Real-world management practices and characteristics of patients with advanced melanoma initiated on immuno-oncology or targeted therapy in the first-line setting during the period 2015-2018 in Greece. The 'SUMMER' study: a retrospective multicenter chart review project

This study primarily aimed to generate real-world evidence (RWE) on the profile and first-line treatment (1LT) patterns of patients with advanced (unresectable Stage III/metastatic) cutaneous melanoma initiated on immuno-oncology (IO)- or targeted therapy (TT)-based 1LT between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2018 (index period), in routine settings of Greece. This was a multicenter, retrospective chart review study. Eligible consented (unless deceased, for whom consent was waived by the hospital) patients were consecutively included by six oncology clinics. The look-back period extended from informed consent or death to initial melanoma diagnosis. Between 9 Junuary 2021 and 9 February 2022, 225 eligible patients (all Caucasians; 60.4% male; 35.6% diagnosed with de novo advanced melanoma) were included. At 1LT initiation, median age was 62.6 years; 2.7/6.7/90.7% of the patients had Stage IIIB/IIIC/IV disease and 9.3% were unresected. Most frequent metastatic sites were the lung (46.7%), non-regional nodes (33.8%), and liver (20.9%). Among patients, 98.2% had single primary melanoma, 45.6% had disease localized on the trunk, and 63.6% were BRAF-mutant. Of the patients, 45.3% initiated 1LT with an IO-based, 53.3% with a TT-based regimen, and three patients (1.3%) received TT-based followed by IO-based or vice versa. Most common 1LT patterns (frequency ≥10%) were BRAFi/MEKi combination (31.6%), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (25.3%), BRAFi monotherapy (21.8%), and anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy (17.8%). Most frequent regimens were Dabrafenib+Trametinib in 25.3%, and monotherapies with Pembrolizumab/Ipilimumab/Vemurafenib/Dabrafenib in 23.6/17.8/11.1/10.7% of patients, respectively. SUMMER provides RWE on 1LT strategies and profile of patients initiated 1L IO- or TT-based therapy in Greece during the 3-year index period.

The side effect registry immuno-oncology (SERIO) - A tool for systematic analysis of immunotherapy-induced side effects

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are effective in multiple tumor entities but induce a plethora of side effects. Comprehensive real-world analyses are essential to identify new signals, characterize diagnostic features, enable risk assessment, determine pathomechanisms, assess effectiveness of side effect management and compare tumor outcomes.

METHODS

The international online `Side-Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology´ (SERIO; www.serio-registry.org) collects rare, complex, and severe immunotherapy-induced side effects across all tumor entities with a strong focus on ICI-induced immune-related adverse events (irAE). The relational database management system (RDMS) contains structured data on patient and tumor characteristics, type of immunotherapy, treatment of side effects, and outcome of tumor and irAE. Data are captured within 25 organ modules including new modules for immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) for CAR-T-cell therapies and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) for bispecific antibodies. Information on biological samples is gathered.

RESULTS

A total of 1398 irAE cases have been documented by 58 centers from 13 countries in patients with 17 tumor types. IrAEs were induced by nine different immunotherapies including tebentafusp and CAR-T cell therapies, and resulted, among others, in neurological (7.6%), pulmonary (4.0%), and cardiac toxicities (2.9%). 50.0% of all irAEs were graded severe or life-threatening and 23.0% of patients received second-line therapy for steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent irAE. SERIO has contributed to 44 original publications on topics ranging from irMyocarditis to irEncephalitis to long-term persistent sequelae of immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A reliable evidence base is crucial for decision-making in rare, complex or therapy-refractory irAE. SERIO can help optimize side effect management and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality induced by immunotherapy.

Reaching the Diagnosis of Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Diabetes Mellitus in Different Clinical Scenarios: A Real-World Application of Updated Diagnostic Criteria

BACKGROUND

Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-associated diabetes mellitus (CPI-DM) is a rare immune-related adverse event (irAE) that presents with variable clinical manifestations. Data about its pathogenesis have not yet been adequately studied.

METHODS

Applying the recently updated diagnostic criteria from the American Diabetes Association, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all CPI-treated patients referred to our endocrinological unit for managing their endocrine irAEs and analyzed the incidence of CPI-DM, its clinical characteristics, and its management.

RESULTS

Among the 326 CPI-treated patients with endocrine irAEs, 4 patients met the updated criteria for the diagnosis of CPI-DM, representing 1.22% of all endocrine irAEs in our cohort. These four patients presented with distinct clinical scenarios regarding the irAE onset, the underlying malignancy, the administered CPI regimen, and the type of circulating autoantibodies.

CONCLUSION

The variable presentation of CPI-DM and the non-standard sensitivity of the presence of the type 1 DM traditional autoantibodies highlight the need for distinct guidelines and increased awareness of its diagnosis and management.

Ten-year clinical outcome, toxicity and compliance of dose-dense sequential adjuvant administration of cyclophosphamide & epirubicin followed by docetaxel in patients with early breast cancer: A hellenic cooperative oncology group observational study (HE 10/10) with concurrent investigation of significance of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes

BACKGROUND

Dose-dense sequential (dds) chemotherapy has changed the clinical outcome of patients with early breast cancer (BC). To investigate the impact of dose intensity (DI) in the adjuvant setting of BC, this observational trial (HE 10/10) was conducted assessing the long-term survival outcome, safety and toxicity of a currently widely used chemotherapeutic regimen. In addition, the prognostic significance of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes were also evaluated in the same cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Totally, 1054 patients were prospectively enrolled in the current study with 1024 patients being eligible, while adequate tissue was available for 596 of them. TILs, CD8+ lymphocytes in intratumoral areas in contact with malignant cells (iCD8), CD8+ lymphocytes in tumor stroma (sCD8) as well as the total number of CD8+ lymphocytes within the tumor area (total CD8) were assessed by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Within a median follow-up of 125.18 months, a total of 200 disease-free survival (DFS) events (19.5%) were reported. Importantly, the 10-year DFS and OS rates were 78.4% (95% CI 75.0-81.5) and 81.7% (95% CI 79.0-84.1), respectively. Interestingly, higher CD8+ T cells as well as TILs in the tumor microenvironment were associated with an improved long-term survival outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this study confirms the significance of dds adjuvant chemotherapeutic regimen in terms of long-term survival outcome, safety and toxicity as well as the prognostic significance of TILs and infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes in BC patients with early-stage disease.

New Emerging Targets in Cancer Immunotherapy: The Role of B7-H3

Immune checkpoints (ICs) are molecules implicated in the fine-tuning of immune response via co-inhibitory or co-stimulatory signals, and serve to secure minimized host damage. Targeting ICs with various therapeutic modalities, including checkpoint inhibitors/monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and CAR-T cells has produced remarkable results, especially in immunogenic tumors, setting a paradigm shift in cancer therapeutics through the incorporation of these IC-targeted treatments. However, the large proportion of subjects who experience primary or secondary resistance to available IC-targeted options necessitates further advancements that render immunotherapy beneficial for a larger patient pool with longer duration of response. B7-H3 (B7 Homolog 3 Protein, CD276) is a member of the B7 family of IC proteins that exerts pleiotropic immunomodulatory effects both in physiologic and pathologic contexts. Mounting evidence has demonstrated an aberrant expression of B7-H3 in various solid malignancies, including tumors less sensitive to current immunotherapeutic options, and has associated its expression with advanced disease, worse patient survival and impaired response to IC-based regimens. Anti-B7-H3 agents, including novel mAbs, bispecific antibodies, ADCs, CAR-T cells, and radioimmunotherapy agents, have exhibited encouraging antitumor activity in preclinical models and have recently entered clinical testing for several cancer types. In the present review, we concisely present the functional implications of B7-H3 and discuss the latest evidence regarding its prognostic significance and therapeutic potential in solid malignancies, with emphasis on anti-B7-H3 modalities that are currently evaluated in clinical trial settings. Better understanding of B7-H3 intricate interactions in the tumor microenvironment will expand the oncological utility of anti-B7-H3 agents and further shape their role in cancer therapeutics.

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma: 4-year survival and biomarkers evaluation from the phase II SECOMBIT trial

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy.

COVID-19 in Patients with Melanoma: A Single-Institution Study

We conducted a single-center, non-interventional retrospective study of melanoma patients with COVID-19 (1 March 2020 until 17 March 2023). The cohort was further divided into three groups according to the periods of SARS-CoV-2 variant dominance in Greece. We recorded demographics, comorbidities, vaccination data, cancer diagnosis/stage, types of systemic melanoma treatments, date of COVID-19 diagnosis and survival. We identified 121 patients. The vast majority (87.6%) had advanced disease (stages III or IV). A total of 80.1% of the patients were receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies, 92.5% had asymptomatic/mild COVID-19 and 7.4% had moderate/severe/critical disease, while 83.5% contracted COVID-19 during the third period of the pandemic. Sixteen patients (13.2%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 with a median length of stay of 12 days (range: 1-55 days). Advanced age, heart failure, number of comorbidities (≤1 vs. >1), vaccination status and the time period of the infection correlated with more severe COVID-19, whereas only heart failure and time period were independently correlated with severity. The 30-day mortality rate after COVID-19 was 4.2%. With a median follow-up of 340 days post-COVID-19, 17.4% of patients were deceased. In this cohort of melanoma patients with COVID-19, the 30-day mortality rate was low. There was no association between melanoma stage, treatment receipt and type of treatment with COVID-19 severity.

Digging into the NGS Information from a Large-Scale South European Population with Metastatic/Unresectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Real-World Genomic Depiction

Despite ongoing oncological advances, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) continues to have an extremely poor prognosis with limited targeted and immunotherapeutic options. Its genomic background has not been fully characterized yet in large-scale populations all over the world. Methods: Replicating a recent study from China, we collected tissue samples from consecutive Greek patients with pathologically-confirmed metastatic/unresectable PDAC and retrospectively investigated their genomic landscape using next generation sequencing (NGS). Findings: From a cohort of 409 patients, NGS analysis was successfully achieved in 400 cases (56.50% males, median age: 61.8 years). Consistent with a previous study, KRAS was the most frequently mutated gene in 81.50% of tested samples, followed by TP53 (50.75%), CDKN2 (8%), and SMAD4 (7.50%). BRCA1/2 variants with on-label indications were detected in 2%, and 87.50% carried a variant associated with off-label treatment (KRAS, ERBB2, STK11, or HRR-genes), while 3.5% of the alterations had unknown/preliminary-studied actionability (TP53/CDKN2A). Most of HRR-alterations were in intermediate- and low-risk genes (CHEK2, RAD50, RAD51, ATM, FANCA, FANCL, FANCC, BAP1), with controversial actionability: 8% harbored a somatic non-BRCA1/2 alteration, 6 cases had a high-risk alteration (PALB2, RAD51C), and one co-presented a PALB2/BRCA2 alteration. Elevated LOH was associated with HRR-mutated status and TP53 mutations while lowered LOH was associated with KRAS alterations. Including TMB/MSI data, the potential benefit from an NGS-oriented treatment was increased from 1.91% to 13.74% (high-MSI: 0.3%, TMB > 10 muts/MB: 12.78%). TMB was slightly increased in females (4.75 vs. 4.46 muts/MB) and in individuals with age > 60 (4.77 vs. 4.40 muts/MB). About 28.41% showed PD-L1 > 1% either in tumor or immune cells, 15.75% expressed PD-L1 ≥ 10%, and only 1.18% had PD-L1 ≥ 50%. This is the largest depiction of real-world genomic characteristics of European patients with PDAC, which offers some useful clinical and research insights.

Bempegaldesleukin Plus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma: The Open-Label, Phase III PIVOT IO 001 Trial Results

PURPOSE

Despite marked advances in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, the need for novel therapies remains. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG), a pegylated interleukin-2 (IL-2) cytokine prodrug, demonstrated efficacy in the phase II PIVOT-02 trial. PIVOT IO 001 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03635983) is a phase III, randomized, open-label study that builds on the PIVOT-02 results in first-line melanoma.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BEMPEG plus nivolumab (NIVO) or NIVO monotherapy. Primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory end points included additional efficacy measures, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics analyses.

RESULTS

In 783 patients (n = 391, BEMPEG plus NIVO; n = 392, NIVO monotherapy), the median follow-up was 11.6 months in the intent-to-treat population. The ORR with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 27.7% versus 36.0% with NIVO (two-sided P = .0311). The median PFS with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 4.17 months (95% CI, 3.52 to 5.55) versus 4.99 months (95% CI, 4.14 to 7.82) with NIVO (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 97% CI, 0.88 to 1.35; P = .3988). The median OS was 29.67 months (95% CI, 22.14 to not reached [NR]) with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus 28.88 months (95% CI, 21.32 to NR) with NIVO (HR, 0.94; 99.929% CI, 0.59 to 1.48; P = .6361). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and serious AE rates were higher with the combination (21.7% and 10.1%, respectively) versus NIVO (11.5% and 5.5%, respectively). BEMPEG PK exposure and absolute lymphocyte count changes after BEMPEG plus NIVO were comparable between PIVOT IO 001 and PIVOT-02.

CONCLUSION

The PIVOT IO 001 study did not meet its primary end points of ORR, PFS, and OS. Increased toxicity was observed with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results from CheckMate 238

PURPOSE

In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS.

RESULTS

At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

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.

Early switch from run-in treatment with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib to atezolizumab after 3 months leads to rapid loss of tumour control in patients with advanced BRAFV600-positive melanoma: The ImmunoCobiVem phase 2 randomised trial

AIM

ImmunoCobiVem investigated whether a planned switch to atezolizumab after achieving tumour control during run-in with vemurafenib + cobimetinib improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to continuous targeted therapy (TT) in patients with previously untreated advanced BRAF^V600-mutated melanoma.

METHODS

In this multicenter phase 2 study, patients received vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. After 3months, patients without progressive disease (PD) were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue vemurafenib + cobimetinib (Arm A) or switch to atezolizumab (Arm B) until first documented PD (PD1). Primary outcome was PFS1 (time from start of run-in until PD1 or death). OS and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 185 patients enroled between November 2016 and December 2019, 135 were randomly assigned after the run-in period (Arm A, n = 69; Arm B, n = 66). Median PFS1 was significantly longer in Arm A versus Arm B (13.9 versus 5.9months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.84; P_Stratified=0.001). Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR 1.22; 95%CI, 0.69-2.16; P_Stratified=0.389); 2-year OS was higher in Arm B versus Arm A (67%; 95%CI, 53-78 versus 58%; 95%CI, 45-70). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55% of patients in Arm A and 64% in Arm B; treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation of any drug in 7% and 9% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with BRAF^V600-mutated advanced melanoma who achieve tumour control with TT, early switch at 3months to atezolizumab led to rapid loss of tumour control but provided a numerical OS benefit at 2years compared with continued TT.

Beyond CTLA-4 and PD-1 Inhibition: Novel Immune Checkpoint Molecules for Melanoma Treatment

More than ten years after the approval of ipilimumab, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) against PD-1 and CTLA-4 have been established as the most effective treatment for locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, achieving durable responses either as monotherapies or in combinatorial regimens. However, a considerable proportion of patients do not respond or experience early relapse, due to multiple parameters that contribute to melanoma resistance. The expression of other immune checkpoints beyond the PD-1 and CTLA-4 molecules remains a major mechanism of immune evasion. The recent approval of anti-LAG-3 ICI, relatlimab, in combination with nivolumab for metastatic disease, has capitalized on the extensive research in the field and has highlighted the potential for further improvement of melanoma prognosis by synergistically blocking additional immune targets with new ICI-doublets, antibody-drug conjugates, or other novel modalities. Herein, we provide a comprehensive overview of presently published immune checkpoint molecules, including LAG-3, TIGIT, TIM-3, VISTA, IDO1/IDO2/TDO, CD27/CD70, CD39/73, HVEM/BTLA/CD160 and B7-H3. Beginning from their immunomodulatory properties as co-inhibitory or co-stimulatory receptors, we present all therapeutic modalities targeting these molecules that have been tested in melanoma treatment either in preclinical or clinical settings. Better understanding of the checkpoint-mediated crosstalk between melanoma and immune effector cells is essential for generating more effective strategies with augmented immune response.

Melanuria in a patient with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma of unknown primary: Insights on the pathophysiology, differential diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment

Melanuria is the dark brown discoloration of the urine and an uncommon manifestation in patients with melanoma. It is an ominous sign, usually indicating widespread disease. In this article, through an illustrative case, we discuss the pathophysiological, clinical, and prognostic characteristics of melanuria in melanoma. Moreover, we aim to provide the available data for the prompt diagnosis and treatment of patients presenting with melanuria. We present the case of a 47-year-old man presenting with melanuria and diffure melanosis cutis, who was eventually diagnosed with a BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma of unknown primary. The patient was started on a BRAF and MEK inhibitor, but he had a rapid disease progression and succumbed to the disease. There is only a limited number of case reports of melanoma patients with melanuria receiving targeted therapies or immune checkpoint inhibitors. In these reports, variable treatment responses have been described. In view of the increasing significance of targeted therapies and immunotherapy for melanoma, more cases are needed to improve our understanding on the prognostic significance of melanuria in the era of novel therapies for melanoma.

CMV infections in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for solid malignancies

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/disease has been repeatedly reported in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and most commonly involves patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) immune-related adverse events (irAEs). In the current study we present a melanoma patient that developed CMV gastritis during treatment with pembrolizumab in the absence of irAEs and without previous or current immunosuppression. Moreover, we review the literature regarding CMV infection/disease in patients treated with ICIs for solid malignancies. We present the currently available data on the pathogenesis, clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings, and histologic features and highlight the potential differences among cases complicating R/R irAEs versus those occurring in immunosuppression-naïve patients. Finally, we discuss the currently available data regarding potential useful diagnostic tools as well as the management of these patients.

The Uncharted Landscape of Rare Endocrine Immune-Related Adverse Events

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved for the treatment of many cancers, either in adjuvant or metastatic settings. Regarding safety, endocrine adverse events (AEs) are some of the most common AEs in ICI-treated patients, with thyroid dysfunction and hypophysitis being the most frequent disorders. However, there are also some rare and very rare immune-related (ir) endocrine complications (incidence between ≥1/10,000 to <1/1000 and <1/10,000, respectively, according to the established classification) that have been reported in isolated case reports, with limited data about their management. In this systematic review, we summarize all published cases with primary adrenal insufficiency, central diabetes insipidus, primary hypoparathyroidism, lipodystrophy, osteoporosis, hypergonadotrophic hypogonadism, or Cushing disease and discuss their diagnostic and therapeutic approaches as well as the current knowledge on their pathophysiology. In these ICI-treated cancer patients, the presentation of symptoms unrelated to their underlying malignancy has led to further diagnostic tests, including hormonal profile and functional assays which subsequently confirmed endocrinopathy, while the assessment of autoantibodies was rarely available. In most of these cases, the exact pathogenesis remained unknown, and the endocrine dysfunction was permanent, requiring lifelong supplementation. Although endrocine irAEs are rare, physicians must be aware of these irAEs to recognize them on time and treat them appropriately.

Mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma: What we have to overcome?

Marching into the second decade after the approval of ipilimumab, it is clear that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically improved the prognosis of melanoma. Although the current edge is already high, with a 4-year OS% of 77.9% for adjuvant nivolumab and a 6.5-year OS% of 49% for nivolumab/ipilimumab combination in the metastatic setting, a high proportion of patients with advanced melanoma have no benefit from immunotherapy, or experience an early disease relapse/progression in the first few months of treatment, surviving much less. Reasonably, the primary and acquired resistance to ICIs has entered into the focus of clinical research with positive (e.g., nivolumab and relatlimab combination) and negative feedbacks (e.g., nivolumab with pegylated-IL2, pembrolizumab with T-VEC, nivolumab with epacadostat, and combinatorial triplets of BRAF/MEK inhibitors with immunotherapy). Many intrinsic (intracellular or intra-tumoral) but also extrinsic (systematic) events are considered to be involved in the development of this resistance to ICIs: i) melanoma cell immunogenicity (e.g., tumor mutational burden, antigen-processing machinery and immunogenic cell death, neoantigen affinity and heterogeneity, genomic instability, melanoma dedifferentiation and phenotypic plasticity), ii) immune cell trafficking, T-cell priming, and cell death evasion, iii) melanoma neovascularization, cellular TME components(e.g., T_regs, CAFs) and extracellular matrix modulation, iv) metabolic antagonism in the TME(highly glycolytic status, upregulated CD39/CD73/adenosine pathway, iDO-dependent tryptophan catabolism), v) T-cell exhaustion and negative immune checkpoints, and vi) gut microbiota. In the present overview, we discuss how these parameters compromise the efficacy of ICIs, with an emphasis on the lessons learned by the latest melanoma studies; and in parallel, we describe the main ongoing approaches to overcome the resistance to immunotherapy. Summarizing this information will improve the understanding of how these complicated dynamics contribute to immune escape and will help to develop more effective strategies on how anti-tumor immunity can surpass existing barriers of ICI-refractory melanoma.

Adjuvant Therapy of Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab Versus Nivolumab Alone in Patients With Resected Stage IIIB-D or Stage IV Melanoma (CheckMate 915)

PURPOSE

Ipilimumab and nivolumab have each shown treatment benefit for high-risk resected melanoma. The phase III CheckMate 915 trial evaluated adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with resected stage IIIB-D or IV melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 1,833 patients received nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks (916 patients) or nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (917 patients) for ≤ 1 year. After random assignment, patients were stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and stage. Dual primary end points were recurrence-free survival (RFS) in randomly assigned patients and in the tumor PD-L1 expression-level < 1% subgroup.

RESULTS

At a minimum follow-up of approximately 23.7 months, there was no significant difference between treatment groups for RFS in the all-randomly assigned patient population (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.09; P = .269) or in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1% (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14). In all patients, 24-month RFS rates were 64.6% (combination) and 63.2% (nivolumab). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 32.6% of patients in the combination group and 12.8% in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 0.4% of patients in the combination group and in no nivolumab-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks did not improve RFS versus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with stage IIIB-D or stage IV melanoma. Nivolumab showed efficacy consistent with previous adjuvant studies in a population resembling current practice using American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition, reaffirming nivolumab as a standard of care for melanoma adjuvant treatment.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Global Phase III Trial of Talimogene Laherparepvec Combined With Pembrolizumab for Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE

The combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and an encouraging complete response rate (CRR) in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase Ib study. We report the efficacy and safety from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, international study of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab (T-VEC-pembrolizumab) versus placebo plus pembrolizumab (placebo-pembrolizumab) in patients with advanced melanoma.

METHODS

Patients with stage IIIB-IVM1c unresectable melanoma, naïve to antiprogrammed cell death protein-1, were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-VEC-pembrolizumab or placebo-pembrolizumab. T-VEC was administered at ≤ 4 × 106 plaque-forming unit (PFU) followed by ≤ 4 × 108 PFU 3 weeks later and once every 2 weeks until dose 5 and once every 3 weeks thereafter. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously 200 mg once every 3 weeks. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate per mRECIST, CRR, and safety. Here, we report the primary analysis for PFS, the second preplanned interim analysis for OS, and the final analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 692 patients were randomly assigned (346 T-VEC-pembrolizumab and 346 placebo-pembrolizumab). T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.04; P = .13) or OS (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.22; P = .74) compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was 48.6% for T-VEC-pembrolizumab (CRR 17.9%) and 41.3% for placebo-pembrolizumab (CRR 11.6%); the durable response rate was 42.2% and 34.1% for the arms, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of patients in the T-VEC-pembrolizumab arm and in 19.5% of patients in the placebo-pembrolizumab arm.

CONCLUSION

T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS or OS compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. Safety results of the T-VEC-pembrolizumab combination were consistent with the safety profiles of each agent alone.

Sequencing of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab and Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib for Untreated BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma (SECOMBIT): A Randomized, Three-Arm, Open-Label Phase II Trial

PURPOSE

Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma.

METHODS

SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication.

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged.

CONCLUSION

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.

Overall survival with first-line atezolizumab in combination with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma (IMspire150): second interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAF^V600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis.

METHODS

The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43-63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1-45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6-44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9-not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0-34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib.

INTERPRETATION

Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAF^V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Challenges in the treatment of melanoma with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in patients with sickle cell disease: case report and review of the literature

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) suffer from complications due to anemia, inflammation, and vaso-occlusion. Factors that trigger sickling and/or inflammation may initiate such complications, while treatment with hydroxyurea (HU) reduces their emergence and prolongs survival. On the contrary, inhibition of the BRAF-MEK-ERK pathway with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) has revolutionized treatment of melanoma but their use has been correlated with inflammatory adverse events. Thus, treatment of patients with SCD with BRAF/MEKi may be quite challenging and pyrexia in those patients should be managed as a medical emergency. In this article, intrigued by the case of a 36-year-old female patient with S/β-thal under HU who was treated with dabrafenib and trametinib for melanoma, we analyze the mechanisms underlying inflammation and vaso-occlusion in SCD, the mechanisms of pyrexia and inflammation induced by BRAF/MEKi, their potential interconnections, the shared role of the inflammasome in these two entities, and the protective effect of HU in SCD. Since SCD is the most common inheritable blood disorder, the administration of BRAF/MEKi for melanoma in patients with SCD may be a rather common challenge. Thus, proper treatment with HU may pave the way for an uneventful management of such patients.

Diabetes insipidus: A rare endocrine complication of immune check point inhibitors: A case report and literature review

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), anti-programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibodies, are novel therapeutic agents widely used in numerous malignancies. They are known to cause multiple immune-related endocrine adverse events (irAEs); however, anterior pituitary hypophysitis with secondary hypopituitarism is the most frequently reported irAE, especially in patients receiving anti-CTLA-4 treatment. By contrast, posterior pituitary involvement, such as central diabetes insipidus (CDI), is relatively rare and only few case reports have been published. The present report describes the case of a 53-year-old woman with metastatic melanoma treated with nivolumab an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody. At 6 months after the initiation of nivolumab treatment, the patient was diagnosed with deficiency of the corticotrope and thyreotrope axes and in the following 2 months the patient was diagnosed with progressive development of polyuria-polydipsia syndrome. The diagnosis of partial CDI was retained based on plasma and urinary osmolalities, the water deprivation test and baseline copeptin levels as well as on the absence of the bright spot in the posterior pituitary in magnetic resonance imaging. Systematic research of the literature revealed a total of 13 cases reports (including 14 patients) presenting with CDI treated with monotherapy with CTLA-4 (n=5) or PD-1/PD-L1 Abs (n=6) or combined treatments (n=3). The improved understanding of the mechanisms of ICI action along with their extensive use should contribute to the early recognition of irAE symptoms. We hypothesized that clinicians should be aware of this clinical entity and its symptoms and treat it appropriately.

Neoadjuvant treatment in ovarian cancer: New perspectives, new challenges

Ovarian cancer remains the leading cause of death from gynecological cancer. Survival is significantly related to the stage of the disease at diagnosis. Of quite importance is primary cytoreductive surgery, having as a goal to remove all visible tumor tissue, and is the standard primary treatment in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma.

Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been implemented mostly in treating advanced disease, with studies performed having numerous limitations. Data extrapolated from these studies have not shown inferiority survival of NACT, compared to primary debulking surgery. The role of NACT is of particular interest because of the intrinsic mechanisms that are involved in the process, which can be proven as therapeutic approaches with enormous potential. NACT increases immune infiltration and programmed death ligand-1 (PDL-1) expression, induces local immune activation, and can potentiate the immunogenicity of immune-exclude high grade serous ovarian tumors, while the combination of NACT with bevacizumab, PARP inhibitors or immunotherapy remains to be evaluated. This article summarizes all available data on studies implementing NACT in the treatment of ovarian cancer, focusing on clinical outcomes and study limitations. High mortality rates observed among ovarian cancer patients necessitates the identification of more effective treatments, along with biomarkers that will aid treatment individualization.

Clinical course of COVID-19 infection in a melanoma patient treated with nivolumab and bempegaldesleukin: a case report

The exact impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the course and outcome of COVID-19 in cancer patients is currently unclear. Herein, we present the first description of an elderly melanoma patient who developed COVID-19 pneumonia while under treatment with nivolumab and bempegaldesleukin in combination with an investigational PEGylated interleukin (IL-2). We present the clinical characteristics and the laboratory and imaging findings of our patient during the course of COVID-19 pneumonia. Moreover, we discuss the currently available data regarding the mechanism of action of immune checkpoint inhibitors and IL-2 analogs in the treatment of COVID-19. The administration of these agents did not have a negative effect on the outcome of COVID-19 pneumonia in an elderly melanoma patient.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of several solid malignancies, including melanoma. Bempegaldesleukin is an investigational PEGylated IL-2 that is being evaluated, in combination with nivolumab, in the management of a variety of cancers. The immunomodulation caused by these agents may also modify the immune response in COVID-19. Currently available data regarding the impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors in reducing the severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer are mixed, whereas no clinical data are available for bempegaldesleukin. Herein, we report the case of an elderly female melanoma patient who developed COVID-19 pneumonia while under treatment with nivolumab and bempegaldesleukin. The administration of these agents did not have a negative effect on the outcome of COVID-19 pneumonia in our patient.

Abstract CT557: Phase 1/2 study of quavonlimab (Qmab) + pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma that progressed on a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor

Background: Safe, effective treatment options for advanced melanoma that progressed on a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor is an unmet medical need. Results of the phase 1b KEYNOTE-029 trial showed promising antitumor activity in advanced melanoma with pembro combined with a CTLA-4 inhibitor. This ongoing, open-label, multiarm phase 1/2 study (NCT03179436) evaluating the CTLA-4 inhibitor Qmab + pembro showed antitumor activity as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC and for previously treated extensive-stage SCLC. Data from the efficacy expansion phase in pts with advanced melanoma that progressed on a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor are presented.

Methods: Pts with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma and confirmed progressive disease (PD) per iRECIST within 12 wk of the last dose of a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor given alone or in combination for ≥2 doses (combinations with CTLA-4 inhibitors were not allowed) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Qmab 25 mg IV Q6W with or without pembro 400 mg IV Q6W; 100 pts in the Qmab + pembro arm and 40 pts in the Qmab monotherapy arm were planned for enrollment. Treatment in both arms was given for up to 18 cycles (~2 y) or until PD, toxicity, or pt withdrawal. Pts who had PD after ≥2 Qmab monotherapy cycles could crossover to Qmab + pembro. Tumor imaging was assessed Q9W to wk 54 and Q12W thereafter. Primary end points were safety and ORR by BICR per RECIST v1.1. Secondary and exploratory end points included DOR and PFS by BICR per RECIST v1.1 and OS.

Results: 151 pts were enrolled (n = 111, Qmab + pembro; n = 40, Qmab monotherapy); median time from first dose to database cutoff was 7.7 mo. In all pts, median age was 64 y; 66% of pts were male, 33% had BRAF-mutant tumors, and 50% had elevated LDH. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 87 pts (78%) in the Qmab + pembro arm and 24 pts (60%) in the Qmab monotherapy arm; grade 3/4 TRAEs were reported in 16 pts (14%) and 3 pts (8%), respectively. The most common TRAEs were pruritus (26%), fatigue (14%), diarrhea (14%), and rash (13%). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either arm; 5% of pts discontinued because of TRAEs. Confirmed ORR was 9% (95% CI, 4.4-15.9) with Qmab + pembro (1 CR, 9 PRs) and 3% (95% CI, 0.1-13.2) with Qmab monotherapy (1 PR). Median DOR was not reached (NR; range, 2.0+ to 13.8+ mo) with Qmab + pembro. DOR was 1.9+ with Qmab monotherapy. Median PFS was 2.1 mo (95% CI, 2.1-3.2) with Qmab + pembro and 2.1 mo (95% CI, 2.1-2.5) with Qmab monotherapy; 6-mo PFS rates were 21% and 13%, respectively. Median OS was NR (95% CI, 11.2 mo to NR) with Qmab + pembro and 7.8 mo (95% CI, 6.3 to NR) with Qmab monotherapy; 6-mo OS rates were 74% and 73%, respectively.

Conclusions: Qmab + pembro was generally well tolerated and provided modest antitumor activity in pts with advanced melanoma that progressed on a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. This combination and a coformulation of Qmab + pembro will be further investigated in the KEYMAKER-U02 study.

Citation Format: Sanjeev Deva, Jacek Mackiewicz, Stephane Dalle, Helen Gogas, Iwona Lugowska, Alfonso Berrocal, Alexander M. Menzies, Michele Maio, Adnan Nagrial, Karmele Mujika Eizmendi, Jean-Jacques Grob, Christian Caglevic, Megan Lyle, Juan Martin-Liberal, Rachel Altura, Yixin Ren, Anuradha Khilnani, Jobin Cyrus, Shabana Siddiqi, Michal Lotem. Phase 1/2 study of quavonlimab (Qmab) + pembrolizumab (pembro) in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma that progressed on a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT557.

Efficacy and safety of sequencing with vemurafenib (V) plus cobimetinib (C) followed by atezolizumab (Atezo) in patients (pts) with advanced BRAFV600-positive melanoma: Interim analysis of the ImmunoCobiVem study

9548

Background: Immunotherapies (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT) have improved PFS and OS in BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma pts, but evidence regarding their optimal sequence is limited. The randomized phase 2 ImmunoCobiVem study evaluated efficacy and safety of an early switch to Atezo after initial treatment with V + C. Interim results are reported. Methods: Pts with previously untreated BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma received a 3-mo run-in with V (960 mg twice daily) + C (60 mg once daily for 21/28 days). Pts without PD/treatment interruption due to AEs during run-in were then randomized 1:1 to continue V + C (Arm A) or switch to Atezo (1200 mg every 3 wks; Arm B) until first documented PD (PD1), followed by crossover to the alternate treatment until second documented PD (PD2). End points were PFS1 (time from start of run-in until PD1 or death from any cause), PFS2 (time from start of run-in until PD2 or death from any cause), PFS3 (time from PD1 until PD2 or death from any cause), DCR, ORR, OS, and safety. Results: 185 pts were enrolled between Nov 2016 and Dec 2019 (63% male; median age 58 y); 135 pts completed run-in and were randomized to Arm A (n=69) or Arm B (n=66). At data cutoff, median follow-up for all pts was 19.0 mo. In Arm A, 36/69 pts (52%) discontinued V + C due to PD and 21/36 (58%) crossed over to Atezo; in Arm B, 49/66 pts (74%) discontinued Atezo due to PD and 35/49 (71%) crossed over to V + C. Median PFS1 was significantly longer in Arm A vs Arm B (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37–0.84; P=0.001), while median PFS3 was significantly shorter in Arm A vs Arm B (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.17–4.30; P=0.013); median PFS2 was not significantly different between arms (HR 1.57; 95% CI 0.83–2.96; P=0.163) (Table). During the randomized phase, ORR and DCR were higher in Arm A before crossover and in Arm B after crossover (Table). OS was similar between arms (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.69–2.16; P=0.389). Median (range) treatment duration across treatment phases was 11.2 mo (2.3–56.1) for Arm A and 10.7 mo (2.8–56.7) for Arm B. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55% of pts in Arm A and 64% in Arm B; AEs led to discontinuation in 10% and 12%, respectively. Conclusions: Early switch from V + C to Atezo is feasible and safe, but tumor control achieved in run-in is maintained in only a subset of pts on subsequent ICI monotherapy. Crossover to ICI monotherapy at PD results in low response, while response to TT re-exposure is frequent. Clinical trial information: NCT02902029. [Table: see text]

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-naïve and -experienced patients with metastatic melanoma treated with lifileucel, a tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) cell therapy

9524

Background: Cutaneous melanoma is characterized by high TMB, which is associated with increased tumor-specific neoantigen expression (Schumacher Science 2015) and an increased response rate to ICI (Yarchoan NEJM 2019). The TMB in tumors that recur/progress after ICI is not well defined. Lifileucel is a one-time, autologous TIL cell therapy under investigation for treatment of patients (pts) with advanced melanoma. We conducted a matched case-control study of prospectively enrolled pts with advanced melanoma treated with lifileucel in the ICI-naïve (IOV-COM-202 trial, Cohort 1A [C1A]) and post-ICI (C-144-01 trial, Cohort 2 [C2]) setting to investigate the potential association between prior ICI therapy, TMB, and response to lifileucel. Methods: All pts had unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Available cases from C1A (ICI-naïve pts receiving lifileucel + pembrolizumab [pembro]) were matched to controls from C2 (pts receiving lifileucel alone after progression on anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy); 3 controls per case were matched at least for BRAF status and disease stage at study entry, and if possible, for anatomic site of tumor harvest. Lifileucel regimen was similar in C1A and C2. In C1A, 1 dose of pembro was given after tumor harvest and before nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion and resumed after lifileucel per standard treatment, for up to 2 y. Objective response rate (ORR) was assessed by investigators per RECIST v1.1. TMB of the resected tumor was measured using the ImmunoID NeXT (C1A) or PGDx elio (C2) platform; a validated conversion factor was used to compare TMB between platforms (Vega Ann Oncol 2021). High TMB was defined as ≥10 mut/MB. Results: Seven pts in C1A and 21 in C2 were included in the case-control study and had ORR of 71.4% and 38.1%, respectively. The percentage of pts with high TMB was 57.1% in C1A and 19.0% in C2 ( P = 0.1). ORR in the low and high TMB groups was 66.7% and 75.0%, respectively, in C1A and 41.1% and 25.0% in C2; 60% of responders in C1A and 12.5% in C2 had high TMB. In logistic regression analysis adjusted for cohort, TMB was not associated with response to lifileucel (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9–1.1; P = 0.8). Data on tumor mutations and neoantigens, T-cell receptor repertoire, and tumor microenvironment profile will be presented. Conclusions: Our preliminary data indicate that the efficacy (ORR) of lifileucel may be independent of TMB, regardless of treatment setting, consistent with its proposed immune checkpoint pathway-independent mechanism of action. The percentage of patients with high TMB tended to be lower in tumors with prior ICI exposure than in those that were ICI-naïve. Clinical trial information: NCT03645928; NCT02360579.

EMRseq: Registry-based outcome analysis on 1,000 patients with BRAF V600–mutated metastatic melanoma in Europe treated with either immune checkpoint or BRAF-/MEK inhibition

9540

Background: In BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma, potential outcome differences for different choices of 1st line treatments including immunotherapy or BRAF-/MEK inhibition are not completely understood. We therefore analyzed the treatment patterns and outcome of systemic therapies for patients BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma. Methods: From the EUMelaReg treatment registry, patients fulfilling the following inclusion criteria were consecutively included until a number of 1,000 evaluable cases was reached. 1) Patients with metastatic melanoma and BRAF V600 mutation 2) First line treatment with either combined BRAF-/MEK or immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) with PD-1 single agent or combined PD-1/CTLA-4 antibodies. Multivariable cox regression analysis as well as propensity score based weighting were used to control for bias from baseline imbalances. Primary outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and 2nd line PFS (PFS-2), stratified for upfront treatment decision of ICI versus targeted therapy. PFS-2 was defined as the interval from start of first line treatment to a progression after a 2nd line treatment or death of any cause. Further endpoints were evaluated including time on treatment (ToT), time to next treatment and 2nd line treatments. Results: In total 529 (52.9 %) patients received BRAF/MEK-i, and 471 (47.1%) ICI. For various co-variates there were significant imbalances between strata, including number of metastatic sites, AJCC substage, serum LDH, and ECOG performance status, with more favorable prognostic variables for patients receiving immunotherapy. The ORR for BRAF/MEK-i was significantly higher than for ICI (53.3% vs. 42.0%; p=0.0004), but for OS and PFS2 the adjusted hazard ratios were significantly in favor for ICI (HR 0.62 and 0.66, respectively; p <0.0001). In 2nd line, patients switching from ICI to BRAF/MEK-i had again markedly higher ORR than patients switching vice versa (57.7% vs. 19.9%; P<0.0001), and also significantly longer unadjusted PFS (8.1 vs. 3.1 months; p <0.0001) and OS (15.7 vs. 10.6 mths; p=0.01) after start of 2nd line treatment. Conclusions: The two cohorts had imbalances on key prognosis variables. After adjustment for these imbalances, upfront ICI still resulted in significantly longer OS as compared to BRAF/MEK-i. Due to the nature of real-world observational data causing inherent imbalances in the treatments cohorts and being unable to account for potential unknown confounders, outcome may still be biased despite adjustment efforts.[Table: see text]

Overall survival (OS) with first-line atezolizumab (A) or placebo (P) in combination with vemurafenib (V) and cobimetinib (C) in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma: Second interim OS analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study

9547

Background: Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line A + V + C vs P + V + C in patients (pts) with BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.97; P= 0.025). With median follow-up of 18.9 months at primary analysis, OS data were immature; interim analysis of OS at the time of the primary analysis demonstrated a trend in favor of A + V + C over P + V + C (estimated 2-year OS rate, 60.4% vs 53.1%) (Gutzmer et al. Lancet 2020;395:1835-1844). Herein, we present results from the second interim OS analysis of the IMspire150 study. Methods: IMspire150 enrolled previously untreated pts with stage IV or unresectable stage IIIc BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (n = 514). Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive 28-day cycles of A + V + C (n = 256) or P + V + C (n = 258). Pts received V + C in cycle 1; A or P was added on days 1 and 15 from cycle 2 onwards. The second interim OS analysis was planned after ̃270 OS events were recorded, and was projected to have a minimally detectable difference of HR of 0.74 with a P value boundary of 0.0140. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: At data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 OS events had occurred. Median follow-up was 29.1 months (range, 1-54) for A + V + C and 22.8 months (range, 0-54) for P + V + C. A continued trend toward OS benefit in favor of A + V + C over P + V + C was observed with median OS of 39.0 vs 25.8 months, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06; P= 0.1432). A delayed treatment effect was observed, with landmark OS rates for A + V + C vs P + V + C of 76.1% vs 76.5% at 12 months and 61.5% vs 53.3% at 24 months. With additional follow-up, A + V + C continued to show PFS benefit over P + V + C (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97; P= 0.0224); overall response rates (66.7% vs 65.0%) and median duration of response (21.0 vs 12.6 months) remained consistent with those reported at primary analysis. No new safety signals were observed with additional follow-up. Conclusions: With further follow-up, A + V + C demonstrated a consistent, but not statistically significant, improvement in OS and continued benefit in duration of response versus P + V + C in previously untreated pts with BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT02908672.

Primary analysis of a phase 2, open-label, multicenter trial of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus pembrolizumab (pembro) for the treatment (Tx) of patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL) who progressed on prior anti–PD-1 therapy: MASTERKEY-115

9518

Background: Despite advances in anti–PD-1–based Tx for MEL, an unmet need remains for immunotherapy failure in advanced metastatic or unresectable MEL. Also, there is a growing population of pts who received adjuvant anti–PD-1 and recurred; yet trials to address this population are lacking. Combination Tx with T-VEC, an oncolytic viral intratumoral Tx designed to produce GM-CSF, and pembro, an anti–PD-1 agent, may overcome immunotherapy failure. We report the MASTERKEY-115 primary analysis on the efficacy and safety of T-VEC + pembro in pts with advanced MEL who had progressive disease (PD) on prior anti–PD-1. Methods: This open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study (NCT04068181) enrolled pts at 26 international sites (Jan 2020‒Feb 2021). Cohorts 1 and 2, primary and acquired resistance, respectively, received anti–PD-1 in a locally recurrent or metastatic setting and had PD within 12 wks of the last anti–PD-1 dose. Cohorts 3 and 4 included only pts who received adjuvant anti–PD-1 and were disease-free for < 6 mos (Cohort 3) or ≥ 6 mos (Cohort 4) before confirmed PD. Eligible pts had histologically confirmed unresectable or metastatic stage IIIB–IVM1d MEL, measurable and injectable disease, ECOG PS 0/1, and progressed on anti–PD-1 directly before enrollment. T-VEC at standard dosage and pembro 200 mg were given Q3W. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints were complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Tx decisions were per modified immune-related response criteria (irRECIST). Results: 72 pts (median age, 65 y) were enrolled. Of the 71 evaluable pts, 37 (52.1%) had stage IVM1b‒d disease, 30 (42.3%) had confirmed PD-L1–positive tumor (CPS ≥ 1%), 20 (28.2%) had a BRAFV600 mutation, and 21 (29.6%) had LDH > 1ULN. At data cutoff (Aug 2021), 47 (65.3%) pts remained on study. ORR was 0%, 6.7%, 40%, and 46.7% in cohorts 1–4, respectively (table). Any-grade Tx-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 54 (76.1%) pts; the most common were pyrexia (29.6%), fatigue, and influenza-like illness (15.5% each). Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs occurred in 9 (12.7%) pts. Conclusions: T-VEC + pembro showed manageable safety in pts with advanced MEL after anti–PD-1 failure; the promising ORR observed in pts who progressed on prior adjuvant anti–PD-1 warrants further analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT04068181. [Table: see text]

Phase II study SECOMBIT (sequential combo immuno and target therapy study): A subgroup analysis with a longer follow-up

9535

Background: To investigate the best sequential strategy, we started the SECOMBIT study, a randomized three parallel arms phase 2 study (NCT02631447). We used the combination of encorafenib/binimetinib (E+B) as targeted therapy (T-T) and the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab (I+N) as immunotherapy (I-O). We explored the two different sequences and the “sandwich” strategy with a short course of target therapy, switched by combo immunotherapy at the best response, and not at progression of disease. In our previous report we have observed a trend in favor of the arms where I-O was given as first, confirmed by the first report of the DreamSeq study, a phase III study which compared the two different sequences with T-T and I-O. Here we updated the study data with a subgroup analysis. Methods: From Nov 2016 to May 2019, 37 centers in 9 countries enrolled 251 patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600 melanoma. Patients were randomized to Arm A [E+B until PD, followed by I+N], or Arm B (I+N until PD, followed by E+B) or Arm C (E+B for 8 weeks, followed by I+N until PD, followed by E+B). The overall survival (OS) is the primary endpoint of the study. Secondary endpoints included total progression-free survival (tPFS), 2- and 3-years survival rate, best overall response rate, duration of response, biomarkers evaluation. Results: The study primary endpoint was met in each arm with at least 30 patients alive at 24 months. The median follow-up estimated with the reverse Kaplan-Meier method was 37.1 months (IQR: 32.8-46.4). The OS at 2 and 3 years was calculated in the three arms for all patients, and in the subgroups normal or elevate LDH level and < 3 or ≥ 3 metastatic sites. OS and tPFS rates at 2 and 3 years are shown in the table. Conclusions: With a 37.1 months median follow-up, 2 and 3-years OS as well as tPFS rates are higher in Arm B and C. In line with recent findings, the SECOMBIT results confirm a better trend in favor of Arm B and C treatment sequence. The analysis of the secondary endpoints is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02631447. [Table: see text]

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]

Dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) plus spartalizumab (S) in patients (pts) with previously untreated BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Three-year overall survival (OS) data from the randomized part 3 of the phase III COMBI-i trial

9527

Background: Combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy may produce durable and deep response in a higher proportion of pts with BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. A recent report from the randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled Part 3 of the Phase 3 COMBI-i trial (NCT02967692) failed to show a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit (hazard ratio (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66‒1.03, p=.042)). Here, we report 3-year OS data from COMBI-i part 3. Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to receive either S+D+T (n = 267; S 400 mg IV Q4W + D 150 mg orally BID + T 2 mg orally QD) or PBO+D+T (n = 265), until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Although the primary endpoint of PFS was not met, exploratory OS and safety analyses were performed. OS was summarized descriptively using Kaplan–Meier methods and HR was estimated using a stratified cox regression model. Results: As of October 19, 2021 (median follow-up, 42.8 months), the median OS was not reached in S+D+T arm and was 40.4 months with PBO+D+T (HR 0.796; 95% CI, 0.615‒1.029). There were 113 (42.3%) deaths in the S+D+T and 126 (47.5%) in the PBO+D+T. Estimated 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 67.7% (95% CI 61.6‒73.1) and 60.1% (95% CI 53.8‒65.8) with S+D+T vs 61.9% (95% CI 55.6‒67.5) and 52.9% (95% CI 46.6‒58.9) with PBO+D+T, respectively. An OS benefit was observed with S+D+T in these prespecified subgroups – Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 1 (HR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32‒0.8), age ≥65 years (HR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36‒0.94), PD-L1 negative ( < 1%) (HR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42‒0.91), sum of lesion diameters ≥ 66 mm at baseline (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43‒0.91) and metastatic sites ≥ 3 (HR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47‒0.94). Adverse events (AEs) irrespective of study treatment relationship were observed in 99.3% of pts in S+D+T vs 97.3% in PBO+D+T. The most common AEs (in > 30%; all grades) were pyrexia, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 56.9% vs 35.2% of pts treated with S+D+T vs PBO+D+T, respectively. Dose reductions of D and T due to AEs were more frequent in the S+D+T arm than PBO+D+T arm (47.2% vs 25.4% and 45.7% vs 25.4%, respectively), contributing to a lower relative dose intensity; the TRAEs leading to discontinuation of all 3 study drugs occurred in 13.5% vs 8% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: Results from this landmark 3-year OS analysis from COMBI-i- part 3 was consistent with the primary analysis, while the PBO+D+T showed a higher OS rate than previously observed for D+T alone in COMBI D/V studies, with a longer median follow-up. Subgroup analyses showed that ECOG PS 1, age ≥65 years, negative PD-L1 status and high tumor burden were associated with better OS in S+D+T in terms of HR. Clinical trial information: NCT02967692.

Latest evidence on immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic colorectal cancer: A 2022 update

The long-term remissions induced by immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in many types of cancers have opened up the possibility of a broader use of immunotherapy in less immunogenic but genetically heterogeneous tumours. Regarding metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), in first-line setting, pembrolizumab has been approved as preferred option and nivolumab, alone or in combination with ipilimumab as alternative option for patients with mismatch-repair-deficient and microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) disease, independently of their eligibility for intensive chemotherapy. In subsequent lines, both these immunotherapeutic regimens (e.g., pembrolizumab and nivolumab+/-ipilimumab) as well as dostarlimab-gxly are currently recommended for patients with dMMR/MSI-H chemo-resistant mCRC who have not previously received an ICI. Beginning from the rationale behind the immune-mediated interplay in the dMMR/MSI-H bowel microenvironment, we provide here an update on the evolution status of all available, approved or not, ICIs in mCRC, describing their efficacy and toxicity profile with an emphasis on the pivotal trials supporting current colorectal indications. For each ICI agent, the results from combinations under investigation, particularly for those being upgraded in clinical phasing, the perspectives but also the limitations of main ongoing trials are thoroughly discussed. In the close future, upcoming data are expected to confirm the clinical benefit of ICIs and to further expand their role in mCRC.

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.

PIVOT-12: a phase III study of adjuvant bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in resected stage III/IV melanoma at high risk for recurrence

Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG: NKTR-214) is an immunostimulatory IL-2 cytokine prodrug engineered to deliver a controlled, sustained and preferential IL-2 pathway signal. Nivolumab (NIVO), a PD-1 inhibitor, has been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting. PIVOT-02 showed that BEMPEG plus NIVO was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. PIVOT-12 is a randomized, phase III, global, multicenter, open-label study comparing adjuvant therapy with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO alone in adult and adolescent patients with completely resected cutaneous stage III/IV melanoma at high risk of recurrence. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy, as measured by recurrence-free survival, of BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Improved pyrexia-related outcomes associated with an adapted pyrexia adverse event management algorithm in patients treated with adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib: Primary results of COMBI-APlus

BACKGROUND

COMBI-AD demonstrated long-term benefit of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with resected stage III BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma; however, 9% of patients permanently discontinued therapy due to pyrexia. COMBI-APlus evaluated whether an adapted pyrexia management algorithm reduces high-grade pyrexia and pyrexia-related adverse outcomes.

METHODS

COMBI-APlus is an open-label, phase IIIb trial evaluating an adapted pyrexia management algorithm in patients with high-risk resected stage III BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma treated with up to 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib. Both drugs were interrupted for pyrexia (temperature ≥38°C) or the occurrence of pyrexia syndrome for suspected recurrent pyrexia. Treatment was restarted at the same dose once patients were symptom free for ≥24 h. The primary endpoint was the composite rate of grade 3/4 pyrexia, hospitalisation due to pyrexia, or permanent discontinuation due to pyrexia versus historical COMBI-AD control (20.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16.3%-24.1%).

RESULTS

At data cutoff (5 October 2020), COMBI-APlus met its primary endpoint of significant improvement in the composite rate of pyrexia (8.0% [95% CI, 5.9%-10.6%]), with rates of 3.8% for grade 3/4 pyrexia, 4.3% for hospitalisation due to pyrexia, and 2.4% for discontinuation due to pyrexia. Estimated 12-month relapse-free survival was 91.8% (95% CI, 89.0%-93.9%). The most common adverse events were consistent with those in COMBI-AD, and 14.7% of patients permanently discontinued treatment due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The adapted pyrexia management algorithm appears to reduce the incidence of severe pyrexia outcomes, enables patients to manage pyrexia at home, and helps patients remain on treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03551626.

Multichamber Involvement of Metastatic Cardiac Melanoma

A 30-year-old man with a history of an in-situ melanoma of the forehead was referred for cardiac evaluation because of tachycardia and elevated levels of serum troponin. The transthoracic echocardiogram revealed multiple masses attached to the walls of both ventricles and the right atrium (RA). A large mass was occupying almost one third of the right ventricle (RV), resulting in reduction of the end-diastolic RV volume and tachycardia. A cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed multifocal myocardial infiltration and intracavitary masses and excluded the presence of thrombus in any of the cardiac chambers. Diffuse metastatic involvement in the liver, the spleen, and the brain by computed tomography precluded surgical management. Being BRAF-unmutated, the patient was initially treated with a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. One month later, the cardiac metastases in RA and left ventricle were unchanged on echocardiogram, while the tumor in RV was enlarged occupying the majority of the chamber, resulting in further reduction of the cardiac output and tachycardia. The treatment was changed to a combination of dacarbazine and carboplatin, but the patient eventually died two months later. Heart is not a common metastatic site of melanoma and cardiac involvement is usually clinically silent making ante mortem diagnosis difficult. Multimodalidy imaging plays a pivotal role in the diagnostic work up. Cardiac melanoma metastases indicate an advance stage disease with poor prognosis.

Randomized Phase III Trial Evaluating Spartalizumab Plus Dabrafenib and Trametinib for BRAF V600-Mutant Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma

PURPOSE

Preclinical data suggest the combination of an anti-programmed death receptor 1 antibody plus dabrafenib and trametinib to have superior antitumor activity compared with dabrafenib plus trametinib alone. These observations are supported by translational evidence suggesting that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus targeted therapy may improve treatment outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-i is a phase III trial evaluating spartalizumab, an anti-programmed death receptor 1 antibody, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram), versus placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

METHODS

Patients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally twice daily and trametinib 2 mg orally once daily or placebo-DabTram. Participants were age ≥ 18 years with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary end point (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02967692).

RESULTS

At data cutoff (July 1, 2020), the median progression-free survival was 16.2 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 23.9 months) in the sparta-DabTram arm versus 12.0 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 15.4 months) in the placebo-DabTram arm (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.03]; P = .042 [one-sided; nonsignificant]). The objective response rates were 69% (183 of 267 patients) versus 64% (170 of 265 patients), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 55% (146 of 267) of patients in the sparta-DabTram arm and 33% (88 of 264) in the placebo-DabTram arm.

CONCLUSION

The study did not meet its primary end point; broad first-line use of sparta-DabTram is not supported by these results. Further biomarker-driven investigation may identify patient subpopulations who could benefit from checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combinations.

492 Phase 2 efficacy and safety of autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) cell therapy in combination with pembrolizumab in immune checkpoint inhibitor-naïve patients with advanced cancers

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are standard-of-care in the treatment of several types of cancer; however, an unmet medical need exists for early-line combination therapies that are able to provide higher response rates, more durable responses, and manageable long-term safety. Lifileucel (LN-144) and LN-145, adoptive cell therapies using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), have demonstrated encouraging efficacy with acceptable safety in patients with advanced cancer that has failed ICI.1–2 To improve efficacy and safety of early-line treatment options, we explored a combination of TIL and pembrolizumab in patients with ICI-naïve melanoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), and cervical cancer.

Methods

IOV-COM-202 (NCT03645928) and C-145-04 (NCT03108495) are ongoing Phase 2 multicenter, multicohort, prospective, open-label studies evaluating TIL cell therapy in ICI-naïve patients with solid tumors. We report efficacy and safety from IOV-COM-202 (Cohort 1A: lifileucel and pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma; Cohort 2A: LN-145 and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic HNSCC) and C-145-04 (Cohort 3: LN-145 and pembrolizumab in patients with stage 4b, persistent or recurrent cervical cancer who have not received prior systemic therapy). Eligibility across cohorts included ECOG PS ≤1, ≥1 resectable lesion (diameter ≥1.5 cm post-resection) for TIL manufacturing, and ≥1 measurable lesion for response assessment (by investigator per RECIST v1.1). Lifileucel and LN-145 are cryopreserved TIL infusion products generated at central GMP facilities in a 22-day process. Treatment included tumor resection for TIL manufacturing, followed by 1 dose of pembrolizumab, nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion (cyclophosphamide and fludarabine), TIL infusion, ≤6 interleukin-2 doses (600,000 IU/kg IV), and continued pembrolizumab for ≤24 months.

Results

As of 09July2021, 32 patients received TIL and pembrolizumab (full-analysis set [FAS]; table 1). Across all cohorts, the objective response rate (ORR) in the FAS was 56.3% (Cohort 1A [melanoma], 87.5%; Cohort 2A [HNSCC], 42.9%; Cohort 3 [cervical], 50.0%; figure 1). Among confirmed responders (n=17), 10 responses (58.8%) were ongoing at data cutoff, with a median study follow-up of 9.7 months. The treatment-emergent adverse-event (TEAE) profile was consistent with the underlying diseases and known profiles of pembrolizumab, nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion, and interleukin-2. The most common (≥30%) Grade ≥3 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia (53.1%), anemia (50.0%), neutropenia (46.9%), and febrile neutropenia (43.8%).

Conclusions

The observed efficacy, including ORR and CR rate, and acceptable safety profile are encouraging and warrant continued investigation of the combination of TIL and pembrolizumab in early-line treatment of patients with advanced cancer. Enrollment is ongoing; updated data will be presented.

Acknowledgements

This study and analysis were funded by Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. (San Carlos, CA, USA). Writing support was provided by Amanda Kelly (Iovance); graphics support was provided by Cognition Studio (Seattle, WA, USA).

Trial Registration

NCT03645928 and NCT03108495

References

Sarnaik AA, et al. J Clin Oncol 2021; doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00612.

Jazaeri AA, et al. J Clin Oncol 2019;37 (suppl; abstract 182).

Jimeno A, et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020;8 (suppl; abstract 353).

Ethics Approval

The IOV-COM-202 study was approved by Advarra Institutional Review Board, approval number Pro00035064; the C-145-04 was approved by WIRB Copernicus Group, approval number 7-1425772-1. All study participants provided written consent via signature of the IRB-approved informed consent form.

Abstract 492 Table 1

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and efficacy

Abstract 492 Figure 1

Best percentage change from baseline in target lesion sum of diameters for efficacy-evaluable set*

Neuromuscular Complications of Targeted Anticancer Agents: Can Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Induce Myasthenia Gravis? Getting Answers From a Case Report up to a Systematic Review

More than 40 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have received hematological or oncological indications over the past 20 years, following the approval of imatinib, and many others are currently being tested in clinical and preclinical level. Beyond their common toxicities, no certain agent from this large class of molecularly targeted therapies was strongly associated with “off-target” impairment of neuromuscular transmission, and although myasthenia gravis (MG) is a well-characterized autoimmune disorder, only few sporadic events proven by serologically detected causative autoantibodies and/or by positive electrophysiological tests are reported in the literature. Herein, we present the first case of anti-MUSK (+) MG in a woman with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma after long-term treatment with dabrafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor). Triggered by this report, a systematic literature review was conducted, summarizing all other cancer cases that developed MG, after exposure to any type of targeted agent and regardless of the underlying malignancy. All available data on the clinical diagnosis, the potential of administered TKIs to induce a seropositive myasthenic syndrome, the immune and non-immune-mediated pathogenesis of postsynaptic damage, and the challenging management of this neuromuscular toxicity were collected and discussed. In the presented case, MG was confirmed by both autoantibodies and nerve-conduction tests, while its reactivation after TKIs rechallenge supports a more than coincidental association. The following review identified 12 cancer cases with TKI-related MG in six case reports and one case series. In most of them, the myasthenia diagnosis was challenging, since the clinical symptomatology of fatigable weakness was not corroborating with consistent laboratory and electrophysiological findings. In fact, anti-AchR titers were positive in five and anti-MuSK only in the abovementioned individual. The symptomatology corresponded to TKI discontinuation and standard treatment with pyridostigmine and prednisolone; intravenous immunoglobulin was added only in three, and two required mechanical ventilation. In an era where TKIs will be prescribed more frequently for various malignancies, even in combinations with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, this report synthesizes their risk for neuromuscular complications and increases the clinicians’ awareness in order to extend the on-treatment and overall survival of TKI-treated cancer patients.

The diagnosis and management of sarcoid-like reactions in patients with melanoma treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. A case series and review of the literature

Sarcoidosis and sarcoid-like reactions (SLR) have been repeatedly reported in patients with melanoma treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. In the current study we present three patients that developed SLR under treatment with BRAF and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors for melanoma. Two patients developed mediastinal lymphadenitis with histological features of an SLR while on targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting, whereas one patient with metastatic melanoma developed granulomatous nephritis while receiving combination treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors and atezolizumab. In addition, we review the published literature on the pathogenesis, clinical characteristics, histologic features, imaging findings, and other potential useful diagnostic tools. We also address the need for a common terminology for these cases and propose an algorithm for the accurate diagnosis of BRAF/MEK inhibitor-induced SLR. We also review the currently available data on the treatment of these patients and suggest a treatment approach for SLR in patients with melanoma, as well as for the management of melanoma when SLR emerges.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Functional Principles and Applications in Oncology and Beyond

In the era of precision medicine, antibody-based therapeutics are rapidly enriched with emerging advances and new proof-of-concept formats. In this context, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have evolved to merge the high selectivity and specificity of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) with the cytotoxic potency of attached payloads. So far, ten ADCs have been approved by FDA for oncological indications and many others are currently being tested in clinical and preclinical level. This paper summarizes the essential components of ADCs, from their functional principles and structure up to their limitations and resistance mechanisms, focusing on all latest bioengineering breakthroughs such as bispecific mAbs, dual-drug platforms as well as novel linkers and conjugation chemistries. In continuation of our recent review on anticancer implication of ADC's technology, further insights regarding their potential usage outside of the oncological spectrum are also presented. Better understanding of immunoconjugates could maximize their efficacy and optimize their safety, extending their use in everyday clinical practice.

When steroids are not enough in immune-related hepatitis: current clinical challenges discussed on the basis of a case report

Unleashing adaptive immunity via immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) in many cancer types led to durable antitumor responses and prolonged survivals and also added some new immune-related adverse events (irAEs) to the ‘old-fashioned’ safety profile of chemotherapy. Among bowel and endocrine irAEs, immune-mediated hepatotoxicity/hepatitis is a less common and far less well-studied toxicity, which, however, could develop into a serious complication, especially when it becomes persistent or refractory to steroids. Its incidence, onset and severity vary widely, depending on the type of underlying treated cancer, the class, the dosage and the duration of immunotherapy as well as the way of its administration (as a single agent or in combination with other ICPI or chemotherapy). In this study, we present a patient with metastatic melanoma who developed severe steroid-resistant ir-hepatitis after treatment with ipilimumab and required triple concurrent immunosuppression with prednisolone, mycofenolate mofetil and tacrolimus in order for his liver toxicity to be resolved. Intrigued by this case, we focused further on melanoma, as the disease-paradigm of immunotherapy in cancer, reviewed the reported incidence of hepatotoxicity among phase III ICPIs-containing trials on melanoma and discussed the main clinical considerations regarding the diagnosis and the management of persistent/steroid-refractory ir-hepatitis. As more clinical experience is gradually gained on this challenging topic, better answers are provided to questions about the appropriate diagnostic workup, the necessity of liver biopsy, the available immunosuppressive options beyond corticosteroids (their combinations and/or their sequence) as well as the correct decision on withdrawing or resuming immunotherapy. Nonetheless, a thorough multidisciplinary discussion is still required to individualize the overall approach in each case after failure of steroids.

Comparative Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine with Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection

BNT162b2 has proven to be highly effective, but there is a paucity of data regarding immunogenicity factors and comparison between response to vaccination and natural infection. This study included 871 vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) and 181 patients with natural infection. Immunogenicity was assessed by measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 against the RBD domain of the spike protein (anti-RBD). Samples were collected 1-2 weeks after vaccination or 15-59 days post-onset of symptoms. Post-vaccine anti-RBD concentrations were associated with age, gender, vaccination side-effects (VSE) and prior infection (Pr-CoV). Anti-RBD median levels (95%CI) were lower by 2466 (651-5583), 6228 (3254-9203) and 7651 (4479-10,823) AU/mL in 35-44, 45-54, 55-70 yrs, respectively, compared with the 18-34 yrs group. In females, the median levels were higher by 2823 (859-4787), 5024 (3122-6926) in individuals with VSE, and 9971 (5158-14,783) AU/mL in HCWs with Pr-CoV. The ratio of anti-RBD in vaccinated individuals versus those with natural infection varied from 1.0 to 19.4. The high immunogenicity of BNT162b2 is verified, although its sustainability has yet to be elucidated. The use of comparative data from natural infection serological panels, expressing the clinical heterogeneity of natural infection, may facilitate early decisions for candidate vaccines to be evaluated in clinical trials.