Search

Background: In the phase 2 EMPOWER-CSCC-1 study (NCT02760498), cemiplimab demonstrated antitumor activity against metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (mCSCC) and locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (laCSCC)., Objectives: To report final analysis of weight-based cemiplimab in mCSCC and laCSCC (groups 1 and 2), fixed-dose cemiplimab in mCSCC (group 3), and primary analysis of fixed-dose cemiplimab in mCSCC/laCSCC (group 6)., Methods: Patients received cemiplimab (3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks [groups 1 and 2]) or cemiplimab (350 mg intravenously [groups 3 and 6]) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) are presented per protocol, according to post-hoc sensitivity analyses that only include the period of protocol-mandated imaging assessments., Results: At 42.5 months, ORR for groups 1-3 (n = 193) was 47.2%, estimated 12-month DOR was 88.3%, and median PFS was 26.0 months. At 8.7 months, ORR for group 6 (n = 165 patients) was 44.8%; median DOR and median PFS were not reached. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event rates (grade ≥3) were groups 1-3: 31.1% and group 6: 34.5%., Limitations: Nonrandomized study, nonsurvival primary end point., Conclusion: EMPOWER-CSCC-1 provides the largest prospective data on long-term efficacy and safety for anti-programmed cell death-1 therapy in advanced CSCC., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Hughes reports consulting/advisory roles at AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche; and institutional research funding from Amgen. Dr Guminski reports personal fees and advisory board and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma; advisory board fees from Eisai, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer; travel support from Astellas; and clinical trial unit support from PPD Australia. Dr Bowyer reports advisory board roles for Eli Lilly Australia, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi; virtual meeting sponsorship from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme Australia; and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme and AstraZeneca. Michael Migden reports honoraria and travel expenses from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi; consulting fees from Feldan Therapeutics, Replimune, Stamford Pharma, and Sun Pharma; and institutional research funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Replimune. Dr Schmults reports steering committee membership for Castle Biosciences; steering committee membership and consultancy for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; consultancy for Sanofi; research funding from Castle Biosciences, Genentech, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and serving as a chair for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Dr Khushalani reports grants and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca (data safety monitoring committee), Castle Biosciences, Incyte (data safety monitoring committee), Instil Bio, Iovance, Jounce Therapeutics, Nektar, and Replimune; grants from Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, HUYA, Modulation Therapeutics, and Replimune; honoraria from Genzyme, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (grant funding from general research support through Pfizer), and Nektar (study steering committee); common stock ownership of Amarin, Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, and Transenetrix; study steering committee membership for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Replimune; and travel support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Chang reports consulting and advisory roles with Merck, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; research funding from Galderma, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and consultancy for Castle Biosciences and Feldan. Dr Grob reports serving on an advisory board for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Philogen, Roche, and Sanofi; and an advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Lewis reports employment, stock, and other ownership interests at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. At the time of this study, Dr Lewis was affiliated with the University of Colorado Denver Cancer Center and is now an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Day reports serving on an advisory board for Amgen, travel support from Merck; and clinical trial support (investigational medical product provision, no financial support) from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Ladwa reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, and Roche; and travel, accommodation, and expenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr Stein reports ownership of stocks/shares in Icon Group. Dr Muñoz Couselo reports serving on an advisory board for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi; honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; and clinical trial participation (principal investigator) for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr Meier reports travel support, speaker’s fees, or advisor’s honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi; and research funding from Novartis and Roche. Dr Hauschild reports institutional grants, speaker’s honoraria, and consultancy fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Roche, and Novartis; institutional grants and consultancy fees from Merck Serono, Philogen, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and consultancy fees from OncoSec. Dr Schadendorf reports honoraria from 4SC AG, Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, InflarxGmbH, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare GmbH, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Philogen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Sanofi, Serono, Sun Pharma, Roche/Genentech, and Ultimovacs; advisory board and consulting fees from 4SC AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Nektar; speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi; institutional research funding from Array BioPharma/Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche; and travel/accommodation expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi. Dr Basset-Seguin reports serving as an invited speaker, advisory board member, and consultant for Galderma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr Modi reports consulting/advisory board participation for Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi Genzyme; and speaker bureau participation for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Dalac-Rat reports honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sun Pharma. Dr Dunn reports advisory board participation for Merck and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and research support from CUE-101, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Replimune Pharmaceuticals, and Seagen. Dr Flatz reports research funding from Hookipa Pharma; and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Philogen, and Sanofi. Dr Mortier reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche. Dr Guégan reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre; and technical support for congress attendance from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi. Dr Heinzerling reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sanofi; lecture fees from Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; and travel grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. Dr Mehnert reports advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Novartis, Pliant Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Seagen; and consultancy fees from Merck. Dr Soria-Rivas reports speaker’s honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche Pharma, and Sanofi Aventis; and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi Aventis. Dr Stratigos reports advisory board or steering committee roles for Janssen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, and Sanofi; and research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genesis Pharma, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Ulrich reports advisory board and speaker roles for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr Wong reports grant funding to institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F-Star Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Kura Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and TopAlliance Biosciences, and consulting fees from Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Genzyme/Sanofi, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Beylot-Barry reports institutional research funding from Roche and speaker honoraria from Sun Pharma. Dr Bossi reports advisory board or conference honoraria for Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Sun Pharma. Dr Bugés Sánchez reports personal fees from Amgen, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Chandra reports honoraria from Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Exicure, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi; consulting/advisory roles for Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Exicure, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi; and institutional research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Exicure, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Dr Robert reports grants, personal fees, and advisory board roles for Amgen, Biothera, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Ultimovacs. Dr Silk reports institutional research grant and funding from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Morphogenesis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Replimune, and Shattuck Laboratories; advisory board fees from Natera, Merck and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; consulting fees from Leerink, and royalties from UpToDate, Inc. Ms Booth and Drs, Yoo, Seebach, Lowy, and Fury report employment, stock, and other ownership interests at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Rischin reports institutional research grant and funding from ALX Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Kura Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, and Sanofi; and uncompensated scientific committee and advisory board roles for Eisai, Bicara, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Drs Ansstas, Trabelsi, and Russell have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for the treatment of melanoma has resulted in remarkable and durable responses. Given the potential role of immunosenescence, age may contribute to differential ICI efficacy and toxicity. While older patients have been studied in detail, outcomes from ICI in young patients (≤40 years) are not well characterised., Methods: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or ICI combination (ipilimumab and anti-PD-1). Response rates, survival, and toxicities were examined based on age comparing those under 40 years of age with older patients (age 41-70 and ≥ 71 years)., Results: A total of 676 patients were included: 190 patients (28%) aged ≤40 years, 313 (46%) between ages 41-70, and 173 patients (26%) aged ≥71. Patients ≤40 years had higher response rates (53% vs 38%, p = 0.035) and improved progression-free survival (median 13.7 vs 4.0 months, p = 0.032) with combination ICI compared to monotherapy. Progression-free survival was similar among groups while overall survival was inferior in patients >70 years, who had low response rates to combination therapy (28%). ICIs had a similar incidence of severe toxicities, though hepatotoxicity was particularly common in younger patients vs. patients >40 with monotherapy (9% vs. 2%, p = 0.007) or combination ICI (37% vs. 10%, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: ICIs had comparable efficacy between younger and older patients, although outcomes were superior with combination ICI compared to monotherapy in patients aged ≤40 years. Toxicity incidence was similar across age groups, though organs affected were substantially different., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: DBJ has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, and Targovax, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. RJS has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for BMS, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, Oncosec, and Pfizer, and has received research funding from Merck. GVL is a consultant advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Hexal AG, Highlight Therapeutics, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, OncoSec, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Qbiotics, and Regeneron. MSC is a consultant advisor for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, and Roche; honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis. AMM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, and QBiotics. IMR has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Amgen, BMS, GSK, Novartis, MSD, Roche, Celegene, Pierre Fabre, Highlight Therapeutics (formerly Bioncotech), Regeneron, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Astra Zeneca, BiolineRx, and Sun Pharma. EMC has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Amgen, BMS, GSK, Novartis, MSD, Roche, Celegene, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Astra Zeneca, and Sun Pharma. LZ (MGH) has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Merck. SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pierre Fabre; outside the submitted work. LZ (Essen) reports personal fees and other (advisory board participation, travel grants) from Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Novartis; other (advisory board participation and/or travel grants) from Sanofi and Amgen; all outside the submitted work. EL reports personal fees and other (advisory board participation and/or travel grants) from Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and medac; personal fees from Janssen; other fees from Actelion and Pierre-Fabre; all outside the submitted work. DS reports research finding to the institution for clinical studies or research from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Array; patient fees to the institution from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck-EMD, Philogen, Pfizer, Array, InflarX, OncoSec, Replimune, Neracare, Nektar, SunPharma, Sandoz, and UltimoVacs; reimbursement for travel from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Merck-EMD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, InflarX, NeraCare, and Nektar; non-financial support from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck-EMD, Pierre-Fabre, InFlarX, Neracare, Nektar, SunPharma, and Sandoz; all outside the submitted work. SMB has served as a consultant for Two River Consulting and Third Rock Ventures and reports equity holdings in Kronos Bio and 76Bio. All remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Liver injury related to immunotherapy is a relatively frequent immune-related adverse event that requires permanent discontinuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in severe cases. We present the outcome of a cohort of patients who were retreated with immunotherapy after resolution of severe immune-related hepatitis., Methods: We performed a prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study that included all consecutive patients with cancer and previous grade 3 or 4 immune-related hepatitis who were retreated with ICIs in 3 academic hospitals., Results: Twenty-three patients who developed severe immune-related hepatitis were included: 20 of 23 (87.0%) received a single ICI and 3 of 23 (13.0%) received anti-programmed cell death protein-1 plus an anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen. The most frequent cancers were lung cell and urinary tract (7 and 6 cases, respectively). Immunotherapy was discontinued in all cases. Nineteen patients (82.6%) also received corticoids. Patients mainly were retreated with the same ICI (18 of 23; 78.3%) after a median time of 10 weeks (range, 1-54 wk) from the severe immune-related hepatitis. Fifteen patients (65.2%) did not have recurrence of the immune-related hepatitis after retreatment. Among the 8 (34.8%) subjects with recurrence, 5 of 8 were grade 3 and 3 of 8 were grade 4. Six (75%) had either an underlying autoimmune disease or antinuclear antibodies ≥1/80 (75% vs 26.7%; P = .037). None of the patients with previously grade 4 hepatitis had a recurrence, and those patients who had a recurrence tended to present with a better oncological prognosis. Overall, 19 (82.6%) subjects required permanent discontinuation of ICIs, with cancer progression the main reason for discontinuation (9 of 19; 47.8%)., Conclusions: Retreatment with ICIs is a feasible option after a severe immune-related hepatitis, even with the same ICIs, without recurrence of the liver injury retreatment in up to 65% of patients., (Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Metastatic melanoma has been historically associated with a poor prognosis; however, the therapeutic landscape has experimented and impressive change in the last years due to rapid advances in the immunotherapy field. The first immunotherapy treatment for metastatic melanoma was ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4), which showed a significant improvement of overall survival compared to chemotherapy. However, in 2015 anti-PD-1 pembrolizumab shown an improved overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate compared to ipilimumab with either a better toxicity profile. Moreover, other immunotherapy combinations and target therapies, such as BRAF and MEK inhibitors combinations, have shown better outcomes than ipilimumab. Thus, ipilimumab seems to have no role in frontline metastatic melanoma treatment and even their role in second line is being less frequent due to clinical efficacy of those other treatments. Actually, the role of ipilimumab in second line after anti-PD-1 progression is not clear although there is clinical evidence for its use. Here, we report two cases of treatment response with ipilimumab in second line setting after receiving anti-PD-1 combination. So that, ipilimumab may have a role after progression to an anti-PD-1 treatment.

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.

Purpose: Atezolizumab [anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)] selectively targets PD-L1 to block its interaction with receptors programmed death 1 and B7.1, thereby reinvigorating antitumor T-cell activity. We evaluated the long-term safety and activity of atezolizumab, along with biological correlates of clinical activity endpoints, in a cohort of patients with melanoma in an ongoing phase Ia study (NCT01375842)., Patients and Methods: Patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma were enrolled to receive atezolizumab 0.1 to 20 mg/kg or ≥10 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary study objectives were safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives included investigator-assessed efficacy measures; pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarkers of antitumor activity were explored., Results: Forty-five patients were enrolled and were evaluable for safety. Most treatment-related adverse events (AE) were grade 1/2 (60%). Fatigue (44%), pruritus (20%), pyrexia (18%), and rash (18%) were the most common treatment-related AEs of any grade. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Overall response rate was 30% among 43 efficacy- evaluable patients, with a median duration of response of 62 months [95% CI, 35-not estimable (NE)]. Clinically meaningful long-term survival was observed, with a median overall survival of 23 months (95% CI, 9-66). Baseline biomarkers of tumor immunity [PD-L1 expression on immune cells, T effector (Teff), and antigen presentation gene signatures) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were associated with improved response, progression-free survival, and overall survival., Conclusions: Atezolizumab was well tolerated, with durable responses and survival in patients with melanoma. PD-L1 expression, TMB, and Teff signatures may indicate improved benefit with atezolizumab in these patients., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)