1
|
Fastner S, Creveling P, Shen N, Horns JJ, Bowles TL, Hyngstrom J, Asare EA. Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography Utilization for Extremity Melanomas at a High-Volume Center. J Surg Res 2024; 296:196-202. [PMID: 38277957 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.12.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2023] [Revised: 11/22/2023] [Accepted: 12/23/2023] [Indexed: 01/28/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Planar lymphoscintigraphy (PL) is commonly used in mapping before sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for invasive cutaneous melanoma. Recently, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/ computed tomography (CT) has been utilized, in addition to PL, for detailed anatomic information and detection of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) outside of the primary nodal basin in truncal and head and neck melanoma. Following a protocol change due to COVID-19, our institution began routinely obtaining both PL and SPECT-CT imaging for all melanoma SLN mapping. We hypothesized that SPECT-CT is associated with higher instances of SLNBs from "nontraditional" nodal basins (NTNB) for extremity melanomas. METHODS Patients with extremity melanoma (2017-2022) who underwent SLNB were grouped into SPECT-CT with PL versus PL alone. Outcomes were total SLNs removed, + or-SLN status, total NTNB sampled, and postoperative complication rate. Poisson regression and logistic regression models were used to assess association of SPECT-CT with patient outcomes. RESULTS Of 380 patients with extremity melanoma, 42.11% had SPECT-CT. There were no differences between the groups with regards to age at diagnosis or sex. From 2020 to 2022, all patients underwent SPECT-CT. SPECT-CT was associated with increased odds of SLNB from an NTNB, (odds ratio = 2.39 [95% confidence interval: 1.25-4.67]). There was no difference in odds of number of SLNs sampled, SLN positivity rate, or postoperative complication rate with SPECT-CT. CONCLUSIONS Routine SPECT-CT was associated with higher incidence of SLNB in NTNB but did not increase number of SLNs removed or SLN positivity rate. The added value of routine SPECT-CT in cutaneous melanoma of the extremities remains to be defined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Polly Creveling
- Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Nathan Shen
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Joshua J Horns
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Tawnya L Bowles
- Department of Surgery, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah; Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Elliot A Asare
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah; Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kovacsovics-Bankowski M, Sweere JM, Healy CP, Sigal N, Cheng LC, Chronister WD, Evans SA, Marsiglio J, Gibson B, Swami U, Erickson-Wayman A, McPherson JP, Derose YS, Eliason AL, Medina CO, Srinivasan R, Spitzer MH, Nguyen N, Hyngstrom J, Hu-Lieskovan S. Lower frequencies of circulating suppressive regulatory T cells and higher frequencies of CD4 + naïve T cells at baseline are associated with severe immune-related adverse events in immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated melanoma. J Immunother Cancer 2024; 12:e008056. [PMID: 38233101 PMCID: PMC10806651 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-008056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/19/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are major barriers of clinical management and further development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for cancer therapy. Therefore, biomarkers associated with the onset of severe irAEs are needed. In this study, we aimed to identify immune features detectable in peripheral blood and associated with the development of severe irAEs that required clinical intervention. METHODS We used a 43-marker mass cytometry panel to characterize peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 28 unique patients with melanoma across 29 lines of ICI therapy before treatment (baseline), before the onset of irAEs (pre-irAE) and at the peak of irAEs (irAE-max). In the 29 lines of ICI therapy, 18 resulted in severe irAEs and 11 did not. RESULTS Unsupervised and gated population analysis showed that patients with severe irAEs had a higher frequency of CD4+ naïve T cells and lower frequency of CD16+ natural killer (NK) cells at all time points. Gated population analysis additionally showed that patients with severe irAEs had fewer T cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domain (TIGIT+) regulatory T cells at baseline and more activated CD38+ CD4+ central memory T cells (TCM) and CD39+ and Human Leukocyte Antigen-DR Isotype (HLA-DR)+ CD8+ TCM at peak of irAEs. The differentiating immune features at baseline were predominantly seen in patients with gastrointestinal and cutaneous irAEs and type 1 diabetes. Higher frequencies of CD4+ naïve T cells and lower frequencies of CD16+ NK cells were also associated with clinical benefit to ICI therapy. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that high-dimensional immune profiling can reveal novel blood-based immune signatures associated with risk and mechanism of severe irAEs. Development of severe irAEs in melanoma could be the result of reduced immune inhibitory capacity pre-ICI treatment, resulting in more activated TCM cells after treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - John Marsiglio
- The University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Berit Gibson
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Umang Swami
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Alyssa Erickson-Wayman
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Jordan P McPherson
- Department of Pharmacy, Huntsman Cancer Institute Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Yoko S Derose
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | | | | | | | - Matthew H Spitzer
- Teiko.bio Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Cancer, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | | | - John Hyngstrom
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Siwen Hu-Lieskovan
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fastner S, Hieken TJ, McWilliams RR, Hyngstrom J. Anorectal melanoma. J Surg Oncol 2023; 128:635-644. [PMID: 37395165 DOI: 10.1002/jso.27381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2023] [Accepted: 06/21/2023] [Indexed: 07/04/2023]
Abstract
Anorectal melanoma is an aggressive mucosal melanoma subtype with a poor prognosis. Although recent advancements have been seen for cutaneous melanoma, the optimal treatment paradigm for management of anorectal melanoma is evolving. In this review, we highlight differences in the pathogenesis of mucosal versus cutaneous melanoma, new concepts of staging for mucosal melanoma, updates to surgical management of anorectal melanoma, and current data for adjuvant radiation and systemic therapy in this unique patient population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery, Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - John Hyngstrom
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Marsiglio J, McPherson JP, Kovacsovics-Bankowski M, Jeter J, Vaklavas C, Swami U, Grossmann D, Erickson-Wayman A, Soares HP, Kerrigan K, Gibson B, Doherty JA, Hyngstrom J, Hardikar S, Hu-Lieskovan S. A single center case series of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced type 1 diabetes mellitus, patterns of disease onset and long-term clinical outcome. Front Immunol 2023; 14:1229823. [PMID: 37671166 PMCID: PMC10475559 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1229823] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2023] [Accepted: 08/01/2023] [Indexed: 09/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a rare, but serious immune-related adverse event (irAE) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Our goal was to characterize treatment outcomes associated with ICI-induced T1DM through analysis of clinical, immunological and proteomic data. Methods This was a single-center case series of patients with solid tumors who received ICIs and subsequently had a new diagnosis of T1DM. ICD codes and C-peptide levels were used to identify patients for chart review to confirm ICI-induced T1DM. Baseline blood specimens were studied for proteomic and immunophenotypic changes. Results Between 2011 and 2023, 18 of 3744 patients treated at Huntsman Cancer Institute with ICIs were confirmed to have ICI-induced T1DM (0.48%). Eleven of the 18 patients received anti-PD1 monotherapy, 4 received anti-PD1 plus chemotherapy or targeted therapy, and 3 received ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The mean time to onset was 218 days (range 22-418 days). Patients had sudden elevated serum glucose within 2-3 weeks prior to diagnosis. Sixteen (89%) presented with diabetic ketoacidosis. Three of 12 patients had positive T1DM-associated autoantibodies. All patients with T1DM became insulin-dependent through follow-up. At median follow-up of 21.9 months (range 8.4-82.4), no patients in the melanoma group had progressed or died from disease. In the melanoma group, best responses were 2 complete response and 2 partial response while on active treatment; none in the adjuvant group had disease recurrence. Proteomic analysis of baseline blood suggested low inflammatory (IL-6, OSMR) markers and high metabolic (GLO1, DXCR) markers in ICI-induced T1DM cohort. Conclusions Our case series demonstrates rapid onset and irreversibility of ICI-induced T1DM. Melanoma patients with ICI-induced T1DM display excellent clinical response and survival. Limited proteomic data also suggested a unique proteomic profile. Our study helps clinicians to understand the unique clinical presentation and long-term outcomes of this rare irAE for best clinical management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Marsiglio
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Jordan P. McPherson
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | | | - Joanne Jeter
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Christos Vaklavas
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Umang Swami
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Douglas Grossmann
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | | | - Heloisa P. Soares
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Katie Kerrigan
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Berit Gibson
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Jennifer Anne Doherty
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Sheetal Hardikar
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| | - Siwen Hu-Lieskovan
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Carpenter EL, Van Decar S, Adams AM, O'Shea AE, McCarthy P, Chick RC, Clifton GT, Vreeland T, Valdera FA, Tiwari A, Hale D, Kemp Bohan P, Hickerson A, Smolinsky T, Thomas K, Cindass J, Hyngstrom J, Berger AC, Jakub J, Sussman JJ, Shaheen MF, Yu X, Wagner TE, Faries M, Peoples GE. Prospective, randomized, double-blind phase 2B trial of the TLPO and TLPLDC vaccines to prevent recurrence of resected stage III/IV melanoma: a prespecified 36-month analysis. J Immunother Cancer 2023; 11:e006665. [PMID: 37536936 PMCID: PMC10401209 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-006665] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/28/2023] [Indexed: 08/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is made by ex vivo priming matured autologous dendritic cells (DCs) with yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) loaded with autologous tumor lysate (TL). The tumor lysate, particle only (TLPO) vaccine uses autologous TL-loaded YCWPs coated with silicate for in vivo DC loading. Here we report the 36-month prespecified analyses of this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial investigating the ability of the TLPO and TLPLDC (±granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)) vaccines to prevent melanoma recurrence in high-risk patients. METHODS Patients with clinically disease-free stage III/IV melanoma were randomized 2:1 initially to TLPLDC versus placebo (n=124) and subsequently TLPO versus TLPLDC (n=63). All patients were randomized and blinded; however, the placebo control arm was replaced in the second randomization scheme with another novel vaccine; some analyses in this paper therefore reflect a combination of the two randomization schemes. Patients receiving the TLPLDC vaccine were further divided by their method of DC harvest (with or without G-CSF pretreatment); this was not randomized. The use of standard of care checkpoint inhibitors was not stratified between groups. Safety was assessed and Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses compared disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS After combining the two randomization processes, a total of 187 patients were allocated between treatment arms: placebo (n=41), TLPLDC (n=103), or TLPO (n=43). The allocation among arms created by the addition of patients from the two separate randomization schemes does not reflect concurrent randomization among all treatment arms. TLPLDC was further divided by use of G-CSF in DC harvest: no G-CSF (TLPLDC) (n=47) and with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G) (n=56). Median follow-up was 35.8 months. Only two patients experienced a related adverse event ≥grade 3, one each in the TLPLDC+G and placebo arms. DFS was 27.2% (placebo), 55.4% (TLPLDC), 22.9% (TLPLDC+G), and 60.9% (TLPO) (p<0.001). OS was 62.5% (placebo), 93.6% (TLPLDC), 57.7% (TLPLDC+G), and 94.6% (TLPO) (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS The TLPO and TLPLDC (without G-CSF) vaccines were associated with improved DFS and OS in this clinical trial. Given production and manufacturing advantages, the efficacy of the TLPO vaccine will be confirmed in a phase 3 trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02301611.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Spencer Van Decar
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Alexandra M Adams
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Anne E O'Shea
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Patrick McCarthy
- General Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Robert Connor Chick
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Guy Travis Clifton
- Surgery, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
- Surgical Oncology, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Timothy Vreeland
- Surgery, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
- Surgical Oncology, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Franklin A Valdera
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ankur Tiwari
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA
| | - Diane Hale
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
- Surgery, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Phillip Kemp Bohan
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Annelies Hickerson
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Todd Smolinsky
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Katryna Thomas
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jessica Cindass
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Surgical Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Adam C Berger
- Department of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
| | - James Jakub
- Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Jeffrey J Sussman
- Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Montaser F Shaheen
- Medical Oncology, University of Arizona Medical Center-University Campus, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | - Xianzhong Yu
- Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
| | | | - Mark Faries
- Surgical Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Thompson JF, Hyngstrom J, Caracò C, Zager JS, Jahkola T, Bowles TL, Pennacchioli E, Hoekstra HJ, Moncrieff M, Ingvar C, van Akkooi A, Sabel MS, Levine EA, Henderson M, Dummer R, Rossi CR, Kane JM, Trocha S, Wright F, Byrd DR, Matter M, MacKenzie-Ross A, Kelley MC, Terheyden P, Huston TL, Wayne JD, Neuman H, Smithers BM, Desai D, Gershenwald JE, Schneebaum S, Gesierich A, Jacobs LK, Lewis JM, O'Donoghue C, Sardi A, McKinnon JG, Slingluff CL, Farma JM, Schultz E, Scheri RP, Vidal-Sicart S, Testori AAE, Scolyer RA, Elashoff DE, Cochran AJ, Faries MB. Regarding: Predicting Regional Lymph Node Recurrence in The Modern Age of Tumor-Positive Sentinel Node Melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:4359-4360. [PMID: 37149545 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13570-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Accepted: 03/06/2023] [Indexed: 05/08/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- John F Thompson
- Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Christian Ingvar
- Swedish Melanoma Study Group-University Hospital Lund, Lund, Sweden
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - John M Kane
- Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Steven Trocha
- Greenville Hospital System Cancer Center, Greenville, SC, USA
| | | | | | - Maurice Matter
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Patrick Terheyden
- University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein-Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Tara L Huston
- SUNY at Stony Brook Hospital Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY, USA
| | - Jeffrey D Wayne
- Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | | | - Darius Desai
- St. Luke's University Health, Bethlehem, PA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Lisa K Jacobs
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - James M Lewis
- University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, TN, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Richard A Scolyer
- Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | | | | | - Mark B Faries
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Williamson J, Fadlullah MZH, Kovacsovics-Bankowski M, Gibson B, Swami U, Erickson-Wayman A, Jamison D, Sageser D, Jeter J, Bowles T, Cannon DM, Haaland B, Schroeder JD, Nix D, Atkinson A, Hyngstrom J, McPherson J, Tan AC, Hu-Lieskovan S. Response to high dose ipilimumab plus temozolomide after progression on standard or low dose ipilimumab in advanced melanoma: a retrospective analysis. Res Sq 2023:rs.3.rs-2997157. [PMID: 37398360 PMCID: PMC10312907 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2997157/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/04/2023]
Abstract
Background Despite advancements in checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy, patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed on standard dose ipilimumab (Ipi) + nivolumab continue to have poor prognosis. Several studies support a dose-response activity of Ipi, and one promising combination is Ipi 10mg/kg (Ipi10) + temozolomide (TMZ). Methods We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with advanced melanoma treated with Ipi10+TMZ in the immunotherapy refractory/resistant setting (n = 6), using similar patients treated with Ipi3+TMZ (n = 6) as comparison. Molecular profiling by whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNA-seq of tumors harvested through one responder's treatment was performed. Results With a median follow up of 119 days, patients treated with Ipi10+TMZ had statistically significant longer median progression free survival of 144.5 days (range 27-219) vs 44 (26-75) in Ipi3+TMZ, p=0.04, and a trend for longer median overall survival of 154.5 days (27-537) vs 89.5 (26-548). All patients in the Ipi10 cohort had progressed on prior Ipi+Nivo. WES revealed only 12 shared somatic mutations including BRAF V600E. RNA-seq showed enrichment of inflammatory signatures, including interferon responses in metastatic lesions after standard dose Ipi + nivo and Ipi10 + TMZ compared to the primary tumor, and downregulated negative immune regulators including Wnt and TGFb signaling. Conclusion Ipi10+TMZ demonstrated efficacy including dramatic responses in patients with advanced melanoma refractory to prior Ipi + anti-PD1, even with CNS metastases. Molecular data suggest a potential threshold of Ipi dose for activation of sufficient anti-tumor immune response, and higher dose Ipi is required for some patients.
Collapse
|
8
|
Wilmot MZF, Kovacsovics M, Wang X, Coleman S, Marsiglio J, Gibson B, DeRose Y, Zhou Q, Larson A, Hyngstrom J, Haaland B, Hu-Lieskovan S, Tan AC. Abstract 2144: Proteomic study reveals predictive biomarkers of immune-related adverse events in melanoma. Cancer Res 2023. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-2144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/07/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
Advances in immunotherapy including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the standard of care of many cancers including melanoma. However, the benefit of ICIs is hampered by immune related adverse events (irAEs). The frequency of irAEs varies between ICI treatments and cancer types. These irAEs represent autoimmune reactions that can affect diverse organs, with distinct biology, onset, and severity from their de novo autoimmune disease counterparts. Some irAEs could persist and develop into chronic comorbidities, and a subset of severe irAEs could led to death. Yet, little is known about the underlying molecular mechanisms and no biomarkers are currently available to predict irAEs after ICI treatment.
We aimed to identify soluble predictive biomarkers of irAE by non-invasive means using high-throughput Olink Proteomics assay. We collected plasma from 31 melanoma patients before ICI treatment. 25 patients developed severe irAE (grade 3 or above) at one or more organ system including hepatobiliary (n=9), endocrine (n=8), gastrointestinal (n=6), skin and subcutaneous tissue (n=6), musculoskeletal and connective tissue (n=5), blood and lymphatic (n=4) and respiratory (n=1) after receiving ICI, whereas 6 patients have no severe irAEs. The relative expression of 1,472 probes corresponding to 1,463 proteins as part of the Olink Cardiometabolic, Neurology, Inflammation and Oncology panels were quantified as Normalized Protein eXpresion (NPX) on a log-2 scale. Two-tailed T-test was performed in comparing the severe irAEs vs no irAE groups to determine the difference proteins and p < 0.05 and FDR < 0.1 was deemed to be significant. Similarly, we performed organ-specific irAEs using the same approach. Proteins were assessed by enrichment analysis using EnrichR.
Exploratory analysis revealed elevated expression of CD4 and CD8 cell markers such as IL7R, S100A4, GZMA and GZMB in patients that developed severe irAEs. More broadly, pathway enrichment analysis suggest chemokines and cytokine receptor related pathways were enriched in these patients implicating the role of immune system and inflammatory mediators as potential biomarkers of irAE. In particular, the expression of some interleukin family members appears to be a good predictor of irAE toxicity. Interestingly, our analysis revealed irAE at various organ tissues were associated with different set of proteins suggesting an organ specific protein signature.
In conclusion, we demonstrated the potential utility of soluble protein in the peripheral blood measurement at baseline prior to ICI treatment for prediction of irAE risk. This finding will be evaluated in a larger independent cohort.
Citation Format: Muhammad Zaki Fadlullah Wilmot, Magdalena Kovacsovics, Xuechen Wang, Samuel Coleman, John Marsiglio, Berit Gibson, Yoko DeRose, Qin Zhou, Annaleah Larson, John Hyngstrom, Ben Haaland, Siwen Hu-Lieskovan, Aik Choon Tan. Proteomic study reveals predictive biomarkers of immune-related adverse events in melanoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 2144.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Xuechen Wang
- 1University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Samuel Coleman
- 1University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | - Berit Gibson
- 1University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Yoko DeRose
- 1University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Qin Zhou
- 1University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | - John Hyngstrom
- 1University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Ben Haaland
- 1University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | - Aik Choon Tan
- 1University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Hu-Lieskovan S, Moon J, Hyngstrom J, Campbell KM, In GK, Logan TF, Kendra KL, Wang DM, Johnson DB, Doolittle GC, Tan A, Silk AW, Grossmann KF, Ryan CW, Patel SP, Bellasea S, Wu MC, Kirkwood JM, Chen HX, Ribas A. Abstract 3275: Combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) with pembrolizumab (pembro) in advanced melanoma patients following progression on a prior PD-1 inhibitor: SWOG S1607. Cancer Res 2023. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-3275] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/07/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
We hypothesize that a significant number of patients do not respond to PD-1/L1 blockade because there are no pre-existing tumor antigen-specific T-cells, and this can be addressed by combination therapy with an oncolytic virus such as T-VEC. S1607 is a single arm Phase 2 study of T-VEC plus pembro in patients with advanced melanoma after PD-1/L1 inhibitor progression. The primary endpoint is ORR by modified RECIST (progression at the first follow-up disease assessment had to be confirmed). Secondary endpoints include durable response rate (response ≥ 6 months), ORR in injected, non-visceral non-injected, and visceral lesions, PFS, OS and toxicity. In Cohort A patients must have at least one measurable visceral lesion; in Cohort B patients must not have any visceral lesions. Each cohort had an independent accrual goal with a 2-stage design. All received intratumoral T-VEC and pembro 200mg IV every 21 days. Tumor biopsy and research blood are taken at baseline and on Day 28 (both injected and non-injected lesions). Tumor assessments are performed every 12 weeks for up to 2 years. 38 evaluable patients were enrolled. As of July 26, 2022, the median follow up was 28 months. Treatment was well tolerated, with 5/38 (13%) grade 3 AE (no grade 4/5) including injection site reactions, lymphocyte count decrease, and hypoxia. Cohort A was closed after stage I (n=11) with no confirmed responses. In Cohort B (n=27), there were 7 confirmed responses (26%; 2 CR, 5 PR; this rejected H0: ORR = 10%, p=0.01). Clinical outcomes are summarized in Table 1. Baseline tumor mutational burden from 17 patients in Cohort B were not different between responder vs non-responders (p=0.96). Translational study is ongoing for pharmacodynamic confirmation. T-VEC plus pembro in melanoma patients who have progressed on prior anti-PD1/L1 therapy has efficacy in the subset of melanoma patients who have non-visceral metastases.
Table 1 Cohort A (Visceral) Cohort B(Non-Visceral) N (%; 95% CI) 11 27 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-28%) 7 (26%; 11%-46%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed 1 (9%; 0%-41%) 9 (33%; 17%-54%) Durable response 0 (0%; 0%-28%) 4 (15%; 4%-34%) Median PFS in months 2.1 (0.7-5.5) 2.3 (1.9-6.2) INJECTED LESIONS 11 27 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-28%) 6 (22%; 9%-42%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 1 (9%; 0%-41%) 8 (30%; 14%-50%) NON-INJECTED, NON-VISCERAL LESIONS 8 19 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-37%) 3 (16%; 3%-40%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-37%) 5 (26%; 9%-51%) VISCERAL LESIONS 11 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-28%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 1 (9%; 0%-41%) ACQUIRED RESISTANCE 3 2 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-71%) 2 (100%; 16%-100%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-71%) 2 (100%; 16%-100%) Median PFS in months 2.1 (2.0-4.1) NR (8.0-∞) PRIMARY RESISTANCE 8 25 Confirmed PR + CR 0 (0%; 0%-37%) 5 (20%; 7%-41%) Confirmed + Unconfirmed, PR + CR 1 (13%; 0%-53%) 7 (28%; 12%-49%) Median PFS in months 1.8 (0.3-6.2) 2.1 (1.9-3.3)
Citation Format: Siwen Hu-Lieskovan, James Moon, John Hyngstrom, Katie M. Campbell, Gino K. In, Theodore F. Logan, Kari L. Kendra, Ding M. Wang, Douglas B. Johnson, Gary C. Doolittle, Alan Tan, Ann W. Silk, Kenneth F. Grossmann, Christopher W. Ryan, Sapna P. Patel, Shay Bellasea, Michael C. Wu, John M. Kirkwood, Helen X. Chen, Antoni Ribas. Combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) with pembrolizumab (pembro) in advanced melanoma patients following progression on a prior PD-1 inhibitor: SWOG S1607 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 3275.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - James Moon
- 2SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, WA
| | - John Hyngstrom
- 1University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | - Gino K. In
- 4University of Southern California (USC) Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Theodore F. Logan
- 5Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN
| | | | | | | | | | - Alan Tan
- 10Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Phoenix, AZ
| | | | | | | | | | - Shay Bellasea
- 2SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Michael C. Wu
- 2SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, WA
| | - John M. Kirkwood
- 14University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Helen X. Chen
- 15National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Bethesda, MD
| | - Antoni Ribas
- 3UCLA Johnson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Chesney JA, Ribas A, Long GV, Kirkwood JM, Dummer R, Puzanov I, Hoeller C, Gajewski TF, Gutzmer R, Rutkowski P, Demidov L, Arenberger P, Shin SJ, Ferrucci PF, Haydon A, Hyngstrom J, van Thienen JV, Haferkamp S, Guilera JM, Rapoport BL, VanderWalde A, Diede SJ, Anderson JR, Treichel S, Chan EL, Bhatta S, Gansert J, Hodi FS, Gogas H. Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Global Phase III Trial of Talimogene Laherparepvec Combined With Pembrolizumab for Advanced Melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:528-540. [PMID: 35998300 PMCID: PMC9870217 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00343] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 53.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Revised: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 07/25/2022] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason A. Chesney
- UofL Health—Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
| | - Antoni Ribas
- Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Georgina V. Long
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | | | | - Igor Puzanov
- Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY
| | - Christoph Hoeller
- Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Ralf Gutzmer
- Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany
- Mühlenkreiskliniken Minden, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Piotr Rutkowski
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Lev Demidov
- N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - Petr Arenberger
- University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Sang Joon Shin
- Division of Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Pier Francesco Ferrucci
- Biotherapy of Tumors Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrew Haydon
- Department of Medical Oncology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT
| | | | - Sebastian Haferkamp
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Josep Malvehy Guilera
- Department of Dermatology, Barcelona University, Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBER de Enfermedades Raras ISCIII, Madrid, Spain
| | - Bernardo Leon Rapoport
- The Medical Oncology Centre of Rosebank, Johannesburg, South Africa
- Department of Immunology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
| | - Ari VanderWalde
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, West Cancer Center & Research Institute, Memphis, TN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Helen Gogas
- National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Crystal JS, Thompson JF, Hyngstrom J, Caracò C, Zager JS, Jahkola T, Bowles TL, Pennacchioli E, Beitsch PD, Hoekstra HJ, Moncrieff M, Ingvar C, van Akkooi A, Sabel MS, Levine EA, Agnese D, Henderson M, Dummer R, Neves RI, Rossi CR, Kane JM, Trocha S, Wright F, Byrd DR, Matter M, Hsueh EC, MacKenzie-Ross A, Kelley M, Terheyden P, Huston TL, Wayne JD, Neuman H, Smithers BM, Ariyan CE, Desai D, Gershenwald JE, Schneebaum S, Gesierich A, Jacobs LK, Lewis JM, McMasters KM, O'Donoghue C, van der Westhuizen A, Sardi A, Barth R, Barone R, McKinnon JG, Slingluff CL, Farma JM, Schultz E, Scheri RP, Vidal-Sicart S, Molina M, Testori AAE, Foshag LJ, Van Kreuningen L, Wang HJ, Sim MS, Scolyer RA, Elashoff DE, Cochran AJ, Faries MB. Therapeutic Value of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients With Melanoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg 2022; 157:835-842. [PMID: 35921122 PMCID: PMC9475390 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.2055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2022] [Accepted: 03/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Importance Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is a standard staging procedure for cutaneous melanoma. Regional disease control is a clinically important therapeutic goal of surgical intervention, including nodal surgery. Objective To determine how frequently SLN biopsy without completion lymph node dissection (CLND) results in long-term regional nodal disease control in patients with SLN metastases. Design, Setting, and Participants The second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-II), a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial, randomized participants with SLN metastases to either CLND or nodal observation. The current analysis examines observation patients with regard to regional nodal recurrence. Trial patients were aged 18 to 75 years with melanoma metastatic to SLN(s). Data were collected from December 2004 to April 2019, and data were analyzed from July 2020 to January 2022. Interventions Nodal observation with ultrasonography rather than CLND. Main Outcomes and Measures In-basin nodal recurrence. Results Of 823 included patients, 479 (58.2%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 52.8 (13.8) years. Among 855 observed basins, at 10 years, 80.2% (actuarial; 95% CI, 77-83) of basins were free of nodal recurrence. By univariable analysis, freedom from regional nodal recurrence was associated with age younger than 50 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70; P < .001), nonulcerated melanoma (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.36-0.49; P < .001), thinner primary melanoma (less than 1.5 mm; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.78; P = .004), axillary basin (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.86; P = .005), fewer positive SLNs (1 vs 3 or more; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.75; P = .008), and SLN tumor burden (measured by diameter less than 1 mm [HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60; P = .001] or less than 5% area [HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.54; P < .001]). By multivariable analysis, younger age (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84; P = .004), thinner primary melanoma (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.70; P = .002), axillary basin (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.96; P = .03), SLN metastasis diameter less than 1 mm (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81; P = .007), and area less than 5% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.88; P = .01) were associated with basin control. When looking at the identified risk factors of age (50 years or older), ulceration, Breslow thickness greater than 3.5 mm, nonaxillary basin, and tumor burden of maximum diameter of 1 mm or greater and/or metastasis area of 5% or greater and excluding missing value cases, basin disease-free rates at 5 years were 96% (95% CI, 88-100) for patients with 0 risk factors, 89% (95% CI, 82-96) for 1 risk factor, 86% (95% CI, 80-93) for 2 risk factors, 80% (95% CI, 71-89) for 3 risk factors, 61% (95% CI, 48-74) for 4 risk factors, and 54% (95% CI, 36-72) for 5 or 6 risk factors. Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial was the largest prospective evaluation of long-term regional basin control in patients with melanoma who had nodal observation after removal of a positive SLN. SLN biopsy without CLND cleared disease in the affected nodal basin in most patients, even those with multiple risk factors for in-basin recurrence. In addition to its well-validated value in staging, SLN biopsy may also be regarded as therapeutic in some patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00297895.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - John F Thompson
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Corrado Caracò
- Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione "G. Pascale," Napoli, Italy
| | - Jonathan S Zager
- Departments of Cutaneous Oncology and Sarcoma, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
| | - Tiina Jahkola
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Helsinki, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Tawnya L Bowles
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Elisabetta Pennacchioli
- Division of Melanoma, Soft Tissue Sarcomas and Rare Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| | | | - Harald J Hoekstra
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Marc Moncrieff
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, United Kingdom
| | | | - Alexander van Akkooi
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Edward A Levine
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
| | - Doreen Agnese
- Department of Surgery, Ohio State University, Columbus
| | - Michael Henderson
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Reinhard Dummer
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Rogerio I Neves
- Department of Surgery, Pennsylvania State University Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey
- Now at Department of Cutaneous Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | | | - John M Kane
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York
| | - Steven Trocha
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Prisma Health, Columbia, South Carolina
| | - Frances Wright
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - David R Byrd
- Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Maurice Matter
- Department of Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Eddy C Hsueh
- Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri
| | - Alastair MacKenzie-Ross
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Kelley
- Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
| | | | - Tara L Huston
- Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York
| | - Jeffrey D Wayne
- Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Heather Neuman
- Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin at Madison
| | - B Mark Smithers
- Department of Surgery, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Charlotte E Ariyan
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Darius Desai
- Department of Surgery, Saint Luke's University Hospital, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Shlomo Schneebaum
- Department of Surgery, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Anja Gesierich
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Wurzburg, Wurzburg, Germany
| | - Lisa K Jacobs
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - James M Lewis
- Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville
| | - Kelly M McMasters
- Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Tennessee
| | | | | | - Armando Sardi
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Richard Barth
- Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, New Hampshire
| | - Robert Barone
- Surgical Oncology, Sharp Hospital, San Diego, California
| | - J Greg McKinnon
- Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | | | - Jeffrey M Farma
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Erwin Schultz
- Department of Dermatology, Nuremberg General Hospital, Paracelsus Medical Center, Nuremberg, Germany
| | | | - Sergi Vidal-Sicart
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Manuel Molina
- Department of Surgery, Lakeland Regional Health, Lakeland, Florida
| | | | - Leland J Foshag
- Department of Surgical Oncology, John Wayne Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California
| | - Lisa Van Kreuningen
- Manager of Research Operations, Saint John's Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California
| | - He-Jing Wang
- Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Myung-Shin Sim
- Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Richard A Scolyer
- Melanoma Institute Australia, Department of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - David E Elashoff
- Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Alistair J Cochran
- Department of Anatomic Pathology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles
| | - Mark B Faries
- The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Fernandez-Penas P, Carlino M, Tsai K, Atkinson V, Shaheen M, Thomas S, Mihalcioiu C, Hagen TV, Roberts-Thomson R, Haydon A, Mant A, Butler M, Daniels G, Bunchbinder E, Hyngstrom J, Moller M, Puzanov I, Lance Cowey C, Whitman E, Ballesteros-Merino C, Jensen S, Fox B, Schmidt E, Diede S, Setta R, Sell J, Canton D, Aung S, Twitty C, Xie S, Lu Y, O’Keefe B, Algazi A, Daud A. 383 Durable responses with intratumoral electroporation of plasmid interleukin 12 plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma progressing on an anti-PD-1 antibody: updated data from keynote 695. J Immunother Cancer 2021. [DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-sitc2021.383] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundElectroporated plasmid interleukin-12 (pIL-12-EP; tavokinogene telseplasmid; TAVO) induces sustained intratumoral expression of IL-12, a cytokine that is integral for response to anti-PD-1 antibodies. Here, we present updated safety and response duration data from KEYNOTE 695, a Phase 2, multicenter, open-label trial of pIL-12-EP in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with stage III/IV melanoma immediately following confirmed progression on an anti-PD-1 antibody.MethodsPatients with confirmed disease progression after ≥12 weeks‘ treatment with an anti-PD-1 antibody alone or in combination were eligible. Patients received intratumoral pIL-12-EP on days 1, 5 and 8 every 6 weeks and pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. Responses were assessed by the investigator at 12-week intervals using RECIST v1.1; overall survival (OS) and duration of response (DoR) assessments were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsOf the first 56 patients treated, 50% had visceral disease (M1b-d), 80% had received 1–2 and 20% ≥3 prior lines of therapy, 27% had prior ipilimumab and 21% prior BRAF/MEK inhibitors. 61% of patients were primary refractory to anti-PD-1. 54 patients were efficacy evaluable, defined as patients who had at least one post-treatment scan. The investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST was 27.8% (4 CR, 11 PR); ORR per iRECIST was 29.6%. In patients with M1b-d staging, ORR was 33.3% (n=9/27), and in those receiving prior ipilimumab, ORR was 33.3% (n=5/15). Seven patients had 100% reduction in target lesions, and regression was observed in non-injected lesions. The median DoR had not been reached. With a median follow up of 19.3 months, the median OS (95% CI) was 24.5 (14.4, NR) months (figure 1). The study is now fully enrolled. In 105 patients with safety data, there were no Grade 4/5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) reported. Grade 3 TRAEs occurred in 5.7% and comprised cellulitis in two patients and arthralgia, pneumonitis, enteritis, keratoacanthoma, lichen planus and musculoskeletal chest pain in one patient each. The Grade 1/2 TRAEs in ≥10% patients were fatigue (27.6%), procedural pain (20.0%), diarrhea (17.1%), nausea (10.5%) and pruritus (10.5%). ORR by blinded independent central review has commenced and a global phase 3 trial is planned.Abstract 383 Figure 1Overall survival in patients treated with pIL-12-EP in combination with pembrolizumab. Dark grey bars: time on study treatment, light grey bars: end of treatment to death or censoringConclusionsPatients with anti-PD-1 therapy refractory advanced melanoma can achieve deep, durable responses in both injected and non-injected lesions with pIL-12-EP plus pembrolizumab. Intratumoral pIL-12-EP in combination with pembrolizumab was generally well tolerated, with minimal Grade 3 and no Grade 4/5 TRAEs.Trial RegistrationNCT03132675Ethics ApprovalThe study was approved by a central IRB and/or local institutional IRB/Ethics Committee as required for each participating institution.ConsentWritten informed consent was obtained from the patients participating in the trial; the current abstract does not include information requiring additional consent
Collapse
|
13
|
Carpenter E, Adams L, Chick R, Clifton G, Vreeland T, Valdera F, McCarthy P, O’Shea A, Hale D, Bohan PK, Hickeron A, Myers J, Cindass J, Hyngstrom J, Berger A, Sussman J, Jakub J, Shaheen M, Yu X, Wagner T, Faries M, Peoples G. 542 Randomized trial of tumor lysate particle only vaccine vs. tumor lysate particle-loaded, dendritic cell vaccine to prevent recurrence of resected stage III/IV melanoma: 36-month analysis. J Immunother Cancer 2021. [DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-sitc2021.542] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundThe tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is an autologous tumor vaccine that decreased recurrence in stage III/IV melanoma when granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was not used to harvest the dendritic cells in a randomized phase 2B adjuvant trial.1The tumor lysate (TL) particle only (TLPO) vaccine utilizes a similar mechanism, but with autologous TL-loaded yeast cell wall particles; this eliminates the need for dendritic cell (DC) collection and ex-vivo loading and reduces production costs and time. The TLPO vaccine was compared to TLPLDC in an embedded bridging portion of the trial. Here, we examine 36-month outcomes of the ongoing randomized, double-blind phase 2 trial in patients (pts) with resected stage III/IV melanoma.MethodsPts were randomized 2:1 to receive TLPO or TLPLDC as a continuation of a previously established clinical trial comparing TLPLDC versus placebo. The TLPLDC group was analyzed separately based on use (or not) of G-CSF for collection of DC. Safety was measured by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis was used to compare 36-month disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) main arms as well as pre-specified subgroups.ResultsA total of 187 pts were randomized with 41, 47, 56, and 43 pts enrolled in the placebo, TLPLDC without G-CSF (TLPLDC), TLPLDC with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G), and TLPO arm, respectively. Pts randomized to the TLPO arm were more likely to have stage IV melanoma (22.0% for placebo, 20.4% for TLPLDC and TLPLDC+G, and 44.2% for TLPO; p = 0.002) and to receive prior immunotherapy (36.6% for placebo, 39.8% for both TLPLDC and TLPLDC+G, and 83.7% for TLPO; p < 0.001). Grade 3+ adverse events were not significantly different between arms. In the ITT analysis, 36-month DFS was 30.0% for placebo, 55.8% for TLPLDC, 24.4% for TLPLDC+G, and 64.0% for TLPO (p < 0.001). OS at 36 months was 70.9% for placebo, 94.2% for TLPLDC, 69.8%% for TLPLDC+G, and 94.8% for TLPO (p = 0.011) (figure 1).Abstract 542 Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrating DFS (A) and OS (B) between Placebo (n=41), TLPLDC (n=47), TLPLDC+G (n=56), and TLPO (n=43)ConclusionsThe TLPO and TLPLDC (without G-CSF) vaccines improved 36-month DFS and OS in this randomized phase 2 trial. The efficacy of the TLPO and TLPLDC vaccines will be confirmed in a phase III trial in resected Stage III/IV melanoma pts.Trial RegistrationNIH, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02301611ReferencesO’Shea AE, Chick RC, Clifton GT, et al. The effect of pretreatment with G-CSF prior to dendritic cell collection during the phase IIb trial of an autologous DC-based vaccine for advanced, resectable melanoma. Presented at: Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting & Preconference Programs (SITC 2020); November 11–14, 2020. Abstract 310. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(Suppl 3):A656–A959.Ethics ApprovalThe clinical trial protocol was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board (2014–1932). All participants provided informed consent prior to enrollment in the trial.
Collapse
|
14
|
Curti B, Richards J, Hyngstrom J, Daniels G, Faries M, Feun L, Margolin K, Hallmeyer S, Grose M, Zhang Y, Li A, Andtbacka RHI. 381 Intratumoral oncolytic virus V937 plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma: the phase 1b MITCI study. J Immunother Cancer 2021. [DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-sitc2021.381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundIntratumoral administration of V937, a bioselected genetically unmodified Coxsackievirus A21, has shown antitumor activity both as a monotherapy and in combination with the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.1–3 V937 induces lytic tumor cell infection and upregulation of members of immune checkpoint pathways.2 We present the results from the phase 1b MITCI study that evaluated V937 plus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma.MethodsEligible patients had unresectable or metastatic stage IIIB/C or IV melanoma amenable to intratumoral injection. Patients received intratumoral V937 3×108 TCID50 on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 22, then Q3W for 14 more injections plus intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W administered 4 times starting on day 22. Imaging was done Q6W beginning at day 106; response was assessed per immune-related response criteria (irRC). The primary endpoints were safety and ORR in the overall population and in patients whose disease progressed on prior anti–PD-1 therapy.Results50 patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. At data cutoff (February 21, 2020), all had discontinued the study and study therapy. Median (range) age was 64.5 (28–88) years. Fourteen patients (28%) had stage III disease. Forty patients (80%) had received prior systemic treatment, 33 of whom had received anti–PD-1 therapy. The median number of cycles of ipilimumab was 4 (range, 1–4), and the number of intratumoral injections of V937 was 9 (range, 5–19). Among the 94% of patients who had ≥1 treatment-related AE, 14% had grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs, none of which were considered related to V937. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs were dehydration, diarrhea, and hepatotoxicity (4% each). No grade 5 treatment-related AEs occurred. The most common treatment-related AEs were pruritus (50%), fatigue (44%), diarrhea (32%), and nausea (22%). Efficacy outcomes for the overall population and by prior anti-PD-1 therapy use are presented in table 1. Tumor regression was observed in injected and noninjected lesions.Abstract 381 Table 1ConclusionsV937 plus ipilimumab was safe and the toxicities were manageable and consistent with that anticipated for the individual treatment components. ORR was robust and significantly higher than anticipated with ipilimumab monotherapy, including in patients who had received prior anti–PD-1 therapy. Most responses were durable (≥26 weeks), and responses seen in noninjected metastases provided evidence of probable systemic immune activation. The combination of V937 plus ipilimumab warrants further investigation in a larger trial in patients with advanced melanoma.AcknowledgementsMedical writing assistance was provided by Kathleen Estes, PhD, of ICON plc (North Wales, PA, USA), funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.Trial RegistrationNCT02307149ReferencesPandha H, Harrington K, Ralph C, Melcher A, Gupta S, Akerley W, et al. Abstract CT115: phase 1b KEYNOTE 200 (STORM study): a study of an intravenously delivered oncolytic virus, coxsackievirus A21 in combination with pembrolizumab in advanced cancer patients. Cancer Res 2017;77(13 suppl):CT115.Andtbacka RHI, Curti BD, Kaufman H, Nemunaitis JJ, Daniels GA, Hallmeyer S, et al. Dynamics of tumor response in advanced melanoma patients treated with coxsackievirus A21. J Clin Oncol 2016;34(15 suppl):9553.Silk AW, Kaufman H, Gabrail N, Mehnert J, Bryan J, Norrell J, et al. Phase 1b study of intratumoral coxsackievirus A21 (CVA21) and systemic pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma patients: interim results of the CAPRA clinical trial. Cancer Res 2017;77(13 suppl):CT026.Ethics ApprovalAn independent institutional review board or ethics committee approved the protocol at each study site, and the trial was conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided informed consent.
Collapse
|
15
|
Slingluff CL, Lewis KD, Andtbacka R, Hyngstrom J, Milhem M, Markovic SN, Bowles T, Hamid O, Hernandez-Aya L, Claveau J, Jang S, Philips P, Holtan SG, Shaheen MF, Curti B, Schmidt W, Butler MO, Paramo J, Lutzky J, Padmanabhan A, Thomas S, Milton D, Pecora A, Sato T, Hsueh E, Badarinath S, Keech J, Kalmadi S, Kumar P, Weber R, Levine E, Berger A, Bar A, Beck JT, Travers JB, Mihalcioiu C, Gastman B, Beitsch P, Rapisuwon S, Glaspy J, McCarron EC, Gupta V, Behl D, Blumenstein B, Peterkin JJ. Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of seviprotimut-L polyvalent melanoma vaccine in patients with post-resection melanoma at high risk of recurrence. J Immunother Cancer 2021; 9:jitc-2021-003272. [PMID: 34599031 PMCID: PMC8488725 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most patients with advanced melanomas relapse after checkpoint blockade therapy. Thus, immunotherapies are needed that can be applied safely early, in the adjuvant setting. Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine containing human melanoma antigens, plus alum. To assess the efficacy of seviprotimut-L, the Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study (MAVIS) was initiated as a three-part multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Results from part B1 are reported here. METHODS Patients with AJCC V.7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma after resection were randomized 2:1, with stage stratification (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C), to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was the primary endpoint. For an hypothesized HR of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%, target enrollment was 325 patients. RESULTS For randomized patients (n=347), arms were well-balanced, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar for seviprotimut-L and placebo. For the primary intent-to-treat endpoint of RFS, the estimated HR was 0.881 (95% CI: 0.629 to 1.233), with stratified logrank p=0.46. However, estimated HRs were not uniform over the stage randomized strata, with HRs (95% CIs) for stages IIB/IIC, IIIA, IIIB/IIIC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.19), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.35 to 1.50), and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.72 to 1.97), respectively. In the stage IIB/IIC stratum, the effect on RFS was greatest for patients <60 years old (HR=0.324 (95% CI: 0.121 to 0.864)) and those with ulcerated primary melanomas (HR=0.493 (95% CI: 0.255 to 0.952)). CONCLUSIONS Seviprotimut-L is very well tolerated. Exploratory efficacy model estimation supports further study in stage IIB/IIC patients, especially younger patients and those with ulcerated melanomas. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01546571.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Craig L Slingluff
- Department of Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
| | - Karl D Lewis
- University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Robert Andtbacka
- Huntsman Cancer Institute Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Huntsman Cancer Institute Cancer Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Mohammed Milhem
- The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
| | | | | | - Omid Hamid
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, California, USA
| | - Leonel Hernandez-Aya
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Joel Claveau
- CHU de Quebec-Universite Laval, Quebec, Québec, Canada
| | - Sekwon Jang
- Department of Medical Oncology, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, USA
| | | | - Shernan G Holtan
- University of Minnesota Academic Health Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Montaser F Shaheen
- University of Arizona Medical Center - University Campus, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | - Brendan Curti
- Earle A Chiles Research Institute, Providence Portland Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | | | - Marcus O Butler
- Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Juan Paramo
- Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida, USA
| | - Jose Lutzky
- Department of Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, Florida, USA
| | | | - Sajeve Thomas
- MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, Orlando, Florida, USA
| | - Daniel Milton
- Investigative Clinical Research of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Andrew Pecora
- Department of Oncology, John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack, New Jersey, USA
| | - Takami Sato
- Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Eddy Hsueh
- St. Louis University Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | | | - John Keech
- Multicare Institute for Research and Innovation, Tacoma, Washington, USA
| | - Sujith Kalmadi
- Ironwood Cancer and Research Centers, Chandler, Arizona, USA
| | - Pallavi Kumar
- Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Cancer Institute at Franklin Square, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Robert Weber
- St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Edward Levine
- Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
| | - Adam Berger
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
| | - Anna Bar
- Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - J Thaddeus Beck
- Department of Medical Oncology, Highlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA
| | | | | | - Brian Gastman
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | | | - Suthee Rapisuwon
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA,Department of Hematology/Oncology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - John Glaspy
- University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | | | - Vinay Gupta
- MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Deepti Behl
- Sutter Institute for Medical Research, Sacramento, California, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Adams AM, Chick RC, Vreeland TJ, Clifton GT, Hale DF, McCarthy PM, O'Shea AE, Bohan PMK, Hickerson AT, Park H, Sloan AJ, Hyngstrom J, Berger AC, Jakub JW, Sussman JJ, Shaheen M, Wagner T, Faries MB, Peoples GE. Safety and efficacy of autologous tumor lysate particle-loaded dendritic cell vaccination in combination with systemic therapies in patients with recurrent and metastatic melanoma. Melanoma Res 2021; 31:378-388. [PMID: 34193804 DOI: 10.1097/cmr.0000000000000758] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of melanoma, yet survival remains poor for patients with metastatic disease. The autologous tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine has been shown to be safe adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma who complete the primary vaccine series. Here, we describe an open-label trial of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with TLPLDC vaccine in addition to standard of care (SoC) therapies. The TLPLDC vaccine is created by loading autologous tumor lysate into yeast cell wall particles, which are phagocytosed by autologous dendritic cells ex vivo. Patients who recurred while enrolled in a phase IIb trial of adjuvant TLPLDC vaccine (crossover cohort) and patients with measurable metastatic melanoma cohort were offered TLPLDC vaccine along with SoC therapies. Tumor response was measured by RECIST 1.1 criteria. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by intention-to-treat analysis. Fifty-four patients were enrolled (28 in crossover cohort; 26 in metastatic melanoma cohort). The vaccine was well-tolerated with no grade ≥3 adverse events when given with SoC therapies to include checkpoint inhibitors, BRAF/MEK inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, intralesional therapy and/or radiation. In the crossover arm, OS was 76.5% and PFS was 57.1% (median follow-up of 13.9 months). In the metastatic melanoma arm, OS was 85.7% and PFS was 52.2% (median follow-up 8.5 months). The TLPLDC vaccine is well-tolerated and safe in combination with SoC therapies. Future trials will determine the efficacy of TLPLDC in combination with SoC therapies in metastatic melanoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra M Adams
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
| | - Robert C Chick
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
| | - Timothy J Vreeland
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
| | - Guy T Clifton
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
| | - Diane F Hale
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
| | - Patrick M McCarthy
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
| | - Anne E O'Shea
- Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
| | | | | | - Hyohyun Park
- Orbis Health Solutions, Greenville, South Carolina
| | | | - John Hyngstrom
- Department of Surgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Adam C Berger
- Department of Surgery, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - James W Jakub
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | - Mark B Faries
- Department of Surgery, The Angeles Clinic, Santa Monica, California
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Walker HR, Evans E, Nirula R, Hyngstrom J, Matsen C, Nelson E, Pickron B, Zurbuchen E, Morrow EH. "I need to have a fulfilling job": A qualitative study of surgeon well-being and professional fulfillment. Am J Surg 2021; 223:6-11. [PMID: 34332744 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.07.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2021] [Revised: 05/25/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Burnout, often regarded as an individual failing, rather than a systemic one, negatively impacts quality of care, patient safety and healthcare costs. Focusing on improving well-being can help mitigate burnout. This study examined protective factors that promote well-being and professional fulfillment in surgeons. METHODS Using a purposive sample, 32 semi-structured 30-60-min interviews were conducted with surgeons of varying sub-specialties and rank. Abductive exploratory analysis was used to code and interpret interview transcripts and to build a conceptual model of surgeon well-being. RESULTS Emergent protective factors were placed into one of three levels of implementation: individual, team-level, and institutional (figure). Individual factors for well-being included autonomy and adequate time to pursue non-clinical endeavors. Team-level factors consisted of adaptability, boundaries, and cohesion. Institutional factors related to diversifying performance evaluations and celebrating and recognizing individual value and contributions. CONCLUSIONS The conceptual model developed from the results of this study highlights factors important to surgeons' professional well-being. This model can be used to guide quality improvement efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ethan Evans
- University of Utah Health, Resiliency Center, United States.
| | - Raminder Nirula
- University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, United States.
| | - John Hyngstrom
- University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, United States.
| | - Cindy Matsen
- University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, United States.
| | - Edward Nelson
- University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, United States.
| | - Bartley Pickron
- University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, United States.
| | | | - Ellen H Morrow
- University of Utah Health, Resiliency Center, United States; University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Chick RC, Faries MB, Hale DF, Kemp Bohan PM, Hickerson AT, Vreeland TJ, Myers JW, Cindass JL, Brown TA, Hyngstrom J, Berger AC, Jakub JW, Sussman JJ, Shaheen M, Clifton GT, Park H, Sloan AJ, Wagner T, Peoples GE. Multi-institutional, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb trial of the tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine to prevent recurrence in high-risk melanoma patients: A subgroup analysis. Cancer Med 2021; 10:4302-4311. [PMID: 33982452 PMCID: PMC8267143 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2021] [Accepted: 04/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in combination with cell‐based vaccines may produce synergistic antitumor immunity. The primary analysis of the randomized and blinded phase IIb trial in resected stage III/IV melanoma demonstrated TLPLDC is safe and improved 24‐month disease‐free survival (DFS) in the per treatment (PT) analysis. Here, we examine efficacy within pre‐specified and exploratory subgroups. Methods Stage III/IV patients rendered disease‐free by surgery were randomized 2:1 to TLPLDC vaccine versus placebo. The pre‐specified PT analysis included only patients completing the primary vaccine/placebo series at 6 months. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare 24‐month DFS among subgroups. Results There were no clinicopathologic differences between subgroups except stage IV patients were more likely to receive CPI. In stage IV patients, 24‐month DFS was 43% for vaccine versus 0% for placebo (p = 0.098) in the ITT analysis and 73% versus 0% (p = 0.002) in the PT analysis. There was no significant difference in 24‐month DFS when stratified by use of immunotherapy or CPI. For patients with resected recurrent disease, 24‐month DFS was 88.9% versus 33.3% (p = 0.013) in the PT analysis. All benefit from vaccination was in the PT analysis; no benefit was found in patients receiving up to three doses. Conclusion The TLPLDC vaccine improved DFS in patients completing the primary vaccine series, particularly in the resected stage IV patients. The efficacy of the TLPLDC vaccine will be confirmed in a phase III study evaluating adjuvant TLPLDC + CPI versus Placebo + CPI in resected stage IV melanoma patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Diane F Hale
- Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | | | - John W Myers
- Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Tommy A Brown
- Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, USA
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Adam C Berger
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | | | | | - Guy T Clifton
- Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Erickson M, Truong A, Boucher K, Hyngstrom J. 522 Associations between influenza vaccine and immunotherapy outcomes in metastatic melanoma patients. J Invest Dermatol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2021.02.548] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
20
|
Dummer R, Gyorki D, Hyngstrom J, Berger A, Conry R, Demidov L, Chan E, Radcliffe HS, Faries M, Ross M. 432 3-year results of the phase 2 randomized trial for talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) neoadjuvant treatment plus surgery vs surgery in patients with resectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma. J Immunother Cancer 2020. [DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2020-sitc2020.0432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundNeoadjuvant immunotherapies and targeted therapies for advanced melanoma are an active area of investigation. This is the first clinical trial of an approved oncolytic viral immunotherapy as a neoadjuvant treatment in advanced melanoma and the largest randomized controlled neoadjuvant trial including all types of resectable regional metastases to date. Previously published 2-year primary analysis results reported improved recurrence-free survival (RFS, HR 0.66, P=0.038) and overall survival (OS, HR 0.49, P=0.050) for neoadjuvant T-VEC plus surgery vs immediate surgery in resectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma patients.1 Here, we report the 3-year interim analysis results.MethodsPatients with resectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma and ≥ 1 injectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, or nodal lesions were randomized 1:1 to receive 6 doses/12 weeks of neoadjuvant T-VEC then surgery (Arm 1) vs immediate surgical resection (Arm 2). T-VEC was administered until surgery, no remaining injectable tumors, or intolerance. RFS was defined as time from randomization to the first of local, regional, or distant recurrence, or death, where patients who did not receive surgery were imputed as events at baseline. Key secondary and exploratory endpoints include safety, an RFS sensitivity analysis that censored events at the start of subsequent anticancer therapy, OS, and event-free survival (EFS), defined as time from randomization to disease progression that precludes surgery, or local, regional or distant recurrence post-surgery, or death from any cause, whichever occurs first. All P values are descriptive. NCT02211131.ResultsAs of April 30, 2020, median follow-up for all patients was 41.3 months. For Arm 1 vs. Arm 2, the 3-year KM estimates of RFS were 46.5% vs. 31.0% (HR 0.67, P=0.043). In the RFS sensitivity analysis that removed the potential effect of subsequent anticancer therapy on RFS, the 3-year Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of RFS were 49.1% for Arm 1 and 22.9% for Arm 2 (HR 0.60, P=0.022). The 3-year KM estimates of EFS were 50.3% for Arm 1 and 32.7% for Arm 2 (HR 0.58, P=0.015). For OS, the 3-year KM estimates were 83.2% for Arm 1 and 71.6% for Arm 2 (HR 0.54, P=0.061). No new safety signals were detected.ConclusionsAt 3-year follow up, we continued to observe improved RFS and OS and observed improved EFS with neoadjuvant T-VEC plus surgery compared with surgery alone. These results build upon the prior 2-year results to support the treatment effect of neoadjuvant T-VEC on advanced resectable melanoma. The final analysis will occur at 5 years.Acknowledgements• The authors thank the investigators, patients, and study staff who are contributing to this study.• The study was sponsored and funded by Amgen Inc. • Medical writing support was provided by Christopher Nosala (Amgen Inc.).Trial RegistrationNCT02211131Ethics ApprovalThe study was approved by all institutional ethics boards.ReferenceDummer R, Gyorki DE, Hyngstrom J, et al. Primary 2-year (yr) results of a phase II, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of efficacy and safety for talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) neoadjuvant (neo) treatment (tx) plus surgery (surg) vs surg in patients (pts) with resectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma. Ann Oncol 2019;30;V903.
Collapse
|
21
|
McCarthy P, Adams L, Chick R, Clifton G, Vreeland T, O’Shea A, Bohan PK, Hickeron A, Campf J, Myers J, Brown T, Hale D, Faries M, Hyngstrom J, Berger A, Jakub J, Sussman J, Shaheen M, Wagner T, Peoples G. 431 Prospective, randomized trial of the tumor lysate, particle only vaccine compared to the tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell vaccine to prevent recurrence for resected stage III/IV melanoma. J Immunother Cancer 2020. [DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2020-sitc2020.0431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundThe autologous tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is safe and effective in improving 24 and 36-month disease-free survival (DFS) in patients (pts) with resected stage III/IV melanoma who completed the primary vaccine series. The tumor lysate, particle only (TLPO) vaccine has been developed to accelerate production by omitting DC isolation and ex vivo loading in favor of in vivo phagocytosis of the TL-loaded particles. We are currently conducting a randomized and double-blind trial of the TLPO vs TLPLDC to improve DFS and overall survival (OS) in patients with resected late stage melanoma.MethodsPatients with stage III/IV melanoma who were clinically disease-free after standard of care therapies were randomized to receive TLPO vs TLPLDC (2:1) as a continuation of the phase IIb trial comparing TLPLDC vs placebo (2:1). For the TLPLDC vaccine, autologous TL was loaded into yeast cell wall particles (YCWP) which were then phagocytized by isolated autologous DC ex vivo. For the placebo DC were loaded with empty YCWP. For TLPO, the autologous TL-loaded YCWP were coated with a chemoattractant and injected intradermally for in vivo phagocytosis. Some patients in the TLPLDC arm received G-CSF prior to DC harvest to minimize blood draw (60 mL instead of 120 mL without G-CSF). For all arms, six vaccine/placebo doses were administered intradermally at 0, 1, 2, 6, 12, and 18 mos. Data was analyzed by an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis for DFS and OS by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test.Results63 pts were randomized to TLPO (n=43) vs TLPLDC (n=20). The TLPO cohort contained more females and received less chemotherapy (0% vs 10%), but otherwise were comparable. There were no differences in DFS (p=0.948) or OS (p=0.779) between the two vaccines (figures 1&2). Comparing the TLPO pts to all other pts in the phase IIb trial [TLPLDC+G-CSF (n=57), TLPLDC-G-CSF (n=46), and placebo (n=41)] the TLPO arm had improved DFS compared to placebo (p=0.019) and TLPLDC+G-CSF (p=0.001), but roughly equivalent to the TLPLDC-G-CSF arm (p=0.276) (figure 3). A similar trend was seen in OS analysis, though differences were not statistically significant (figure 4).Abstract 431 Figure 1TLPO vs TLPLDC (n=20) DFS. Disease-free survival of TLPO patients compared to similar TLPLDC patients (n=20)Abstract 431 Figure 2TLPO vs TLPLDC (n=20) OS. Overall survival of TLPO patients compared to similar TLPLDC patients (n=20)Abstract 431 Figure 3TLPO vs TLPLDC subsets vs Placebo DFS. Disease-free survival of TLPO patients compared to placebo and all TLPLDC patients (n=103) stratified by use of G-CSFAbstract 431 Figure 4TLPO vs TLPLDC subsets vs Placebo OS. Disease-free survival of TLPO patients compared to placebo and all TLPLDC patients (n=103) stratified by use of G-CSFConclusionsTLPO and TLPLDC vaccines (without the use of G-CSF) improve DFS in patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma compared to placebo. The TLPO vaccine may offer advantages via reduced cost and vaccine production time. TLPO should be closely considered for further clinical trials.Trial RegistrationNCT02301611: Phase IIB TL + YWCP + DC in MelanomaTLPLDC IND#16101TLPO IND#17274Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by WIRB; protocol #20141932
Collapse
|
22
|
Grossman D, Okwundu N, Bartlett EK, Marchetti MA, Othus M, Coit DG, Hartman RI, Leachman SA, Berry EG, Korde L, Lee SJ, Bar-Eli M, Berwick M, Bowles T, Buchbinder EI, Burton EM, Chu EY, Curiel-Lewandrowski C, Curtis JA, Daud A, Deacon DC, Ferris LK, Gershenwald JE, Grossmann KF, Hu-Lieskovan S, Hyngstrom J, Jeter JM, Judson-Torres RL, Kendra KL, Kim CC, Kirkwood JM, Lawson DH, Leming PD, Long GV, Marghoob AA, Mehnert JM, Ming ME, Nelson KC, Polsky D, Scolyer RA, Smith EA, Sondak VK, Stark MS, Stein JA, Thompson JA, Thompson JF, Venna SS, Wei ML, Swetter SM. Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling in Cutaneous Melanoma: Identifying the Knowledge Gaps and Assessing the Clinical Benefit. JAMA Dermatol 2020; 156:1004-1011. [PMID: 32725204 PMCID: PMC8275355 DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1729] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Importance Use of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care. Objective To develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies. Evidence Review The MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Findings The MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility. Conclusions and Relevance More evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Douglas Grossman
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
- Department of Oncological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | | | - Edmund K Bartlett
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Michael A Marchetti
- Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Megan Othus
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Daniel G Coit
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Rebecca I Hartman
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Sancy A Leachman
- Department of Dermatology and Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
| | - Elizabeth G Berry
- Department of Dermatology and Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
| | - Larissa Korde
- Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Sandra J Lee
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Data Sciences, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Menashe Bar-Eli
- Department of Cancer Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Marianne Berwick
- Departments of Dermatology and Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico Cancer Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
| | - Tawnya Bowles
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Elizabeth I Buchbinder
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Internal Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Elizabeth M Burton
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Emily Y Chu
- Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | | | - Julia A Curtis
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Adil Daud
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Dekker C Deacon
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Laura K Ferris
- Department of Dermatology and University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Jeffrey E Gershenwald
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Kenneth F Grossmann
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Siwen Hu-Lieskovan
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Joanne M Jeter
- Department of Internal Medicine and The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus
| | - Robert L Judson-Torres
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Kari L Kendra
- Department of Internal Medicine and The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus
| | - Caroline C Kim
- Department of Dermatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
- Partners Healthcare, Newton Wellesley Dermatology Associates, Wellesley, Massachusetts
| | - John M Kirkwood
- Department of Internal Medicine and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - David H Lawson
- Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - Georgina V Long
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Ashfaq A Marghoob
- Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Janice M Mehnert
- Department of Medical Oncology, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick
| | - Michael E Ming
- Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Kelly C Nelson
- Department of Dermatology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - David Polsky
- Department of Dermatology, Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Richard A Scolyer
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Eric A Smith
- Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
| | - Vernon K Sondak
- Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
- Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa
| | - Mitchell S Stark
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Jennifer A Stein
- Department of Dermatology, Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York
| | - John A Thompson
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington
| | - John F Thompson
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Melanoma and Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Suraj S Venna
- Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Department of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Fairfax
| | - Maria L Wei
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco
- Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco
- Dermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California
| | - Susan M Swetter
- Stanford University Medical Center and Cancer Institute, Stanford, California
- Dermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Shah A, Hyngstrom J, Florell SR, Grossman D. Use of the Pigmented Lesion Assay to rapidly screen a patient with numerous clinically atypical pigmented lesions. JAAD Case Rep 2019; 5:1048-1050. [PMID: 31768410 PMCID: PMC6872771 DOI: 10.1016/j.jdcr.2019.10.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Aatman Shah
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.,Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Scott R Florell
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Douglas Grossman
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.,Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.,Department of Oncological Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Moser J, Wei G, Colonna S, Grossmann K, Patel S, Hyngstrom J. Comparative-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs nivolumab for patients with metastatic melanoma. Ann Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz255.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
|
25
|
Dummer R, Gyorki D, Hyngstrom J, Berger A, Conry R, Demidov L, Sharma A, Treichel S, Gorski K, Anderson A, Faries M, Ross M. Primary 2-year (yr) results of a phase II, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of efficacy and safety for talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) neoadjuvant (neo) treatment (tx) plus surgery (surg) vs surg in patients (pts) with resectable stage IIIB-IVM1a melanoma. Ann Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz394.063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
|
26
|
Grossman D, Farnham JM, Hyngstrom J, Klapperich ME, Secrest AM, Empey S, Bowen GM, Wada D, Andtbacka RHI, Grossmann K, Bowles TL, Cannon-Albright LA. Similar survival of patients with multiple versus single primary melanomas based on Utah Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data (1973-2011). J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 79:238-244. [PMID: 29499295 PMCID: PMC6754624 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.02.055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2017] [Revised: 12/31/2017] [Accepted: 02/11/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Survival data are mixed comparing patients with multiple primary melanomas (MPM) to those with single primary melanomas (SPM). OBJECTIVES We compared MPM versus SPM patient survival using a matching method that avoids potential biases associated with other analytic approaches. METHODS Records of 14,138 individuals obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry of all melanomas diagnosed or treated in Utah between 1973 and 2011 were reviewed. A single matched control patient was selected randomly from the SPM cohort for each MPM patient, with the restriction that they survived at least as long as the interval between the first and second diagnoses for the matched MPM patient. RESULTS Survival curves (n = 887 for both MPM and SPM groups) without covariates showed a significant survival disadvantage for MPM patients (chi-squared 39.29, P < .001). However, a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed no significant survival difference (hazard ratio 1.07, P = .55). Restricting the multivariate analysis to invasive melanomas also showed no significant survival difference (hazard ratio 0.99, P = .96). LIMITATIONS Breslow depth, ulceration status, and specific cause of death were not available for all patients. CONCLUSIONS Patients with MPM had similar survival times as patients with SPM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Douglas Grossman
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Department of Oncological Sciences, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah.
| | - James M Farnham
- Department of Medicine, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Marki E Klapperich
- University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Aaron M Secrest
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Sarah Empey
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Glen M Bowen
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - David Wada
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Robert H I Andtbacka
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Kenneth Grossmann
- Department of Medicine, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Tawnya L Bowles
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Lisa A Cannon-Albright
- Department of Medicine, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Duffy KL, Truong A, Bowen GM, Andtbacka RHI, Hyngstrom J, Bowles T, Grossmann K, Khong H, Hyde M, Florell SR, Bowen AR, Wada D, Grossman D. Adequacy of 5-mm surgical excision margins for non-lentiginous melanoma in situ. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014; 71:835-8. [PMID: 25219711 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.06.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2014] [Revised: 06/09/2014] [Accepted: 06/30/2014] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Keith L Duffy
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Amanda Truong
- School of Medicine, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Glen M Bowen
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Robert H I Andtbacka
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - John Hyngstrom
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Tawnya Bowles
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Kenneth Grossmann
- Department of Medicine, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Hung Khong
- Department of Medicine, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Mark Hyde
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Scott R Florell
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Anneli R Bowen
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - David Wada
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Douglas Grossman
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Department of Oncological Sciences, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah.
| |
Collapse
|