Adjuvant bevacizumab as treatment for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: Final results for the AVAST-M trial

9501

Background: Bevacizumab (Bev) is a recombinant humanised monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) shown to improve survival in several advanced solid tumours. As VEGF is a relevant target in melanoma, AVAST-M aimed to evaluate the role of Bev in melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence. Methods: AVAST-M (ISRCTN81261306) is a randomised phase III trial evaluating single agent Bev (7.5mg/kg IV 3 weekly for 1 year) as adjuvant therapy after resection of AJCC stage IIB, IIC and III cutaneous melanoma compared to standard observation (Obs). 1320 patients were needed to detect 8% differences in 5 year overall survival (OS) rate from 40% to 48%; 85% power, 5% alpha level. Primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included disease free interval (DFI), distant-metastasis free interval (DMFI). BRAF and NRASmutation status were obtained in 682 patients in a translational sub-study. Results: From July 2007 to March 2012, 1343 patients were recruited (671 to Bev; 672 to Obs). 56% were male, median age was 56 years (range 18-88 years), 14% were stage IIIA and 59% were stage IIIB/C. With 6 years median follow-up, 505 (38%) patients had died (251 [37%] on Bev; 254 [38%] on Obs); 699 (52%) patients had recurred (335 [50%] on Bev, 369 [55%] on Obs). OS at 5 years was 64% on Bev versus 63% on Obs (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.18, p=0.96). At 5 years, 51% were disease free on Bev versus 45% on Obs (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99, p=0.04) and 59% were distant metastasis free on Bev versus 54% on Obs (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.77-1.07, p=0.24). A BRAF V600 mutation was found in 44% of tumours assessed; 20% were NRAS mutant. BRAF mutant patients treated with Bev tended to have better DFI (HR=0.79 95% CI 0.58-1.08, p=0.14) and OS (HR=0.79; 95% CI 0.55-1.13, p=0.20); this was not evident for BRAF WT. NRAS mutant patients tended to have worse DFI (HR=1.39; 95% CI 1.03-1.88; p=0.03) and OS (HR=1.18; 95% CI 0.85-1.62, p=0.20) than NRASWT patients. Conclusions: This large, multi-centre trial of melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence has shown that adjuvant Bev improves DFI, but this does not translate into an overall survival benefit. Funding:Cancer Research UK; drug supplied by Roche Products Ltd. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN81261306.

Use of circulating tumor DNA to predict survival in patients with resected high-risk stage II/III melanoma

9583

Background: Patients with high-risk stage II/III resected melanoma commonly develop metastatic disease. Adjuvant high dose interferon and ipilimumab 10mg/kg are associated with survival benefit, but at the expense of toxicity. At present, we cannot differentiate between patients who will progress to stage IV disease or those cured by surgery. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a biomarker of disease progression in many cancers including stage IV melanoma, however its utility in the adjuvant setting has not been investigated. Methods: We performed droplet digital polymerase chain reaction to detect BRAF and NRAS mutations in plasma of 161 stage IIB, IIC/III high-risk melanoma patients enrolled in AVAST-M; a randomized study of bevacizumab vs. observation. Baseline plasma samples were collected within 12 weeks of surgery for both arms. Results: Mutant BRAF or NRASctDNA was detectable ( > 1 copy of mutant ctDNA) in 12% (19/161) of patients. Patients with detectable ctDNA had a decreased disease free interval (DFI; hazard ratio [HR] 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.79-5.47; p < 0.0001) and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI; HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.80-5.79; p < 0.0001) vs. those with undetectable ctDNA. One year DFI rate for patients with detectable ctDNA was 26% (95% CI 10-47%) vs. 74% (95% CI 66-81%) for those with undetectable ctDNA. One year DMFI rate for patients with detectable ctDNA was 37% (95% CI 17-57%) vs. 84% (95% CI 77-89%) with undetectable ctDNA. Detectable ctDNA remained a significant predictor after adjustment for N classification and performance status (PS) (DFI HR 3.48; 95% CI 1.95-6.19, p < 0.0001; DMFI HR 3.41, 95% CI 1.88-6.20, p < 0.0001). Five year overall survival (OS) rate for patients with detectable ctDNA was 33% (95% CI 14-55%) vs. 65% (95% CI 56-72%) for those with undetectable ctDNA. OS was significantly worse for patients with detectable ctDNA (HR 2.63; 95% CI 1.4-4.96); p = 0.003) and remained significant after adjustment for PS (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.32-4.74, p = 0.005). Conclusions: CtDNA is predictive of relapse and survival in high-risk, resected melanoma and can potentially aid stratification of patients for adjuvant therapy.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab (NIVO) in patients with advanced melanoma (MEL) and poor prognostic factors who progressed on or after ipilimumab (IPI): Results from a phase II study (CheckMate 172)

9524

Background: In the phase III CheckMate 037 study, NIVO improved the objective response rate and progression-free survival with less toxicity vs chemotherapy in patients (pts) with MEL who progressed after prior IPI treatment. We report the first efficacy and updated safety data from pts with MEL in CheckMate 172, including those with rare melanoma subtypes (uveal, mucosal), brain metastases, or an ECOG performance status (PS) of 2. Methods: In this ongoing phase II, single-arm, open-label, multicenter study, pts with MEL who progressed on or after IPI were treated with NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W for up to 2 years until progression or unacceptable toxicity (NCT02156804). We report efficacy and updated safety data from 734 treated pts with ≥1 year of follow-up (database lock: November 2016). Results: Of 734 pts, 50% had LDH>ULN, 7% ECOG PS 2, 66% M1c disease, 15% a history of brain metastases, and 23% received ≥3 prior therapies. Overall, 593 pts (81%) received more than 4 doses of NIVO. Overall, response rate at 12 weeks was 32%, with a complete response in 1% (Table). The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 63%. Any grade and grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 66% and 17% of pts, respectively. Discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs occurred in 4% of pts. The most common treatment-related select (potentially immune-related) AEs were diarrhea (12%), hypothyroidism (9%), and pruritus (7%). Conclusions: CheckMate 172 is the largest study of NIVO efficacy and safety in pts with MEL who progressed on or after IPI. NIVO demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that of prior clinical trials. Efficacy outcomes were encouraging in some difficult-to-treat subgroups of pts with poor prognostic factors, such as mucosal melanoma and brain metastases. Clinical trial information: NCT02156804. [Table: see text]

Re-challenge with BRAF-directed treatment: A multi-institutional retrospective study

9512

Background: Most patients treated with BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) +/- MEK inhibitors (MEKi) eventually progress on treatment. Along with genetic acquired resistance, epigenetic mechanisms that could be reversed after BRAFi discontinuation have been described. The purpose of this study was to analyse outcomes for patients (pts) retreated with BRAF-directed therapy. Methods: 116 pts who received BRAFi based therapy and, after a break, were re-challenged with BRAFi +/- MEKi treated at 14 centres in Europe, US, and Australia were analysed for progression free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR), as well as factors predicting overall survival (OS) (demographics, disease stage, treatment, LDH level, duration of first BRAFi treatment, reason for first BRAFi discontinuation and interval between BRAFi stop and re-challenge). Multivariate Cox regression, regression trees and Kaplan Meier method were used. Results: Median duration of 1st BRAFi +/- MEKi treatment was 9.4 months (mts) and 7.7 mts for the subsequent treatment after discontinuation (immunotherapy 72%, other 17 %, drug holiday 11%). Brain metastases were present in 51 pts (44%). RR to re-challenge with BRAFi +/- MEKi was 43%: complete response (CR) 3%, partial response (PR) 39%, stable disease 24% and progressive disease (PD) 30%, 4% missing. Of 80 pts who previously discontinued BRAFi for PD, 31 (39%) responded (30 PR and 1 CR). Median OS from retreatment was 9.8 mts. Independent prognostic factors for survival at re-challenge included number of metastatic sites (HR = 1.32 for each additional organ with metastases, p < .001), LDH (HR = 1.37 for each multiple of the upper normal limit, p < .001), while combination of BRAFi+MEKi conferred a better prognosis vs BRAFi alone (HR = 0.5, p = .006). Pts with < 3 metastatic sites treated with BRAFi and MEKi had a better survival (median OS not reached) and pts with ≥ 3 metastatic sites and raised LDH treated with BRAFi alone had the worse outcome (median OS 4 mts). Number of metastatic sites (HR = 1.44, p < .001) and combination of BRAFi and MEKi (HR = 0.45, p < .001) were independent prognostic factors for PFS (median 5.0 mts). Conclusions: Re-challenge with BRAFi +/- MEKi induces a clinically significant response and should be considered for selected cases.

The role for chemotherapy in the modern management of melanoma

The treatment of malignant melanoma has changed beyond recognition in the last 7 years. Where previously single agent dacarbazine was often the only treatment used for advanced disease, now there are potentially multiple lines of treatment, based on immunotherapy and targeted treatment options, either as monotherapy or in combination. In this brave new world the question arises, does chemotherapy still have any relevance in the modern management of melanoma? In this review, we summarize the various chemotherapeutic options that have been trialled in melanoma to date, and discuss the role chemotherapy may still play in treating melanoma, potentially in combination with more novel agents, or in certain subtypes of melanoma.

Surgical Management and Adjuvant Therapy for High-Risk and Metastatic Melanoma

Wide local excision is considered routine therapy after initial diagnosis of primary melanoma to reduce local recurrences, but it does not impact survival. Sentinel node staging is recommended for melanomas of intermediate thickness, but it has also not demonstrated any indisputable therapeutic effect on survival. The prognostic value of sentinel node staging has been long established and is therefore considered routine, especially in light of the eligibility criteria for adjuvant therapy (trials). Whether completion lymph node dissection after a positive sentinel node biopsy improves survival is the question of current trials. The MSLT-2 study is best powered to show a potential benefit, but it has not yet reported any data. Another study, the German DECOG study, presented at the 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting did not show any benefit but is criticized for the underpowered design and insufficient follow-up. There is no consensus on the use of adjuvant interferon in melanoma. This topic has been the focus of many studies with different regimens (low-, intermediate-, or high-dose and/or short- or long-term treatment). Adjuvant interferon has been shown to improve relapse-free survival but failed to improve overall survival. More recently, adjuvant ipilimumab has also demonstrated an improved relapse-free survival. Overall survival data have not yet been reported due to insufficient follow-up. Currently, studies are ongoing to analyze the use of adjuvant anti-PD-1 and molecular targeted therapies (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib). In the absence of unambiguously positive approved agents, clinical trial participation remains a priority. This could change in the near future.

Mutational activation of BRAF confers sensitivity to transforming growth factor beta inhibitors in human cancer cells

Recent data implicate elevated transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ) signalling in BRAF inhibitor drug-resistance mechanisms, but the potential for targeting TGFβ signalling in cases of advanced melanoma has not been investigated. We show that mutant BRAFV600E confers an intrinsic dependence on TGFβ/TGFβ receptor 1 (TGFBR1) signalling for clonogenicity of murine melanocytes. Pharmacological inhibition of the TGFBR1 blocked the clonogenicity of human mutant BRAF melanoma cells through SMAD4-independent inhibition of mitosis, and also inhibited metastasis in xenografted zebrafish. When investigating the therapeutic potential of combining inhibitors of mutant BRAF and TGFBR1, we noted that unexpectedly, low-dose PLX-4720 (a vemurafenib analogue) promoted proliferation of drug-naïve melanoma cells. Pharmacological or pharmacogenetic inhibition of TGFBR1 blocked growth promotion and phosphorylation of SRC, which is frequently associated with vemurafenib-resistance mechanisms. Importantly, vemurafenib-resistant patient derived cells retained sensitivity to TGFBR1 inhibition, suggesting that TGFBR1 could be targeted therapeutically to combat the development of vemurafenib drug-resistance.

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Alone or in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Mucosal Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis

Purpose Mucosal melanoma is an aggressive malignancy with a poor response to conventional therapies. The efficacy and safety of nivolumab (a programmed death-1 checkpoint inhibitor), alone or combined with ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 checkpoint inhibitor), have not been reported in this rare melanoma subtype. Patients and Methods Data were pooled from 889 patients who received nivolumab monotherapy in clinical studies, including phase III trials; 86 (10%) had mucosal melanoma and 665 (75%) had cutaneous melanoma. Data were also pooled for patients who received nivolumab combined with ipilimumab (n = 35, mucosal melanoma; n = 326, cutaneous melanoma). Results Among patients who received nivolumab monotherapy, median progression-free survival was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.2 to 5.4 months) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.5 months) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 23.3% (95% CI, 14.8% to 33.6%) and 40.9% (95% CI, 37.1% to 44.7%), respectively. Median progression-free survival in patients treated with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 months to not reached) and 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.9 to 16.7 months) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 37.1% (95% CI, 21.5% to 55.1%) and 60.4% (95% CI, 54.9% to 65.8%), respectively. For mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, respectively, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 8.1% and 12.5% for nivolumab monotherapy and 40.0% and 54.9% for combination therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of data for anti-programmed death-1 therapy in mucosal melanoma to date. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab seemed to have greater efficacy than either agent alone, and although the activity was lower in mucosal melanoma, the safety profile was similar between subtypes.

Hyponatraemia secondary to nivolumab-induced primary adrenal failure

Checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab and pembrolizumab, have transformed the prognosis for patients with advanced malignant melanoma and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and their use will only expand as experience is gained in a variety of other malignancies, for instance, renal and lymphoma. As the use of checkpoint inhibitors increases, so too will the incidence of their unique side effects, termed immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can affect dermatological, gastrointestinal, hepatic, endocrine and other systems. Nivolumab is a monoclonal antibody that blocks the human programmed death receptor-1 ligand (PD-L1) found on many cancer cells and is licensed for the treatment of advanced malignant melanoma. We describe the first case of nivolumab-induced adrenalitis resulting in primary adrenal failure presenting with hyponatraemia in a 43-year-old man with malignant melanoma. The case highlights the potentially life-threatening complications of checkpoint inhibitors and the need for patient education and awareness of irAEs among the wider clinical community because such side effects require prompt recognition and treatment.

LEARNING POINTS

Nivolumab can cause primary adrenal insufficiency.Not all cases of hyponatraemia in patients with malignancy are due to SIADH.Any patient on a checkpoint inhibitor becoming unwell should have serum cortisol urgently measured and if in doubt hydrocortisone therapy should be initiated.Although hyponatraemia can occur in patients with ACTH deficiency, the possibility of primary adrenal failure should also be considered and investigated by measurement of renin, aldosterone and ACTH.Patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors require education on the potential risks of hypocortisolaemia.PET imaging demonstrated bilateral increased activity consistent with an autoimmune adrenalitis.

Phase 1/2 Study of the CD56-Targeting Antibody-Drug Conjugate Lorvotuzumab Mertansine (IMGN901) in Combination With Carboplatin/Etoposide in Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Extensive-Stage Disease

INTRODUCTION

This trial assessed the safety and efficacy of LM in combination with carboplatin/etoposide therapy compared to carboplatin/etoposide treatment alone in patients with previously untreated extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A run-in phase 1 stage was used to determine the recommended phase 2 dose and characterize the dose-limiting toxicities of LM in combination with carboplatin/etoposide followed by LM alone in patients with CD56-positive solid tumors. In phase 2, chemotherapy-naive ED-SCLC patients were randomized 2:1 to carboplatin AUC (area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve) of 5 day 1 + etoposide 100 mg/m² days 1 to 3 plus LM (arm 1) or alone (arm 2).

RESULTS

In the phase 1 study (n = 33), a dose of LM at 112 mg/m² with carboplatin/etoposide was identified as the recommended phase 2 dose. However, because of an increased incidence of peripheral neuropathy events during early phase 2, this dose was reduced to 90 mg/m². In phase 2, a total of 94 and 47 evaluable patients were assigned to arms 1 and 2, respectively. No difference in median progression-free survival was observed between arms 1 and 2 (6.2 vs. 6.7 months). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event leading to discontinuation was peripheral neuropathy (29%). A total of 21 patients had a treatment-emergent adverse event leading to death (18 in arm 1 and 3 in arm 2); for 10 individuals, this was an infection (pneumonia or sepsis) deemed to be related to the study drug.

CONCLUSION

The combination of LM plus carboplatin/etoposide did not improve efficacy over standard carboplatin/etoposide doublet therapy in ED-SCLC patients and showed increased toxicity, including a higher incidence of serious infections with fatal outcomes.

Distinct subclonal tumour responses to therapy revealed by circulating cell-free DNA

BACKGROUND

The application of precision medicine in oncology requires in-depth characterisation of a patient's tumours and the dynamics of their responses to treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used next-generation sequencing of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to monitor the response of a KIT p.L576P-mutant metastatic vaginal mucosal melanoma to sequential targeted, immuno- and chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Despite a KIT mutation, the response to imatinib was mixed. Unfortunately, tumours were not accessible for molecular analysis. To study the mechanism underlying the mixed clinical response, we carried out whole-exome sequencing and targeted longitudinal analysis of cfDNA. This revealed two tumour subclones; one with a KIT mutation that responded to imatinib and a second KIT-wild-type subclone that did not respond to imatinib. Notably, the subclones also responded differently to immunotherapy. However, both subclones responded to carboplatin/paclitaxel, and although the KIT-wild-type subclone progressed after chemotherapy, it responded to subsequent re-administration of paclitaxel.

CONCLUSION

We show that cfDNA can reveal tumour evolution and subclonal responses to therapy even when biopsies are not available.

Melanoma and immunotherapy bridge 2015 : Naples, Italy. 1-5 December 2015

MELANOMA BRIDGE 2015

KEYNOTE SPEAKER PRESENTATIONS

Molecular and immuno-advances

K1 Immunologic and metabolic consequences of PI3K/AKT/mTOR activation in melanoma

Vashisht G. Y. Nanda, Weiyi Peng, Patrick Hwu, Michael A. Davies

K2 Non-mutational adaptive changes in melanoma cells exposed to BRAF and MEK inhibitors help the establishment of drug resistance

Gennaro Ciliberto, Luigi Fattore, Debora Malpicci, Luigi Aurisicchio, Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Carlo M. Croce, Rita Mancini

K3 Tumor-intrinsic beta-catenin signaling mediates tumor-immune avoidance

Stefani Spranger, Thomas F. Gajewski

K4 Intracellular tumor antigens as a source of targets of antibody-based immunotherapy of melanoma

Yangyang Wang, Soldano Ferrone

Combination therapies

K5 Harnessing radiotherapy to improve responses to immunotherapy in cancer

Claire Vanpouille-Box, Erik Wennerberg, Karsten A. Pilones, Silvia C. Formenti, Sandra Demaria

K6 Creating a T cell-inflamed tumor microenvironment overcomes resistance to checkpoint blockade

Haidong Tang, Yang Wang, Yang-Xin Fu

K7 Biomarkers for treatment decisions?

Reinhard Dummer

K8 Combining oncolytic therapies in the era of checkpoint inhibitors

Igor Puzanov

K9 Immune checkpoint blockade for melanoma: should we combine or sequence ipilimumab and PD-1 antibody therapy?

Michael A. Postow

News in immunotherapy

K10 An update on adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy for melanom

Ahmad Tarhini

K11 Targeting multiple inhibitory receptors in melanoma

Joe-Marc Chauvin, Ornella Pagliano, Julien Fourcade, Zhaojun Sun, Hong Wang, Cindy Sanders, John M. Kirkwood, Tseng-hui Timothy Chen, Mark Maurer, Alan J. Korman, Hassane M. Zarour

K12 Improving adoptive immune therapy using genetically engineered T cells

David F. Stroncek

Tumor microenvironment and biomarkers

K13 Myeloid cells and tumor exosomes: a crosstalk for assessing immunosuppression?

Veronica Huber, Licia Rivoltini

K14 Update on the SITC biomarker taskforce: progress and challenges

Magdalena Thurin

World-wide immunoscore task force: an update

K15 The immunoscore in colorectal cancer highlights the importance of digital scoring systems in surgical pathology

Tilman Rau, Alessandro Lugli

K16 The immunoscore: toward an integrated immunomonitoring from the diagnosis to the follow up of cancer’s patients

Franck Pagès

Economic sustainability of melanoma treatments: regulatory, health technology assessment and market access issues

K17 Nivolumab, the regulatory experience in immunotherapy

Jorge Camarero, Arantxa Sancho

K18 Evidence to optimize access for immunotherapies

Claudio Jommi

ORAL PRESENTATIONS

Molecular and immuno-advances

O1 Ipilimumab treatment results in CD4 T cell activation that is concomitant with a reduction in Tregs and MDSCs

Yago Pico de Coaña, Maria Wolodarski, Yuya Yoshimoto, Giusy Gentilcore, Isabel Poschke, Giuseppe V. Masucci, Johan Hansson, Rolf Kiessling

O2 Evaluation of prognostic and therapeutic potential of COX-2 and PD-L1 in primary and metastatic melanoma

Giosuè Scognamiglio, Francesco Sabbatino, Federica Zito Marino, Anna Maria Anniciello, Monica Cantile, Margherita Cerrone, Stefania Scala, Crescenzo D’alterio, Angela Ianaro, Giuseppe Cirino, Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Giuseppina Liguori, Gerardo Botti

O3 Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation–positive metastatic melanoma: final overall survival results of the BRIM-3 study

Paul B. Chapman, Caroline Robert, James Larkin, John B. Haanen, Antoni Ribas, David Hogg, Omid Hamid, Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Alessandro Testori, Paul Lorigan, Reinhard Dummer, Jeffrey A. Sosman, Keith T. Flaherty, Huibin Yue, Shelley Coleman, Ivor Caro, Axel Hauschild, Grant A. McArthur

O4 Updated survival, response and safety data in a phase 1 dose-finding study (CA209-004) of concurrent nivolumab (NIVO) and ipilimumab (IPI) in advanced melanoma

Mario Sznol, Margaret K. Callahan, Harriet Kluger, Michael A. Postow, RuthAnn Gordan, Neil H. Segal, Naiyer A. Rizvi, Alexander Lesokhin, Michael B. Atkins, John M. Kirkwood, Matthew M. Burke, Amanda Ralabate, Angel Rivera, Stephanie A. Kronenberg, Blessing Agunwamba, Mary Ruisi, Christine Horak, Joel Jiang, Jedd Wolchok

Combination therapies

O5 Efficacy and correlative biomarker analysis of the coBRIM study comparing cobimetinib (COBI) + vemurafenib (VEM) vs placebo (PBO) + VEM in advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma patients (pts)

Paolo A. Ascierto, Grant A. McArthur, James Larkin, Gabriella Liszkay, Michele Maio, Mario Mandalà, Lev Demidov, Daniil Stoyakovskiy, Luc Thomas, Luis de la Cruz-Merino, Victoria Atkinson, Caroline Dutriaux, Claus Garbe, Matthew Wongchenko, Ilsung Chang, Daniel O. Koralek, Isabelle Rooney, Yibing Yan, Antoni Ribas, Brigitte Dréno

O6 Preliminary clinical safety, tolerability and activity results from a Phase Ib study of atezolizumab (anti-PDL1) combined with vemurafenib in BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma

Ryan Sullivan, Omid Hamid, Manish Patel, Stephen Hodi, Rodabe Amaria, Peter Boasberg, Jeffrey Wallin, Xian He, Edward Cha, Nicole Richie, Marcus Ballinger, Patrick Hwu

O7 Preliminary safety and efficacy data from a phase 1/2 study of epacadostat (INCB024360) in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma

Thomas F. Gajewski, Omid Hamid, David C. Smith, Todd M. Bauer, Jeffrey S. Wasser, Jason J. Luke, Ani S. Balmanoukian, David R. Kaufman, Yufan Zhao, Janet Maleski, Lance Leopold, Tara C. Gangadhar

O8 Primary analysis of MASTERKEY-265 phase 1b study of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab (pembro) for unresectable stage IIIB-IV melanoma

Reinhard Dummer, Georgina V. Long, Antoni Ribas, Igor Puzanov, Olivier Michielin, Ari VanderWalde, Robert H.I. Andtbacka, Jonathan Cebon, Eugenio Fernandez, Josep Malvehy, Anthony J. Olszanski, Thomas F. Gajewski, John M. Kirkwood, Christine Gause, Lisa Chen, David R. Kaufman, Jeffrey Chou, F. Stephen Hodi

News in immunotherapy

O9 Two-year survival and safety update in patients (pts) with treatment-naïve advanced melanoma (MEL) receiving nivolumab (NIVO) or dacarbazine (DTIC) in CheckMate 066

Victoria Atkinson, Paolo A. Ascierto, Georgina V. Long, Benjamin Brady, Caroline Dutriaux, Michele Maio, Laurent Mortier, Jessica C. Hassel, Piotr Rutkowski, Catriona McNeil, Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha, Celeste Lebbé, Lars Ny, Matias Chacon, Paola Queirolo, Carmen Loquai, Parneet Cheema, Alfonso Berrocal, Karmele Mujika Eizmendi, Luis De La Cruz-Merino, Gil Bar-Sela, Christine Horak, Joel Jiang, Helene Hardy, Caroline Robert

O10 Efficacy and safety of nivolumab (NIVO) in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL) who were treated beyond progression in CheckMate 066/067

Georgina V. Long, Jeffrey S. Weber, James Larkin, Victoria Atkinson, Jean-Jacques Grob, Reinhard Dummer, Caroline Robert, Ivan Marquez-Rodas, Catriona McNeil, Henrik Schmidt, Karen Briscoe, Jean-François Baurain, F. Stephen Hodi, Jedd D. Wolchok

Tumor microenvironment and biomarkers

O11 New biomarkers for response/resistance to BRAF inhibitor therapy in metastatic melanoma

Rosamaria Pinto, Simona De Summa, Vito Michele Garrisi, Sabino Strippoli, Amalia Azzariti, Gabriella Guida, Michele Guida, Stefania Tommasi

O12 Chemokine receptor patterns in lymphocytes mirror metastatic spreading in melanoma and response to ipilimumab

Nicolas Jacquelot, David Enot, Caroline Flament, Jonathan M. Pitt, Nadège Vimond, Carolin Blattner, Takahiro Yamazaki, Maria-Paula Roberti, Marie Vetizou, Romain Daillere, Vichnou Poirier-Colame, Michaëla Semeraro, Anne Caignard, Craig L Slingluff Jr, Federica Sallusto, Sylvie Rusakiewicz, Benjamin Weide, Aurélien Marabelle, Holbrook Kohrt, Stéphane Dalle, Andréa Cavalcanti, Guido Kroemer, Anna Maria Di Giacomo, Michaele Maio, Phillip Wong, Jianda Yuan, Jedd Wolchok, Viktor Umansky, Alexander Eggermont, Laurence Zitvogel

O13 Serum levels of PD1- and CD28-positive exosomes before Ipilimumab correlate with therapeutic response in metastatic melanoma patients

Passarelli Anna, Tucci Marco, Stucci Stefania, Mannavola Francesco, Capone Mariaelena, Madonna Gabriele, Ascierto Paolo Antonio, Silvestris Franco

O14 Immunological prognostic factors in stage III melanomas

María Paula Roberti, Nicolas Jacquelot, David P Enot, Sylvie Rusakiewicz, Michaela Semeraro, Sarah Jégou, Camila Flores, Lieping Chen, Byoung S. Kwon, Ana Carrizossa Anderson, Caroline Robert, Christophe Borg, Benjamin Weide, François Aubin, Stéphane Dalle, Michele Maio, Jedd D. Wolchok, Holbrook Kohrt, Maha Ayyoub, Guido Kroemer, Aurélien Marabelle, Andréa Cavalcanti, Alexander Eggermont, Laurence Zitvogel

POSTER PRESENTATIONS

Molecular and immuno-advances

P1 Human melanoma cells resistant to B-RAF and MEK inhibition exhibit mesenchymal-like features

Anna Lisa De Presbiteris, Fabiola Gilda Cordaro, Rosa Camerlingo, Federica Fratangelo, Nicola Mozzillo, Giuseppe Pirozzi, Eduardo J. Patriarca, Paolo A. Ascierto, Emilia Caputo

P2 Anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effect of ABT888 on melanoma cell lines and its potential role in the treatment of melanoma resistant to B-RAF inhibitors

Federica Fratangelo, Rosa Camerlingo, Emilia Caputo, Maria Letizia Motti, Rosaria Falcone, Roberta Miceli, Mariaelena Capone, Gabriele Madonna, Domenico Mallardo, Maria Vincenza Carriero, Giuseppe Pirozzi and Paolo Antonio Ascierto

P3 Involvement of the L-cysteine/CSE/H2S pathway in human melanoma progression

Elisabetta Panza, Paola De Cicco, Chiara Armogida, Giuseppe Ercolano, Rosa Camerlingo, Giuseppe Pirozzi, Giosuè Scognamiglio, Gerardo Botti, Giuseppe Cirino, Angela Ianaro

P4 Cancer stem cell antigen revealing pattern of antibody variable region genes were defined by immunoglobulin repertoire analysis in patients with malignant melanoma

Beatrix Kotlan, Gabriella Liszkay, Miri Blank, Timea Balatoni, Judit Olasz, Emil Farkas, Andras Szollar, Akos Savolt, Maria Godeny, Orsolya Csuka, Szabolcs Horvath, Klara Eles, Yehuda Shoenfeld and Miklos Kasler

P5 Upregulation of Neuregulin-1 expression is a hallmark of adaptive response to BRAF/MEK inhibitors in melanoma

Debora Malpicci, Luigi Fattore, Susan Costantini, Francesca Capone, Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Rita Mancini, Gennaro Ciliberto

P6 HuR positively regulates migration of HTB63 melanoma cells

Farnaz Moradi, Pontus Berglund, Karin Leandersson, Rickard Linnskog, Tommy Andersson, Chandra Prakash Prasad

P7 Prolyl 4- (C-P4H) hydroxylases have opposing effects in malignant melanoma: implication in prognosis and therapy

Cristiana Lo Nigro, Laura Lattanzio, Hexiao Wang, Charlotte Proby, Nelofer Syed, Marcella Occelli, Carolina Cauchi, Marco Merlano, Catherine Harwood, Alastair Thompson, Tim Crook

P8 Urokinase receptor antagonists: novel agents for the treatment of melanoma

Maria Letizia Motti, Katia Bifulco, Vincenzo Ingangi, Michele Minopoli, Concetta Ragone, Federica Fratangelo, Antonello Pessi, Gennaro Ciliberto, Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Maria Vincenza Carriero

P9 Exosomes released by melanoma cell lines enhance chemotaxis of primary tumor cells

Francesco Mannavola, Stella D’Oronzo, Claudia Felici, Marco Tucci, Antonio Doronzo, Franco Silvestris

P10 New insights in mitochondrial metabolic reprogramming in melanoma

Anna Ferretta, Gabriella Guida, Stefania Guida, Imma Maida, Tiziana Cocco, Sabino Strippoli, Stefania Tommasi, Amalia Azzariti, Michele Guida

P11 Lenalidomide restrains the proliferation in melanoma cells through a negative regulation of their cell cycle

Stella D’Oronzo, Anna Passarelli, Claudia Felici, Marco Tucci, Davide Quaresmini, Franco Silvestris

Combination therapies

P12 Chemoimmunotherapy elicits polyfunctional anti-tumor CD8 + T cells depending on the activation of an AKT pathway sustained by ICOS

Ornella Franzese, Belinda Palermo, Cosmo Di Donna, Isabella Sperduti, MariaLaura Foddai, Helena Stabile, Angela Gismondi, Angela Santoni, Paola Nisticò

P13 Favourable toxicity profile of combined BRAF and MEK inhibitors in metastatic melanoma patients

Andrea P. Sponghini, Francesca Platini, Elena Marra, David Rondonotti, Oscar Alabiso, Maria T. Fierro, Paola Savoia, Florian Stratica, Pietro Quaglino

P14 Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system dissection reduces seroma output or time to drain removal following axillary and ilio-inguinal node dissection in melanoma patients: a pilot study

Di Monta Gianluca, Caracò Corrado, Di Marzo Massimiliano, Marone Ugo, Di Cecilia Maria Luisa, Mozzillo Nicola

News in immunotherapy

P15 Clinical and immunological response to ipilimumab in a metastatic melanoma patient with HIV infection

Francesco Sabbatino, Celeste Fusciello1, Antonio Marra, Rosario Guarrasi, Carlo Baldi, Rosa Russo, Di Giulio Giovanni, Vincenzo Faiola, Pio Zeppa, Stefano Pepe

P16 Immunotherapy and hypophysitis: a case report

Elisabetta Gambale, Consiglia Carella, Alessandra Di Paolo, Michele De Tursi

Tumor microenvironment and biomarkers

P17 New immuno- histochemical markers for the differential diagnosis of atypical melanocytic lesions with uncertain malignant potential

Laura Marra, Giosuè Scognamiglio, Monica Cantile, Margherita Cerrone, Fara De Murtas, Valeria Sorrentino, Anna Maria Anniciello, Gerardo Botti

P18 Utility of simultaneous measurement of three serum tumor markers in melanoma patients

Angela Sandru, Silviu Voinea, Eugenia Panaitescu, Madalina Bolovan, Adina Stanciu, Sabin Cinca

P19 The significance of various cut-off levels of melanoma inhibitory activity in evaluation of cutaneous melanoma patients

Angela Sandru, Silviu Voinea, Eugenia Panaitescu, Madalina Bolovan, Adina Stanciu, Sabin Cinca

P20 The long noncoding RNA HOTAIR is associated to metastatic progression of melanoma and it can be identified in the blood of patients with advanced disease

Chiara Botti, Giosuè Scognamiglio, Laura Marra, Gabriella Aquino, Rosaria Falcone, Annamaria Anniciello, Paolo Antonio Ascierto, Gerardo Botti, Monica Cantile

Other

P21 The effect of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in melanoma mortality: timing of dissection

Cristina Fortes, Simona Mastroeni, Alessio Caggiati, Francesca Passarelli, Alba Zappalà, Maria Capuano, Riccardo Bono, Maurizio Nudo, Claudia Marino, Paola Michelozzi

P22 Epidemiological survey on related psychopathology in melanoma

Valeria De Biasio, Vincenzo C. Battarra

IMMUNOTHERAPY BRIDGE

KEYNOTE SPEAKER PRESENTATIONS

Immunotherapy beyond melanoma

K19 Predictor of response to radiation and immunotherapy

Silvia Formenti

K20 Response and resistance to PD-1 pathway blockade: clues from the tumor microenvironment

Maria Libera Ascierto, Tracee L. McMiller, Alan E. Berger, Ludmila Danilova, Robert A. Anders, George J. Netto, Haiying Xu, Theresa S. Pritchard, Jinshui Fan, Chris Cheadle, Leslie Cope, Charles G. Drake, Drew M. Pardoll, Janis M. Taube and Suzanne L. Topalian

K21 Combination immunotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation, protein immunization, and PBMC reinfusion in myeloma patients

Sacha Gnjatic, Sarah Nataraj, Naoko Imai, Adeeb Rahman, Achim A. Jungbluth, Linda Pan, Ralph Venhaus, Andrew Park, Frédéric F. Lehmann, Nikoletta Lendvai, Adam D. Cohen, and Hearn J. Cho

K22 Anti-cancer immunity despite T cell “exhaustion”

Speiser Daniel

Immunotherapy in oncology (I-O): data from clinical trial

K23 The Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

Vera Hirsh

Abstract 2400: Mechanisms of resistance to immuno and targeted therapies in acral melanoma

Acral melanoma is a rare subtype of melanoma found on the non-hair bearing surfaces of the skin. It is associated with a worse prognosis than cutaneous melanoma, with higher proportions of patients developing metastatic disease. Combination treatments targeting the MAP kinase (MAPK) pathway and immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved overall survival in patients with stage IV disease. However, resistance to both modalities remains a challenge. This is exemplified by our comprehensive analysis of a patient presenting with acral melanoma that developed resistance to both immune and targeted therapy.

The patient developed metastatic disease in multiple sites and we obtained fresh tumour tissue and generated cell lines from a skin metastasis at baseline prior to nivolumab. Following an initial complete response, the patient developed new mediastinal lymph node and brain metastases, which were also resected. On further relapse, the patient commenced dabrafenib with a partial response. Despite ongoing extra-cranial control, the brain lesion progressed and was therefore resected.

To investigate resistance to immune therapy, we performed comprehensive genomic analysis and gene expression profiling on the lesions from the three sites, which identified common mutations in all three lesions and a low overall mutational burden consistent with acral melanoma. Heterogeneity of the MHC class I and II restricted antigen profile of the pre-treatment subcutaneous metastasis versus lymph node and brain progressions could not account for the development of resistance to immunotherapy. Gene expression profiling revealed up-regulation of known mechanisms of immune tolerance in both the lymph node and brain metastasis compared to the pre-treatment subcutaneous metastasis.

To investigate resistance to targeted therapy, we compared patient-derived cell lines from brain lesions taken pre (DabS) and on progression on dabrafenib (DabR), and showed ongoing sensitivity to dabrafenib despite the patient having progressed in the brain. When cells from the DabR cell line were cultured in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the presence of dabrafenib, we observed a reduction in cell death. Thus, extrinsic factors present in CSF may have resulted in the progression of the brain lesion in this patient.

Using a combination of platforms to study patient derived tissues, we show that immune editing through selection of cells with an immune resistant phenotype may have resulted in the resistance of this patient's tumours to immune therapy whilst resistance to MAPK targeted therapy could have been mediated by extrinsic factors in the CSF.

Citation Format: Rebecca J. Lee, Maria Romina Girotti, Amaya Viros, Franziska Baenke, Amit Mandal, Garima Khandelwal, John Bridgeman, Elena Galvani, Gabriela Gremel, Milena Kalaitsidou, Garry Ashton, Isabel Peset, Matthew Smith, Jacqueline Swan, Kang Zeng, Haoran Tang, Caron Abbey, Robert Hawkins, Alberto Fusi, Crispin Miller, David Gilham, Nathalie Dhomen, Paul Lorigan, Richard Marais. Mechanisms of resistance to immuno and targeted therapies in acral melanoma. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 2400.

Abstract 469: Systematic analysis of circulating tumor DNA in melanoma patients to uncover mechanisms of resistance and disease clonality

Recent advances in targeted and immunotherapies have unlocked potent treatment options for malignant melanoma patients. However, targeted therapies are associated with limited response durations and only a fraction of patients benefit from immunotherapies. The analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) provides a powerful tool for the continuous assessment of treatment responses in melanoma patients.

We have established a robust pipeline for the serial, prospective analysis of ctDNA in melanoma patients. By combining next generation sequencing (NGS)- and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR)-based approaches we make ideal use of currently available technologies. To date, plasma samples from over 120 individuals have been collected, with follow-up times surpassing one year in many cases.

For routine monitoring of patients commencing BRAF-mutant targeted therapies, pre-treatment DNA, derived from tumour biopsy or plasma, is tested to confirm the exact BRAF mutation and rule out pre-existing resistance-associated mutations using a custom NGS sequencing panel. Timely follow-up throughout treatment is achieved by measuring mutant BRAF fractions in ctDNA using ddPCR. When increasing BRAF variant allele frequencies are detected, additional ddPCR-based profiling for NRAS mutations and NGS-based re-sequencing for other resistance-associated mutations is initiated. We demonstrate superiority of ctDNA monitoring over LDH measurements and present a strategy to detect emerging resistant disease ahead of clinical scans in a cost-effective, timesaving and low technology way.

In addition to the basic characterization of BRAF-mutant cases undergoing targeted therapy, we have used the analysis of ctDNA to uncover clonally distinct tumour sub-populations resulting in complex responses to treatment. For instance, we monitored a case of metastatic vaginal mucosal melanoma undergoing sequential targeted, immuno- and chemotherapy. Despite the presence of a KIT mutation in the primary tumour, response to KIT inhibitor imatinib was mixed. In the absence of tumour biopsies, we used whole exome-wide NGS of ctDNA to study the underlying mechanisms. This strategy revealed a KIT-mutant tumour sub-clone that responded to imatinib and a second sub-clone including an SF3B1 mutation that did not respond. The sub-clones also responded differentially to immunotherapies, but both responded to chemotherapy.

The analysis of ctDNA is a powerful approach to monitor responses to systemic therapies in melanoma. By providing early warning of resistance and crucial information of clonal composition/evolution of the disease, ctDNA analysis has the potential to revolutionize the implementation of precision medicine.

Citation Format: Gabriela Gremel, Rebecca J. Lee, Maria R. Girotti, Grace Garner, Amit K. Mandal, Sally Wood, Alberto Fusi, Sara Valpione, Patricio Serra-Bellver, Nathalie Dhomen, Paul Lorigan, Richard Marais. Systematic analysis of circulating tumor DNA in melanoma patients to uncover mechanisms of resistance and disease clonality. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 469.