Search

Background In patients with melanoma and asymptomatic brain metastases (MBM), nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an intracranial response rate of 55%. Here, we present the first report for patients who were symptomatic and/or required corticosteroids and updated data for asymptomatic patients. Methods Patients with measurable MBM, 0.5-3.0 cm, were enrolled into Cohort A (asymptomatic) or Cohort B (stable neurologic symptoms and/or receiving corticosteroids). Nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, and ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, were given intravenously every 3 weeks ×4, followed by nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or 24 months. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (CBR; complete response [CR], partial response [PR], or stable disease ≥6 months). Results Symptomatic patients (N = 18) received a median of one nivolumab and ipilimumab combination dose and had an intracranial CBR of 22.2%. Two of 12 patients on corticosteroids had CR; 2 responded among the 6 not on corticosteroids. Median intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 1.2 and 8.7 months, respectively. In contrast, with 20.6 months of follow-up, we confirmed an intracranial CBR of 58.4% in asymptomatic patients (N = 101); median duration of response, PFS, and OS were not reached. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides durable clinical benefit for asymptomatic patients with MBM and should be considered for first-line therapy. This regimen has limited activity in MBM patients with neurologic symptoms and/or requiring corticosteroids, supporting the need for alternative approaches and methods to reduce the dependency on corticosteroids. Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058.

Purpose:Neoadjuvant immunotherapy may improve the clinical outcome of regionally advanced operable melanoma and allows for rapid clinical and pathologic assessment of response. We examined neoadjuvant pembrolizumab and high-dose IFNα-2b (HDI) therapy in patients with resectable advanced melanoma.Patients and Methods:Patients with resectable stage III/IV melanoma were treated with concurrent pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks and HDI 20 MU/m2/day i.v., 5 days per week for 4 weeks, then 10 MU/m2/day subcutaneously 3 days per week for 2 weeks. Definitive surgery followed, as did adjuvant combination immunotherapy, completing a year of treatment. Primary endpoint was safety of the combination. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), pathologic complete response (pCR), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). Blood samples for correlative studies were collected throughout. Tumor tissue was assessed by IHC and flow cytometry at baseline and at surgery.Results:A total of 31 patients were enrolled, and 30 were evaluable. At data cutoff (October 2, 2019), median follow-up for OS was 37.87 months (range, 33.2–43.47). Median OS and RFS were not reached. Radiographic ORR was 73.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 55.5–85.8], with a 43% (95% CI: 27.3–60.1) pCR rate. None of the patients with a pCR have had a recurrence. HDI and pembrolizumab were discontinued in 73% and 43% of patients, respectively. Correlative analyses suggested that intratumoral PD-1/PD-L1 interaction and HLA-DR expression are associated with pCR (P = 0.002 and P = 0.008, respectively).Conclusions:Neoadjuvant concurrent HDI and pembrolizumab demonstrated promising clinical activity despite high rates of treatment discontinuation. pCR is a prognostic indicator.See related commentary by Menzies et al., p. 4133

Many patients with advanced melanoma are resistant to immune checkpoint inhibition. In the ILLUMINATE-204 phase I/II trial, we assessed intratumoral tilsotolimod, an investigational Toll-like receptor 9 agonist, with systemic ipilimumab in patients with anti–PD-1– resistant advanced melanoma. In all patients, 48.4% experienced grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events. The overall response rate at the recommended phase II dose of 8 mg was 22.4%, and an additional 49% of patients had stable disease. Responses in noninjected lesions and in patients expected to be resistant to ipilimumab monotherapy were observed. Rapid induction of a local IFNα gene signature, dendritic cell maturation and enhanced markers of antigen presentation, and T-cell clonal expansion correlated with clinical response. A phase III clinical trial with this combination (NCT03445533) is ongoing. Significance: Despite recent developments in advanced melanoma therapies, most patients do not experience durable responses. Intratumoral tilsotolimod injection elicits a rapid, local type 1 IFN response and, in combination with ipilimumab, activates T cells to promote clinical activity, including in distant lesions and patients not expected to respond to ipilimumab alone. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1861

Background Axitinib plus pembrolizumab showed superior overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) versus sunitinib in a randomised phase III trial in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). We report long-term efficacy and safety of the axitinib/pembrolizumab from the phase I trial (NCT02133742), after 46–55 months from study initiation (data cut-off date, 23rd July 2019). Methods Fifty-two treatment-naive patients with advanced RCC were treated with oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily and intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. PFS, duration of response (DoR) and OS were summarised using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results At a median follow-up of 42.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.1–44.1), median OS was not reached; 38 (73.1%) patients were alive. The probability of being alive at 4 years was 66.8% (95% CI: 49.1–79.5). Median PFS in the overall population was 23.5 months (95% CI: 15.4–30.4). ORR was 73.1%; five patients had complete response. Median DoR was 22.1 months (95% CI: 15.1–34.5). Grade III/IV adverse events (AEs) were reported in 38 (73.1%) patients and 20 (38.5%) discontinued treatment because of AEs: 17 (32.7%) discontinued axitinib, 13 (25.0%) discontinued pembrolizumab, and 10 (19.2%) discontinued both drugs. Common AEs included diarrhoea (84.6%), fatigue (80.8%), hypertension (53.8%), cough (48.1%) and dysphonia (48.1%). There were no new AE terms reported and no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions In patients with advanced RCC with ~4 years of follow-up, combination axitinib/pembrolizumab continued to demonstrate clinical benefit, with no new safety signals.

Purpose: Combined axitinib/pembrolizumab is approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This exploratory analysis examined associations between angiogenic and immune-related biomarkers and outcomes following axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment. Patients and Methods: Prospectively defined retrospective correlative exploratory analyses tested biospecimens from 52 treatment-naïve patients receiving axitinib and pembrolizumab (starting doses 5 mg twice daily and 2 mg/kg respectively, every 3 weeks). Tumor tissue, serum, and whole blood samples were collected at baseline, at cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1), and end of treatment (EOT) for blood-based samples. Clinical outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Higher baseline tumor levels of CD8 showed a trend toward longer PFS (HR 0.4; P = 0.091). Higher baseline serum levels of CXCL10 (P = 0.0197) and CEACAM1 (P = 0.085) showed a trend toward better ORR and longer PFS, respectively. Patients for whom IL6 was not detected at baseline had longer PFS versus patients for whom it was detected (HR 0.4; P = 0.028). At C2D1 and/or EOT, mainly immune-related biomarkers showed any association with better outcomes. The genes CA9 (P = 0.084), HIF1A (P = 0.064), and IFNG (P = 0.073) showed trending associations with ORR, and AKT3 (P = 0.0145), DDX58 (P = 0.0726), GZMA (P = 0.0666), LCN2 (NGAL; P = 0.0267), and PTPN11 (P = 0.0287) with PFS. Conclusions: With combined axitinib/pembrolizumab treatment in patients with aRCC, mostly immune-related biomarkers are associated with better treatment outcomes. This exploratory analysis has identified some candidate biomarkers to consider in future prospective testing.

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.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is among the 10 most common cancers in the USA. One-third of the patients diagnosed with this cancer present with locally advanced or metastatic disease. In the past, advanced disease conferred poor survival outcomes; however, the treatment paradigm for RCC has been revolutionized twice since 2005. The initial wave of revolution came with the emergence of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and a second wave arose more recently with the emergence and unprecedented success of checkpoint inhibitors in RCC. A third wave combining these two strategies is well underway and likely represents the new paradigm to improve survival outcomes for afflicted patients. In this review, we discuss the current treatment landscape for patients with advanced RCC, focusing on approved VEGF and checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting as well as highlighting landmark combination clinical trials.

Purpose: To report the 5-year overall survival (OS) landmark and the long-term safety profile of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (BRAF plus MEK inhibition, respectively) in the BRIM7 study. Patients and Methods: This phase Ib, dose-finding, and expansion study evaluated combination treatment with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in two cohorts of patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma: patients who were BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi)-naïve (n = 63) or patients who had progressed on prior treatment with BRAFi monotherapy [vemurafenib monotherapy–progressive disease (PD); n = 66]. Patients in the dose-escalation phase received vemurafenib at 720 or 960 mg twice daily in combination with cobimetinib at 60, 80, or 100 mg/d for 14 days on/14 days off, 21 days on/7 days off, or continuously. Two regimens were selected for expansion: vemurafenib (720 and 960 mg twice daily) and cobimetinib (60 mg/d 21/7). Results: Median OS was 31.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 24.5–not estimable] in the BRAFi-naïve cohort. The landmark OS rate plateaued at 39.2% at years 4 and 5 of follow-up. In the vemurafenib monotherapy–PD cohort, the median OS was 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.7–11.1), and the landmark OS rate plateaued at 14.0% from 3 years of follow-up. No increase was observed in the frequency and severity of adverse events with long-term follow-up. No new toxicities were detected, and there was no increase in the frequency of symptomatic MEK inhibitor class-effect adverse events. Conclusions: A subset of patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma treated with a combination regimen of vemurafenib and cobimetinib achieve favorable long-term outcomes.

BackgroundWhile IL-2 and IL-15 signal through the shared IL-2/15 βγ receptor, IL-15 does not directly expand regulatory T cells (Tregs)or mediate activation-induced cell death and may have an improved therapeutic index. KD033 is a fusion antibody combining a fully human, high affinity anti-human Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) IgG1 antibody with the human IL-15 receptor alpha (IL15Rα) sushi domain and human IL-15 (IL-15). KD033 and its mouse cross-reactive surrogate molecule, srKD033, have been extensively characterized in multiple in vitro and in vivo nonclinical studies and have demonstrated robust efficacy and therapeutic benefits compared to IL-15 alone.MethodsThis is a phase 1, open-label, multiple ascending dose, multi-center clinical trial being conducted in patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumors (NCT04242147). The primary objective is to determine the safety, tolerability, and MTD of KD033. Secondary objectives include characterization of PK and immunogenicity, evaluation of CD8+ T and NK cell activation, and assessment of best overall response and duration of response. KD033 is administered by IV infusion over 30 minutes every 14 days. The study design follows 3+3 escalation investigating dose ranges from 3µg/kg to 600µg/kg.ResultsA total of 12 patients have received treatment. Three patients were dosed in Cohort 1 (C1), four patients were dosed in Cohort 2 (C2), and three patients were dosed in Cohort 3 (C3). Two patients in Cohort 4 (C4) have been dosed. Through three dose escalation cohorts (3 µg/kg – 50 µg/kg), no dose-limiting toxicities have been reported. Grade 1–2 treatment-related toxicities resolved within 24 hours with supportive management. Grade 4 decreases in lymphocytes were noted the day after dosing in C3 and C4, which resolved on day 3 and were expected. One patient (adenoid cystic carcinoma) in C1 was shown to have stable disease for more than 6 months and one patient (metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma) in C3 was shown to have stable disease for more than 4 months.ConclusionsTo date, KD033 has been well tolerated in all subjects with on-mechanism pharmacodynamics consistent with IL-15 agonism.Ethics ApprovalThis study obtained ethics approval from WIRB.

BackgroundONCR-177 is a recombinant oncolytic herpes simplex virus (oHSV) that retains γ34.5 and is engineered to express five immunomodulatory transgenes (IL-12, FLT3LG ECD, CCL4 and anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies) for the intratumoral treatment of solid tumors. Attenuation by miRNA leads to selective replication in tumor cells, and mutations in UL37 act as an orthogonal safety strategy. Transgenes elicit potent systemic stimulation of anti-tumor immunity.1 ONCR-177 is being tested in an open-label, multicenter, phase 1 study alone and in combination with pembrolizumab (NCT04348916), for surface lesion injection and intrahepatic injection. Here we present the surface lesion escalation data.MethodsThe objectives were determination of safety and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ONCR-177 monotherapy in subjects with advanced and/or refractory injectable surface lesions using a modified toxicity probability interval-2 (mTPI-2) escalation design at four dose levels: (Cohort 1: 1×106 PFU in 1 mL, Cohort 2: 1×107 PFU in 1 mL, Cohort 3: 1×108 PFU in 1 mL and Cohort 4: 4×108 PFU in 4 mL). Subjects received ONCR-177 by intratumoral injection once every 2 weeks (up to 10 times) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. There was no intrapatient dose escalation.ResultsAs of June 28, 2021, 14 subjects with injectable tumors were enrolled in the dose escalation phase (3 in cohort 1, 4 in cohort 2, 3 in cohort 3 and 4 in cohort 4). Enrolled tumor types included: melanoma (3), breast (3), anal squamous cell (1), lung (1), duodenal (1), basal cell (1), chondrosarcoma (1), thyroid (1), oropharyngeal (1) and papillary renal cell (1). Subject median age was 67 years. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 4 (range 2–11), including 11 of 14 subjects with prior immunotherapy. Nine subjects were HSV-1 seropositive at baseline, 4 were negative, one was unknown. Treatment-related Adverse Events were all Grade 1–2. Most commonly reported were: cytokine release syndrome (2 occurrences in Cohort 4), fatigue, nausea, chills, headache, decreased appetite, hypotension, and injection site pain. There were no dose-limiting toxicities. The RP2D was selected as 4×108 PFU in 4 mL every 2 weeks up to 10 doses. Clinical data, including safety, viral shedding and exploratory biomarker data including peripheral payloads, peripheral cytokines and immune infiltration and PD-L1 expression in the tumor microenvironment will be presented.ConclusionsONCR-177 monotherapy in heavily pretreated subjects with advanced, injectable, solid tumors at the RP2D was safe and tolerable. Enrollment at the RP2D is underway in monotherapy expansion.Trial RegistrationNCT04348916ReferencesHaines BB, Denslow A, Grzesik P, Lee JS, Farkaly T, Hewett J, Wambua D, Kong L, Behera P, Jacques J, et al. ONCR-177, an Oncolytic HSV-1 Designed to Potently Activate Systemic Antitumor Immunity. Cancer Immunol Res 2021;9: 291–308Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the following institutional Ethics Boards:-University Health Network Research Ethics Board (ID Number: 20-5069)-Integreview IRB (ID Number RM 694) -WCG IRB (ID Number: 20200150)-Advarra (ID Number: 00000971)-Roswell Park IRB (ID Number: STUDY00001189/P-553719)-The Ohio State University Cancer IRB (ID Number: 2020C0139) -Dana Farber Cancer Institute IRB (ID Number 354020)All participants gave informed consent before taking part in this clinical trial.

Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC), particularly papillary renal cell carcinoma, in order to inform on initial treatment selection and identify potentially novel targets for therapy. We enrolled 108 patients in ASPEN, an international randomized open-label phase 2 trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC treated with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (n=57) or the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitor sunitinib (n=51), stratified by MSKCC risk and histology. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary efficacy endpoints for this exploratory biomarker analysis were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) defined by intention-to-treat using the RECIST 1.1 criteria and radiographic response rates. Tissue biomarkers (n=78) of mTOR pathway activation (phospho-S6 and -Akt, c-kit) and VEGF pathway activation (HIF-1α, c-MET) were prospectively explored in tumor tissue by immunohistochemistry prior to treatment and associated with clinical outcomes. We found that S6 activation was more common in poor-risk NC-RCC tumors and S6/Akt activation was associated with worse PFS and OS outcomes with both everolimus and sunitinib, while c-kit was commonly expressed in chromophobe tumors and associated with improved outcomes with both agents. C-MET was commonly expressed in papillary tumors and was associated with lower rates of radiographic response but did not predict PFS for either agent. In multivariable analysis, both pAkt and c-kit were statistically significant prognostic biomarkers of OS. No predictive biomarkers of treatment response were identified for clinical outcomes. Most biomarker subgroups had improved outcomes with sunitinib as compared to everolimus.

International audience; Background: Despite a protracted disease course and multiple available therapies, patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) inevitably experience disease progression. Programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) has been associated with NET progression and prognosis. The multicohort, phase 1 KEYNOTE-028 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02054806) evaluated the activity and safety of the anti–programmed cell death protein 1 immunotherapy pembrolizumab in patients with well-differentiated or moderately-differentiated NETs. Methods: Patients with PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic carcinoid or well–differentiated or moderately-differentiated pancreatic NETs (pNETs) were enrolled into separate cohorts and received pembrolizumab at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The objective response rate was the primary endpoint (as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, by investigator review). Safety was a secondary endpoint. Results: Of 170 and 106 patients, respectively, who had evaluable samples among those screened for the carcinoid and pNET cohorts, 21% and 25%, respectively, had PD-L1–positive tumors; of these, 25 and 16 patients, respectively, were eligible and treated. The median follow-up was 20 months (range, 2-35 months) and 21 months (range, 5-32 months), respectively. The objective response rate was 12.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-31.2%) and 6.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-30.2%), respectively; 3 partial responses occurred among the carcinoid cohort and 1 among the pNET cohort. The median duration of response in the carcinoid cohort was 9.2 months (range, 6.9-11.1 months), and was not reached in the pNET cohort. No complete responses occurred. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 68% and 69% of patients, respectively, most often diarrhea (7 patients in the carcinoid cohort and 4 patients in the pNET cohort) and fatigue (6 patients in each cohort). Hypothyroidism was the most common immune-mediated adverse event (5 patients in the carcinoid cohort and 2 patients in the pNET cohort). Conclusions: Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in a subset of patients with NETs and was well-tolerated.

Summary Background Combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab was efficacious in patients with asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in CheckMate 204, but showed low efficacy in patients with symptomatic MBM. Here, we provide final 3-year follow-up data from the trial. Methods This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study (CheckMate 204) included adults (aged ≥18 years) with measurable MBM (0·5–3·0 cm in diameter). Asymptomatic patients (cohort A) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and no neurological symptoms or baseline corticosteroid use; symptomatic patients (cohort B) had an ECOG performance status of 0–2 with stable neurological symptoms and could be receiving low-dose dexamethasone. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was given intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease lasting ≥6 months) assessed in all treated patients. Intracranial progression-free survival and overall survival were key secondary endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02320058 . Findings Between Feb 19, 2015, and Nov 1, 2017, 119 (72%) of 165 screened patients were enrolled and treated: 101 patients were asymptomatic (cohort A; median follow-up 34·3 months [IQR 14·7–36·4]) and 18 were symptomatic (cohort B; median follow-up 7·5 months [1·2–35·2]). Investigator-assessed intracranial clinical benefit was observed in 58 (57·4% [95% CI 47·2–67·2]) of 101 patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6–41·4]) of 18 patients in cohort B; investigator-assessed objective response was observed in 54 (53·5% [43·3–63·5]) patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6–41·4]) patients in cohort B. 33 (33%) patients in cohort A and three (17%) patients in cohort B had an investigator-assessed intracranial complete response. For patients in cohort A, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 54·1% (95% CI 42·7–64·1) and overall survival was 71·9% (61·8–79·8). For patients in cohort B, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 18·9% (95% CI 4·6–40·5) and overall survival was 36·6% (14·0–59·8). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (15 [15%] of 101 patients each) in cohort A; no grade 3 TRAEs occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B, and no grade 4 events occurred. The most common serious TRAEs were colitis, diarrhoea, hypophysitis, and increased alanine aminotransferase (five [5%] of each among the 101 patients in cohort A); no serious TRAE occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B. There was one treatment-related death (myocarditis in cohort A). Interpretation The durable 3-year response, overall survival, and progression-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients support first-line use of nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Symptomatic disease in patients with MBM remains difficult to treat, but some patients achieve a long-term response with the combination. Funding Bristol Myers Squibb.

Purpose: To assess the response to pexidartinib treatment in six cohorts of adult patients with advanced, incurable solid tumors associated with colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) and/or KIT proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase activity. Patients and Methods: From this two-part phase I, multicenter study, pexidartinib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets CSF1R, KIT, and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), was evaluated in six adult patient cohorts (part 2, extension) with advanced solid tumors associated with dysregulated CSF1R. Adverse events, pharmacokinetics, and tumor responses were assessed for all patients; patients with tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) were also evaluated for tumor volume score (TVS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). CSF1 transcripts and gene expression were explored in TGCT biopsies. Results: Ninety-one patients were treated: TGCT patients (n = 39) had a median treatment duration of 511 days, while other solid tumor patients (n = 52) had a median treatment duration of 56 days. TGCT patients had response rates of 62% (RECIST 1.1) and 56% (TVS) for the full analysis set. PRO assessments for pain showed improvement in patient symptoms, and 76% (19/25) of TGCT tissue biopsy specimens showed evidence of abnormal CSF1 transcripts. Pexidartinib treatment of TGCT resulted in tumor regression and symptomatic benefit in most patients. Pexidartinib toxicity was manageable over the entire study. Conclusions: These results offer insight into outcome patterns in cancers whose biology suggests use of a CSF1R inhibitor. Pexidartinib results in tumor regression in TGCT patients, providing prolonged control with an acceptable safety profile.

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.

BackgroundImmune 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsRoutine 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.

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.

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has demonstrated efficacy for unresectable melanoma. We explored response patterns from a phase 2 study evaluating patients with unresectable stage IIIB–IVM1c malignant melanoma who received T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Patients with objective response per modified irRC were evaluated for pseudo-progression (single ≥25% increase in tumour burden before response). Patients without pseudo-progression were classified by whether they responded within or after 6 months of treatment start; those with pseudo-progression were classified by whether pseudo-progression was due to increase in existing lesions or development of new lesions. Overall, 39% (n = 38/98) in the combination arm and 18% (n = 18/100) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response. Eight responders (combination, n = 7 [18.4%]; ipilimumab, n = 1 [5.6%]) had pseudo-progression; most occurred by week 12 and were caused by an increase in existing lesions. These data reinforce use of T-VEC through initial progression when combined with checkpoint inhibitors. Trial Registration {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01740297","term_id":"NCT01740297"}}NCT01740297 (ClinicalTrials.gov; date of registration, December 4, 2012); 2012-000307-32 (ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu; date of registration, May 13, 2014).

We describe the extent to which comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) results were used by oncologists to guide targeted therapy selection in a cohort of solid tumor patients tested as part of standard care at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center June 2016–June 2017, with adequate follow up through September 2018 (n = 620). Overall, 28.4% of CGP tests advised physicians about targeted therapy use supported by companion diagnostic or practice guideline evidence. Post-test targeted therapy uptake was highest for patients in active treatment at the time of order (86% versus 76% of treatment naïve patients), but also took longer to initiate (median 50 days versus 7 days for treatment naïve patients), with few patients (2.6%) receiving targeted agents prior to testing. 100% of patients with resistance variants did not receive targeted agents. Treatment naïve patients received immunotherapy as the most common alternative. When targeted therapy given off-label or in a trial was the best CGP option, (7%) of patients received it. Our data illustrate the appropriate and heterogeneous use of CGP by oncologists as a longitudinal treatment decision tool based on patient history and treatment needs, and that some patients may benefit from testing prior to initiation of other standard treatments.

Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have improved responses and survival. However, many patients continue to experience resistance or toxicity to treatment, highlighting a crucial need to identify biomarkers and understand mechanisms of response and toxicity. Neoadjuvant therapy for regional metastases might improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy, and has become an established role for drug development and biomarker discovery in other cancers (including locally advanced breast cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, gastroesophageal cancer, and anal cancer). Patients with clinically detectable stage III melanoma are ideal candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, because they represent a high-risk patient population with poor outcomes when treated with upfront surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy is now an active area of research for melanoma with numerous completed and ongoing trials (since 2014) with disparate designs, endpoints, and analyses under investigation. We have, therefore, established the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium with experts in medical oncology, surgical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, radiology, and translational research to develop recommendations for investigating neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma to align future trial designs and correlative analyses. Alignment and consistency of neoadjuvant trials will facilitate optimal data organisation for future regulatory review and strengthen translational research across the melanoma disease continuum.

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.

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.

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.

ObjectiveLong-term safety of pembrolizumab in melanoma was analyzed in KEYNOTE-001, KEYNOTE-002, and KEYNOTE-006.Patients and methodsAnalysis involved patients who received ≥1 pembrolizumab dose. Lead-time bias was addressed via landmark analyses in patients who were progression-free before day 147.ResultsAdverse events (AEs) were analyzed for 1567 patients (median follow-up, 42.4 months). Most AEs were mild/moderate; grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 17.7% of patients. Two pembrolizumab-related deaths occurred. Any-grade immune-mediated AEs (imAEs) occurred in 23.0%, most commonly hypothyroidism (9.1%), pneumonitis (3.3%), and hyperthyroidism (3.0%); grade 3/4 imAEs occurred in 6.9% of patients. Most imAEs occurred within 16 weeks of treatment. In landmark analysis, patients who did (n=79) versus did not (n=384) develop imAEs had similar objective response rates (ORRs) (64.6% versus 63.0%); median time to response (TTR), 5.6 months for both; median duration of response (DOR), 20.0 versus 25.3 months; median progression-free survival (PFS), 17.0 versus 17.7 months; median overall survival (OS), not reached (NR) versus 43 months (p=0.1104). Patients who did (n=17) versus did not (n=62) receive systemic corticosteroids had similar ORRs (70.6% vs. 62.9%) and median TTR (6.4 vs. 5.6 months) but numerically shorter median PFS (9.9 vs. 17.0 months); median DOR, 14.2 months versus NR; median OS, NR for both.ConclusionsThese results enhance the knowledge base for pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma, with no new toxicity signals after lengthy follow-up of a large population. In landmark analyses, pembrolizumab efficacy was similar regardless of imAEs or systemic corticosteroid use.Clinical trial registryNCT01295827, NCT01704287, NCT01866319.

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.

Purpose: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non–clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib. Patients and Methods: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS). Results: We enrolled 108 patients, 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus; of these, 99 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 94 PFS and 64 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), TIMP-1, thrombospondin-2 (TSP-2), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 (SDF-1) was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine-treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. Angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2), CD-73, HER-3, HGF, IL6, OPN, PIGF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, SDF-1, TGF-b1-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VCAM-1, VEGF, and VEGF-R1 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while CD-73, ICAM-1, IL6, OPN, PlGF, SDF-1, TGF-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VEGF, VEGF-D, and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib. Conclusions: In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.

Background This Phase 1 dose-escalation/expansion study assessed safety/tolerability of sapanisertib, an oral, highly selective inhibitor of mTORC1/mTORC2, in advanced solid tumours. Methods Eligible patients received increasing sapanisertib doses once daily (QD; 31 patients), once weekly (QW; 30 patients), QD for 3 days on/4 days off QW (QD × 3dQW; 33 patients) or QD for 5 days on/2 days off QW (QD × 5dQW; 22 patients). In expansion cohorts, 82 patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), endometrial or bladder cancer received sapanisertib 5 mg QD (39 patients), 40 mg QW (26 patients) or 30 mg QW (17 patients). Results Maximum tolerated doses of sapanisertib were 6 mg QD, 40 mg QW, 9 mg QD × 3dQW and 7 mg QD × 5dQW. Frequent dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included hyperglycaemia, maculo-papular rash (QD), asthenia and stomatitis (QD × 3dQW/QD × 5dQW); expansion phase doses of 5 mg QD and 30 mg QW were selected based on tolerability beyond the DLT evaluation period. One patient with RCC achieved complete response; nine experienced partial responses (RCC: seven patients; carcinoid tumour/endometrial cancer: one patient each). Sapanisertib pharmacokinetics were time-linear and supported multiple dosing. Pharmacodynamic findings demonstrated treatment-related reductions in TORC1/2 biomarkers. Conclusions Sapanisertib demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with preliminary antitumour activity observed in RCC and endometrial cancer. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01058707.

Background Electroporated plasmid IL-12 (TAVO or tavokinogene telseplasmid) is a novel pro-inflammatory intratumoral therapy with substantial single agent activity in melanoma, which has been shown to synergize with anti-PD-1 antibodies in patients predicted as non-responders to anti-PD-1.1 2 Interim data from patients with stage III/IV melanoma actively progressing on anti-PD-1 antibody are presented herein. Methods Patients with confirmed disease progression by RECIST v1.1 after at least 12 weeks of treatment on pembrolizumab or nivolumab (or combination checkpoint blockade) and within 12 weeks of last dose (with no intervening therapies) were enrolled. There was no limit on the number of prior lines of therapy. At least one accessible lesion was electroporated with plasmid IL-12 (pIL-12-EP) on days 1, 5 and 8 every 6 weeks and pembrolizumab was administered every 3 weeks. Tumor response in treated and untreated lesions was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 12 weeks. Endpoints include ORR, safety, PFS, OS, and DOR. Results The first 56 patients treated of 100 planned were included in this interim analysis. Of these, 84% had Stage IV disease, 30% had M1c or M1d disease, and 27% had prior exposure to ipilimumab. In 54 efficacy evaluable patients the investigator-assessed ORR was 30% (3 CR/13 PR), 5 patients had 100% reduction of target lesions. All responses have been confirmed, only two responding patient progressed while on study, 2 patients completed the study with ongoing responses (figures 1 and 2). In patients with M1c/M1d disease, the ORR was 35.2% (n=6/17). Tumor reduction was observed in untreated lesions in 12 of 12 patients who had unaccessible lesions or accessible untreated lesions. The median overall survival (mOS) and duration of response (mDOR) has not been reached, with a median follow-up time of 13 months. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were seen in 5.4% of patients, and there were no grade 4/5 TRAEs. The rate of grade 3 treatment-emergent (TEAEs) regardless of cause was 23.2%. The median time for pIL-12-EP treatment was 10 minutes (range 2,46). Consistent with prior studies of single-agent pIL-12-EP, tumor IHC, and transcriptomic assessments revealed hallmarks of antigen-specific antitumor immunity in this study. Additional analyses including microbiome, TCR clonality, and peripheral blood biomarker assays will be presented. Conclusions In this rigorously defined PD-1 antibody refractory patient population, the addition of pIL-12-EP to PD-1 antibody therapy induced deep, durable, systemic response in local treated and distant visceral metastatic untreated lesions with nominal systemic toxicity. Trial Registration Trial Registration: NCT#03132675 Ethics Approval The study was approved by a central IRB and/or local institutional IRBs/Ethics Committees as required for each participating institution. Consent Written informed consent was obtained from the patients participating within the trial, the current abstract does not contain sensitive or identifiable information requiring an additional consent from patients. References Algazi A, Bhatia S, Agarwala S, et al. Intratumoral delivery of tavokinogene telseplasmid yields systemic immune responses in metastatic melanoma patients. Annals of Oncology 2019;31:532–540. Algazi A, Twitty C, Tsai K, et al. Phase II trial for IL-12 plasmid transfection and PD-1 blockade in immunologically quiescent melanoma. Clinical Cancer Research 2020;26:2827-2837.

Background This is the first randomized trial evaluating an oncolytic virus with an immune checkpoint inhibitor in advanced melanoma. Improved objective response rate (ORR) was observed for T-VEC plus IPI compared to IPI alone (39% vs. 18%; OR 2.9; 95% Cl, 1.5–5.5; P=0.002).1 At 3-year follow-up, median OS was not reached in either arm (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.55–1.32; P=0.480).2 Here we present 4-year interim analysis results including BRAF V600 mutation subgroup analysis. Methods Patients with unresectable or metastatic (IIIB-IV) melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive T-VEC plus IPI or IPI alone. T-VEC was injected day 1, week 1, at 106 PFU/mL, followed by 108 PFU/mL on day 1, week 4, and Q2W thereafter. IPI (3 mg/kg) was given Q3W starting day 1, week 6, up to 4 doses, for T-VEC arm; day 1, week 1 for IPI alone. Response was assessed per immune-related response criteria (irRC) Q12W until disease progression. The primary endpoint was ORR; key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), durable response rate (DRR), and safety (NCT01740297). Results A total of 198 patients (98 combination, 100 IPI alone) were randomized. As of February 25, 2020, median follow-up was 48.3 months for combination and 35.7 months for IPI alone. DRR improved for combination vs. IPI (33.7% vs. 13.0%; OR 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7–7.0; P=0.001). Median PFS was 13.5 months with combination and 6.4 months with IPI (HR 0.81; 95% Cl, 0.57–1.15; P=0.23). Median OS was not reached for combination and was 50.1 months for IPI (HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54–1.25; P=0.36). For combination, 47 (48.0%) patients received subsequent anti-cancer therapy vs. 64 (64.0%) for IPI; median time from randomization to first subsequent therapy was 27.7 months and 8.3 months, respectively. In subgroup analysis, patients without BRAF V600 mutation (63% combination, 60% IPI) improved DRR and PFS for combination vs. IPI alone (DRR: 33.9% vs. 5.0%; median PFS: 18.0 months vs. 4.5 months); BRAF V600 mutation positive patients (36% combination, 34% IPI) were similar between arms (DRR: 34.3% vs. 26.5%; median PFS: 4.2 months vs. 6.4 months). No additional safety signals observed in follow-up. Conclusions The improved PFS and DRR for the combination arm at 4-year follow-up indicates continued benefit of combination therapy. Patients receiving IPI alone were more likely to receive subsequent anti-cancer therapy in a shorter time. Subsequent anticancer therapies may confound OS analysis. The BRAF mutant post-hoc analysis requires further mechanistic investigation. Acknowledgements • The authors thank the investigators, patients, and study staff who contributed to this study.• The study was sponsored and funded by Amgen Inc. • Medical writing support was provided by Christopher Nosala (Amgen Inc.). Trial Registration NCT01740297 Ethics Approval The study was approved by all institutional ethics boards. References Chesney J, Puzanov I, Collichio F, et al. Randomized, open-label phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of talimogene laherparepvec in combination with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced, unresectable melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1658–1667. Chesney JA, Puzanov I, Collichio F, et al. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) in combination (combo) with ipilimumab (ipi) versus ipi alone for advanced melanoma: 3-year landmark analysis of a randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial. Ann Oncol 2019;30:mdz394-067.

Background An unmet need exists for novel therapies that produce deep and durable responses in more patients with metastatic melanoma (metMEL). Encouraging clinical activity was observed with the CD122-preferential IL-2 pathway agonist bempegaldesleukin(BEMPEG) plus nivolumab(NIVO) in first-line metMEL in the phase 1/2 PIVOT-02 trial (NCT02983045),1 leading to FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation. We present updated clinical results from PIVOT-02 in first-line metMEL, and biomarkers of response. Methods 41 patients with previously untreated stage IV melanoma (known PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry; 28–8 PharmDx) received ≥1 dose of BEMPEG(0.006 mg/kg) plus NIVO(360 mg) q3wks; 38 patients were efficacy-evaluable (≥1 post-baseline tumor scan). Primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1; BICR); other endpoints included PFS, OS and biomarkers. Polyfunctional strength index (PSI) of circulating lymphocytes (determined using single-cell cytokine analysis [Isoplexis]) and eosinophil count (determined from hematology analysis) at baseline and Cycle1-Day8 were analyzed using the median cut-off for correlations with ORR and PFS. Biomarkers, including CD8+tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) and interferon-gamma (IFNg) gene expression profile (GEP), were measured in baseline tumor biopsies and analyzed for correlation with ORR and PFS. Results At median follow-up of 25.7 months (15May2020), ORR by BICR was 53% (20/38 patients). Complete response occurred in 13/38 patients (34%): 23% PD-L1-negative ( Conclusions BEMPEG plus NIVO was well tolerated in first-line metMEL, with durable and further deepening of responses, regardless of baseline PD-L1 status. At 25.7 months‘ follow-up, mPFS and mOS were not reached. Early on-treatment (Day8) increases in CD8+PSI and eosinophils in blood were identified as non-invasive biomarkers of response that are detectable well before clinical measures of response. A phase 3 trial evaluating BEMPEG plus NIVO in first-line metMEL is enrolling(NCT03635983). Trial Registration NCT02983045 Ethics Approval The study was approved by the institutional review board of each participating site. Reference Diab A, Puzanov I, Maio M, et al. Clinical activity of BEMPEG plus NIVO in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma: updated results from the phase 1/2 PIVOT-02 study. Oral presentation at SITC; November 6–10, 2019; National Harbor, MD, USA. Abstract #O35.

IMPORTANCE: The optimal sequencing of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy for BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of BRAF wild-type (WT) or BRAF V600E/K-mutant status and BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) with or without MEK inhibitor (MEKi) therapy with response to pembrolizumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study is a post hoc subgroup analysis of pooled data from 3 multinational, multisite studies: KEYNOTE-001 (data cutoff September 1, 2017), KEYNOTE-002 (data cutoff May 30, 2018), and KEYNOTE-006 (data cutoff December 4, 2017). Patients included in this analysis were adults with advanced melanoma and known BRAF V600E/K tumor status who had received pembrolizumab. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received pembrolizumab in dosages of 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: End points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival (OS). Objective response rates, 4-year PFS, and OS rates were compared in the following patient subgroups: BRAF WT vs BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma with vs without previous treatment with BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy. RESULTS: The overall study population (N = 1558) included 944 men (60.6%) and 614 women (39.4%). The mean (SD) age was 60.0 years (14.0). The ORR was 38.3% (596/1558), 4-year PFS rate was 22.0%, and 4-year OS rate was 36.9%. For patients with BRAF WT (n = 1124) and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma (n = 434), ORR was 39.8% (n = 447) and 34.3% (n = 149), 4-year PFS rate was 22.9% and 19.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 37.5% and 35.1%, respectively. Patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who had (n = 271) vs had not (n = 163) previously received BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy had baseline characteristics with worse prognosis; ORR was 28.4% (n = 77) and 44.2% (n = 72), 4-year PFS rate was 15.2% and 27.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 26.9% and 49.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this subgroup analysis support the use of pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced melanoma regardless of BRAF V600E/K mutation status or receipt of prior BRAFi with or without MEKi 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.

BackgroundUveal 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.MethodsWe 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.Results89 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%).ConclusionsDual 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.

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.

Purpose of Review The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged to be the biggest global health threat worldwide, which has now infected over 1.7 million people and claimed more than 100,000 lives around the world. Under these unprecedented circumstances, there are no well-established guidelines for cancer patients. Recent Findings The risk for serious disease and death in COVID-19 cases increases with advancing age and presence of comorbid health conditions. Since the emergence of the first case in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, tremendous research efforts have been underway to understand the mechanisms of infectivity and transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a fatal virus responsible for abysmal survival outcomes. To minimize the mortality rate, it becomes prudent to identify symptoms promptly and employ treatments appropriately. Even though no cure has been established, multiple clinical trials are underway to determine the most optimal strategy. Managing cancer patients under these circumstances is rather challenging, given their vulnerable status and the aggressive nature of their underlying disease. Summary In this comprehensive review, we discuss the impact of COVID-19 on health and the immune system of those affected, reviewing the latest treatment approaches and ongoing clinical trials. Additionally, we discuss challenges faced while treating cancer patients and propose potential approaches to manage this vulnerable population during this pandemic.

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.

Patients with cancer and with preexisting active autoimmune diseases (ADs) have been excluded from immunotherapy clinical trials because of concerns for high susceptibility to the development of severe adverse events resulting from exacerbation of their preexisting ADs. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be safe and effective in this patient population. However, baseline corticosteroids and other nonselective immunosuppressants appear to negatively impact drug efficacy, whereas retrospective and case report data suggest that use of specific immunosuppressants may not have the same consequences. Therefore, we propose here a two-step strategy. First, to lower the risk of compromising ICI efficacy before their initiation, nonselective immunosuppressants could be replaced by specific selective immunosuppressant drugs following a short rotation phase. Subsequently, combining ICI with the selective immunosuppressant could prevent exacerbation of the AD. For the most common active ADs encountered in the context of cancer, we propose specific algorithms to optimize ICI therapy. These preventive strategies go beyond current practices and recommendations, and should be practiced in ICI-specialized clinics, as these require multidisciplinary teams with extensive knowledge in the field of clinical immunology and oncology. In addition, we challenge the exclusion from ICI therapy for patients with cancer and active ADs and propose the implementation of an international registry to study such novel strategies in a prospective fashion.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have opened an exciting chapter in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer. For the palliative care clinician, however, ICIs present several new challenges, including new ways to define treatment success, as well as treatment-related toxicities that differ in nature and timing from traditional chemotherapy. In this article, we review the mechanism of action of ICIs, as well as selected published data supporting the efficacy of ICIs in patients with advanced cancer. In addition, we summarize existing data of ICI toxicity prevalence, patterns of severity, and timing of onset. Finally, we briefly review key principles from published guidelines on the management of ICI toxicities.

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 106 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 108 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) focuses on areas impacted by recently emerging data, including sections describing MCC risk factors, diagnosis, workup, follow-up, and management of advanced disease with radiation and systemic therapy. Included in these sections are discussion of the new recommendations for use of Merkel cell polyomavirus as a biomarker and new recommendations for use of checkpoint immunotherapies to treat metastatic or unresectable disease. The next update of the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for MCC will include more detailed information about elements of pathology and addresses additional aspects of management of MCC, including surgical management of the primary tumor and draining nodal basin, radiation therapy as primary treatment, and management of recurrence.

Summary Background Previous studies combining PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors with tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the VEGF pathway have been characterised by excess toxicity, precluding further development. We hypothesised that axitinib, a more selective VEGF inhibitor than others previously tested, could be combined safely with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and yield antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. Methods In this ongoing, open-label, phase 1b study, which was done at ten centres in the USA, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had advanced renal cell carcinoma (predominantly clear cell subtype) with their primary tumour resected, and at least one measureable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, controlled hypertension, and no previous systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Eligible patients received axitinib plus pembrolizumab in a dose-finding phase to estimate the maximum tolerated dose, and additional patients were enrolled into a dose-expansion phase to further establish safety and determine preliminary efficacy. Axitinib 5 mg was administered orally twice per day with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg given intravenously every 3 weeks. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib or pembrolizumab; antitumour activity was assessed in all patients who received study treatment and had an adequate baseline tumour assessment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed dose-limiting toxicity during the first two cycles (6 weeks) to estimate the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02133742. Findings Between Sept 23, 2014, and March 25, 2015, we enrolled 11 patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma to the dose-finding phase and between June 3, 2015, and Oct 13, 2015, we enrolled 41 patients to the dose-expansion phase. All 52 patients were analysed together. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the 11 patients treated during the 6-week observation period (dose-finding phase): one patient had a transient ischaemic attack and two patients were only able to complete less than 75% of the planned axitinib dose because of treatment-related toxicity. At the data cutoff date (March 31, 2017), 25 (48%) patients were still receiving study treatment. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (65%) patients; the most common included hypertension (n=12 [23%]), diarrhoea (n=5 [10%]), fatigue (n=5 [10%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=4 [8%]). The most common potentially immune-related adverse events (probably related to pembrolizumab) included diarrhoea (n=15 [29%]), increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=9 [17%]) or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (n=7 [13%]), hypothyroidism (n=7 [13%]), and fatigue (n=6 [12%]). 28 (54%) patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. At data cutoff, 38 (73%; 95% CI 59·0–84·4) patients achieved an objective response (complete or partial response). Interpretation The treatment combination of axitinib plus pembrolizumab is tolerable and shows promising antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. Whether or not the combination works better than a sequence of VEGF pathway inhibition followed by an anti-PD-1 therapy awaits the completion of a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib monotherapy (NCT02853331). Funding Pfizer Inc.

BRAF mutations are found in ~50% of metastatic melanomas, most commonly in codon V600. Vemurafenib improves progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. The results of a descriptive study evaluating vemurafenib in patients with advanced melanoma harbouring BRAF mutations other than V600E are reported. Eligible patients with stage IIIC or IV melanoma and non-V600E BRAF mutations received vemurafenib (960 mg, twice daily). End points included investigator-assessed best overall response rate (primary), time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. Planned (V600K vs. non-V600K mutations) subgroup analyses were carried out. Thirty-one patients were enrolled; 13 (42%) had V600K mutations and 18 (58%) had other mutations. Investigator-assessed confirmed that the best overall response rate was 23% (95% confidence interval=10-41%) in the overall population, and was similar between patients with V600K mutations (23%; 95% confidence interval=5-54%) versus other mutations (22%; 95% confidence interval=6-48%). Responses were observed in patients with V600K (n=3), V600E2 (n=1), V600R (n=1), L597S (n=1) and D594G (n=1) mutations. No new safety signals were reported. Vemurafenib showed activity in patients with advanced melanoma with rarer BRAF mutations.

BackgroundIntratumoral (IT) cancer therapies may enhance T cell activation and tumor infiltration when combined with systemic checkpoint blockade. This approach may improve treatment of advanced breast cancer, which is commonly resistant to immune therapy.MethodsA multicenter basket-style trial (NCT02643303) was performed in patients with advanced solid tumors, who received polyICLC IT 1mg x 6, then intramuscular (IM) x 3, combined with intravenous (IV) durvalumab 1500 mg q4W. Most were assigned to cohorts also receiving tremelimumab: 10 mg IT or 75 mg IV. Goals were to assess tolerability and clinical activity. Treated tumors were evaluated for immune infiltrates on days (d) 0, 15, and 29 by multiparameter immunofluorescence histology. A strong signal for clinical response was in breast cancer patients; thus, an expansion cohort was enrolled. We report analysis of that breast cancer subgroup.ResultsNineteen participants with treatment-refractory recurrent breast cancer with median 4 prior lines of therapy were enrolled and treated with IV durvalumab and IT/IM polyICLC. Seventeen also received tremelimumab (15 IT, 2 IV). Common treatment-related AEs were fatigue, injection site pain, and chills. There was one dose-limiting toxicity in a participant who received tremelimumab IV, and died with severe hyponatremia (DLT) and progressive disease. Objective clinical responses (1 complete; 4 partial (1 unconfirmed)) were observed in 5 (26%), including 2/9 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and 3/10 with non-TNBC. Median OS was longer for those with CR, PR, or SD (not reached) vs. those with PD or not evaluable (5 months): two responders remain alive at 34+ and 40+ months. In injected tumors, there were significant increases from d0 to d29 in numbers/mm2 of CD8+ T cells, CD20+ B cells, mature dendritic cells (DC), macrophages, and CD56+ NK cells, and in CD8+ cells with antigen-experience (CD45RO), cytotoxic function (granzyme B), activation (ICOS1), or proliferation (Ki67). CD8+ cells expressing LAG3 and TIM3 increased, as did PDL1+ tumor cells and stromal cells. There were no differences in cells expressing IDO, ARG1, CD39, or CD73. Among patients with objective response, vs. all others, proportions of intratumoral CD8+ cells expressing Ki67 increased (p < 0.04).ConclusionsIT tremelimumab and polyICLC plus systemic durvalumab is safe and has clinical activity in patients with advanced TNBC and non-TNBC. The therapy enhances intratumoral immune effectors and markers of T cell function in hypothesis-generating data that warrant confirmatory studies. Clinical response was associated with longer survival and increased CD8 T cell proliferation.Trial RegistrationNCT02643303Ethics ApprovalThe study has been performed with approval of the institutional review boards of each participating institution (Roswell Park Cancer Institute: STUDY 00000121/I291016; Mount Sinai School of Medicine: IRB-17-01692; University of Virginia: IRB # 19276; Cleveland Clinic: 18-694; Toledo: 300176; Dartmouth: STUDY00031630; Emory: IRB00099445). All participants give informed consent before enrolling and participating. The study was also performed with approval from the FDA

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.

Background: IL-2 and IL-15 signal through the shared IL-2/15 βγ receptor, but unlike IL-2, IL-15 does not expand regulatory T cells (Tregs). In addition, unlike IL-2, IL-15 does not mediate activation-induced cell death and is expected to have an improved therapeutic index compared to IL-2. KD033 is a fusion antibody molecule generated by combining a fully human, high affinity anti-human Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) IgG1 antibody with the human IL-15 receptor alpha (IL15Rα) sushi domain and human IL-15 (IL-15). KD033 (or its mouse cross reactive surrogate molecule, srKD033) has been extensively characterized in multiple in vitro and in vivo nonclinical studies to understand the pharmacology, pharmacokinetic (PK) and toxicology properties. The fusion of anti-PD-L1 antibody to IL-15 significantly increases the maximal-tolerated dose (MTD) of srKD033 in mice compared to free-IL-15. The increased safety and efficacy of PD-L1-targeted IL-15 observed in pre-clinical studies warranted evaluation of KD033 in humans. Methods: This is a phase 1, open-label, multiple ascending dose, multi-center clinical trial being conducted in patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumors (NCT04242147). The primary objective is to determine the safety and tolerability and the MTD of KD033. KD033 is administered as an IV infusion over 30 minutes every 14 days (i.e., a cycle equals 2 weeks). The starting dose of KD033 is 3 µg/kg, with step-up dosing to 12.5 µg/kg in the first cohort of 3 subjects. After the first cohort, the dose escalation will use a standard 3+3 design with planned doses from 25 µg/kg to 600 µg/kg. The dose escalation phase will be followed by one expansion cohort, which will enroll patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor but have either progressed or are refractory to therapy. Secondary objectives include characterization of PK and immunogenicity, evaluation of immune correlates that will potentially differentiate the impact of KD033 versus monotherapy as well as investigate IL-15 biology and determine best overall response and duration of response. (NCT04242147) Citation Format: Jason J. Luke, Anthony J. Olszanski, Igor Puzanov, Dan Lu, Adrian Hackett, Stella Martomo, Jeegar Patel, Olivier Schueller, Alessandro Mora, Miranda L. Schlitt, Linghui Li. A phase 1 multiple ascending dose study to investigate the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and preliminary efficacy of KD033 in subjects with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT227.