare cost comparison analysis of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab versus nivolumab monotherapy and ipilimumab monotherapy in advanced melanoma

Background

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage.

Methods

Patient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period.

Results

The total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively.

Conclusions

The total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40164-019-0138-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of radiotherapy administered simultaneously with systemic treatment in patients with melanoma brain metastases within MelBase, a French multicentric prospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) are historically associated with poor prognosis. Radiation therapy is conventionally associated with a high local control rate. Development of targeted therapy and immunotherapy has improved overall survival (OS) and intracranial response rate, but about 50% of patients failed to respond to these novel therapies. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of combined radiotherapy (cRT) on overall survival in a large multicenter real-life prospective cohort of patients with MBM treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical data from 262 patients with MBM were collected via MelBase, a French multicentric biobank prospectively enrolling unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Two groups were defined: patients receiving cRT (cRT group) or not receiving cRT (no-cRT group). Primary end-point was OS. Propensity score weighting was used to correct for indication bias.

RESULTS

Among the 262 patients, 93 (35%) received cRT (cRT group). The patients were treated with immunotherapy in 69% and 60% and with targeted therapy in 31% and 40% of the cRT and no-cRT groups, respectively. With a median follow-up of 6.9 months, median OS was 16.8 months and 6.9 months in the cRT and no-cRT groups, respectively. After propensity score weighting, cRT was associated with longer OS (hazard ratio = 0.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.4-0.8; p=0.007). Median OS after ponderation was 15.3 months and 6.2 months in the cRT and no-cRT groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that cRT may be associated with a significant decrease of 40% in the risk of death in patients with MBM treated with systemic therapy.

Comparative efficacy and safety of combination therapies for advanced melanoma: a network meta-analysis

Background

Currently, the major treatment modalities of advanced melanoma are immune check point and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway inhibitors. As lacking head-to-head randomizedcontrolled trials (RCTs) comparing immune check point and MAPK pathway inhibitors, we evaluated the efficacy and toxicity with different treatment combinations of immune check point or MAPK pathway inhibitors for advanced melanoma by network meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched for RCTs in Pubmed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials through March 2017. Two reviewers performed a network meta-analysis by assessing the hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as by evaluating serious adverse events (SAEs).

Results

Twenty-four eligible RCTs involving 10,951 patients assigned to 11 treatment modalities were included. The combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors demonstrated an improved OS benefit compared with all the other treatments except programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/L1) blockade because the difference in OS between the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination and PD-1 blockade (HR: 0.85; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.59, 1.21) was not significant. For PFS, the BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination showed a significant advantage compared with other treatments apart from the combination of PD-1/L1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4(CTLA-4) blockade (HR:0.61; 95% CrI: 0.30, 1.25). The MEK inhibitor combined with chemotherapy was associated with the highest risk of SAEs (HR: 1.76 95% CrI: 1.21, 2.48).

Conclusions

The combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors exhibited a survival advantage in OS and PFS and comparable risk of toxicity compared with chemotherapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5259-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Early cost-effectiveness of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) for second line treatment in advanced melanoma: a model-based economic evaluation

Background

An emerging immunotherapy is infusion of tumor infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL), with objective response rates of around 50% versus 19% for ipilimumab. As an Advanced Therapeutic Medicinal Products (ATMP), TIL is highly personalized and complex therapy. It requests substantial upfront investments from the hospital in: expensive lab-equipment, staff expertise and training, as well as extremely tight hospital logistics. Therefore, an early health economic modelling study, as part of a Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) program, was performed.

Methods

We used a Markov decision model to estimate the expected costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years; QALYs) for TIL versus ipilimumab for second line treatment in metastatic melanoma patients from a Dutch health care perspective over a life long time horizon. Three mutually exclusive health states (stable disease (responders)), progressive disease and death) were modelled. To inform further research prioritization, Value of Information (VOI) analysis was performed.

Results

TIL is expected to generate more QALYs compared to ipilimumab (0.45 versus 0.38 respectively) at lower incremental cost (presently €81,140 versus €94,705 respectively) resulting in a dominant ICER (less costly and more effective). Based on current information TIL is dominating ipilimumab and has a probability of 86% for being cost effective at a cost/QALY threshold of €80,000. The Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) amounted to €3 M.

Conclusions

TIL is expected to have the highest probability of being cost-effective in second line treatment for advanced melanoma compared to ipilimumab. To reduce decision uncertainty, a clinical trial investigating e.g. costs and survival seems most valuable. This is currently being undertaken as part of a CED program in the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with Denmark.

[Acceptability and effectiveness of immunotherapy in patients with melanoma]

The immunotherapies known as "inhibitors of checkpoint" (ICP) are monoclonal antibodies used since 2010 and have dramatically modified the management of the advanced or metastatic melanomas. By reactivating the anti-tumoral immune response, these antibodies can activate the immune system in all the tissues with a risk to induce immune related adverse events (IrAE). Thus, the adverse effect's profile of ICP is considered as very different from that usually associated with conventional chemotherapies. The objectives of our retrospective monocentric study were the evaluation of the real life's safety and efficiency of the ipilimumab and the pembrolizumab in patients with an advanced melanoma. Seventy-two patients treated by ipilimumab and\or pembrolizumab between August 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2016 were investigated. The main IrAE occurring involved the gastro- intestinal, skin, and the endocrine systems. The average onset time of IrAE was 39, 104 and 68 days, respectively and their respective duration was of 67, 50 and 111 days. There were 13 events of grade III and IV along with one death. The overall survival was 5 months for the patients treated in monotherapy with ipilimumab, and 14 months for those treated by pembrolizumab. Our real life's study tends to confirm the current safety profile of ICP treatment. Moreover and according to our analyses, the drug sequence seems to have a global survival impact.

Quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma: a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma based on a minimum 36-month follow-up from the CheckMate 067 trial.

METHODS

Overall survival was partitioned into time without symptoms of progression or toxicity (TWiST), time with treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events after randomization but before progression (TOX), and time from progression until end of follow-up or death (REL). Mean quality-adjusted TWiST (Q-TWiST) was calculated by multiplying the mean time spent in each health state by a utility of 1.0 for TWiST and 0.5 for TOX and REL. Sensitivity analyses included varying utilities of TOX and REL; Q-TWiST gains at different follow-up times were calculated using EQ-5D-3L utilities from the trial. Relative Q-TWiST gain of ≥ 10% was considered clinically important.

RESULTS

Compared with ipilimumab-treated patients, those who received nivolumab + ipilimumab combination had significantly longer TWiST and TOX but shorter REL; nivolumab-treated patients had significantly longer TWiST, shorter REL, and shorter but statistically nonsignificant TOX. Mean Q-TWiST was highest for nivolumab + ipilimumab (23.5 months; 95% CI 21.9-25.2), followed by nivolumab (21.8 months; 95% CI 20.2-23.4) and ipilimumab (15.3 months; 95% CI 13.9-16.6). Relative Q-TWiST gains were favorable and clinically important for nivolumab + ipilimumab combination (+ 36.81%) and nivolumab alone (+ 29.18%) versus ipilimumab alone. Relative gains increased with follow-up from 3 to 40 months for all comparisons. These gains remained consistent in magnitude and direction in the different sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab + ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone resulted in a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in quality-adjusted survival compared with ipilimumab alone.

Vemurafenib in Chinese patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicenter phase I study

Background

Melanoma is a rare, deadly disease without effective treatment options in China. Vemurafenib is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic BRAF^V600 kinase approved in more than 90 countries, based on results obtained primarily in Caucasian patients. Limited data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in Asian patients.

Methods

This phase I study investigated the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability of vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) in Chinese patients with BRAF^V600 mutation–positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The study included two cohorts: a pharmacokinetic cohort (n = 20) and an expansion cohort (n = 26).

Results

After 21 days of dosing, vemurafenib demonstrated marked accumulation and relatively constant steady-state exposure over the dosing period. Confirmed best overall response rate was 52.2% (95% CI 37.0–67.1%). Median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI 5.7–10.9%); median overall survival was 13.5 months (95% CI 12.2%–not estimable). The most common adverse events were dermatitis acneiform, arthralgia, diarrhea, blood cholesterol level increase, blood bilirubin level increase, melanocytic nevus, and alopecia. A total of nine grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in seven patients (15.2%).

Conclusion

Overall, vemurafenib showed a favorable benefit-risk profile among Chinese patients. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy were generally consistent with those reported in Caucasian patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identification: NCT01910181. Registered 29 July 2013, prospectively registered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4336-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Triggers Onset of Bullous Pemphigoid in a Patient with Advanced Melanoma Treated with Nivolumab

Since the efficacy of ipilimumab on nivolumab-resistant advanced melanoma is extremely low, additional supportive therapy for anti-PD-1 antibody therapy-resistant advanced melanoma is needed. Although several supportive therapies that enhance the antitumor immune response of anti-PD-1 antibodies have already been reported, unexpected immune-related adverse events were detected at the same time. In this report, we describe a patient with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy, which might have triggered bullous pemphigoid (BP). Although several cases of BP developing in anti-PD-1 antibody-treated patients have already been reported, in this report, we shed light on the possible pathogenesis of BP developing in a patient treated with nivolumab through M2 macrophages.

BRAF, NRAS and C-KIT Advanced Melanoma: Clinico-pathological Features, Targeted-Therapy Strategies and Survival

BACKGROUND/AIM

The mutational status of stage III and IV melanomas should be recognized in order to allow for targeted therapies. The aim of our study was the characterization of BRAF, NRAS and C-KIT melanoma patients, in order to define their optimal management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1991 and 2015, 63 mutated melanoma patients were treated and monitored during their diagnostic and therapeutic management at a single institution.

RESULTS

BRAF-mutated melanoma patients were the most common, representing 70% of the study population, while NRAS- and C-KIT-mutated melanoma represented 19% and 11% respectively. BRAF-mutated melanomas were mostly located at sites of intermittent sun exposure, and were associated with higher Breslow thickness and an increased number of mitosis. NRAS mutated melanoma were mainly observed in chronic sun-damaged areas and had a negative prognostic value, with shorter time to progression and a high incidence of central nervous system involvement. C-KIT mutated melanoma were located at acral and mucosal sites. Overall survival observed in the three groups of patients revealed wide differences.

CONCLUSION

BRAF, NRAS and C-KIT melanomas constitute distinct clinico-pathological entities. BRAF-mutated melanoma benefit from both anti-BRAF and anti-MEK targeted therapies while triple-negative melanomas could benefit from novel anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-L1 immunotherapeutic approaches.

Phase II study of ipilimumab in adolescents with unresectable stage III or IV malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Ipilimumab is approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma in adults; however, little information on the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in younger patients is available.

METHODS

Patients aged 12 to <18 years with previously treated or untreated, unresectable stage III or IV malignant melanoma received ipilimumab 3 or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary end-points were 1-year overall survival and safety.

RESULTS

Over a period of 3.5 years, 12 patients received ipilimumab at either 3 mg/kg (n = 4) or 10 mg/kg (n = 8). The median number of ipilimumab doses was four for 3 mg/kg and three for 10 mg/kg. At 1 year, three of four patients on 3 mg/kg and five of eight patients on 10 mg/kg were alive. Two patients on 10 mg/kg had partial response, and one on 3 mg/kg had stable disease. One patient had durable partial response at 3 years without further treatment, at time of this report. There was one grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse reaction with 3 mg/kg and five with 10 mg/kg. There were no treatment-related deaths. The study was stopped due to slow accrual.

CONCLUSIONS

At >1 year follow-up, ipilimumab demonstrated activity in melanoma patients aged 12 to <18 years, with a similar safety profile as that seen in adults. Our trial highlights the difficulties of enrolling younger patients with rare diseases in clinical trials for treatments that are approved in adults, suggesting adolescents with cancer types occurring predominantly in adults should be considered for inclusion in adult trials of promising new drugs.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01696045.

Health-related quality of life results from the phase III CheckMate 067 study

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody of immune checkpoint programmed death 1 on T cells (PD-1), combined with ipilimumab, an immune checkpoint cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor, as combination therapy on the one hand and nivolumab as monotherapy on the other, have both demonstrated improved efficacy compared with ipilimumab alone in the CheckMate 067 study. However, the combination resulted in a higher frequency of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), which could result in diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here we report analyses of HRQoL for patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trial CheckMate 067.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

HRQoL was assessed at weeks 1 and 5 per 6-week cycle for the first 6 months, once every 6 weeks thereafter, and at two follow-up visits using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Care Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EuroQoL Five Dimensions Questionnaire. In addition to the randomised population, patient subgroups, including BRAF mutation status, partial or complete response, treatment-related AEs of grade 3/4, and those who discontinued due to any reason and due to an AE, were investigated.

RESULTS

Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone both maintained HRQoL, and no clinically meaningful deterioration was observed over time compared with ipilimumab. In addition, similar results were observed across patient subgroups, and no clinically meaningful changes in HRQoL were observed during follow-up visits for patients who discontinued due to any cause.

CONCLUSION

These results further support the clinical benefit of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. The finding that the difference in grade 3/4 AEs between the arms did not translate into clinically meaningful differences in the reported HRQoL may be relevant in the clinical setting.

STUDY NUMBER

NCT01844505.

The Promise of Molecularly Targeted and Immunotherapy for Advanced Melanoma

OPINION STATEMENT

Advanced melanoma, rarely diagnosed at the time of primary melanoma excision but most often occurring later via lymphatic or hematogenous dissemination, is the cause of death for approximately 10,000 people in the USA each year, with the rate of incidence and death increasing yearly. Its causes are multifactorial and depend in large part on solar ultraviolet damage to DNA as well as underlying genetic predisposition. Cutaneous melanoma is the most common, but other subsets of importance are mucosal and uveal primaries, with different biology and treatment considerations. Mutational oncogenic "drivers" may be targeted with chronically administered, oral kinase inhibitors, currently consisting of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitor combinations of BRAF plus MEK-targeted drugs. These agents work quickly to relieve symptoms and induce remissions but generally have limited durations of disease control. Immunotherapies include the immune checkpoint inhibitors that block CTLA4 or PD-1-negative immune signaling as well as interleukin-2, a cytokine that stimulates T lymphocytes and natural killer cells. A combination of CTLA4 plus PD-1 blockade has the highest activity ever reported for metastatic melanoma, at the cost of high autoimmune-like toxicities. However, immunotherapies of this type may provide durable responses and even cure a subset of patients. Thus, these immunotherapeutic agents are recommended as first-line therapy for most patients with advanced melanoma. Patients with rapidly progressive, symptomatic melanoma whose tumor carries a BRAF mutation may benefit more from initial therapy with combined MAPK inhibitors.

Resource utilization and costs of managing patients with advanced melanoma: a Canadian population-based study

BACKGROUND

The use and detailed costs of services provided for people with advanced melanoma (amel) are not well known. We conducted an analysis to determine the use of health care services and the associated costs delineated by relevant attributable costs, which we defined for subjects in the province of Ontario.

METHODS

Through the Ontario Cancer Data Linkage Project, a cohort of amel patients with diagnoses between 31 August 2005 and 2012 (follow-up to 2013) and with valid International Classification of Diseases (9th revision, Clinical Modification) 172 codes and histology codes was identified. A cohort of individuals with amel having a combination of at least 1 palliative, 1 medical oncology, and 1 hospitalization code was generated. The health system services used by this population were clustered into hospitalization, palliation, physician medical visits, medication, homecare, laboratory, diagnostics, and other resources. Overall rates of use and disaggregated costs were determined by phase of care for the entire cohort.

RESULTS

The mean age for the 2748 individuals in the cohort was 67 years. The greater proportion of the patients were men (65.6%) and were more than 65 years of age (>50%). In this advanced cohort, fewer than 45% of patients were alive 3 years after the malignant melanoma diagnosis. The average annual cost per patient over the time horizon was $6,551. At $15,830, year 1 after diagnosis was the most expensive, followed by year 2, at $8,166.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data provide a baseline for the costs associated with amel treatment. Future studies will include newer agents and comparative effectiveness research for personalized therapies.

Tumor-targeted delivery of sunitinib base enhances vaccine therapy for advanced melanoma by remodeling the tumor microenvironment

Development of an effective treatment against advanced tumors remains a major challenge for cancer immunotherapy. We have previously developed a potent mannose-modified lipid calcium phosphate (LCP) nanoparticle (NP)-based Trp2 vaccine for melanoma therapy, but because this vaccine can induce a potent anti-tumor immune response only during the early stages of melanoma, poor tumor growth inhibition has been observed in more advanced melanoma models, likely due to the development of an immune-suppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). To effectively treat this aggressive tumor, a multi-target receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, sunitinib base, was efficiently encapsulated into a targeted polymeric micelle nano-delivery system (SUNb-PM), working in a synergistic manner with vaccine therapy in an advanced mouse melanoma model. SUNb-PM not only increased cytotoxic T-cell infiltration and decreased the number and percentage of MDSCs and Tregs in the TME, but also induced a shift in cytokine expression from Th2 to Th1 type while remodeling the tumor-associated fibroblasts, collagen, and blood vessels in the tumor. Additionally, inhibition of the Stat3 and AKT signaling pathways by SUNb-PM may induce tumor cell apoptosis or decrease tumor immune evasion. Our findings indicated that targeted delivery of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor to tumors can be used in a novel synergistic way to enhance the therapeutic efficacy of existing immune-based therapies for advanced melanoma.

Efficacy and toxicity of rechallenge with combination immune checkpoint blockade in metastatic melanoma: a case series

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and potential toxicity of rechallenge with combination ipilimumab and nivolumab has not been described. Retreatment of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the setting of prior significant toxicity lacks evidence-based guidance.

METHODS

We present the first three, consecutive patients who received re-treatment with combination ipilimumab and nivolumab for metastatic melanoma managed at our institution.

RESULTS

Rechallenge with combination ipilimumab and nivolumab in the setting of prior grade 3 toxicity with initial combination therapy is feasible, and responses are seen. We highlight the fact that grade 3 toxicity is likely to recur, but if so, can be manageable.

CONCLUSIONS

Retreatment with ipi + nivo may be considered an option in carefully selected, well-informed patients. More research is required to delineate the benefits and risks with this approach.