A phase 1 study of triple-targeted therapy with BRAF, MEK, and AKT inhibitors for patients with BRAF-mutated cancers

BACKGROUND

Aberrant PI3K/AKT signaling in BRAF-mutant cancers contributes to resistance to BRAF inhibitors. The authors examined dual MAPK and PI3K pathway inhibition in patients who had BRAF-mutated solid tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01902173).

METHODS

Patients with BRAF V600E/V600K-mutant solid tumors received oral dabrafenib at 150 mg twice daily with dose escalation of oral uprosertib starting at 50 mg daily, or, in the triplet cohorts, with dose escalation of both oral trametinib starting at 1.5 mg daily and oral uprosertib starting at 25 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed within the first 56 days of treatment. Radiographic responses were assessed at 8-week intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (22 evaluable) were enrolled in parallel doublet and triplet cohorts. No DLTs were observed in the doublet cohorts (N = 7). One patient had a DLT at the maximum administered dose of triplet therapy (dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg daily plus uprosertib 75 mg daily). Three patients in the doublet cohorts had partial responses (including one who had BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma). Two patients in the triplet cohorts had a partial response, and one patient had an unconfirmed partial response. Pharmacokinetic data suggested reduced dabrafenib and dabrafenib metabolite exposure in patients who were also exposed to both trametinib and uprosertib, but not in whose who were exposed to uprosertib without trametinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant inhibition of both the MAPK and PI3K-AKT pathways for the treatment of BRAF-mutated cancers was well tolerated, leading to objective responses, but higher level drug-drug interactions affected exposure to dabrafenib and its metabolites.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial

BACKGROUND

In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort.

METHODS

CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed.

FINDINGS

Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group.

INTERPRETATION

Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus relatlimab versus nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma: RELATIVITY-047 trial

BACKGROUND

In the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 trial, a novel fixed-dose combination (FDC) of nivolumab plus relatlimab (NIVO + RELA; a programmed death-1 and a lymphocyte-activation gene 3 inhibitor, respectively) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus NIVO in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma (median follow-up, 13.2 months) with stable health-related quality of life (HRQoL), although grade three or four treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were more frequent with the combination. Updated HRQoL results (median follow-up, 19.3 months) are presented.

METHODS

Patients were randomised to receive intravenous NIVO + RELA (480 mg and 160 mg, respectively) or NIVO (480 mg) every 4 weeks. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Melanoma (FACT-M) and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at baseline, before dosing at each treatment cycle, and at follow-up (posttreatment) visits.

RESULTS

Consistent with the initial analysis, HRQoL remained stable with NIVO + RELA on treatment and was similar to that with NIVO. Mean changes from baseline did not exceed clinically meaningful thresholds. HRQoL results were consistent across instruments and scales/subscales. Despite an increased rate of grade three or four TRAEs with NIVO + RELA versus NIVO, the proportion of patients reporting that they were bothered 'quite a bit' or 'very much' by TRAEs was low and comparable between treatments.

CONCLUSION

Results from the RELATIVITY-047 trial show that the PFS benefit with NIVO + RELA FDC over NIVO was obtained with stable patient-reported HRQoL, supporting NIVO + RELA as a first-line treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma.

Overall Survival and Response with Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Advanced Melanoma

Survival and Response with Nivolumab and RelatlimabIn this follow-up, patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab + relatlimab or nivolumab alone. After approximately 6 months of additional follow-up, the combination's median progression-free survival was 10.2 months versus 4.6 months for monotherapy. The difference in overall survival rates was not statistically significant.

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown.

METHODS

In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

Intersection of immune and oncometabolic pathways drives cancer hyperprogression during immunotherapy

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) can produce durable responses against cancer. We and others have found that a subset of patients experiences paradoxical rapid cancer progression during immunotherapy. It is poorly understood how tumors can accelerate their progression during ICB. In some preclinical models, ICB causes hyperprogressive disease (HPD). While immune exclusion drives resistance to ICB, counterintuitively, patients with HPD and complete response (CR) following ICB manifest comparable levels of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells and interferon γ (IFNγ) gene signature. Interestingly, patients with HPD but not CR exhibit elevated tumoral fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) and β-catenin signaling. In animal models, T cell-derived IFNγ promotes tumor FGF2 signaling, thereby suppressing PKM2 activity and decreasing NAD+, resulting in reduction of SIRT1-mediated β-catenin deacetylation and enhanced β-catenin acetylation, consequently reprograming tumor stemness. Targeting the IFNγ-PKM2-β-catenin axis prevents HPD in preclinical models. Thus, the crosstalk of core immunogenic, metabolic, and oncogenic pathways via the IFNγ-PKM2-β-catenin cascade underlies ICB-associated HPD.

Biomarker Trends, Incidence, and Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Myocarditis

Background

Myocarditis is a dreaded and unpredictable complication of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We sought to determine whether routinely measured biomarkers could be helpful in monitoring for ICI myocarditis.

Objectives

The authors examined biomarker trends of patients on ICI and their association with the incidence of ICI myocarditis and outcomes.

Methods

We conducted an observational cohort study of adults who received at least one dose of ICI at Michigan Medicine between June 2014 and December 2021 and underwent systematic serial testing for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatine phosphokinase (CPK), and lactate dehydrogenase during ICI therapy.

Results

Among 2,606 patients (mean age 64 ± 13 years; 60.7% men), 27 (1.0%) were diagnosed with ICI myocarditis. At diagnosis, patients with myocarditis had an elevated high-sensitivity troponin T (100%), ALT (88.9%), AST (85.2%), CPK (88.9%), and lactate dehydrogenase (92.6%). Findings were confirmed in an independent cohort of 30 patients with biopsy-confirmed ICI myocarditis. A total of 95% of patients with ICI myocarditis had elevations in at least 3 biomarkers compared with 5% of patients without myocarditis. Among the noncardiac biomarkers, only CPK was associated (per 100% increase) with the development of myocarditis (HR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.59-2.10) and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01-1.20) in multivariable analysis. Elevations in CPK had a sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 23% for identifying myocarditis.

Conclusions

ICI myocarditis is associated with changes in AST, ALT, and CPK. An increase in noncardiac biomarkers during ICI treatment, notably CPK, should prompt further evaluation for ICI myocarditis.

Treatment related toxicities with combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy in resected stage III melanoma

Combination dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) is an FDA approved adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. We describe treatment-related toxicities with adjuvant D+T in a real-world population through a retrospective case series. The primary endpoint was development of toxicities.

Metastatic melanoma of the heart: Retrospective cohort study and systematic review of prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Cardiac metastasis of melanoma is rare and typically diagnosed post-mortem. Here we perform a retrospective cohort study and systematic review of patients with metastatic melanoma to characterize prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of cardiac metastasis.

METHODS

We reviewed the electronic medical records of all outpatients with metastatic melanoma who underwent evaluation at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor from January 2009 to January 2022, identifying patients with a clinical or histopathologic diagnosis of cardiac metastasis. We performed a systematic review of the literature to summarize the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with melanoma and cardiac metastasis.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 of 1254 (1.8%) patients with metastatic melanoma were diagnosed with cardiac metastasis. Cardiac metastasis was reported in the right ventricle (65%), left ventricle (35%), and right atrium (35%). A total of 11 (48%) patients experienced at least one cardiovascular complication after the diagnosis of cardiac metastasis, the most common being arrhythmia (30%), heart failure (22%), and pericardial effusion (17%). Immunotherapy was more commonly used in patients with cardiac metastasis (80% vs 65%; p = 0.005). Mortality at 2-years post-diagnosis was higher for patients with cardiac metastasis compared to those without (59% vs 37%; p = 0.034). Progression of malignancy was the underlying cause of death of all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac metastasis occurs in <2% of patients with metastatic melanoma, can affect all cardiac structures, and is associated with various cardiovascular complications and high mortality.

Early Response Assessment in Advanced Stage Melanoma Treated with Combination Ipilimumab/Nivolumab

Background

Standard combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (I/N) is given as 4 induction doses for advanced stage melanoma followed by nivolumab single-agent maintenance therapy. While many patients receive less than 4 doses due to immune-related toxicities, it is unclear if fewer doses of I/N may still provide long term clinical benefit. Our aim is to determine if response assessment after 1 or 2 doses of I/N can predict long-term survival and assess if fewer doses of I/N can lead to similar survival outcomes.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis on a cohort of patients with advanced melanoma who w0ere treated with standard I/N. Cox regression of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) models were performed to assess the relationship between response after 1 or 2 doses of I/N and risk of progression and/or death. Clinical benefit response (CBR) was assessed, defined as SD (stable disease) + PR (partial response) + CR (complete response) by imaging. Among patients who achieved a CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N, a multivariable Cox regression of survival was used to compare 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4 doses of I/N adjusted by known prognostic variables in advanced melanoma.

Results

199 patients were evaluated. Patients with CBR after 1 dose of I/N had improved PFS (HR: 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.33; p<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.12, 0.05-0.32; p<0.001) compared to progressive disease (PD). Patients with CBR (vs PD) after 2 doses of I/N also had improved PFS (HR: 0.09, 0.05-0.16; p<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.07, 0.03-0.14; p<0.001). There was no survival risk difference comparing 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4 doses of I/N for PFS (HR: 0.95, 0.37-2.48; p=0.921) and OS (HR: 1.04, 0.22-4.78; p=0.965).

Conclusions

Early interval imaging with response during induction with I/N may be predictive of long-term survival in advanced stage melanoma. CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N is associated with favorable survival outcomes, even in the setting of fewer I/N doses received. Further studies are warranted to evaluate if electively administering fewer combination I/N doses despite tolerance in select patients may balance the benefits of therapy while decreasing toxicities.

Current State of Adjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: Less Is More, or More Is Better?

Advances in melanoma treatments over the past decade have changed the course of survival for patients. Several adjuvant therapies have been approved and are now considered standard of care for high-risk patients. These therapies have shown improvements for recurrence-free survival and distant metastases-free survival, but not overall survival, as the data are maturing. The 5-year recurrence-free survival in the COMBI-AD study, which compared dabrafenib and trametinib with placebo, was 65% and 58%, respectively. In the KEYNOTE-054 study, the recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 63.7% versus 41%. Despite these advances, approximately 50% of patients will succumb to their disease. Adjuvant therapy is considered potentially curative and avoids the morbidity of relapsed disease and the poor outcomes seen in metastatic disease. However, the lack of overall survival benefit in clinical trials of patients with high-risk stage II and stage III disease raises the question of whether it is more efficacious to treat when there is residual microscopic disease, or to wait until the disease recurs to avoid treating those who may have been cured by surgery alone. Immunotherapy also has the potential for substantial toxicity that may be lifelong; hence, discussion of risks and benefits of therapy is warranted because there should be less tolerance for substantial toxicity in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant trials are needed that will integrate biomarkers to allow for better selection of patients who will truly benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Long-term survival in advanced melanoma for patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in CheckMate 067

9522

Background: Durable clinical benefit has been achieved with nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI), including an overall survival (OS) of 49% and a melanoma-specific survival (MSS) of 56%, with median MSS not reached (NR) at 6.5-y minimum follow-up. Here we report sustained efficacy outcomes at 7.5 y. Methods: Patients (pts) with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 and stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage to receive NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg for 4 doses Q3W, followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W (n = 314); NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo (n = 316); or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo (n = 315) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS with NIVO + IPI or NIVO alone versus IPI. Results: With a minimum follow-up of 7.5 y, median OS remained stable at 72.1 mo (NIVO + IPI), 36.9 mo (NIVO), and 19.9 mo (IPI); median MSS was NR, 49.4 mo, and 21.9 mo, respectively (Table). While the objective response rate remained stable at 58% (NIVO + IPI), 45% (NIVO), and 19% (IPI), median duration of response had now been reached for NIVO at 90.8 mo and remains NR and 19.2 mo for NIVO + IPI and IPI, respectively. Subsequent systemic therapy was received by 36%, 49%, and 66% of NIVO + IPI-, NIVO-, and IPI-treated patients, respectively, and median time to that therapy was NR (95% CI, 45.9–NR), 24.7 mo (16.0–38.7), and 8.0 mo (6.5–8.7). Of patients alive at 7.5 y, 106/138 (77%, NIVO + IPI), 80/115 (70%, NIVO), and 27/60 (45%, IPI) were off treatment and had never received subsequent systemic therapy. No change to the safety summary was observed with additional follow-up; updated health-related quality of life data will be reported. Of the 10 new deaths since the 6.5-y follow-up (ie, 5 NIVO + IPI; 3 NIVO; 2 IPI), none were treatment-related; 4 were due to melanoma progression; 1 was due to an unknown cause; and 5 were due to other causes, but not associated with a COVID diagnosis. Conclusions: The 7.5-y follow-up continues to demonstrate the durability of responses with NIVO + IPI and an ongoing survival plateau. A substantial difference in median OS and MSS between patients treated with NIVO + IPI or NIVO was observed in descriptive analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT04540705. [Table: see text]

Characterization of patients with metastatic melanoma that relapses following complete metabolic response from anti–PD-1 therapy

9530

Background: Treatment with PD-1 inhibitor-based therapy has significantly improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma over the past decade. Many of these patients achieve complete metabolic response (CMR) by FDG-PET/CT and electively stop treatment. However, the outcomes of patients who relapse after CMR remain uncertain. In this study, we attempt to further characterize metastatic melanoma patients who relapsed following elective discontinuation of anti-PD-1 based therapy due to CMR. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis on a cohort of patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma from 2012 to 2021 who were treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) or combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (I/N), with or without local therapies (surgery or radiation therapy). Patients who achieved a CMR from treatment were identified. CMR was defined as no evidence of metabolically active disease on full-body 18F-FDG-PET/CT and no evidence of new intracranial metastasis on MRI brain. Multiple clinical variables and survival outcomes were assessed. Results: Among 386 advanced stage melanoma patients analyzed, 87 achieved a CMR followed by elective treatment cessation with a median anti-PD-1 therapy duration of 10.4 months. 19/87 patients had brain metastasis at baseline. 17/87 patients had disease relapse with a median time to relapse from CMR of 12.1 months. Of those 17 patients, 8 received I/N, 9 received anti-PD-1 monotherapy, and 2 required local therapies to obtain CMR. 7/17 patients were able to achieve CMR again following resumption of anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 6) and BRAF/MEK targeted therapy (n = 1). 10/17 patients relapsed in the brain with 7 of those patients having no history of brain metastasis at baseline. Median overall survival after relapse from CMR was 34.1 months. The most common cause of death following relapse from CMR was brain metastasis progression (n = 5). Conclusions: A small proportion of metastatic melanoma patients who achieve complete metabolic (CMR) following treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy develop disease relapse. We found that relapse in the brain is common, regardless of baseline involvement at time of therapy, and is a common cause of mortality suggesting the importance of intracranial surveillance following treatment cessation. Ongoing studies are warranted to identify clinicopathologic factors that predict relapse to better inform patients and providers who elect to stop anti-PD-1 therapy.

Increased incidence of immune-mediated myocarditis in advanced skin malignancies treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the COVID-19 era

2664

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of advanced stage skin malignancies. Immunotherapy related adverse events (irAE) are toxicities associated with ICI therapy. Myocarditis is a rare life-threatening irAE. We attempt to characterize cases of myocarditis related to ICI therapy that have occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort analysis of patients with advanced stage skin cancers who were treated with ICIs and identified cases of ICI-mediated myocarditis. ICI-mediated myocarditis was defined as evidence of myocardial injury in the setting of irAEs and exclusion of cardiovascular causes. Clinicopathologic variables and clinical outcomes were assessed in these patients. Results:A review of 361 patients that received ICI from 9/2014 – 10/2019 found 0 cases of ICI-mediated myocarditis. From 11/2019 – 12/2021, an additional 425 patients were identified of whom 11 (2.6%) developed ICI-mediated myocarditis. 10 patients had melanoma and 1 patient had Merkel cell carcinoma. 10/11 patients were male. 9/11 were treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy and 2/11 were treated with ipilimumab with nivolumab. All patients had elevated high sensitivity troponin (median 361 pg/mL on presentation, reference range 0-19 pg/mL). 11/11 patients presented with elevated CPK (median 1734 IU/L, reference range 38-240 IU/L) and 8/11 presented with elevated AST:ALT ratio (median 1.58:1) on routine screening which prompted further investigation. 1 patient tested positive for COVID-19 13 days after initial biochemical concern for myocarditis, and 5 patients had received COVID-19 vaccines between 2.5-11 months prior to myocarditis onset. All patients were treated with high dose steroids, and 4 were treated with abatacept. 2 patients died within 30 days after diagnosis of myocarditis and 2 patients later died from malignancy progression. 2 patients developed progressive disease and 1 was successfully rechallenged with ICI with no myocarditis recurrence. 2 patients remain on active surveillance, 2 continue on a steroid taper, and 1 was lost to follow up. All patients with at least 5 months of follow up from myocarditis onset (n = 5) had persistently elevated HS-troponin despite normalization of CPK levels. Conclusions: In this single center study, we noted an increase in the frequency of ICI-mediated myocarditis in patients with advanced skin cancers during the pandemic era (2.6% vs 0% pre-pandemic) which is higher than reported in the literature (0.04-1.14%). The impact of COVID-19 during this time is suspicious and warrants further investigation. Therefore, we suggest heightened awareness in the COVID-19 era that elevated CPK levels and AST:ALT ratios merits further diagnostic investigation of ICI-mediated myocarditis.

Nivolumab (NIVO) + relatlimab (RELA) versus NIVO in previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma: OS and ORR by key subgroups from RELATIVITY-047

9505

Background: In the phase 2/3 RELATIVITY-047 trial, NIVO + RELA as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) significantly improved the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) versus NIVO in patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. Secondary endpoints showed a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS), although not statistically significant, and a higher objective response rate (ORR). As previously reported, PFS and OS favored NIVO + RELA over NIVO across prespecified stratification factors (LAG-3 expression, PD-L1 expression, BRAF V600 mutation status, and metastasis stage). Here we report the first disclosure of ORR analyzed by prespecified stratification factors and OS and ORR in additional subgroups. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive NIVO 480 mg + RELA 160 mg FDC or NIVO 480 mg intravenously Q4W. The primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST v1.1 assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were OS and ORR by BICR, tested in hierarchy. Exploratory analyses were performed for PFS, OS, and ORR by prespecified subgroups. Results: PFS continued to favor NIVO + RELA over NIVO across key subgroups. OS and ORR also favored NIVO + RELA over NIVO across key subgroups including those associated with poor prognosis (Table). ORR favored NIVO + RELA over NIVO for pts with LAG-3 expression ≥ 1% (47% vs 35%) and < 1% (31% vs 24%), PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% (53% vs 45%) and < 1% (36% vs 24%), and BRAF wild-type (43% vs 34%) and mutant (43% vs 31%) melanoma, respectively. Additional key prespecified subgroups will be presented. In all treated pts, NIVO + RELA maintained a manageable safety profile with no new or unexpected safety signals. Conclusions: NIVO + RELA was favored over NIVO across key subgroups for PFS, OS, and ORR, and findings appeared consistent with outcomes in the overall population. NIVO + RELA had a favorable benefit-risk profile. Clinical trial information: NCT03470922. [Table: see text]

Successful use of secukinumab in two melanoma patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthropathy

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are a major concern when treating cancer patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Selecting the most appropriate management of irAEs remains an ongoing challenge because prolonged use of glucocorticoids come with their own side effects and may counteract the antineoplastic effects from immunotherapy. In this case report, we present two patients with metastatic melanoma who developed symptoms of inflammatory arthritis attributed to ICI therapy. We found that treatment with secukinumab, an anti-IL-17A inhibitor, effectively managed their symptoms and did not lead to tumor progression. Our study suggests that secukinumab can be a safe and effective treatment option for ICI-induced inflammatory arthropathy.

Relatlimab and nivolumab versus nivolumab in previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma: Overall survival and response rates from RELATIVITY-047 (CA224-047)

360385

Background: RELATIVITY-047, a global, randomized, double-blind, phase II/III study, met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS). Relatlimab and nivolumab (RELA + NIVO) as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) demonstrated a significant PFS benefit (median PFS was 10.1 months [mo]; 95% CI, 6.4–15.7) with RELA + NIVO vs. 4.6 mo (95% CI, 3.4–5.6) with NIVO; hazard ratio (HR) 0.75 (95% CI, 0.6–0.9; p = .0055), with a manageable safety profile, compared to NIVO alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma (Lipson EJ et al. J Clin Oncol 2021;39[15_suppl]:9503P). Here we report updated PFS and the first disclosure of secondary endpoints, overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive RELA 160 mg + NIVO 480 mg FDC or NIVO 480 mg alone, given intravenously every 4 weeks, as previously described (Lipson EJ et al. J Clin Oncol 2021;39[15_suppl]:9503P). The primary endpoint of PFS per RECIST v1.1 was assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were OS and ORR by BICR, to be tested hierarchically. The OS boundary for statistical significance was p < .04302 (2-sided) based on 69% power for a target HR of 0.75. Results: Patients (714 patients) were randomly selected to receive RELA + NIVO (355 patients) or NIVO (359 patients). Median follow-up was 19.3 mo. Updated median PFS was 10.2 mo (95% CI, 6.5–14.8) with RELA + NIVO vs. 4.6 mo (95% CI, 3.5–6.4) with NIVO (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.6–0.9). Median OS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 34.2–NR) with RELA + NIVO vs. 34.1 mo (95% CI. 25.2–NR) with NIVO (HR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.6–1.0; p = .0593). OS rates at 12 mo were 77.0% (95% CI, 72.2–81.1) vs. 71.6% (95% CI, 66.6–76.0) and at 24 mo were 63.7% (95% CI, 58.1–68.7) vs. 58.3% (95% CI, 52.7–63.4) with RELA + NIVO vs. NIVO, respectively. Subsequent systemic therapy rates and types were generally similar between treatment groups. Confirmed ORR per BICR was 43.1% (95% CI, 37.9–48.4) with RELA + NIVO vs. 32.6% (95% CI, 27.8–37.7) with NIVO. Complete responses were observed in 16.3% of patients on RELA + NIVO vs. 14.2% on NIVO. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed in 75 (21.1%) patients on RELA + NIVO and 40 (11.1%) on NIVO. There were four treatment-related deaths in the RELA + NIVO group and two in the NIVO group. TRAEs (any grade) leading to treatment discontinuation were observed in 54 (15.2%) patients on RELA + NIVO and 26 (7.2%) on NIVO. Conclusions: RELA + NIVO continued to demonstrate a PFS benefit vs. NIVO alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma, consistent with the primary analysis. RELA + NIVO demonstrated a 20% reduction in risk of death and numerically improved OS rates vs. NIVO, although statistical significance was not reached for this secondary endpoint. ORR was higher with RELA + NIVO vs. NIVO. The safety profile of RELA + NIVO remained manageable with no new or unexpected safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT03470922.

Long-Term Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab or Nivolumab Alone Versus Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE

In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF-wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSION

These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.

Relatlimab and Nivolumab versus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) are distinct inhibitory immune checkpoints that contribute to T-cell exhaustion. The combination of relatlimab, a LAG-3-blocking antibody, and nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, has been shown to be safe and to have antitumor activity in patients with previously treated melanoma, but the safety and activity in patients with previously untreated melanoma need investigation.

METHODS

In this phase 2-3, global, double-blind, randomized trial, we evaluated relatlimab and nivolumab as a fixed-dose combination as compared with nivolumab alone when administered intravenously every 4 weeks to patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review.

RESULTS

The median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4 to 15.7) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 5.6) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92]; P = 0.006 by the log-rank test). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 47.7% (95% CI, 41.8 to 53.2) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 36.0% (95% CI, 30.5 to 41.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival across key subgroups favored relatlimab-nivolumab over nivolumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.9% of patients in the relatlimab-nivolumab group and in 9.7% of patients in the nivolumab group.

CONCLUSIONS

The inhibition of two immune checkpoints, LAG-3 and PD-1, provided a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than inhibition of PD-1 alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. Relatlimab and nivolumab in combination showed no new safety signals. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; RELATIVITY-047 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03470922.).

Long-term outcomes of patients with active melanoma brain metastases treated with combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 204): final results of an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab was efficacious in patients with asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in CheckMate 204, but showed low efficacy in patients with symptomatic MBM. Here, we provide final 3-year follow-up data from the trial.

METHODS

This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study (CheckMate 204) included adults (aged ≥18 years) with measurable MBM (0·5-3·0 cm in diameter). Asymptomatic patients (cohort A) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and no neurological symptoms or baseline corticosteroid use; symptomatic patients (cohort B) had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 with stable neurological symptoms and could be receiving low-dose dexamethasone. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was given intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease lasting ≥6 months) assessed in all treated patients. Intracranial progression-free survival and overall survival were key secondary endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 19, 2015, and Nov 1, 2017, 119 (72%) of 165 screened patients were enrolled and treated: 101 patients were asymptomatic (cohort A; median follow-up 34·3 months [IQR 14·7-36·4]) and 18 were symptomatic (cohort B; median follow-up 7·5 months [1·2-35·2]). Investigator-assessed intracranial clinical benefit was observed in 58 (57·4% [95% CI 47·2-67·2]) of 101 patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) of 18 patients in cohort B; investigator-assessed objective response was observed in 54 (53·5% [43·3-63·5]) patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) patients in cohort B. 33 (33%) patients in cohort A and three (17%) patients in cohort B had an investigator-assessed intracranial complete response. For patients in cohort A, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 54·1% (95% CI 42·7-64·1) and overall survival was 71·9% (61·8-79·8). For patients in cohort B, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 18·9% (95% CI 4·6-40·5) and overall survival was 36·6% (14·0-59·8). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (15 [15%] of 101 patients each) in cohort A; no grade 3 TRAEs occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B, and no grade 4 events occurred. The most common serious TRAEs were colitis, diarrhoea, hypophysitis, and increased alanine aminotransferase (five [5%] of each among the 101 patients in cohort A); no serious TRAE occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B. There was one treatment-related death (myocarditis in cohort A).

INTERPRETATION

The durable 3-year response, overall survival, and progression-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients support first-line use of nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Symptomatic disease in patients with MBM remains difficult to treat, but some patients achieve a long-term response with the combination.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb.

CheckMate 067: 6.5-year outcomes in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma

9506

Background: In the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial, a durable and sustained clinical benefit was achieved with nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) and NIVO alone vs IPI at 5-y of follow-up (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS] rates: 52%, 44%, 26% and 36%, 29%, 8%, respectively). Here we report 6.5-y efficacy and safety outcomes. Methods: Eligible pts with previously untreated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio and stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. Pts received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg for 4 doses Q3W followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W (n = 314), NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo (n = 316), or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo (n = 315) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints were PFS and OS with NIVO + IPI or NIVO vs IPI. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), descriptive efficacy assessments of NIVO + IPI vs NIVO alone, and safety. Results: With a minimum follow-up of 6.5 y, median OS was 72.1 mo with NIVO + IPI, 36.9 mo with NIVO, and 19.9 mo with IPI (table). Median time from randomization to subsequent systemic therapy was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 59.6–NR) with NIVO + IPI, 25.2 mo (95% CI, 16.0–43.2) with NIVO, and 8.0 mo (95% CI, 6.5–8.7) with IPI; 36%, 49%, and 66% of pts, respectively, received any subsequent systemic therapy. Median treatment-free interval (which excluded pts who discontinued follow-up prior to initiation of subsequent systemic therapy) was 27.6 mo (range, 0–83.0), 2.3 mo (range, 0.2–81.6), and 1.9 mo (range, 0.1–81.9) with NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI, respectively. Of the pts alive and in follow-up, 112/138 (81%; NIVO + IPI), 84/114 (74%; NIVO), and 27/63 (43%; IPI) were off treatment and never received subsequent systemic therapy; 7, 8, and 0 pts, respectively, were still on treatment. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 59% of NIVO + IPI-treated pts, 24% of NIVO-treated pts, and 28% of IPI-treated pts. Since the 5-y analysis, no new safety signals were observed and no additional treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions: This 6.5-y analysis represents the longest follow-up from a phase 3 melanoma trial in the modern checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy and targeted therapy era. The results show durable improved outcomes with NIVO + IPI and NIVO vs IPI in pts with advanced melanoma. We observed improvement in OS, PFS, and ORR with NIVO + IPI over NIVO alone. Clinical trial information: NCT01844505. [Table: see text]

Relatlimab (RELA) plus nivolumab (NIVO) versus NIVO in first-line advanced melanoma: Primary phase III results from RELATIVITY-047 (CA224-047)

9503

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. However, novel combinations are needed to optimize the benefit-risk profile. Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) regulates an immune checkpoint pathway, which inhibits T-cell activity, and is upregulated in many tumor types including melanoma. Relatlimab (RELA), a human IgG4 LAG-3-blocking antibody, restores effector function of exhausted T cells. RELA in combination with nivolumab (NIVO; anti-programmed death [PD]-1) modulates potentially synergistic immune checkpoint pathways and can enhance antitumor immune responses. RELATIVITY-047 is a global, randomized, double-blind, phase II/III study evaluating a novel immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of RELA+NIVO as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) treatment in first-line advanced melanoma. Methods: Patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive RELA 160 mg + NIVO 480 mg FDC intravenously (IV) every 4 weeks (Q4W) or NIVO monotherapy 480 mg IV Q4W, stratified by LAG-3 expression, programmed death ligand 1 expression, BRAF mutation status, and AJCC (v8) M stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response rate. PFS in prespecified subgroups and safety were additional objectives. Results: 714 patients were randomized to RELA+NIVO FDC (n = 355) or NIVO (n = 359). Patient characteristics were well balanced between treatment groups. Median follow-up was 13.2 months. Median PFS in the RELA+NIVO FDC group (10.1 months [95% CI, 6.4–15.7]) was significantly longer than in the NIVO group (4.6 months [95% CI, 3.4–5.6]; hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.6–0.9]; P = 0.0055). PFS rates at 12 months were 47.7% (95% CI, 41.8–53.2) and 36.0% (95% CI, 30.5–41.6) for RELA+NIVO FDC and NIVO, respectively. PFS favored RELA+NIVO FDC across key prespecified subgroups. The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was higher in the RELA+NIVO FDC group (18.9%) versus NIVO (9.7%). There were 3 treatment-related deaths with RELA+NIVO FDC and 2 with NIVO. TRAEs (any grade) led to treatment discontinuation in 14.6% and 6.7% of patients in the RELA+NIVO FDC and NIVO groups, respectively. Conclusions: First-line treatment with RELA+NIVO FDC demonstrated a statistically significant PFS benefit compared to NIVO monotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. RELA+NIVO FDC was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile and without unexpected safety signals. This is the first phase III study of a novel FDC to demonstrate a clinically meaningful benefit by dual inhibition of the LAG-3 and PD-1 pathways. Clinical trial information: NCT03470922.

Survival outcomes associated with fewer combination ipilimumab/nivolumab doses in advanced-stage melanoma

9549

Background: Standard combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (I/N) is given as 4 induction doses for advanced stage melanoma. While many patients receive less than 4 doses due to treatment-related toxicities, it is unclear if fewer doses of I/N may still provide long term clinical benefit. Our aim is to determine if response assessment after 1 or 2 doses of I/N can predict long-term survival and if fewer doses of I/N can achieve similar survival outcomes. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis on a cohort of patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma from 2012 to 2020 who were treated with standard I/N. Cox regression of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) models were performed to assess the relationship between response assessment after 1 or 2 doses of I/N and risk of progression and/or death. Clinical benefit response (CBR) was assessed, defined as SD (stable disease) + PR (partial response) + CR (complete response) by imaging or physical examination. Among patients who achieved a CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N, a multivariable Cox regression of survival was used to compare 3 or 4 vs 1 or 2 doses of I/N adjusted by age, gender, pre-treatment LDH level, BRAF mutation status, primary melanoma site, time to initial assessment, brain metastasis, and liver metastasis. Results: 199 patients were identified and considered evaluable in our study. Median follow up was 28.8 months. Patients with CBR after 1 dose of I/N had improved PFS (HR: 0.23, 95% CI 0.14-0.39; p<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.19, 95% CI 0.10-0.38; p<0.001) compared to progressive disease (PD) [Table]. Patients with CBR (vs PD) after 2 doses of I/N also had improved PFS (HR: 0.17, 95% CI 0.11-0.26; p<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.23; p<0.001) [Table]. The survival risk comparing 3 or 4 vs 1 or 2 doses of I/N were HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.45-1.53; p=0.540) for PFS and HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.24-1.30; p=0.175) for OS. Conclusions: Clinical benefit response (CBR) after 1 or 2 doses of I/N may be predictive of long-term survival in advanced stage melanoma. Patients who have CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N may achieve a similar survival benefit with fewer doses of I/N. Longer follow up and prospective studies are warranted to validate our findings.[Table: see text]

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Melanoma and Asymptomatic or Symptomatic Brain Metastases (CheckMate 204)

Background

In patients with melanoma and asymptomatic brain metastases (MBM), nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an intracranial response rate of 55%. Here, we present the first report for patients who were symptomatic and/or required corticosteroids and updated data for asymptomatic patients.

Methods

Patients with measurable MBM, 0.5-3.0 cm, were enrolled into Cohort A (asymptomatic) or Cohort B (stable neurologic symptoms and/or receiving corticosteroids). Nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, and ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, were given intravenously every 3 weeks ×4, followed by nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or 24 months. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (CBR; complete response [CR], partial response [PR], or stable disease ≥6 months).

Results

Symptomatic patients (N = 18) received a median of one nivolumab and ipilimumab combination dose and had an intracranial CBR of 22.2%. Two of 12 patients on corticosteroids had CR; 2 responded among the 6 not on corticosteroids. Median intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 1.2 and 8.7 months, respectively. In contrast, with 20.6 months of follow-up, we confirmed an intracranial CBR of 58.4% in asymptomatic patients (N = 101); median duration of response, PFS, and OS were not reached. No new safety signals were observed.

Conclusions

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides durable clinical benefit for asymptomatic patients with MBM and should be considered for first-line therapy. This regimen has limited activity in MBM patients with neurologic symptoms and/or requiring corticosteroids, supporting the need for alternative approaches and methods to reduce the dependency on corticosteroids.

Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058.

Safety and efficacy of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma: results from a North American expanded access program (CheckMate 218)

CheckMate 218, a North American expanded access program (EAP), investigated nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Safety and efficacy, including 2-year survival in clinically relevant patient subgroups, are reported. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1, and no prior checkpoint inhibitors. Patients received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 cycles (induction) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (maintenance) until progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 48 weeks. Safety and overall survival (OS) data were collected. This EAP included 754 treated patients from the USA (n = 580) and Canada (n = 174). Median follow-up time was 17.8 months. All-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 96% and 53% of patients and led to treatment discontinuation in 36% and 26% of patients, respectively. OS rates at 12 and 24 months were 82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79-84] and 70% (95% CI 66-74), respectively. Twenty-four-month OS rates were 63% in patients aged ≥75 years, 56% in patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, 73% in patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, 70% in patients with BRAF mutant tumors, and 56% in patients with mucosal melanoma. In this EAP, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated high survival rates and safety outcomes consistent with those from randomized clinical trials, further supporting the use of this combination for advanced melanoma across multiple subgroups.

The impact of BRAF mutation status on clinical outcomes with anti-PD-1 monotherapy versus combination ipilimumab/nivolumab in treatment-naïve advanced stage melanoma

Nearly half of all metastatic melanoma patients possess the BRAF V600 mutation. Several therapies are approved for advanced stage melanoma, but it is unclear if there is a differential outcome to various immunotherapy regimens based on BRAF mutation status. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of metastatic or unresectable melanoma patients who were treated with combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) or anti-PD-1 monotherapy, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab, as first-line treatment. 235 previously untreated patients were identified in our study. Our univariate analysis showed no statistical difference in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with ipi/nivo versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the BRAF V600 mutant cohort, but there was improved PFS [HR: 0.48, 95% CI, 0.28-0.80] and OS [HR: 0.50, 95% CI, 0.26-0.96] with ipi/nivo compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the BRAF WT group. After adjusting for known prognostic variables in our multivariable analysis, the BRAF WT cohort continued to show PFS and OS benefit with ipi/nivo compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Our single-institution analysis suggests ipi/nivo should be considered over anti-PD-1 monotherapy as the initial immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma patients regardless of BRAF mutation status, but possibly with greater benefit in BRAF WT.

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab for Patients With Resectable Merkel Cell Carcinoma in the CheckMate 358 Trial

PURPOSE

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer commonly driven by the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV). The programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunosuppressive pathway is often upregulated in MCC, and advanced metastatic MCC frequently responds to PD-1 blockade. We report what we believe to be the first trial of anti-PD-1 in the neoadjuvant setting for resectable MCC.

METHODS

In the phase I/II CheckMate 358 study of virus-associated cancer types, patients with resectable MCC received nivolumab 240 mg intravenously on days 1 and 15. Surgery was planned on day 29. Tumor regression was assessed radiographically and microscopically. Tumor MCPyV status, PD-L1 expression, and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were assessed in pretreatment tumor biopsies.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIA-IV resectable MCC received ≥ 1 nivolumab dose. Three patients (7.7%) did not undergo surgery because of tumor progression (n = 1) or adverse events (n = 2). Any-grade treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18 patients (46.2%), and grade 3-4 events in 3 patients (7.7%), with no unexpected toxicities. Among 36 patients who underwent surgery, 17 (47.2%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR). Among 33 radiographically evaluable patients who underwent surgery, 18 (54.5%) had tumor reductions ≥ 30%. Responses were observed regardless of tumor MCPyV, PD-L1, or TMB status. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months, median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were not reached. RFS significantly correlated with pCR and radiographic response at the time of surgery. No patient with a pCR had tumor relapse during observation.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab administered approximately 4 weeks before surgery in MCC was generally tolerable and induced pCRs and radiographic tumor regressions in approximately one half of treated patients. These early markers of response significantly predicted improved RFS. Additional investigation of these promising findings is warranted.

The impact of BRAF mutation status on clinical outcomes with single-agent PD-1 inhibitor versus combination ipilimumab/nivolumab

10024

Background: Nearly half of all metastatic melanoma patients possess the BRAF V600 mutation. Several therapies are approved for BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma, but it is unclear if there is a differential outcome to various immunotherapy regimens. Our aim was to better assess if BRAF mutation status has any impact on survival to combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (I/N) versus single-agent PD-1 inhibitor (PD-1i). Methods: We performed a single center, retrospective analysis on a cohort of patients diagnosed with metastatic or unresectable melanoma from 2012 to 2019 at the University of Michigan who were treated with standard I/N or PD-1i (nivolumab or pembrolizumab). A univariate analysis of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was stratified by treatment type and BRAF mutation status. A multivariate Cox regression of survival was used to compare the effects of the treatment groups adjusted by BRAF status, age, gender, pre-treatment LDH level, prior treatment status, and brain metastases status. Results: 323 patients were identified. 132 had BRAF V600 mutation and 191 had BRAF wildtype (WT) status. 138 patients received I/N and 185 patients received PD-1i. In our univariate analysis, there was no difference in PFS [HR: 0.72, 95% CI, 0.46 – 1.13] or OS [HR: 0.78, 0.44 – 1.38] with I/N versus PD-1i in the BRAF mutant cohort, but there was improved PFS [HR: 0.55, 0.35 – 0.88) and OS [HR: 0.52, 0.28 – 0.95] with I/N compared to PD-1i in the BRAF WT group. In the multivariate analysis, the BRAF WT group continued to show PFS benefit with I/N compared to PD-1i [HR: 0.57, 95% CI, 0.35 – 0.95], but the OS benefit no longer achieved statistical significance [HR: 0.54, 0.28 – 1.03]. Conclusions: Our study results were discordant with the observation in the landmark CheckMate 067 trial, which noted improved PFS and OS with I/N compared to nivolumab alone in the BRAF mutant group and no difference in the BRAF WT group. In our real-world retrospective analysis, I/N over PD-1i should be considered as initial immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma patients regardless of BRAF mutation status, but even more favorably in BRAF WT.

Toxicities with combination BRAF and MEK inhibition in resected stage III melanoma

e22086

Background: Patients with stage III melanoma are at high risk for recurrence after resection of the primary lesion. The Combi-AD study showed adjuvant therapy with BRAF inhibitor, dabrafenib (D), and MEK inhibitor, trametinib (T), in patients with resected stage III BRAF mutant melanoma offers recurrence free survival benefit at 3 and 4 years compared to placebo. In this study, adverse events led to dose interruption in 66% of patients, dose reduction in 38% of patients, and permanent discontinuation in 26% of patients. This is a retrospective case series of patients with resected stage III melanoma treated with adjuvant BRAF and MEK inhibition reporting toxicities in a real-world population. Methods: Medical records of all patients with resected Stage III melanoma treated with adjuvant D+T by multiple, independent oncologists at our institution between November 2017 and December 2019 were reviewed. Planned treatment was dabrafenib 150 mg bid and trametinib 2 mg daily for 1 year. Primary outcome of interest was development of toxicities. Secondary outcomes included number of treatment interruptions, dose reductions, and total time on combination therapy. Results: Twenty patients were treated with adjuvant D+T during the study period. Eighteen patients (90%) required at least 1 treatment interruption due to adverse events. Eleven patients (55%) required a dose reduction and 14 (70%) permanently discontinued therapy due to an adverse event. The 9 patients who did not require dose reduction had been initiated on a lower dose of dabrafenib (75 mg BID) due to physician experience with toxicities in prior patients. The most common treatment-limiting adverse events were recurrent pyrexia (85%) and liver laboratory abnormalities (50%). Permanent discontinuation was secondary to recurrent pyrexia in 9 patients (45%) and liver laboratory abnormalities in 5 patients (25%). For the 16 patients who completed or discontinued therapy, the median total time on therapy was 76 days, 20.8% of the intended duration. The majority of these patients never reached the FDA labeled combination dose. Conclusions: We report our findings of the side effects of adjuvant D+T to demonstrate the frequency and severity of treatment limiting toxicities in a real-world population, which exceeds what has been reported in clinical trials. Adjuvant D+T is an approved treatment for resected stage III melanoma but requires diligent toxicity assessment and management.

CheckMate 067: Long-term outcomes in patients with mucosal melanoma

10019

Background: Mucosal melanoma is a rare but aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. Here we report 5-y outcomes in a subgroup of patients with mucosal melanoma treated in CheckMate 067 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI), NIVO alone, or IPI alone. Methods: Patients with previously untreated stage III or IV melanoma were randomized 1:1:1 to receive NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg for 4 doses Q3W followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W, NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo, or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Mucosal histology was not a stratification factor, and patients with mucosal melanoma were identified by local investigators in the study. Descriptive subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]), and safety. Results: A total of 79 patients with mucosal melanoma were treated. With a minimum follow-up of 60 mo, NIVO+IPI treatment was associated with the highest 5-y ORR (43% [vs 30% with NIVO and 7% with IPI]), PFS (29% [vs 14% and 0%, respectively]), and OS (36% [vs 17% and 7%, respectively]; Table), consistent with trends in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population; however, efficacy outcomes were generally less favorable overall relative to the ITT population. Complete response rates were higher with NIVO+IPI (14%) relative to monotherapy (NIVO, 4%; IPI, 0%) in patients with mucosal melanoma. Safety outcomes, including the grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse event rates of 54%, 26%, and 25%, respectively, were similar to the ITT population. Conclusions: This 5-y analysis showed that patients with mucosal melanoma in CheckMate 067 had similar safety outcomes but poorer long-term efficacy vs the ITT population. Patients with mucosal melanoma treated with NIVO+IPI appeared to have more favorable survival outcomes than those treated with NIVO or IPI alone. Novel therapies are needed to further improve long-term benefit in patients with mucosal melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT01844505. [Table: see text]

Clinical outcomes in patients with BRAFV600 mutant melanoma and undetectable circulating tumor DNA treated with dabrafenib and trametinib

10059

Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has been promoted as a less-invasive surrogate assay for tumor-tissue based tumor oncogene analysis. Here, we associate detection of BRAF mutant ctDNA with PFS and OS in patients with tissue-confirmed BRAFV600 mutant melanoma enrolled in S1320, a randomized phase 2 clinical trial of continuous versus intermittent dosing of dabrafenib and trametinib. Methods: Patients with BRAFV600 melanoma received continuous therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib for 8 weeks after which patients were randomized 1:1 to proceed with intermittent treatment on a 3-week-off, 5-week-on schedule or to continue with continuous therapy. Pre-treatment blood samples were interrogated using the Guardant 360 ctDNA assay for all exons of 30 known oncogenes including BRAF and for all exons with known oncogenic mutations in the COSMIC database in 40 additional oncogenes. Clinical responses were assessed at 8-week intervals by RECIST v1.1 and PFS and OS estimates were compared using log-rank test in patients with detectable versus undetectable BRAFV600 mutant ctDNA,. Results: Somatic BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K ctDNA was detected in 34 of 50 patients with baseline (before lead-in cycle 1) blood samples available for analysis including 16 of 23 (70%) patients randomized to continuous dosing, 15 of 21 (71%) randomized to intermittent dosing, and 3 of 6 (50%) who were not randomized due to disease progression at 8 weeks or other factors. Four additional patients had other detectable somatic mutations but no detectable BRAFV600 ctDNA at baseline, and 12 patients had no detectable somatic ctDNA mutations at baseline. Detection of BRAFV600 ctDNA was associated with baseline disease stage (p = 0.008). There was no difference in the overall response rate based on baseline ctDNA detection. Detection of ctDNA at baseline was associated with worse PFS (median BRAFV600 ctDNA positive = 5.8; 95% CI: 4.2-9.6 months, BRAFV600 ctDNA negative = 21.4 mos; 95% CI 10.4-NA; measured from registration to lead-in cycle 1, p = 0.001) and OS (BRAFV600 ctDNA positive = 17.8 mos; 95% CI 9.76-NA, BRAFV600 ctDNA negative = not reached; 95% CI NA-NA, p = 0.0021). Conclusions: The absence of detectable BRAFV600 ctDNA at baseline is associated with improved PFS and OS in patients receiving treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib. Clinical trial information: NCT02196181.

Association of prior immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with longer progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with intermittent versus continuous dabrafenib and trametinib: A post-hoc analysis of S1320

10039

Background: S1320 is a phase 2 randomized clinical trial presented at the 2020 AACR Annual Meeting in April demonstrating that continuous dosing of dabrafenib and trametinib yields longer PFS than intermittent dosing of these agents in patients with BRAFV600E/K melanoma. Here we look at the association between prior exposure to ICB and PFS in patients randomized to either intermittent or continuous dosing on S1320. Methods: Patients without disease progression after 8 weeks of dabrafenib and trametinib were randomized 1:1 to proceed with intermittent therapy (3-week-off, 5-week-on) or to stay on the continuous daily dosing schedule. The design called for 206 randomized patients with the primary outcome of PFS. Response assessments were made using RECIST v1.1 at 8-week intervals. A post-hoc analysis assessed differences in PFS in the pool of all randomized patients based on prior exposure to anti-PD1 antibodies, a randomization stratification factor. Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression models (controlling for pre-randomization age, Zubrod performance status, LDH, unknown primary, M-Stage) were used to evaluate the association between this stratification factor and PFS. Results: Of 242 patients treated on study, 105 were randomized to continuous dosing, 101 to intermittent dosing, and 36 were not randomized due to disease progression at 8 weeks or other factors. 37% of the 242 enrolled and 37% of the 206 randomized patients had previously been treated with ICB. Among all randomized patients, there were no differences in baseline characteristics comparing patients with and without prior immune checkpoint inhibitor exposure: age median 62 vs 59, LDH elevation 37% vs 39%,, stage IVB/C 73% vs 64%, Zubrod performance status 0, 57% vs 58%. PFS was longer in patients with prior ICB exposure (hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.41,-0.98, median = 6 vs 9 months from randomization, 8 vs 11 months from starting treatment). There was no difference in the association between prior ICB exposure and PFS between arms (interaction p-value = 0.62). Conclusions: In patients without early progression on dabrafenib and trametinib, PFS was longer with prior to exposure to ICB . Although the groups had similar baseline characteristics and rates of randomization, these results could still be influenced by non-controlled factors influencing clinicians’ decisions to start a patient on immune versus targeted therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02196181.

DCE-MRI Evaluation of 10 patients with brain metastases treated with RRx-001, a Myc inhibitor and a CD47 and PD-L1 downregulator, in a phase I/II trial called BRAINSTORM

e14509

Background: In a Phase 1/2 trial called BRAINSTORM (NCT02215512) for brain metastases from any histology, quantitative changes in perfusion MRI after administration of RRx-001, a mic inhibitor and CD47 and PD-L1 downregulator with vascular normalizing properties, were determined and correlated with response. Methods: Ten patients with 64 total lesions evaluable at baseline, 24 hours, and end of radiotherapy (RT) that participated in BRAINSTORM were subjected to a correlative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) examination four days prior to the start of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) that evaluated Ktrans (capillary permeability) and Vp (plasma volume). The treatment comprised RRx-001 on Day -4, pre-WBRT then twice weekly during WBRT. Four dose levels were administered (5 mg/m2, 8.4 mg/m2, 16.5 mg/m2, and 27.5 mg/m2. Results: 10 patients underwent DCE-MRI scans and eight patients with 44 total evaluable lesions had available imaging at 1 month, and 6 patients with 29 total evaluable lesions had imaging at 4 months. On univariate analysis, only a decrease in 24-hour Vp from baseline after a single dose of RRx-001 was marginally associated with absolute tumor volume response 1 month after treatment (p-0.07). In a multivariate model, only Vp prior to therapy and 24-hour change in Vp were retained in the model after stepwise selection. A reduction in Vp 24 hours after RRx-001 (prior to WBRT) was associated with reduced tumor volume at 1 month (Estimate 0.88, 95% CI 0.37-1.40, p = 0.001) and 4 months (Estimate 1.51, 95% CI 0.58-2.43, p = 0.003). Likewise, a lower Vp prior to therapy was associated with reduced tumor volume at 1 month (Estimate 0.73, 95% CI 0.29-1.17, p = 0.002) and 4 months (Estimate 1.8, 95% CI 0.95-2.65, p = 0.0002), suggesting anti-angiogenic activity and early potential vascular normalization after a single dose of RRx-001 predictive of longer-term tumor response. Conclusions: RRx-001 induced a reduction in blood plasma volume, which was associated with tumor response and which suggests a vascular normalizing effect that merits further investigation in future planned studies. Clinical trial information: NCT02215512.

BRAINSTORM: A Multi-Institutional Phase 1/2 Study of RRx-001 in Combination With Whole Brain Radiation Therapy for Patients With Brain Metastases

PURPOSE

To determine the recommended phase 2 dose of RRx-001, a radiosensitizer with vascular normalizing properties, when used with whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for brain metastases and to assess whether quantitative changes in perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after RRx-001 correlate with response.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Five centers participated in this phase 1/2 trial of RRx-001 given once pre-WBRT and then twice weekly during WBRT. Four dose levels were planned (5 mg/m², 8.4 mg/m², 16.5 mg/m², 27.5 mg/m²). Dose escalation was managed by the time-to-event continual reassessment method algorithm. Linear mixed models were used to correlate change in 24-hour T1, Ktrans (capillary permeability), and fractional plasma volume with change in tumor volume.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2017, 31 patients were enrolled. Two patients dropped out before any therapy. Median age was 60 years (range, 30-76), and 12 were male. The most common tumor types were melanoma (59%) and non-small cell lung cancer (18%). No dose limiting toxicities were observed. The most common severe adverse event was grade 3 asthenia (6.9%, 2 of 29). The median intracranial response rate was 46% (95% confidence interval, 24-68) and median overall survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval, 4.5-9.4). No neurologic deaths occurred. Among 10 patients undergoing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, a reduction in Vp 24 hours after RRx-001 was associated with reduced tumor volume at 1 and 4 months (P ≤ .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of RRx-001 to WBRT is well tolerated with favorable intracranial response rates. Because activity was observed across all dose levels, the recommended phase 2 dose is 10 mg twice weekly. A reduction in fractional plasma volume on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI 24 hours after RRx-001 suggests antiangiogenic activity associated with longer-term tumor response.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Head and Neck Melanoma: Long-term Outcomes, Prognostic Value, Accuracy, and Safety

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for head and neck cutaneous melanoma (HNCM).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary academic medical center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Longitudinal review of a 356-patient cohort with HNCM undergoing SLNB from 1997 to 2007.

RESULTS

Descriptive characteristics included the following: age, 53.5 ± 19 years (mean ± SD); sex, 26.8% female; median follow-up, 4.9 years; and Breslow depth, 2.52 ± 1.87 mm. Overall, 75 (21.1%) patients had a positive SLNB. Among patients undergoing completion lymph node dissection following positive SLNB, 20 (27.4%) had at least 1 additional positive nonsentinel lymph node. Eighteen patients with local control and negative SLNB developed regional disease, indicating a false omission rate of 6.4%, including 10 recurrences in previously unsampled basins. Ten-year overall survival (OS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were significantly greater in the negative sentinel lymph node (SLN) cohort (OS, 61% [95% CI, 0.549-0.677]; MSS, 81.9% [95% CI, 0.769-0.873]) than the positive SLN cohort (OS, 31% [95% CI, 0.162-0.677]; MSS, 60.3% [95% CI, 0.464-0.785]) and positive SLN/positive nonsentinel lymph node cohort (OS, 8.4% [95% CI, 0.015-0.474]; MSS, 9.6% [95% CI, 0.017-0.536]). OS was significantly associated with SLN positivity (hazard ratio [HR], 2.39; P < .01), immunosuppression (HR, 2.37; P < .01), angiolymphatic invasion (HR, 1.91; P < .01), and ulceration (HR, 1.86; P < .01). SLN positivity (HR, 3.13; P < .01), angiolymphatic invasion (HR, 3.19; P < .01), and number of mitoses (P = .0002) were significantly associated with MSS. Immunosuppression (HR, 3.01; P < .01) and SLN status (HR, 2.84; P < .01) were associated with recurrence-free survival, and immunosuppression was the only factor significantly associated with regional recurrence (HR, 6.59; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term follow up indicates that SLNB showcases durable accuracy, safety, and prognostic importance for cutaneous HNCM.

Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive one of the following regimens: nivolumab (at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks); nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab-matched placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses) plus nivolumab-matched placebo. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, as compared with the ipilimumab group.

RESULTS

At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the median overall survival was more than 60.0 months (median not reached) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 36.9 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.52; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.63). Overall survival at 5 years was 52% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 44% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 26% in the ipilimumab group. No sustained deterioration of health-related quality of life was observed during or after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone. No new late toxic effects were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with advanced melanoma, sustained long-term overall survival at 5 years was observed in a greater percentage of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone than in those who received ipilimumab alone, with no apparent loss of quality of life in the patients who received regimens containing nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Liver injury is most commonly due to hepatic metastases rather than drug hepatotoxicity during pembrolizumab immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab immunotherapy has been associated with hepatotoxicity in 1%-10% of oncology patients treated in clinical trials.

AIM

To describe the incidence, phenotypes and outcomes of liver injury in a large cohort of solid organ tumour patients receiving pembrolizumab METHODS: Liver injury was defined by serum alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and/or total bilirubin levels exceeding threshold values. The likelihood of drug-induced liver injury was adjudicated by expert opinion.

RESULTS

Seventy (14.3%) of the 491 pembrolizumab-treated patients developed liver injury at a median of 62 days (6-478) and 71.4% had a cholestatic injury profile at onset. The median age, gender and tumour types of liver injury patients were similar to those without, but hepatic metastases (53% vs 21%, P < 0.01) and prior systemic and liver-directed therapy (71% vs 53%, P < 0.01) were more commonly observed in liver injury patients. During follow-up, liver injury patients were less likely to experience tumour remission (10% vs 40.4%) and had higher mortality (67.1% vs 33.7%). Only 20 (28.6%) liver injury cases were adjudicated as probable drug-induced hepatotoxicity; these patients were significantly more likely to present with an hepatocellular/mixed injury pattern (65% vs 12%), to receive corticosteroids (55% vs 12%) and had lower mortality (45% vs 76%) during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncology patients treated with pembrolizumab who develop liver injury experience poorer outcomes during follow-up. The low incidence of confirmed drug hepatotoxicity highlights the need for thorough medical evaluation before initiating corticosteroids to optimise patient care.

Phase 1b/2, open label, multicenter, study of the combination of SD-101 and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma who are naïve to anti-PD-1 therapy

9534

Background: SD-101 is a synthetic CpG TLR9 agonist. Pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor. SYNERGY-001/KEYNOTE-184 assesses the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of SD-101 and pembrolizumab in patients naïve to anti-PD-1/L1 therapy with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma. Methods: SD-101 was evaluated as 2 mg/lesion injected into 1 to 4 lesions and 8 mg/lesion in 1 lesion as 4 weekly doses followed by 7 doses Q3W. Pembrolizumab was administered as 200 mg IV Q3W. CT scans were performed every 9 weeks. Responses were assessed per investigator using RECIST v1.1. Responses and post-hoc Kaplan-Meier analyses of PFS in the ITT population were compared for patients who received 2 mg/lesion with 8 mg/lesion. Results: 86 patients (2 mg: N = 45; 8 mg: N = 41) have been enrolled with similar baseline characteristics: median age = 66 years; male = 67%; ECOG stage 0 = 67%; disease stage: IIIC = 21%; IVM1a/b = 50%; IVM1c = 28%; LDH ≤ ULN = 71%; treatment naïve = 73%. Median follow up to date is 8.1 months in 2 mg group and 8.3 months in 8 mg group. SD-101 safety profile comprises flu-like symptoms with most frequent grade ≥3 SD-101-related AEs of headache (7%), fatigue (7%), malaise (5%), myalgia (4%), and chills (4%). Immune-related AEs were reported in 19%. ORR in 2 mg group = 71% (95% CI: 57, 82) (CR: 13%) and in 8 mg group = 49% (95% CI: 33, 65) (CR: 7%) with responses in both injected and non-injected lesions, including visceral. DOR = not reached (NR) in either group. ORR by baseline PD-L1 expression in 62 patients, 53% of whom were PD-L1 positive: 2 mg = 80%/79% (PD-L1 positive/negative); 8 mg = 62%/40% (PD-L1 positive/negative). PFS was higher in 2 mg group with median PFS in 2 mg = NR (95% CI: Not estimable [NE], NE) and in 8 mg = 10.4 months (95% CI: 4.2, NE), HR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.98), p = 0.036. 6 month PFS rate in 2 mg = 81% and in 8 mg = 60%. 6 month OS rate in 2 mg = 98% and in 8 mg = 92%. Conclusions: The TLR9 innate immune stimulant, SD-101, in combination with pembrolizumab has been well-tolerated, and is showing promising high response rates and PFS, regardless of PD-L1 expression, particularly in patients who received 2 mg SD-101. Clinical trial information: NCT02521870.

Efficacy and safety of the combination of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) in patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastases (CheckMate 204)

9501

Background: We previously reported efficacy and safety of NIVO+IPI in patients (pts) with untreated, asymptomatic, melanoma brain metastases (MBM) from the CheckMate 204 study. Here, we provide the first report of NIVO+IPI in pts with symptomatic MBM, and report updated data in pts with asymptomatic MBM. Methods: In this phase II trial, pts with ≥1 measurable, nonirradiated MBM 0.5–3.0 cm were enrolled into two cohorts: (1) those with no neurologic symptoms or steroid Rx (asymptomatic; cohort A); and (2) those with neurologic symptoms, whether or not they were receiving steroid Rx (symptomatic; cohort B). In both cohorts, pts received NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W × 4, then NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W until progression or toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (CBR; proportion of pts with complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] + stable disease [SD] ≥6 mo). As of the clinical cutoff date on May 1, 2018, all treated pts (101 in cohort A and 18 in cohort B) had been followed for ~6 mo or longer. Results: In this updated analysis of cohort A (median follow-up of 20.6 mo), the CBR was 58.4% (Table). In cohort B, pts received a median of 1 NIVO+IPI dose and 2 of 18 pts (11%) received all 4 doses. At a median follow-up of 5.2 months in cohort B, intracranial objective response rate was 16.7% and the CBR was 22.2%. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 54.5% of pts in cohort A and in 55.6% of pts in cohort B (6.9% and 16.7% in the nervous system, respectively), with one death related to treatment in cohort A (immune-related myocarditis). Conclusions: In pts with asymptomatic MBM, our updated results show a high rate of durable intracranial responses, further supporting NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment in this population. Intracranial antitumor activity was observed with NIVO+IPI in pts with symptomatic MBM, but further study is needed to understand the biologic mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy and to improve treatments in this challenging population. Clinical trial information: NCT02320058. [Table: see text]

Phase 1b/2, open label, multicenter, study of the combination of SD-101 and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy

9555

Background: SD-101 is a synthetic CpG-ODN agonist of TLR9 that stimulates dendritic cells to release IFN-alpha and mature into antigen presenting cells - activating T cell anti-tumor responses. Pembrolizumab has demonstrated activity in melanoma. SYNERGY-001/KEYNOTE-184 study assesses the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of intratumoral SD-101 and intravenous pembrolizumab in PD1/PDL 1 resistant unresectable stage IIIC- IV melanoma. A prior phase 2 study with SD-101 at 8 mg per injection resulted in a 21.4% ORR in this population (Abstract 3781, ESMO 2018). We report preliminary data in this ongoing phase 2 trial evaluating efficacy at a lower SD-101 dose of 2 mg per injection. Methods: PD1/PDL 1 resistant melanoma patients received 2 mg of SD-101 intratumorally per lesion in 1-4 lesions (weekly x 4 doses followed by Q3W x 7). Pembrolizumab was administered at a dose of 200 mg intravenously Q3W. Scans were performed Q9W. Responses were assessed per RECIST v1.1. Results: 23 patients have been enrolled with baseline characteristics: median age 65 years; male: 77%; stage at screening: IIIC = 26%; IV = 57%, unknown = 17%; LDH > ULN: 36%. Lines of prior therapy: 1: 52%; 2: 22%; > 2: 26%. Prior anti CTL-A4 therapy: 39%. Best overall response on prior antiPD-1/PD-L1: PD: 88%, PR/CR: 8%, SD: 4%. Safety: Grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs: pneumonia and constipation (8%). No immune-related AEs reported. 2 non-treatment related SAEs reported from 2 patients: pneumonia and intussusception. 4 patients discontinued treatment early: 1 post SAE, per patient’s request, 3 due to PD. 1 patient died due to malignant pleural effusion after 1 dose of SD 101 and Pembrolizumab. No treatment related deaths. Efficacy: Mean duration on treatment: 39 days (1 - 169). mITT population: six patients at time of first CT scan at day 64: PR: 1, SD: 1, PD:3; non-evaluable: 1. 17 patients on study have not yet had first CT scan. Conclusions: The TLR9 innate immune stimulant, SD-101, in combination with pembrolizumab is well tolerated. Mature efficacy data, with additional first and second follow-up CT scans, will be presented at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT02521870.

Therapy with high-dose Interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) in metastatic melanoma and renal cell carcinoma following PD1 or PDL1 inhibition

Background

Metastatic melanoma (mM) and renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are often treated with anti-PD-1 based therapy, however not all patients respond and further therapies are needed. High dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) can lead to durable responses in a subset of mM and mRCC patients. The efficacy and toxicity of HD IL-2 therapy following anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy have not yet been explored.

Methods

Reports on mM and mRCC patients who had received HD IL-2 after PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition were queried from the PROCLAIM^SM database. Patient characteristics, toxicity and efficacy were analyzed.

Results

A total of 57 patients (40 mM, 17 mRCC) were treated with high dose IL-2 after PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibition and had data recorded in the PROCLAIM database. The best overall response rate to HD IL-2 was 22.5% for mM (4 complete response (CR), 5 partial responses (PRs)) and 24% for mRCC (2 CRs, 2 PRs). The toxicity related to HD IL-2 observed in these patients was similar to that observed in patients treated with HD IL-2 without prior checkpoint blockade. One patient who had received prior PD-L1 blockade developed drug induced pneumonitis with HD IL-2 requiring steroid therapy.

Conclusion

In this retrospective analysis, HD IL-2 therapy displayed durable antitumor activity in mM and mRCC patients who progressed following treatment with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition. The toxicities were generally manageable and consistent with expectations from HD IL-2 but physicians should watch for immune related toxicities such as pneumonitis. This analysis supports the development of randomized prospective trials to assess the proper sequencing and combination of immune checkpoint blockade and cytokine therapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0522-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Previously reported results from the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial showed a significant improvement in objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this report is to provide 4-year updated efficacy and safety data from this study.

METHODS

In this phase 3 trial, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III or stage IV melanoma, known BRAF^V600 mutation status, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus placebo, or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The patients, investigators, study site staff, and study funder were masked to the study drug administered. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of May 10, 2018. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844505.

FINDINGS

Between July 3, 2013, and March 31, 2014, 945 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=314), nivolumab (n=316), or ipilimumab (n=315). Median follow-up was 46·9 months (IQR 10·9-51·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·0 months (10·5-51·4) in the nivolumab group, and 18·6 months (7·6-49·5) in the ipilimumab group. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months from the date that the final patient was enrolled and randomised, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 38·2-not reached) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·9 months (28·3-not reached) in the nivolumab group, and 19·9 months (16·9-24·6) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for death for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·54 (95% CI 0·44-0·67; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·65 (0·53-0·79; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·7-19·3) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 6·9 months (5·1-10·2) in the nivolumab group, and 2·9 months (2·8-3·2) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·42 (95% CI 0·35-0·51; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·53 (0·44-0·64; p<0·0001). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 185 (59%) of 313 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 70 (22%) of 313 who received nivolumab, and 86 (28%) of 311 who received ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were diarrhoea in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (29 [9%] of 313) and in the nivolumab group (nine [3%] of 313) and colitis in the ipilimumab group (23 [7%] of 311); the most common grade 4 adverse event in all three groups was increased lipase (15 [5%] of 313 in the combination group, ten [3%] of 313 in the nivolumab group, and four [1%] of 311 in the ipilimumab group). Serious adverse events were not analysed for the 4-year follow-up. In total for the study, there were four treatment-related deaths: two in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (one cardiomyopathy and one liver necrosis), one in the nivolumab group (neutropenia), and one in the ipilimumab group (colon perforation). No additional treatment-related deaths have occurred since the previous (3-year) analysis.

INTERPRETATION

The results of this analysis at 4 years of follow-up show that a durable, sustained survival benefit can be achieved with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain

BACKGROUND

Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma have excluded patients with untreated brain metastases. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma and at least one measurable, nonirradiated brain metastasis (tumor diameter, 0.5 to 3 cm) and no neurologic symptoms received nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of intracranial clinical benefit, defined as the percentage of patients who had stable disease for at least 6 months, complete response, or partial response.

RESULTS

Among 94 patients with a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of intracranial clinical benefit was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47 to 68); the rate of complete response was 26%, the rate of partial response was 30%, and the rate of stable disease for at least 6 months was 2%. The rate of extracranial clinical benefit was 56% (95% CI, 46 to 67). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 55% of patients, including events involving the central nervous system in 7%. One patient died from immune-related myocarditis. The safety profile of the regimen was similar to that reported in patients with melanoma who do not have brain metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the National Cancer Institute; CheckMate 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320058 .).

A multi-center phase II study of high dose interleukin-2 sequenced with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF-V600 mutation positive metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

Preclinical studies suggest that BRAF inhibitors enhance anti-tumor immunity and antigen presentation. Combination BRAF inhibition with immunotherapy is an appealing therapeutic approach. We sequenced vemurafenib with HD IL-2 in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma to improve long term outcomes.

METHODS

Eligible patients were HD IL-2 eligible with metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma. Cohort 1 was treatment naïve and received vemurafenib 960 mg BID for 6 weeks before HD IL-2. Cohort 2 received vemurafenib for 7-18 weeks before enrollment. Both cohorts received HD IL-2 at 600,000 IU/kg every 8 h days 1-5 and days 15-19. The primary objective was to assess complete responses (CR) at 10 weeks ±3 (assessment 1) and 26 weeks ±3 (assessment 2) from the start of HD IL-2.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were enrolled, (cohort 1, n = 38; cohort 2, n = 15). Of these, 39 underwent assessment 1 and 15 assessment 2. The CR rate at assessment 1 was 10% (95% CI 3-24) for both cohorts combined, and 27% (95% CI 8-55) at assessment 2. Three-year survival was 30 and 27% for cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. No unexpected toxicities occurred. A shift in the melanoma treatment landscape during this trial adversely affected accrual, leading to early trial closure.

CONCLUSIONS

Vemurafenib in sequence with HD IL-2 did not change the known toxicity profile for either agent. Lower than expected response rates to vemurafenib were observed. Overall response rates and durability of responses appear similar to that observed with HD IL-2 alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCTN, NCT01683188. Registered 11 September 2012, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01683188.