Re-induction ipilimumab following acquired resistance to combination ipilimumab and anti-PD-1 therapy

Melanoma-Modern Treatment for Metastatic Melanoma

ABSTRACT

Traditional chemotherapy has been ineffective in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Until the use of checkpoint inhibitors, patients had very limited survival. Since the original US Food and Drug Administration approval of ipilimumab over a decade ago, the armamentarium of immunotherapeutic agents has expanded to include programmed cell death protein 1 and lymphocyte activation gene 3 antibodies, requiring a nuanced approach to the selection of frontline treatments, managing patients through recurrence and progression, and determining length of therapy. Herein, we review the existing evidence supporting current standard immunotherapy regimens and discuss the clinical decision-making involved in treating patients with metastatic melanoma with checkpoint inhibitors.

The Effectiveness of Cancer Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Retreatment and Rechallenge-A Systematic Review

Despite a great success of immunotherapy in cancer treatment, a great number of patients will become resistant. This review summarizes recent reports on immune checkpoint inhibitor retreatment or rechallenge in order to overcome primary resistance. The systematic review was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. In total, 31 articles were included with a total of 812 patients. There were 16 retreatment studies and 13 rechallenge studies. We identified 15 studies in which at least one parameter (overall response rate or disease control rate) improved or was stable at secondary treatment. Interval treatment, primary response to and the cause of cessation for the first immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be promising predictors of secondary response. However, high heterogeneity of investigated cohorts and lack of reporting guidelines are limiting factors for current in-depth analysis.

Efficacy of ipilimumab 3mg/kg following progression on low dose ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

Differing doses of ipilimumab (IPI) are used in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody in advanced melanoma. There is no data on the outcomes of patients who progress following low-dose IPI (< 3 mg/kg) and are subsequently treated with IPI 3 mg/kg (IPI3). We conducted a multicentre retrospective survey to assess the efficacy of this strategy.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage III, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma who received low dose IPI (< 3 mg/kg) with an anti-PD1 antibody with recurrence (neo/adjuvant) or progressive disease (metastatic), who then received IPI3± anti-PD1 antibody were eligible. Best investigator-determined Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed.

RESULTS

Total 36 patients received low-dose IPI with an anti-PD1 antibody, 18 (50%) in the neo/adjuvant and 18 (50%) in the metastatic setting. Of which, 20 (56%) had primary resistance and 16 (44%) had acquired resistance. All patients received IPI3 for unresectable stage III or IV melanoma; median age 60 (29-78), 18 (50%) M1d disease, 32 (89%) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Around 35 (97%) received IPI3 with nivolumab and 1 received IPI3 alone. The response rate to IPI3 was 9/36 (25%). In patients with primary resistance, the response rate was 6/20 (30%). After a median follow-up of 22 months (95% CI: 15-27 months), the median PFS and OS were not reached in patients who responded; 1-year PFS and OS were 73% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

IPI3 following recurrence/progression on low dose IPI has clinical activity, including in primary resistance. IPI dosing is therefore critical in a subset of patients.

Factors Determining Long-Term Antitumor Responses to Immune Checkpoint Blockade Therapy in Melanoma

With the increasing promise of long-term survival with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapies, particularly for patients with advanced melanoma, clinicians and investigators are driven to identify prognostic and predictive factors that may help to identify individuals who are likely to experience durable benefit. Several ICB combinations are being actively developed to expand the armamentarium of treatments for patients who may not achieve long-term responses to ICB single therapies alone. Thus, negative predictive markers are also of great interest. This review seeks to deepen our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the durability of ICB treatments. We will discuss the currently available long-term data from the ICB clinical trials and real-world studies describing the survivorship of ICB-treated melanoma patients. Additionally, we explore the current treatment outcomes in patients rechallenged with ICB and the patterns of ICB resistance based on sites of disease, namely, liver or CNS metastases. Lastly, we discuss the landscape in melanoma in the context of prognostic or predictive factors as markers of long-term response to ICB.

Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: Re-Induction following Resistance or Toxicity

Simple Summary

The era of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with nivolumab and pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) alone or in combination with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) has led to prolonged survival in patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM). However, the response to ICB is low in patients with uveal melanoma (UM). This retrospective multicenter study examines the effectiveness of re-induction with ICB in patients with metastatic UM. A re-induction was recorded when ICB treatment was initiated a second time after a first ICB treatment was discontinued due to resistance or toxicity. We compared two cohorts (re-induction of ICB vs. once-only ICB) and present evidence for the clinical activity of a re-induction with ICB in a small subgroup of patients.

Abstract

Re-induction with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) needs to be considered in many patients with uveal melanoma (UM) due to limited systemic treatment options. Here, we provide hitherto the first analysis of ICB re-induction in UM. A total of 177 patients with metastatic UM treated with ICB were included from German skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg). To investigate the impact of ICB re-induction, two cohorts were compared: patients who received at least one ICB re-induction (cohort A, n = 52) versus those who received only one treatment line of ICB (cohort B, n = 125). In cohort A, a transient benefit of overall survival (OS) was observed at 6 and 12 months after the treatment start of ICB. There was no significant difference in OS between both groups (p = 0.1) with a median OS of 16.2 months (cohort A, 95% CI: 11.1–23.8) versus 9.4 months (cohort B, 95% CI: 6.1–14.9). Patients receiving re-induction of ICB (cohort A) had similar response rates compared to those receiving ICB once. Re-induction of ICB may yield a clinical benefit for a small subgroup of patients even after resistance or development of toxicities.

Risks and benefits of reinduction ipilimumab/nivolumab in melanoma patients previously treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab

BACKGROUND

In melanoma patients who progress after prior ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) combination immunotherapy, there is no information regarding the risks and benefits of reinduction ipi/nivo.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 26 melanoma patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) since 2012 who received reinduction ipi/nivo at least 6 months following completion of an initial course of ipi/nivo. We collected data on demographics, genetics, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), best overall responses (BORs), time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The BOR rate (complete response+partial response) was 74% (95% CI 52% to 90%) after the first course of ipi/nivo but only 23% (95% CI 8% to 45%)) after reinduction. Response to reinduction did not correlate with response to the initial course. Among the 16 patients who had an objective response to the first course, only four (25%) responded to reinduction. Of five patients who did not respond to the first course, one responded to reinduction. For all patients, median TTF was 5.3 months after reinduction; TTF was shorter for reinduction than for the first course in 85% of patients. Median OS from reinduction was 8.4 months; estimated 2-year OS was 18%. Although reinduction was associated with fewer irAEs than the initial course of ipi/nivo (58% of patients vs 85% of patients in the initial course), eight (31%) patients experienced at least one new irAE after the second course.

CONCLUSIONS

BOR rate and TTF were markedly less favorable after reinduction with ipi/nivo than after the initial course of ipi/nivo. Reinduction ipi/nivo was associated with frequent irAEs although less frequent than for the initial course.

The concepts of rechallenge and retreatment with immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma patients

Forty to 60% of patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma respond to first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and half of all patients in the metastatic setting eventually progress. This review evaluated the latest long-term data from clinical trials. It also considered data from recent retrospective studies, as these address important questions for clinical practice. 'Retreatment' defined as 'repeated treatment with the same therapeutic class following relapse after adjuvant treatment has ended' and showed activity in selected patients with recurrence after regular completion of adjuvant PD-1 treatment. In melanoma patients with adjuvant PD-1 monotherapy who recur during adjuvant treatment, further treatment with PD-1 monotherapy seems to have no clinical utility, indicating the need for a therapy switch or escalation in these patients. Targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ipilimumab-based therapy (alone or combined with PD-1 blockade) show clinical activity in patients who recur during and after adjuvant treatment. 'Rechallenge', defined as 'repeated treatment with the same therapeutic class following disease progression in patients who had clinical benefit with prior treatment for unresectable or metastatic disease', with pembrolizumab at progression in the advanced setting achieving additional disease control. If possible, 'escalation' (PD-1 inhibitors combined with additional agents) should be preferred to PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy rechallenge as higher response rates were demonstrated. The combination of PD-1 plus CTLA-4 was found to be more effective but not more toxic than CTLA-4 alone. Promising antitumor activity was observed for escalation to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, entinostat plus pembrolizumab, and relatlimab plus nivolumab. Retreatment, rechallenge and escalation are available options for patients with melanoma who relapse in the adjuvant or advanced setting.