Overall survival from tebentafusp versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab in first-line metastatic uveal melanoma: a propensity score-weighted analysis

BACKGROUND

Tebentafusp demonstrated a superior overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51] compared to investigator's choice (82% pembrolizumab) in a randomized, phase III trial (IMCgp100-202; N = 378) in untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). The 1-year OS rates for tebentafusp and pembrolizumab were 73% and 59%, respectively. In the single-arm GEM1402 (N = 52), the 1-year OS rate for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) in mUM was 52%. Due to limitations in conducting randomized trials in mUM, we compared OS on tebentafusp or pembrolizumab (IMCgp100-202) to N+I (GEM1402) in untreated mUM using propensity scoring methods.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Analyses were adjusted using propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), balancing age, sex, baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), baseline alkaline phosphatase, disease location, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and time from primary diagnosis to metastasis. OS was assessed using IPT-weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. Sensitivity analyses using alternative missing data and weights methods were conducted.

RESULTS

The primary IPTW analysis included 240 of 252 patients randomized to tebentafusp from IMCgp100-202 and 45 of 52 N+I-treated patients from GEM-1402. Key baseline covariates, including LDH, were generally well balanced before weighting. The IPTW-adjusted OS favored tebentafusp, HR 0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.78]; 1-year OS was 73% for tebentafusp versus 50% for N+I. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent superior OS for tebentafusp with all IPTW HRs ≤0.61. IPTW analysis of pembrolizumab versus N+I showed no significant difference in OS (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50-1.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Tebentafusp was previously shown to provide an OS benefit compared to checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy in untreated mUM. Propensity score analysis demonstrated a similar OS benefit for tebentafusp compared with N+I. These data further support tebentafusp as the standard of care in previously untreated human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A∗02:01+ adult patients with mUM.

Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine for patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: GEICAM/2015-04 (PANGEA-Breast) study

BACKGROUND

We evaluated a new chemoimmunotherapy combination based on the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab and the pyrimidine antimetabolite gemcitabine in HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients previously treated in the advanced setting, in order to explore a potential synergism that could eventually obtain long term benefit in these patients.

METHODS

HER2-negative ABC patients received 21-day cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg (day 1) and gemcitabine (days 1 and 8). A run-in-phase (6 + 6 design) was planned with two dose levels (DL) of gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m² [DL0]; 1,000 mg/m² [DL1]) to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The primary objective was objective response rate (ORR). Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) density and PD-L1 expression in tumors and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) levels in peripheral blood were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were treated with DL0, resulting in RP2D. Thirty-six patients were evaluated during the first stage of Simon's design. Recruitment was stopped as statistical assumptions were not met. The median age was 52; 21 (58%) patients had triple-negative disease, 28 (78%) visceral involvement, and 27 (75%) ≥ 2 metastatic locations. Progression disease was observed in 29 patients. ORR was 15% (95% CI, 5-32). Eight patients were treated ≥ 6 months before progression. Fourteen patients reported grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events. Due to the small sample size, we did not find any clear association between immune tumor biomarkers and treatment efficacy that could identify a subgroup with higher probability of response or better survival. However, patients that experienced a clinical benefit showed decreased MDSCs levels in peripheral blood along the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab 200 mg and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m² were considered as RP2D. The objective of ORR was not met; however, 22% patients were on treatment for ≥ 6 months. ABC patients that could benefit of chemoimmunotherapy strategies must be carefully selected by robust and validated biomarkers. In our heavily pretreated population, TILs, PD-L1 expression and MDSCs levels could not identify a subgroup of patients for whom the combination of gemcitabine and pembrolizumab would induce long term benefit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov and EudraCT (NCT03025880 and 2016-001,779-54, respectively). Registration dates: 20/01/2017 and 18/11/2016, respectively.

The complexity of cancer immunotherapy illustrated through skin tumors

BACKGROUND

Skin tumours are among the cancer types most sensitive to immunotherapy, due to their unique immunogenic features including skin-associated lymphoid tissue, high mutational load, overexpression of tumour antigens, and high frequency of viral antigens. Despite this high immunotherapy response rate, however, ultimately most skin tumours develop similar treatment resistance to most other malignant tumours, which highlights the need for in-depth study of mechanisms of response and resistance to immunotherapy.

METHODS

A bibliographic review of the most recent publications regarding currently in use and emerging biomarkers on skin tumors has been done.

RESULTS

Predictive biomarkers of treatment response, biomarkers that warn of possible resistance, and emerging markers, the majority of a systemic nature, are described. Including factors affecting not only genomics, but also the immune system, nervous system, microbiota, tumour microenvironment, metabolism and stress.

CONCLUSIONS

For accurate diagnosis of tumour type, knowledge of its functional mechanisms and selection of a comprehensive therapeutic protocol, this inclusive view of biology, health and disease is fundamental. This field of study could also become a valuable source of practical information applicable to other areas of oncology and immunotherapy.

SEOM clinical guideline for the management of cutaneous melanoma (2020)

Melanoma affects about 6000 patients a year in Spain. A group of medical oncologists from Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and Spanish Multidisciplinary Melanoma Group (GEM) has designed these guidelines to homogenize the management of these patients. The diagnosis must be histological and determination of BRAF status has to be performed in patients with stage ≥ III. Stage I–III resectable melanomas will be treated surgically. In patients with stage III melanoma, adjuvant treatment with immunotherapy or targeted therapy is also recommended. Patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma will receive treatment with immunotherapy or targeted therapy, the optimal sequence of these treatments remains unclear. Brain metastases require a separate consideration, since, in addition to systemic treatment, they may require local treatment. Patients must be followed up closely to receive or change treatment as soon as their previous clinical condition changes, since multiple therapeutic options are available.

SEOM clinical guideline for the management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (2019)

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has emerged as an effective treatment option for patients with several tumor types. By increasing the activity of the immune system, they can induce inflammatory side effects, which are often termed immune-related adverse events. These are pathophysiologically unique toxicities, compared with those from other anticancer therapies. In addition, the spectrum of the target organs is very broad. Immune-inflammatory adverse events can be life threatening. Prompt diagnosis and pharmacological intervention are instrumental to avoid progression to severe manifestations. Consequently, clinicians require new skills to successfully diagnose and manage these events. These SEOM guidelines have been developed with the consensus of ten medical oncologists. Relevant studies published in peer-review journals were used for the guideline elaboration. The Infectious Diseases Society of America grading system was used to assign levels of evidence and grades of recommendation.

nab-Paclitaxel plus carboplatin or gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the tnAcity trial

Background

Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has a poor prognosis and aggressive clinical course. tnAcity evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin (nab-P/C), nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P/G), and gemcitabine plus carboplatin (G/C) in patients with mTNBC.

Patients and methods

Patients with pathologically confirmed mTNBC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic BC received (1 : 1 : 1) nab-P 125 mg/m2 plus C AUC 2, nab-P 125 mg/m2 plus G 1000 mg/m2, or G 1000 mg/m2 plus C AUC 2, all on days 1, 8 q3w. Phase II primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), percentage of patients initiating cycle 6 with doublet therapy, and safety.

Results

In total, 191 patients were enrolled (nab-P/C, n = 64; nab-P/G, n = 61; G/C, n = 66). PFS was significantly longer with nab-P/C versus nab-P/G [median, 8.3 versus 5.5 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38-0.92]; P = 0.02] or G/C (median, 8.3 versus 6.0 months; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37-0.90]; P = 0.02). OS was numerically longer with nab-P/C versus nab-P/G (median, 16.8 versus 12.1 months; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.47-1.13]; P = 0.16) or G/C (median, 16.8 versus 12.6 months; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.52-1.22]; P = 0.29). ORR was 73%, 39%, and 44%, respectively. In the nab-P/C, nab-P/G, and G/C groups, 64%, 56%, and 50% of patients initiated cycle 6 with a doublet. Grade ≥3 adverse events were mainly hematologic.

Conclusions

First-line nab-P/C was active in mTNBC and resulted in a significantly longer PFS and improved risk/benefit profile versus nab-P/G or G/C.

New horizons in breast cancer: the promise of immunotherapy

Immunology and immunotherapy of cancer is an expanding field in oncology, with recent great achievements obtained through the new successful approaches implemented to circumvent immune evasion, which is undoubtedly considered a novel hallmark of cancer. Translational research in this topic has revealed targets that can be modulated in the clinical setting with new compounds and strategies. Like most of the tumors, breast cancer is considered a complex and heterogeneous disease in which host immune responses have been also recently demonstrated of critical relevance. T infiltrating lymphocyte measurement is suggested as a powerful new tool necessary to predict early breast cancer evolution, especially for the her2-positive and triple-negative subtypes. Other biomarkers in tissue and peripheral blood are under intense scrutiny to ascertain their eventual role as prognostic and/or predictive factors. This background has fueled the interest in developing clinical research strategies to test activity of modern immunotherapy in breast cancer, which constitutes the main focus of this review.

Advances in the Immunobiological Therapies for Advanced Melanoma

Metastatic or locally advanced unresectable melanoma carries a high morbidity and mortality. However, notable advances have been made in recent years in the systemic treatment of this disease, with the appearance of targeted therapy using tyrosine kinase inhibitors that block the mitogen activated protein kinase pathway, and of modern immunotherapy with immune-modulating monoclonal antibodies. In this paper, we provide an update of available data on new immune therapies and we review the clinical development that led to their approval for use in routine clinical practice.

Breast Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Cancer immunology has gained renewed interest in the past few years due to emerging findings on mechanisms involved in tumoral immune evasion. Indisputably, immune edition is currently considered a critical hallmark of cancer. Basic research has revealed new targets which can be modulated in the clinical setting with new compounds and strategies. As recent evidence confirms, breast cancer (BC) is a complex and heterogeneous disease in which host immune responses play a substantial role. T-infiltrating lymphocytes measurement is suggested as a powerful new tool necessary to predict early BC evolution, especially in HER2-positive and triple negative subtypes. However, T-infiltrating lymphocytes, genomic platforms, and many other biomarkers in tissue and peripheral blood (e.g., regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells) are not the only factors being evaluated regarding their potential role as prognostic and/or predictive factors. Many ongoing clinical trials are exploring the activity of immune checkpoint modulators in BC treatment, both in the advanced and neoadjuvant setting. Although this field is expanding with exciting new discoveries and promising clinical results-and creating great expectations-there remain many uncertainties yet to be addressed satisfactorily before this long awaited therapeutic promise can come to fruition.

Clinical use of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma in Spain: towards a more consistent approach

INTRODUCTION

Ipilimumab has been approved in patients with advanced melanoma by different regulatory bodies worldwide, but its use in clinical practice is not fully consistent among oncologists. We have surveyed a representative sample of Spanish medical oncologists on issues related to the use of ipilimumab.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey was based on the Delphi method, where experts respond anonymously to two rounds of a questionnaire. Questionnaire consisted of 42 statements divided among the following eight categories: Pathology and Diagnosis; Patterns of Response; Parameters affecting Treatment Selection; Patient Profile; Sequencing of Treatment; Definition of Long-Term Survivors; Quality of Life; Concept of Immuno-oncology. The experts were asked to rate each statement on a scale of 1-9, where 1 meant "completely disagree" and 9 meant "completely agree".

RESULTS

Thirty-three oncologists responded to both rounds of the survey (62.3 % of total surveyed). On issues related to pathology and diagnosis, patterns of response, and immuno-oncology, the specialists reached a high level of consensus. There was also a high level of agreement, albeit without consensus on assessment of BRAF mutations before deciding on treatment with ipilimumab. However, there was a lower level of agreement on sequencing treatment with BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab, on predictive factors, on the use of corticosteroids, and on patient quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The disparity in many of these topics suggests that oncologists need more information on certain aspects of ipilimumab treatment. We need to define generally accepted algorithms of treatment, especially with regard to issues that were shown to be controversial or unclear.