Search

Abstract Background Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and bispecific T-cell engagers, which redirect T-cells to tumor antigens, have immensely benefitted patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell cancers. How these therapies differ in cardiotoxicity is underexplored. We used the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to compare cardiotoxicity profiles between CD19-targeted CAR-T therapy and blinatumomab (a CD19/CD3-targeted bispecific T-cell engager). Methods Safety reports in VigiBase were filtered for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, n = 17,479) and acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL, n = 28,803) for all adverse reactions. Data were further filtered for patients taking CAR-T therapy or blinatumomab. Reporting odds ratios (ROR) and fatality rates were compared between CAR-T cell products (e.g. tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel), and between CAR-T therapy and blinatumomab. Results Tisagenlecleucel is associated with cardiac failure (IC025 = 0.366) with fatality rates of 85.7% and 80.0% in DLBCL and pediatric ALL patients respectively. For DLBCL patients, axicabtagene ciloleucel has greater reporting for hypotension than tisagenlecleucel (ROR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.28–5.03; p = 0.012), but tisagenlecleucel has higher fatality rates for hypotension than axicabtagene ciloleucel [50.0% (tisagenlecleucel) vs 5.6% (axicabtagene ciloleucel); p

Introduction: Racial and ethnic disparities in the presentation and outcomes of lung cancer are widely known. To evaluate potential factors contributing to these observations, we measured systemic immune parameters in Black and White patients with lung cancer. Methods: Patients scheduled to receive cancer immunotherapy were enrolled in a multi-institutional prospective biospecimen collection registry. Clinical and demographic information were obtained from electronic medical records. Pretreatment peripheral blood samples were collected and analyzed for cytokines using a multiplex panel and for immune cell populations using mass cytometry. Differences between Black and White patients were determined and corrected for multiple comparisons. Results: A total of 187 patients with NSCLC (Black, 19; White, 168) were included in the analysis. Compared with White patients, Black patients had greater comorbidity (median Charlson Comorbidity Index 5 versus 3; p = 0.04) and were more likely to have received previous chemotherapy (79% versus 47%; p = 0.03). Black patients had significantly lower levels of CCL23 and CCL27 and significantly higher levels of CCL8, CXCL1, CCL26, CCL25, CCL1, IL-1b, CXCL16, and IFN-γ (all p < 0.05, false discovery rate < 0.1). Black patients also exhibited greater populations of nonclassical CD16+ monocytes, NKT-like cells, CD4+ cells, CD38+ monocytes, and CD57+ gamma delta T cells (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Black and White patients with lung cancer exhibit several differences in immune parameters, with Black patients exhibiting greater levels of numerous proinflammatory cytokines and cell populations. The etiology and clinical significance of these differences warrant further evaluation.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have become a major source of general and medical information, though their accuracy and completeness are still being assessed. Their utility to answer questions surrounding immune-related adverse events (irAEs), common and potentially dangerous toxicities from cancer immunotherapy, are not well defined.Methods We developed 50 distinct questions with answers in available guidelines surrounding 10 irAE categories and queried two AI chatbots (ChatGPT and Bard), along with an additional 20 patient-specific scenarios. Experts in irAE management scored answers for accuracy and completion using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (least accurate/complete) to 4 (most accurate/complete). Answers across categories and across engines were compared.Results Overall, both engines scored highly for accuracy (mean scores for ChatGPT and Bard were 3.87 vs 3.5, p

Abstract Outcomes for patients with melanoma have improved over the past decade with the clinical development and approval of immunotherapies targeting immune checkpoint receptors such as programmed death-1 (PD-1), programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) or cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4). Combinations of these checkpoint therapies with other agents are now being explored to improve outcomes and enhance benefit-risk profiles of treatment. Alternative inhibitory receptors have been identified that may be targeted for anti-tumor immune therapy, such as lymphocyte-activation gene-3 (LAG-3), as have several potential target oncogenes for molecularly targeted therapy, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Unfortunately, many patients still progress and acquire resistance to immunotherapy and molecularly targeted therapies. To bypass resistance, combination treatment with immunotherapies and single or multiple TKIs have been shown to improve prognosis compared to monotherapy. The number of new combinations treatment under development for melanoma provides options for the number of patients to achieve a therapeutic benefit. Many diagnostic and prognostic assays have begun to show clinical applicability providing additional tools to optimize and individualize treatments. However, the question on the optimal algorithm of first- and later-line therapies and the search for biomarkers to guide these decisions are still under investigation. This year, the Melanoma Bridge Congress (Dec 1st–3rd, 2022, Naples, Italy) addressed the latest advances in melanoma research, focusing on themes of paramount importance for melanoma prevention, diagnosis and treatment. This included sessions dedicated to systems biology on immunotherapy, immunogenicity and gene expression profiling, biomarkers, and combination treatment strategies.

Abstract The discovery and development of novel treatments that harness the patient’s immune system and prevent immune escape has dramatically improved outcomes for patients across cancer types. However, not all patients respond to immunotherapy, acquired resistance remains a challenge, and responses are poor in certain tumors which are considered to be immunologically cold. This has led to the need for new immunotherapy-based approaches, including adoptive cell transfer (ACT), therapeutic vaccines, and novel immune checkpoint inhibitors. These new approaches are focused on patients with an inadequate response to current treatments, with emerging evidence of improved responses in various cancers with new immunotherapy agents, often in combinations with existing agents. The use of cell therapies, drivers of immune response, and trends in immunotherapy were the focus of the Immunotherapy Bridge (November 30th–December 1st, 2022), organized by the Fondazione Melanoma Onlus, Naples, Italy, in collaboration with the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

Adoptive cell therapy with autologous, ex vivo-expanded, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is being investigated for treatment of solid tumors and has shown robust responses in clinical trials. Based on the encouraging efficacy, tolerable safety profile, and advancements in a central manufacturing process, lifileucel is now the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved TIL cell therapy product. To this end, treatment management and delivery practice guidance is needed to ensure successful integration of this modality into clinical care. This review includes clinical and toxicity management guidelines pertaining to the TIL cell therapy regimen prepared by the TIL Working Group, composed of internationally recognized hematologists and oncologists with expertize in TIL cell therapy, and relates to patient care and operational aspects. Expert consensus recommendations for patient management, including patient eligibility, screening tests, and clinical and toxicity management with TIL cell therapy, including tumor tissue procurement surgery, non-myeloablative lymphodepletion, TIL infusion, and IL-2 administration, are discussed in the context of potential standard of care TIL use. These recommendations provide practical guidelines for optimal clinical management during administration of the TIL cell therapy regimen, and recognition of subsequent management of toxicities. These guidelines are focused on multidisciplinary teams of physicians, nurses, and stakeholders involved in the care of these patients.

Abstract The 2022 Immunotherapy Bridge congress (November 30–December 1, Naples, Italy) featured a Great Debate session which addressed three contemporary topics in the field of immunotherapy. The debates included counterpoint views from leading experts and considered whether adoptive cell therapy (ACT) has a role in the treatment of solid tumors, the use of peripheral/blood biomarkers versus tumor microenvironment biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy and the role of chimeric antigen receptor T cell versus natural killer cell therapy. As is the tradition in the Immunotherapy Bridge Great Debates, speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect their own personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the topic both before and after each debate.

Abstract The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1–3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate.

Abstract Advances in immune checkpoint and combination therapy have led to improvement in overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor, tumor microenvironment and tumor immune-evasion mechanisms has resulted in new approaches to targeting and harnessing the host immune response. Combination modalities with other immunotherapy agents, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, electrochemotherapy are also being explored to overcome resistance and to potentiate the immune response. In addition, novel approaches such as adoptive cell therapy, oncogenic viruses, vaccines and different strategies of drug administration including sequential, or combination treatment are being tested. Despite the progress in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct classification of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic theràapies, and prediction of response to therapy remain real challenges in melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers, but they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. Overall, the future research efforts in melanoma therapeutics and translational research should focus on several aspects including: (a) developing robust biomarkers to predict efficacy of therapeutic modalities to guide clinical decision-making and optimize treatment regimens, (b) identifying mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors that are potentially actionable, (c) identifying biomarkers to predict therapy-induced adverse events, and (d) studying mechanism of actions of therapeutic agents and developing algorithms to optimize combination treatments. During the Melanoma Bridge meeting (December 2nd-4th, 2021, Naples, Italy) discussions focused on the currently approved systemic and local therapies for advanced melanoma and discussed novel biomarker strategies and advances in precision medicine as well as the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on management of melanoma patients.

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains a common cancer with high mortality in men due to its heterogeneity and the emergence of drug resistance. A critical factor contributing to its lethality is the presence of prostate cancer stem cells (PCSCs), which can self-renew, long-term propagate tumors, and mediate treatment resistance. MicroRNA-34a (miR-34a) has shown promise as an anti-PCSC therapeutic by targeting critical molecules involved in cancer stem cell (CSC) survival and functions. Despite extensive efforts, the development of miR-34a therapeutics still faces challenges, including non-specific delivery and delivery-associated toxicity. One emerging delivery approach is ligand-mediated conjugation, aiming to achieve specific delivery of miR-34a to cancer cells, thereby enhancing efficacy while minimizing toxicity. Folate-conjugated miR-34a (folate–miR-34a) has demonstrated promising anti-tumor efficacy in breast and lung cancers by targeting folate receptor α (FOLR1). Here, we first show that miR-34a, a TP53 transcriptional target, is reduced in PCa that harbors TP53 loss or mutations and that miR-34a mimic, when transfected into PCa cells, downregulated multiple miR-34a targets and inhibited cell growth. When exploring the therapeutic potential of folate–miR-34a, we found that folate–miR-34a exhibited impressive inhibitory effects on breast, ovarian, and cervical cancer cells but showed minimal effects on and targeted delivery to PCa cells due to a lack of appreciable expression of FOLR1 in PCa cells. Folate–miR-34a also did not display any apparent effect on PCa cells expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PMSA) despite the reported folate’s binding capability to PSMA. These results highlight challenges in the specific delivery of folate–miR-34a to PCa due to a lack of target (receptor) expression. Our study offers novel insights into the challenges and promises within the field and casts light on the development of ligand-conjugated miR-34a therapeutics for PCa.

Abstract Over the past decade, immunotherapy has become an increasingly fundamental modality in the treatment of cancer. The positive impact of immune checkpoint inhibition, especially anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand (L)1 blockade, in patients with different cancers has focused attention on the potential for other immunotherapeutic approaches. These include inhibitors of additional immune checkpoints, adoptive cell transfer (ACT), and therapeutic vaccines. Patients with advanced cancers who previously had limited treatment options available may now benefit from immunotherapies that can offer durable responses and improved survival outcomes. However, despite this, a significant proportion of patients fail to respond to immunotherapy, especially those with less immunoresponsive cancer types, and there remains a need for new treatment strategies. The virtual Immunotherapy Bridge (December 1st–2nd, 2021), organized by the Fondazione Melanoma Onlus, Naples, Italy in collaboration with the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer addressed several areas of current research in immunotherapy, including lessons learned from cell therapies, drivers of immune response, and trends in immunotherapy across different cancers, and these are summarised here.

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus ipilimumab has demonstrated greater antitumor activity versus ipilimumab alone, without additional toxicity, in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year outcomes from a randomized phase II study. These data provide the longest efficacy and safety follow-up for patients with melanoma treated with a combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor.Eligible patients with unresectable stage IIIB‒IV melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. T-VEC was administered intralesionally at 106 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL in week 1, followed by 108 PFU/mL in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter. Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; ≤4 doses) was administered intravenously starting at week 1 in the ipilimumab arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per immune-related response criteria; key secondary end points included durable response rate (DRR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.Overall, 198 patients were randomized to receive the combination (n=98) or ipilimumab (n=100). The combination improved the ORR versus ipilimumab (35.7% vs 16.0%; OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.7; p=0.003). DRR was 33.7% and 13.0% (unadjusted OR 3.4; 95% CI 1.7 to 7.0; descriptive p=0.001), respectively. Among the objective responders, the median DOR was 69.2 months (95% CI 38.5 to not estimable) with the combination and was not reached with ipilimumab. Median PFS was 13.5 months with the combination and 6.4 months with ipilimumab (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09; descriptive p=0.14). Estimated 5-year OS was 54.7% (95% CI 43.9 to 64.2) in the combination arm and 48.4% (95% CI 37.9 to 58.1) in the ipilimumab arm. Forty-seven (48.0%) and 65 (65.0%) patients in the combination and ipilimumab arms, respectively, received subsequent therapies. No new safety signals were reported.At the 5-year follow-up, the improved response rates observed with T-VEC plus ipilimumab were durable. This is the first randomized controlled study of the combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor that meets its primary end point.Trial registration number: NCT01740297.

Abstract The Great Debate session at the 2021 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 2–4) featured counterpoint views from experts on seven important issues in melanoma. The debates considered the use of adoptive cell therapy versus use of bispecific antibodies, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors versus immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whether the use of corticosteroids for the management of side effects have an impact on outcomes, the choice of programmed death (PD)-1 combination therapy with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 or lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3, whether radiation is needed for brain metastases, when lymphadenectomy should be integrated into the treatment plan and then the last debate, telemedicine versus face-to-face. As with previous Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their respective personal view. Audiences voted both before and after each debate.

Abstract As part of the 2021 Immunotherapy Bridge virtual congress (December 1–2, Naples, Italy), the Great Debate sessions featured experts who were assigned counter opposing views on four important questions in immunotherapy today. The first topic was whether oncolytic viruses or other specific immunomodulators were the more promising approach for intralesional therapy. The second was whether early surrogate endpoints, such as response rate or progression-free survival, correlate with long-term overall survival was considered. Thirdly, whether vaccines can transform cold into hot tumors was discussed and, finally, broad versus deep analytic profiling approaches to gain insights into immune-oncology development were compared. As with previous Bridge congresses, presenters were invited by the meeting Chairs and positions taken during the debates may not have reflected their respective personal view. In addition, the views summarised in this article are based on available evidence but may reflect personal interpretation of these data, clinical experience and subjective opinion of the speaker.

Abstract Improved understanding of tumor immunology has enabled the development of therapies that harness the immune system and prevent immune escape. Numerous clinical trials and real-world experience has provided evidence of the potential for long-term survival with immunotherapy in various types of malignancy. Recurring observations with immuno-oncology agents include their potential for clinical application across a broad patient population with different tumor types, conventional and unconventional response patterns, durable responses, and immune-related adverse events. Despite the substantial achievements to date, a significant proportion of patients still fail to benefit from current immunotherapy options, and ongoing research is focused on transforming non-responders to responders through the development of novel treatments, new strategies to combination therapy, adjuvant and neoadjuvant approaches, and the identification of biomarkers of response. These topics were the focus of the virtual Immunotherapy Bridge (December 2nd–3rd, 2020), organized by the Fondazione Melanoma Onlus, Naples, Italy, in collaboration with the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer and are summarised in this report.

Abstract Advances in immune checkpoint therapy and targeted therapy have led to improvement in overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. Single agent checkpoint PD-1 blockade and combination with BRAF/MEK targeted therapy demonstrated benefit in overall survival (OS). Superior response rates have been demonstrated with combined PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade, with a significant OS benefit compared with single-agent PD-1 blockade. Despite the progress in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct classification of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic therapies, and prediction of response to therapy remain real challenges in melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers but they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. Overall, the progress in melanoma therapeutics and translational research will help to optimize treatment regimens to overcome resistance and develop robust biomarkers to guide clinical decision-making. During the Melanoma Bridge meeting (December 3rd–5th, 2020, Italy) we reviewed the currently approved systemic and local therapies for advanced melanoma and discussed novel biomarker strategies and advances in precision medicine.

BackgroundCIMAvax-EGF is an epidermal growth factor (EGF)-depleting immunotherapy which has shown survival benefit as a switch maintenance treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary objective of this trial is to establish the safety and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of CIMAvax-EGF in combination with nivolumab as second-line therapy for NSCLC.MethodsPatients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-naive metastatic NSCLC were enrolled using a “3+3” dose-escalation design. Toxicities were graded according to CTCAE V4.03. Thirteen patients (one unevaluable), the majority with PD-L1 0%, were enrolled into two dose levels of CIMAvax-EGF.FindingsThe combination was determined to be safe and tolerable. The recommended phase 2 dose of CIMAvax-EGF was 2.4 mg. Humoral response to CIMAvax-EGF was achieved earlier and in a greater number of patients with the combination compared to historical control. Four out of 12 evaluable patients had an objective response.

Nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are some of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies. In general, early-stage NMSCs have favorable outcomes; however, a small subset of patients develop resistant, advanced, or metastatic disease, or aggressive subtypes that are more challenging to treat successfully. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), and basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Although ICIs have demonstrated activity against NMSCs, the routine clinical use of these agents may be more challenging due to a number of factors including the lack of predictive biomarkers, the need to consider special patient populations, the management of toxicity, and the assessment of atypical responses. With the goal of improving patient care by providing expert guidance to the oncology community, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The expert panel drew on the published literature as well as their own clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for NMSCs, including staging, biomarker testing, patient selection, therapy selection, post-treatment response evaluation and surveillance, and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations, among others. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to provide guidance to cancer care professionals treating patients with NMSCs.

Abstract The Great Debate session at the 2020 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 3rd–5th, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five specific controversial issues in melanoma. The debates considered whether or not innate immunity is important in the response to cancer and immunotherapy, how useful are the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification for the staging of patients, the use of sentinel node biopsy for staging patients, the use of triplet combination of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy versus combined immunotherapy, and the respective benefits of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy. As is usual with Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their own personal opinion.

Abstract As part of the 2020 Immunotherapy Bridge virtual congress (December 2nd–3rd, Italy), the Great Debate session featured counterpoint views from leading experts on three clinical questions in immunotherapy today. The first of these was whether antitumoral vaccination is still a treatment option. The second topic debated whether anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand (L)1 blockade should be the backbone for immunotherapy combination. Finally, the use of innovative study designs and surrogate endpoints was considered from both an academic and industry perspective. For each topic, two experts presented the argument and counter-argument in support of two different points of view. As with previous Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their respective personal view. The views summarised in this article are based on available evidence but may reflect personal interpretation of these data, clinical experience and subjective opinion of the speaker.

There is an urgent need to discover blood-based biomarkers to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Here the authors show that effective ICI therapy correlates with increased frequency of circulating CX3CR1+CD8+ T cells in preclinical tumor models and in a cohort of patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with anti-PD-1.

Abstract Over the last few years, numerous clinical trials and real-world experience have provided a large amount of evidence demonstrating the potential for long-term survival with immunotherapy agents across various malignancies, beginning with melanoma and extending to other tumours. The clinical success of immune checkpoint blockade has encouraged increasing development of other immunotherapies. It has been estimated that there are over 3000 immuno-oncology trials ongoing, targeting hundreds of disease and immune pathways. Evolving topics on cancer immunotherapy, including the state of the art of immunotherapy across various malignancies, were the focus of discussions at the Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (4–5 December, 2019, Naples, Italy), and are summarised in this report.

Abstract The melanoma treatment landscape changed in 2011 with the approval of the first anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA)-4 checkpoint inhibitor and of the first BRAF-targeted monoclonal antibody, both of which significantly improved overall survival (OS). Since then, improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment (TME) and tumor immune-evasion mechanisms has resulted in new approaches to targeting and harnessing the host immune response. The approval of new immune and targeted therapies has further improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma and other combination modalities are also being explored such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, electrochemotherapy and surgery. In addition, different strategies of drugs administration including sequential or combination treatment are being tested. Approaches to overcome resistance and to potentiate the immune response are being developed. Increasing evidence emerges that tissue and blood-based biomarkers can predict the response to a therapy. The latest findings in melanoma research, including insights into the tumor microenvironment and new biomarkers, improved understanding of tumor immune response and resistance, novel approaches for combination strategies and the role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, were the focus of discussions at the Melanoma Bridge meeting (5–7 December, 2019, Naples, Italy), which are summarized in this report.

Abstract The Great Debate session at the 2019 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 5-7, Naples, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five topical issues in melanoma. These were whether to choose local intratumoral treatment or systemic treatment, whether patients with stage IIIA melanoma require adjuvant therapy or not, whether treatment is better changed at disease progression or during stable disease, whether adoptive cell transfer (ACT) therapy is more appropriate used before or in combination with checkpoint inhibition therapy, and whether treatment can be stopped while the patient is still on response. As was the case for previous meetings, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs. As such, positions taken by each of the melanoma experts during the debates may not have reflected their respective personal approach.

The clinical and immunologic implications of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic for patients with cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy have introduced a multitude of clinical challenges and academic controversies. This review summarizes the current evidence, discussion points, and recommendations regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with a focus on patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). More specifically, we summarize the theoretical concepts and available objective data regarding the relationships between ICIs and the antiviral immune response, along with recommended clinical approaches to the management of melanoma and RCC patient cohorts receiving ICIs throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional insights regarding the use of ICIs in the setting of current and upcoming COVID-19 vaccines and broader implications toward future pandemics are also discussed.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the standard of care for the treatment of several cancers. While these immunotherapies have improved patient outcomes in many clinical settings, they bring accompanying risks of toxicity, specifically immune-related adverse events (irAEs). There is a need for clear, effective guidelines for the management of irAEs during ICI treatment, motivating the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) to convene an expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline. The panel discussed the recognition and management of single and combination ICI irAEs and ultimately developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to assist medical professionals in clinical decision-making and to improve outcomes for patients.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have emerged as a front-line therapy for a variety of solid tumors. With the widespread use of these agents, immune-associated toxicities are increasingly being recognized, including fatal myocarditis. There are limited data on the outcomes and prognostic utility of biomarkers associated with ICI-associated myocarditis. Our objective was to examine the associations between clinical biomarkers of cardiomyocyte damage and mortality in patients with cancer treated with ICIs.Methods We retrospectively studied 23 patients who developed symptomatic and asymptomatic troponin elevations while receiving ICI therapy at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. We obtained serial ECGs, troponin I, and creatine kinase-MD (CK-MB), in addition to other conventional clinical biomarkers, and compared covariates between survivors and non-survivors.Results Among patients with myocarditis, higher troponin I (p=0.037) and CK-MB (p=0.034) levels on presentation correlated with progression to severe myocarditis. Higher troponin I (p=0.016), CK (p=0.013), and CK-MB (p=0.034) levels were associated with increased mortality, while the presence of advanced atrioventricular block on presentation (p=0.088) trended toward increased mortality. Weekly troponin monitoring lead to earlier hospitalization for potential myocarditis (p=0.022) and was associated with decreased time to steroid initiation (p=0.053) and improved outcomes.Conclusions Routine troponin surveillance may be helpful in predicting mortality in ICI-treated patients with cancer in the early phase of ICI therapy initiation. Early detection of troponin elevation is associated with earlier intervention and improved outcomes in ICI-associated myocarditis. The recommended assessment and diagnostic studies guiding treatment decisions are presented.

Abstract Immunotherapy is now widely established as a potent and effective treatment option across several types of cancer. However, there is increasing recognition that not all patients respond to immunotherapy, focusing attention on the immune contexture of the tumor microenvironment (TME), drivers of the immune response and mechanisms of tumor resistance to immunity. The development of novel immunotherapeutics and their use in combination with checkpoint inhibitors and other standard of care and novel treatment modalities is an area of particular attention across several tumor types, including melanoma, lung, ovarian, breast, pancreatic, renal, head and neck, brain and non-melanoma skin cancers. The 4th Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (28–29 November, 2018, Naples, Italy) focused on a wide range of evolving topics and trends in the field of cancer immunotherapy and key presentations from this meeting are summarised in this report.

Abstract As part of the 2018 Immunotherapy Bridge congress (November 28–29, Naples, Italy), the Great Debate session featured counterpoint views from leading experts on four topical clinical issues in immunotherapy today. These were: the relative importance of adaptive versus innate immunity in the anti-cancer immune response; the merits of combination versus sequential immunotherapy regimens in the treatment of cancer; the advantages and disadvantages of murine models of cancer versus humans in order to evaluate immunotherapy; and whether or not mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy differ between different cancers. Discussion of these important topics are summarised in this report.

Abstract Diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct prognostication of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic therapies, and prediction of response to a given therapy remain very real challenges in melanoma. Recent studies have shown that immune checkpoint blockade that represents a forefront in cancer therapy, provide responses but they are not universal. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. For example, advancements in sequencing and the understanding of the tumor microenvironment in melanoma have led to the use of genome sequencing and gene expression for development of multi-marker assays that show association with inflammatory state of the tumor and potential to predict response to immunotherapy. As such, melanoma serves as a model system for understanding cancer immunity and patient response to immunotherapy, either alone or in combination with other treatment modalities. Overall, the aim for the translational and clinical studies is to achieve incremental improvements through the development and identification of optimal treatment regimens, which increasingly involve doublet as well as triplet combinations, as well as through development of biomarkers to improve immune response. These and other topics in the management of melanoma were the focus of discussions at the fourth Melanoma Bridge meeting (November 29th–December 1st, 2018, Naples, Italy), which is summarised in this report.

Abstract The great debate session at the 2018 Melanoma Bridge congress (November 29–December 1, Naples, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on three topical issues in melanoma. These were whether overall survival should still be the main endpoint for clinical trials in melanoma, whether anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 is still the optimal choice of drug to use in combination with an anti-programmed death (PD)/PD-ligand (L)-1 agent, and the place of adjuvant versus neoadjuvant therapy in patients with melanoma. These three important debates are summarised in this report.

The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced stage cancers. However, immune-related adverse events are frequently observed. Cardiac toxicity from ICI therapy can range from asymptomatic troponin-I elevations to conduction abnormalities of the heart and even fulminant myocarditis. Although rare, myocarditis is a potentially fatal adverse effect of ICI therapy. We present a series of five cases of ICI-related cardio-toxicity diagnosed and managed at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center along with a review of published case reports in the literature. Our series highlights the importance of high clinical suspicion, early diagnosis of myocarditis, and prompt initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Aim: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is an intralesional therapy for unresectable, metastatic melanoma. T-VEC real-world use in the context of anti-PD1-based therapy requires further characterization. Materials & methods: A retrospective review of T-VEC use from 1 January 2017 and 31 March 2018 for melanoma patients was conducted at seven US institutions. Results: Among 83 patients, three categories of T-VEC and anti-PD-1 therapy were identified: T-VEC used without anti-PD-1 (n = 29, 35%), T-VEC after anti-PD-1-based therapy (n = 22, 27%) and concurrent T-VEC and anti-PD-1-based therapy (n = 32, 39%). 25% of patients discontinued T-VEC therapy due to no remaining injectable lesions, 37% discontinued T-VEC due to progressive disease. Discontinuation of T-VEC did not differ by anti-PD-1-based therapy use or timing. Conclusion: In real-world settings, T-VEC may be used concurrently with or after anti-PD-1-based therapy.

Patients with cancer who developed severe, grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) during therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors are at risk for developing severe toxicities again on rechallenge with checkpoint inhibitors. Consequently, medical oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are hesitant to retreat in this scenario, despite the fact that a number of patients may derive clinical benefit from this approach. Balancing such clinical benefit and treatment-related toxicities for each patient is becoming increasingly challenging as more and more patients with cancer are being treated with checkpoint inhibitors. In this manuscript, we provide an extensive overview of the relevant literature on retreatment after toxicity, and suggest prophylactic approaches to minimize the risk of severe irAE following rechallenge with immune checkpoint blockade, since treatment may be lifesaving in a number of occasions.

Background Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common intraocular malignancy in adults. In contrast to cutaneous melanoma (CM), there is no standard therapy, and the efficacy and safety of dual checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab is not well defined.Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic UM (mUM) who received treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab across 14 academic medical centers. Toxicity was graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.Results 89 eligible patients were identified. 45% had received prior therapy, which included liver directed therapy (29%), immunotherapy (21%), targeted therapy (10%) and radiation (16%). Patients received a median 3 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The median follow-up time was 9.2 months. Overall response rate was 11.6%. One patient achieved complete response (1%), 9 patients had partial response (10%), 21 patients had stable disease (24%) and 55 patients had progressive disease (62%). Median OS from treatment initiation was 15 months and median PFS was 2.7 months. Overall, 82 (92%) of patients discontinued treatment, 34 due to toxicity and 27 due to progressive disease. Common immune-related adverse events were colitis/diarrhea (32%), fatigue (23%), rash (21%) and transaminitis (21%).Conclusions Dual checkpoint inhibition yielded higher response rates than previous reports of single-agent immunotherapy in patients with mUM, but the efficacy is lower than in metastatic CM. The median OS of 15 months suggests that the rate of clinical benefit may be larger than the modest response rate.

The functional significance of the observed heterogeneity of androgen receptor (AR) expression in prostate cancer is unknown. Here the authors show AR expression heterogeneity is associated with distinct castration/enzalutamide responses and identify BCL-2 as a potential therapeutic target in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Abstract Immunotherapy represents the third important wave in the history of the systemic treatment of cancer after chemotherapy and targeted therapy and is now established as a potent and effective treatment option across several cancer types. The clinical success of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4, first, and anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand (L)1 agents in melanoma and other cancers a few years later, has encouraged increasing focus on the development of other immunotherapies (e.g. monoclonal antibodies with other immune targets, adoptive cell transfer, and vaccines), with over 3000 immuno-oncology trials ongoing, involving hundreds of research institutes across the globe. The potential use of these different immunotherapeutic options in various combinations with one another and with other treatment modalities is an area of particular promise. The third Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (29-30 November, 2017, Naples, Italy) focused on recent advances in immunotherapy across various cancer types and is summarised in this report.