Combining Hepatic Percutaneous Perfusion with Ipilimumab plus Nivolumab in advanced uveal melanoma (CHOPIN): study protocol for a phase Ib/randomized phase II trial

Efficacy and safety of tebentafusp in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) have a poor prognosis, and few appropriate medications are available. Tebentafusp is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for mUM recently. However, the real efficacy and safety of tebentafusp are still unclear. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 20, 2024. The research was reported based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. We used random effects models to aggregate data on the response rates and adverse events of tebentafusp therapy. Six studies met the inclusion criteria with a total sample of 589 participants. The pooled objective response rate was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.05-0.12), and pooled disease control rate was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.44-0.57). The overall incidence was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.95-1.00) for any grade adverse events, 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41-0.59) for grade 3-4 adverse events, and 0.01 (95% CI: 0-0.03) for discontinuation due to adverse events. Tebentafusp exhibits promising treatment outcomes for mUM patients. Although accompanied with a common occurrence of adverse events, which can typically be managed and controlled. Future research is necessary for substantiating these findings and refining guidelines for management of mUM.

Hepatic and Overall Progression-Free Survival After Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion (PHP) as First-Line or Second-Line Therapy for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Uveal melanoma often metastasizes to the liver, portending a poor prognosis. Melphalan/hepatic delivery system (HDS) via percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) is a minimally invasive means of circulating high-dose chemotherapy through the affected liver. This study evaluated melphalan/HDS use as either first-line or second-line treatment to guide treatment sequencing.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review included patients with hepatic-dominant metastatic uveal melanoma who underwent melphalan/HDS treatment via PHP from 2008 to 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were identified; 53.3% female, with a median age of 63.5 years (37-78 years). Median follow-up time was 14.5 months. First-line therapies included melphalan/HDS (n = 17), liver-directed (n = 7), and immunotherapy (n = 6). Second-line therapies included melphalan/HDS (n = 6), immunotherapy (n = 5), and liver-directed (n = 3). Median hepatic progression-free survival (hPFS) for first-line melphalan/HDS, immunotherapy, and liver-directed therapy was 17.6/8.8/9.2 months, respectively (P = 0.002). Median hPFS for second-line melphalan/HDS, immunotherapy, and liver-directed therapy was not reached/14.7/7.5 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Median overall PFS for first-line melphalan/HDS, immunotherapy, and liver-directed therapy was 15.4/8.8/9.2 months, respectively (P = 0.04). Median overall PFS for second-line melphalan/HDS, immunotherapy, and liver-directed therapy was 22.2/14.7/7.5 months, respectively (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Melphalan/HDS via PHP for metastatic uveal melanoma to the liver was found to have significantly improved hPFS and overall PFS when used as first-line therapy compared with immunotherapy or liver-directed therapy. PHP continued to demonstrate improved hPFS and PFS when used as second-line therapy compared with second-line immunotherapy or liver-directed therapy.

The Current State of Systemic Therapy of Metastatic Uveal Melanoma

Uveal melanoma (UM) is genetically a distinct tumor compared to cutaneous melanoma (CM), and due to its low mutational burden, it is far less perceptible to the immune system. Thus, treatments that have revolutionized the treatment of CM remain widely inefficient in metastatic UM or only demonstrate effectiveness in a small subpopulation of patients. To this end, the therapeutic benefit of immune checkpoint blockade is very limited and may come at the expense of severe immune-related adverse events that could potentially affect all organ systems. Notably, tebentafusp, an entirely novel class of anti-cancer drugs, has received official authorization for the treatment of metastatic UM. It is the first agent that demonstrated a survival advantage in a randomized controlled trial of metastatic UM patients. Despite the survival benefit and approval, the restriction of tebentafusp to HLA-A*02:01-positive patients and the low objective response rate indicate the persistent need for additional therapies. Thus, liver-directed therapies are commonly used for tumor control of hepatic metastases and represent a central pillar of the daily management of liver-dominant disease. Further, promising data from targeted therapies independent of MEK-inhibitors, such as the combination of darovasertib and crizotinib, raise hope for additional options in metastatic UM in the future. This narrative review provides a timely and comprehensive overview of the current treatment landscape for metastatic UM.

Locoregional therapies combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors for liver metastases

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have achieved remarkable success in clinical research and practice. Notably, liver metastasis is not sensitive to ICIs. Liver locoregional therapies can cause irreversible damage to tumor cells and release tumor antigens, thereby providing a rationale for immunotherapy treatments in liver metastasis. The combination therapy of ICIs with locoregional therapies is a promising option for patients with liver metastasis. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that combining ICIs with locoregional therapies produces a significantly synergistic anti-tumor effect. However, the current evidence for the efficacy of ICIs combined with locoregional therapies remains insufficient. Therefore, we review the literature on the mechanisms of locoregional therapies in treating liver metastasis and the clinical research progress of their combination with ICIs.

The Future of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Uveal Melanoma: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have made tremendous progress over the last decade in the treatment of cutaneous melanoma, but their application in uveal melanoma treatment is less successful, owing in part to the immunological privilege of the eye and the liver, the most frequent site of metastasis. Nevertheless, the therapeutic outcomes reported currently are less pessimistic.

METHODS

In this review, we provide an overview of recent studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in uveal melanoma and its metastasis and classify studies in this field into three groups: monotherapy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, dual-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with other systemic or regional therapies.

RESULTS

Briefly, monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors performed poorly. Dual-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors had slightly better outcomes than traditional treatments, especially in specific patient populations. As for the combination therapy, the combination with other systemic therapies did not show superiority over dual-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors, but combination with hepatic regional therapies was quite promising. Moreover, research on emerging checkpoints is currently limited to the stage of mechanistic studies.

CONCLUSION

We propose that immune checkpoint inhibitors remain alternative treatments for patients with uveal melanoma, but factors such as cost-effectiveness should also be taken into account. The combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors deserves to be further explored.

Case report: Immunotherapy inducing unexpected overall survival in choroidal melanoma: about a case

Choroidal melanoma (CM) is the most common malignant ocular tumor in adults. The current treatment of metastatic CM is limited by the intrinsic resistance of CM to conventional systemic therapies. Immunotherapy alone or in association with cytotoxic treatment became a realist option treatment. Advancements in molecular biology have resulted in the identification of a number of promising prognostic and therapeutic targets. Herein, we report a rare case of 36-year-old patient with metastatic CM who presented a good long response to treatment with double immunotherapy reaching 3 years of overall survival, which has never been described in the literature.

Quality of life after melphalan percutaneous hepatic perfusion for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma

BACKGROUND

Recent studies indicate that melphalan percutaneous hepatic perfusion (M-PHP) for liver metastases from ocular melanoma (mUM) improves survival. Importantly, this benefit must be carefully balanced with changes in a patient's quality of life (QoL). This study examines the QoL changes post-M-PHP.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the change in QoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) with mUM patients receiving M-PHP ( n  = 20). The FACT-G scores, which comprise physical (PWB), social (SWB), emotional (EWB) and functional (FWB) wellbeing were measured pre-procedure and at day 1, day of discharge (mean = 2.4 days), 7, 14 and 28 days after M-PHP therapy. Wilcoxon signed-rank test gauged QoL domain changes.

RESULTS

Baseline FACT-G median (IQR) scores were 101.8 (21.8). QoL scoring significantly decreased immediately after the procedure [day 1; 85 (27.5); P  = 0.002] and gradually improved over time. By day 28, QoL almost returned to pre-procedure levels [100.3 (13.8); P  = 0.31]. Subscore analysis revealed that the initial drop in QoL at day 1 post-procedure was attributable to the PWB (28 vs. 24; P  = 0.001) and FWB domains (26 vs. 18.5; P  < 0.001). By day 28 there was a statistically significant improvement in EWB ( P  = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

QoL following M-PHP decreases immediately after therapy and is not significantly different from baseline by the day of discharge. By day 28 there is improved emotional well-being. This study could help to optimize the time between treatment cycles when combined with toxicity data and blood count recovery.

Updates in the Management of Uveal Melanoma

ABSTRACT

Uveal melanoma (UM), arising from intraocular melanocytes, poses a complex clinical challenge with a substantial risk of distant metastasis, often to the liver. Molecular profiling, encompassing genetic, cytogenetic, gene expression, and immunological subsets, plays a pivotal role in determining prognoses. The evolving landscape includes promising systemic treatments, such as tebentafusp, a novel immune-modulating bispecific fusion protein, and targeted therapies. Combined regional and systemic approaches, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and innovative liver-directed therapy, are also under investigation. Although recent progress has improved outcomes, ongoing research aims to address the unique challenges of UM and develop effective therapies, particularly for HLA-A*02:01-negative patients who represent a significant unmet medical need. This review comprehensively discusses the molecular characteristics of UM, risk stratification methods, and the current and future spectrum of regional and systemic therapeutic modalities.

Uveal melanoma: Current evidence on prognosis, treatment and potential developments

Uveal Melanoma (UM) is a rare disease, yet it is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adult patients. Despite continuous advancements and research, the risk of metastasis remains high. It is possible to stratify patients according to their risk of metastases using a variety of known risk factors. Even though there is no gold standard for the prognostication of patients with uveal melanoma, it is becoming increasingly clear that combining histo-pathological, patient-related and molecular prognostic markers allows a more accurate prediction of the metastatic risk than by using one parameter. Primary UM in the eye are treated very effectively with eye-sparing radiation-based techniques or enucleation. However, it is not yet possible to prevent or treat metastases with the current therapeutic options. Nonetheless, the efforts to find new therapeutic targets continue and progress is being made, especially in the field of targeted therapy, as exemplified by the anti-gp100 bispecific molecule Tebentafusp. This review delves into the history of uveal melanoma, its incidence, presentation and diagnosis, the known prognostic factors and the treatment options, both for the primary tumour and for metastases. We show that different populations may have different risks for developing UM, and that each country should evaluate their own patients.

Time Trends in the Treatment and Survival of 5036 Uveal Melanoma Patients in The Netherlands over a 30-Year Period

BACKGROUND

Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare intraocular tumor with a dismal prognosis once metastasized. This study provides a nationwide overview and time trends of patients diagnosed with primary UM in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2019.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based cohort study based on patients with primary UM from the database of the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), linked with the national population registry Statistics Netherlands on inhabitants' cause of death. Two time periods (1989-2004, 2005-2019) were compared with descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier and (multivariate) Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess changes over time for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

RESULTS

In total, 5036 patients were analyzed with a median age of 64.0 years at the time of diagnosis. The number of patients increased over time. In the first (1989-2004) and second (2005-2019) period, 32% versus 54% of the patients received radiotherapy (p < 0.001). The median FU time was 13.4 years. The median OS of the first and second periods was 9.5 (95% CI 8.7-10.3) versus 11.3 years (95% CI 10.3-12.3; p < 0.001). The median CSS was 30.0 years (95% CI NA) in the first period and not reached in the second period (p = 0.008). In multivariate analysis (MVA), female gender (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.79-0.92, p < 0.001) and radiotherapy treatment (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.64-0.83, p < 0.001) were associated with better OS. Radiotherapy treatment (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.61-0.90, p = 0.002) was also associated with better CSS. The period of diagnosis was not associated with OS or CSS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of patients with primary UM, there was a shift to the diagnosis of smaller tumors, possibly due to stage migration. There was also an increase in eye-preserving treatments over time. OS and CSS were modestly improved in the second time period; however, the time period was not associated with OS or CSS in multivariate analyses.

Selective Internal Radiotherapy (SIRT) and Chemosaturation Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion (CS-PHP) for Metastasized Uveal Melanoma: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Even with liver-targeted therapies, uveal melanoma with hepatic metastasis remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients treated with either SIRT or CS-PHP. We included 62 patients with hepatic metastasized uveal melanoma (n = 34 with SIRT, receiving 41 cycles; n = 28 with CS-PHP, receiving 56 cycles) that received their treatments between 12/2013 and 02/2020 at a single center. We evaluated their response according to the RECIST 1.1, as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), after the initiation of the first cycle of the liver-directed treatment using Cox regression, adjusted via propensity score analysis for confounders, including the amount of hepatic involvement. The disease control rate was 18% for SIRT and 30% for CS-PHP. The median (range) of PFS was 127.5 (19-1912) days for SIRT and 408.5 (3-1809) days for CS-PHP; adjusted Cox regression showed no significant difference (p = 0.090). The median (range) of OS was 300.5 (19-1912) days for SIRT and 516 (5-1836) days for CS-PHP; adjusted Cox regression showed a significant difference (p = 0.006). In our patient cohort, patients treated with CS-PHP showed a significantly longer OS than patients treated with SIRT. CS-PHP might therefore be preferable for patients with liver-dominant metastatic uveal melanoma.

Role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic uveal melanoma: a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Uveal melanoma is an orphan malignancy with very limited data on treatment options in metastatic setting.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, we describe real-world epidemiological and survival data on 121 metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) patients registered in our institution. As a large tertiary referral center, almost 30% of all diagnoses in the Flemish region of Belgium were covered. Primarily, we determined whether introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) led to improved overall survival (OS) in MUM patients. Secondarily, response rates to ICI were assessed and we evaluated whether first-line ICI could be a valid alternative to liver-directed therapy (LDT) in liver-only disease.

RESULTS

The initially perceived 10.8 months survival benefit from treatment with ICI disappeared after correction for immortality bias. By analyzing treatment type as time-varying covariate on OS, no significant benefit of ICI over other systemic therapies (HR = 0.771) or best supportive care (BSC) (HR = 0.780) was found. Also comparison of the pre-ICI versus ICI era showed no OS improvement after introduction of ICI in our center (p = 0.7994). Only liver-directed and local oligometastatic approaches were associated with a lower chance of mortality when compared to ICI (p = 0.0025), other systemic therapies (p = 0.0001) and BSC (p = 0.0003), yet without correction for selection bias. We reported overall response rates on ICI ranging from 8-15% and we found some support for neoadjuvant strategies with ICI resulting in remission or downsizing, allowing oligometastatic approaches later on. In first-line liver-only disease, median real-world progression-free survival and OS did not significantly differ between patients treated with LDT or ICI upfront (p = 0.2930 and p = 0.5461 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Although we documented responses to ICI, our analyses do not demonstrate an OS benefit of ICI over alternative treatment strategies for MUM. However, local treatment options, whether liver-directed or for oligometastatic disease, may be beneficial and should be considered.

Combining Melphalan Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion with Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab in Advanced Uveal Melanoma: First Safety and Efficacy Data from the Phase Ib Part of the Chopin Trial

PURPOSE

To define a safe treatment dose of ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) when applied in combination with percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP) in metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) patients (NCT04283890), primary objective was defining a safe treatment dose of IPI/NIVO plus M-PHP. Toxicity was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 (CTCAEv4.03). Secondary objective was response rate, PFS and OS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients between 18-75 years with confirmed measurable hepatic mUM according to RECIST 1.1 and WHO performance score 0-1 were included. Intravenous IPI was applied at 1 mg/kg while NIVO dose was increased from 1 mg/kg in cohort 1 to 3 mg/kg in cohort 2. Transarterial melphalan dose for M-PHP was 3 mg/kg (maximum of 220 mg) in both cohorts. Treatment duration was 12 weeks, consisting of four 3-weekly courses IPI/NIVO and two 6-weekly M-PHPs.

RESULTS

Seven patients were included with a median age of 63.6 years (range 50-74). Both dose levels were well tolerated without dose-limiting toxicities or deaths. Grade III/IV adverse events (AE) were observed in 2/3 patients in cohort 1 and in 3/4 patients in cohort 2, including Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), febrile neutropenia and cholecystitis. Grade I/II immune-related AEs occurred in all patients, including myositis, hypothyroidism, hepatitis and dermatitis. There were no dose-limiting toxicities. The safe IPI/NIVO dose was defined as IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg. There was 1 complete response, 5 partial responses and 1 stable disease (3 ongoing responses with a median FU of 29.1 months).

CONCLUSION

Combining M-PHP with IPI/NIVO was safe in this small cohort of patients with mUM at a dose of IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg.

Predictive Parameters in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion with Melphalan for Unresectable Liver Metastases from Uveal Melanoma: A Retrospective Pooled Analysis

Purpose

The aim of this study was to identify positive predictors for survival in uveal melanoma (UM) patients treated with percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP), by retrospectively pooling data from three centers.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective analysis including patients (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\ge$$\end{document}≥ 18 years) treated with M-PHP between February 2014 and December 2019 for unresectable liver-dominant or liver-only metastases from UM. Predictors for OS were assessed using uni- and multivariate analyses. Other study outcome measures were response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), liver progression-free survival (LPFS), overall survival (OS) and complications according to CTCAEv5.0.

Results

In total, 101 patients (47.5% males; median age 59.0 years) completed a minimum of one M-PHP. At a median follow-up time of 15.0 months, complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) and progressive disease were seen in five (5.0%), 55 (54.5%), 30 (29.7%) and 11 (10.9%) patients, respectively, leading to a 89.1% disease control rate. Median PFS, LPFS and OS were 9.0, 11.0 and 20.0 months, respectively. Survival analyses stratified for radiological response demonstrated significant improved survival in patients with CR or PR and SD category. Treatment of the primary tumor with radiotherapy, ≥ 2 M-PHP and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) < 248 U/L were correlated with improved OS. Thirty-day mortality was 1.1% (n = 2). Most common complication was hematological toxicity (self-limiting in most cases).

Conclusion

M-PHP is safe and effective in patients with UM liver metastases. Achieving CR, PR or SD is associated with improved survival. Primary tumor treatment with radiotherapy, normal baseline LDH and > 1 M-PHP cycles are associated with improved OS.

Autoimmunity and Cancer-Two Sides of the Same Coin

Autoimmune disease results from the immune response against self-antigens, while cancer develops when the immune system does not respond to malignant cells. Thus, for years, autoimmunity and cancer have been considered as two separate fields of research that do not have a lot in common. However, the discovery of immune checkpoints and the development of anti-cancer drugs targeting PD-1 (programmed cell death receptor 1) and CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4) pathways proved that studying autoimmune diseases can be extremely helpful in the development of novel anti-cancer drugs. Therefore, autoimmunity and cancer seem to be just two sides of the same coin. In the current review, we broadly discuss how various regulatory cell populations, effector molecules, genetic predisposition, and environmental factors contribute to the loss of self-tolerance in autoimmunity or tolerance induction to cancer. With the current paper, we also aim to convince the readers that the pathways involved in cancer and autoimmune disease development consist of similar molecular players working in opposite directions. Therefore, a deep understanding of the two sides of immune tolerance is crucial for the proper designing of novel and selective immunotherapies.