Search

Purpose: Metastatic papillary renal cancer (PRC) has poor outcomes, and new treatments are required. There is a strong rationale for investigating mesenchymal epithelial transition receptor (MET) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition in this disease. In this study, the combination of savolitinib (MET inhibitor) and durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) is investigated., Methods: This single-arm phase II trial explored durvalumab (1,500 mg once every four weeks) and savolitinib (600 mg once daily; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02819596). Treatment-naïve or previously treated patients with metastatic PRC were included. A confirmed response rate (cRR) of > 50% was the primary end point. Progression-free survival, tolerability, and overall survival were secondary end points. Biomarkers were explored from archived tissue (MET-driven status)., Results: Forty-one patients treated with advanced PRC were enrolled into this study and received at least one dose of study treatment. The majority of patients had Heng intermediate risk score (n = 26 [63%]). The cRR was 29% (n = 12; 95% CI, 16 to 46), and the trial therefore missed the primary end point. The cRR increased to 53% (95% CI, 28 to 77) in MET-driven patients (n/N = 9/27) and was 33% (95% CI, 17 to 54) in PD-L1-positive tumors (n/N = 9/27). The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 10.0) in the treated population and 12.0 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 19.4) in MET-driven patients. The median overall survival was 14.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 30.7) in the treated population and 27.4 months (95% CI, 9.3 to not reached [NR]) in MET-driven patients. Grade 3 and above treatment related adverse events occurred in 17 (41%) patients. There was 1 grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (cerebral infarction)., Conclusion: The combination of savolitinib and durvalumab was tolerable and associated with high cRRs in the exploratory MET-driven subset.

Purpose: To assess efficacy and toxicity of combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in routine practice in a retrospective multicentre cohort of patients with advanced melanoma., Patients and Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab between October 2015 and January 2020 at six centres in Australia, Europe and the United States of America. We describe efficacy outcomes (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate [ORR]) in treatment-naïve and pre-treated patients, with and without brain metastases, plus treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) in all patients treated., Results: A total of 697 patients were identified; 472 were treatment-naïve of which 138 (29.2%) had brain metastases, and 225 were previously treated of which 102 (45.3%) had brain metastases. At baseline, 32.3% had stage M1c and 34.4% stage M1d disease. Lactate dehydrogenase was high in 280 patients (40.2%). With a median follow-up of 25.9 months, median OS in the 334 treatment-naïve patients without brain metastases was 53.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.8-NR) and 38.7 months (95% CI 18.6-NR) for the 138 treatment-naïve patients with brain metastases. For the entire cohort the ORR was 48%, for treatment-naïve patients without brain metastases ORR was 56.6% with a median PFS of was 13.7 months (95% CI 9.6-26.5). Median PFS was 7.9 months (95% CI 5.8-10.4) and OS 38 months (95% CI 31-NR) for the entire cohort. Grade 3-4 trAE were reported in 44% of patients, and 4 (0.7%) treatment-related deaths (1 pneumonitis, 2 myocarditis and 1 colitis) were recorded., Conclusion: The outcome and toxicity of combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab in a real-world patient population are similar to those reported in pivotal trials., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Effective treatment options are limited for patients with advanced (metastatic or unresectable) melanoma who progress after immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies. Adoptive cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes has demonstrated efficacy in advanced melanoma. Lifileucel is an autologous, centrally manufactured tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte product., Methods: We conducted a phase II open-label, single-arm, multicenter study in patients with advanced melanoma who had been previously treated with checkpoint inhibitor(s) and BRAF ± MEK targeted agents. Lifileucel was produced from harvested tumor specimens in central Good Manufacturing Practice facilities using a streamlined 22-day process. Patients received a nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion regimen, a single infusion of lifileucel, and up to six doses of high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST, version 1.1., Results: Sixty-six patients received a mean of 3.3 prior therapies (anti-programmed death 1 [PD-1] or programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1]: 100%; anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4: 80%; BRAF ± MEK inhibitor: 23%). The ORR was 36% (95% CI, 25 to 49), with two complete responses and 22 partial responses. Disease control rate was 80% (95% CI, 69 to 89). Median duration of response was not reached after 18.7-month median study follow-up (range, 0.2-34.1 months). In the primary refractory to anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy subset, the ORR and disease control rate were 41% (95% CI, 26 to 57) and 81% (95% CI, 66 to 91), respectively. Safety profile was consistent with known adverse events associated with nonmyeloablative lymphodepletion and interleukin-2., Conclusion: Lifileucel demonstrated durable responses and addresses a major unmet need in patients with metastatic melanoma with limited treatment options after approved therapy, including the primary refractory to anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy subset., Competing Interests: Amod A. SarnaikHonoraria: Physicans' Education ResourceConsulting or Advisory Role: B4CC, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Guidepoint Global, Defined Health, Gerson Lehrman GroupResearch Funding: Provectus, Genentech, Iovance BiotherapeuticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Compositions and methods for improving tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for adoptive cell therapy, filed March 20, 2014 US Patent Application No. 61/955,970 and second Application No. 61/973,002Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Iovance Biotherapeutics Omid HamidHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Aduro Biotech, Akeso Biopharma, BeiGene, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, NextCure, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Tempus, Zelluna, BioAtla, Idera, PfizerSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, PfizerResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Immunocore, Incyte, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, CytomX Therapeutics, Iovance Biotherapeutics, NextCure, GlaxoSmithKline, Arcus Biosciences, Aduro Biotech, Akeso Biopharma, Exelixis, Moderna Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Torque, Zelluna, Bioatla, Idera Nikhil I. KhushalaniStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Mazor Robotics, Amarin Corporation, Asensus SurgicalHonoraria: SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Merck, Incyte, Jounce Therapeutics, Iovance Biotherapeutics, NCCN/PfizerResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, HUYA Bioscience International, Amgen, Regeneron, Celgene, Replimune Karl D. LewisHonoraria: Array BioPharma, Iovance BiotherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Array BioPharma, Merck, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Iovance BiotherapeuticsResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Merck, Array BioPharma, Incyte, Nektar, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kartos Therapeutics, OncoSec, Regeneron, Alkermes, Neon Therapeutics, Ultimovacs, Senhwa Biosciences, Replimune, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, Roche/Genentech, Regeneron, Neon Therapeutics, AlkermesUncompensated Relationships: Roche/Genentech, Regeneron Theresa MedinaConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Meyer Squibb, Iovance BiotherapeuticsResearch Funding: Merck, Replimune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Nektar, Immunocore, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, BioAtla Harriet M. KlugerConsulting or Advisory Role: Nektar, Celldex, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Immunocore, Array BioPharma, ElevateBio, Instil Bio, Clinigen Group, Shionogi, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, ApexigenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Apexigen Sajeve S. ThomasSpeakers' Bureau: BMS, Merck, Genentech, Ipsen, Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis Evidio Domingo-MusibayHonoraria: RegeneronConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi/Regeneron, Castle BiosciencesSpeakers' Bureau: Sanofi/RegeneronResearch Funding: Clinigen Group, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Nektar Anna C. PavlickConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Regeneron, Sanofi/RegeneronResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Millennium, Regeneron, Replimune Eric D. WhitmanConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, Novartis, Eisai, PfizerSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Castle Biosciences, Sanofi/RegeneronResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Castle Biosciences, Genentech/Roche, Amgen, TRACON Pharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Provectus, Oncolys BioPharma, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Dynavax Technologies, OncoSec, Toray Industries, Array BioPharmaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Nerve monitoring dissection device, Lighted Polyhedral surgical retractor Salvador Martin-AlgarraConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, Sanofi, Regeneron, AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/RegeneronTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pierre Fabre, Roche, MSD Oncology Pippa CorrieHonoraria: Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Bristol Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Incyte, Pierre Fabre, Roche, MicrobioticaSpeakers' Bureau: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Celgene, Halozyme, Iovance Biotherapeutics, LillyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme Brendan D. CurtiHonoraria: Clinigen Group, NektarConsulting or Advisory Role: MerckResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galectin Therapeutics, Clinigen GroupPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Biomarkers for OX40 responseTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Agonox Jose LutzkyConsulting or Advisory Role: Castle Biosciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Replimune, RegeneronResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Immunocore, Regeneron, Replimune, Vyriad Jeffrey S. WeberStock and Other Ownership Interests: CytomX Therapeutics, Biond Biologics, Protean Biodiagnostics, NeximmuneHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Roche, Celldex, CytomX Therapeutics, Novartis, Sellas Life Sciences, WindMIL, Takeda, Moderna Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Kirin Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Idera, OncosecConsulting or Advisory Role: Celldex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, Roche, Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Daiichi Sankyo, CytomX Therapeutics, Novartis, Sellas Life Sciences, WindMIL, Jounce Therapeutics, Moderna Therapeutics, Kirin Pharmaceuticals, Protean Biodiagnostics, Idera, OncosecResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Incyte, Roche, Novartis, NextCure, Moderna TherapeuticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Named on a patent submitted by Moffitt Cancer Center for an IPILIMUMAB biomarker, named on a patent from Biodesix for a PD-1 antibody biomarker, named on a patent for 41BB induced TIL by Moffitt Cancer CenterTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Celldex, Amgen, Merck, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis James M. G. LarkinHonoraria: Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Pierre Fabre, EUSA Pharma, Achilles Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Ipsen, Imugene, Incyte, iOncologi, Merck Serono, Nektar, Vitaccess, Kymab, SecarnaConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Pierre Fabre, EUSA Pharma, Achilles Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Ipsen, Imugene, Incyte, iOncologi, Merck Serono, Nektar, Vitaccess, Secarna, KymabResearch Funding: Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Achilles Therapeutics, Roche, Nektar, Covance, Immunocore, AVEOTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Boston Biomedical, Incyte, GlaxoSmithKline, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono Wen ShiEmployment: Iovance BiotherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Iovance BiotherapeuticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Iovance Biotherapeutics Toshimi TakamuraEmployment: Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc Madan JagasiaEmployment: Iovance BiotherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Iovance BiotherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Kadmon Harry QinEmployment: Iovance BiotherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Iovance Biotherapeutics Xiao WuEmployment: Iovance BiotherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Iovance BiotherapeuticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Iovance Biotherapeutics Cecile ChartierEmployment: Iovance BiotherapeuticsLeadership: Iovance BiotherapeuticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: PCT/US2019/059598 for Expansion of TILs Utilizing AKT Pathway Inhibitors. PCT/US2019/012729 for Processes for Generating TIL Products Enriched for Tumor Antigen-specific T-cells. PCT/US2019/029286 for Gene Editing of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Uses of Same in Immunotherapy. PCT/US2019/065892 for Methods of Expanding Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes Using Engineered Cytokine Receptor Pairs and Uses Thereof. PCT/US2019/012733 for Processes for Generating TIL Products Enriched for Tumor Antigen-Specific T-Cells. PCT/US2020/013095 for System and Methods for Monitoring Adoptive Cell Therapy Clonality and Persistence. PCT/US2020/063767 for Processes for the Production of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs) and Methods of Using the Same. PCT/US2020/057135 for Gene Editing of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Uses of Same in Immunotherapy. One patent application is nonpublic, for which Iovance declines to furnish any informationTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Iovance Biotherapeutics Friedrich Graf FinckensteinEmployment: Adverum, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Roche/GenentechLeadership: Iovance BiotherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Iovance Biotherapeutics, AdverumTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Roche/Genentech Maria FardisEmployment: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Acerta PharmaLeadership: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Acerta PharmaStock and Other Ownership Interests: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Acerta Pharma, Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, Kartos TherapeuticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Acerta PharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Acerta Pharma John M. KirkwoodConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Elsevier, Amgen, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Harbour BioMed, Istari Oncology, OncoSec, Scopus BioPharma, PfizerSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Immunocore, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Novartis, Merck Jason A. ChesneyResearch Funding: Amgen, Replimune, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Bristol Myers SquibbPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: University of Louisville US PatentsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Pembrolizumab, a programmed death 1 inhibitor, demonstrated promising single-agent activity in untreated patients with various cancer types. The phase II KEYNOTE-427 study evaluated efficacy and safety of single-agent pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC; cohort A) and advanced non-ccRCC (cohort B). Results of cohort A are reported., Methods: In this open-label, single-arm phase II study, patients with advanced ccRCC received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for ≤ 24 months. The primary end point was objective response rate by RECIST, version 1.1., Results: In the total population (N = 110), median time from enrollment to data cutoff was 35.9 (range, 29.5-40.3) months. Objective response rate was 36.4% with four (3.6%) complete responses and 36 (32.7%) partial responses; disease control rate was 58.2% (95% CI, 48.4 to 67.5). Most patients (68.2%) had a decrease in target lesions, including 30.9% with a reduction ≥ 60%. Median duration of response was 18.9 (range, 2.3-37.6+) months; 64.1% of responders had a response ≥ 12 months (Kaplan-Meier). Median progression-free survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.0). Median overall survival was not reached; 12-month and 24-month overall survival rates were 88.2% and 70.8%, respectively. Durable responses were observed across all International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium categories. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 30.0% of patients, of which colitis and diarrhea were most frequent., Conclusion: Single-agent pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced ccRCC, with durable responses across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium categories. Safety and tolerability profile of pembrolizumab monotherapy was comparable to what has been previously described in other tumor types.

Background: Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies (PD1) prolong recurrence-free survival in high-risk resected melanoma; however, approximately 25%-30% of patients recur within 1 year. This study describes the pattern of recurrence, management and outcomes of patients who recur with adjuvant PD1 therapy., Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients from 16 centres who recurred having received adjuvant PD1 therapy for resected stage III/IV melanoma were studied. Recurrence characteristics, management and outcomes were examined; patients with mucosal melanoma were analysed separately., Results: Melanoma recurrence occurred in 147 (17%) of ∼850 patients treated with adjuvant PD1. In those with cutaneous melanoma (n = 136), median time to recurrence was 4.6 months (range 0.3-35.7); 104 (76%) recurred during (ON) adjuvant PD1 after a median 3.2 months and 32 (24%) following (OFF) treatment cessation after a median 12.5 months, including in 21 (15%) who ceased early for toxicity. Fifty-nine (43%) recurred with locoregional disease only and 77 (57%) with distant disease. Of those who recurred locally, 22/59 (37%) subsequently recurred distantly. Eighty-nine (65%) patients received systemic therapy after recurrence. Of those who recurred ON adjuvant PD1, none (0/6) responded to PD1 alone; 8/33 assessable patients (24%) responded to ipilimumab (alone or in combination with PD1) and 18/23 (78%) responded to BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Of those who recurred OFF adjuvant PD1, two out of five (40%) responded to PD1 monotherapy, two out of five (40%) responded to ipilimumab-based therapy and 9/10 (90%) responded to BRAF/MEK inhibitors., Conclusions: Most patients who recur early despite adjuvant PD1 develop distant metastases. In those who recur ON adjuvant PD1, there is minimal activity of further PD1 monotherapy, but ipilimumab (alone or in combination with PD1) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors have clinical utility. Retreatment with PD1 may have activity in select patients who recur OFF PD1., Competing Interests: Disclosure CNO reports non-financial support from Merck Sharp Dohme (MSD), outside the submitted work. ANS reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Immunocore, grants from Xcovery, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Castle Biosciences, outside the submitted work. DC reports personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. JM reports other from Merck/Pfizer, other from MSD, other from Pierre Fabre, grants and other from Ultrasun, L'Oreal, Pierre Fabre, MSD, BMS, outside the submitted work. VA reports personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Roche, non-financial support from Onco-sec, outside the submitted work. AY reports grants from National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R38HL143619. CH reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. RD has intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, MSD, BMS, Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome outside the submitted work. MM reports personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. SPP reports personal fees from Merck & Co, Incyte, Castle Biosciences and Cardinal Health, and institutional clinical trial support from Provectus, Ideaya and BMS outside the submitted work. AH reports personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. DBJ reports other from Array Biopharma, grants and other from BMS, grants and other from Incyte, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from Genentech, outside the submitted work. CUB reports personal fees from BMS, MSD, GSK, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, GenMab, AZ, Pierre Fabre, grants from BMS, NanoString, Novartis, outside the submitted work; and stockownership Unitit Cars, Neon Therapeutics. SS reports grants and other from MSD, grants and other from BMS, grants from Amgen, grants from Endocyte, grants from Astra Zeneca, other from Roche, outside the submitted work. MSC reports personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Ideaya, outside the submitted work. JMGL reports grants and personal fees from Achilles therapeutics, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boston Biomedical, grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from EUSA Pharma, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Ipsen, personal fees from Imugene, personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from iOnctura, personal fees from Kymab, personal fees from Merck Sorono, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Nektar, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Roche/Genetech, personal fees from Secarna, personal fees from Vitaccess, personal fees from Covance, grants and personal fees from Immunocore, grants from Aveo, grants from Pharmacyclics, outside the submitted work. AMM reports personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. GVL is a Consultant Advisor and reports the following outside of the submitted work; personal fees from Aduro, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Array, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Oncosec, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sandoz. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006., Methods: KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAF V600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319., Findings: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7-59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5-41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3-22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61-0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6-11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9-4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48-0·67, p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96 (17%) of 555 patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 50 (20%) of 256 patients in the ipilimumab group; the most common of these events were colitis (11 [2%] vs 16 [6%]), diarrhoea (ten [2%] vs seven [3%]), and fatigue (four [<1%] vs three [1%]). Any-grade serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (14%) patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 45 (18%) patients in the ipilimumab group. One patient assigned to pembrolizumab died from treatment-related sepsis., Interpretation: Pembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICPI) drugs, which include antibodies against CTLA-4, PD-1 and PD-L1, have been shown to induce durable complete responses in a proportion of patients with particular efficacy demonstrated in both the first line and refractory setting in advanced NSCLC and melanoma. However, these drugs remain effective only in a minority of unselected patients. Areas covered: This review will focus on mechanisms of resistance to ICPI and underline the importance of identification of novel predictive markers of responsiveness. The rationale for the combination of ICPI with specific chemotherapies, targeted therapies and other immuno-oncology drugs in order to improve efficacy will be provided. Expert opinion: There are near-endless permutations of combination strategies of these agents with ICPI that have become feasible treatment strategies. Development of an understanding of resistance mechanisms to ICPI by a shift towards translational approaches to comprehensive genomic profiling and interrogation of the tumor microenvironment will encourage recruitment of patients into biomarker-driven combination trials. More than ever, industry professionals, clinicians and scientists will need to collaborate to increase the investment in clinical trials of those therapeutic agents and combination strategies which are most likely to be transformative for patients.