Search

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

Abstract Background Sunitinib is a multi‐target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that inhibits VEGF receptor 1, 2, 3 (VEGFRs), platelet‐derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), colony‐stimulating factor receptor (CSFR), and the stem cell factor receptor c‐KIT. Temsirolimus inhibits mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) through binding to intracellular protein FKBP‐12. Both agents are approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), have different anticancer mechanisms, and non‐overlapping toxicities. These attributes form the scientific rationale for sequential combination of these agents. The primary objective of the study was to investigate the efficacy of alternating sunitinib and temsirolimus therapy on progression‐free survival (PFS) in mRCC. Methods We undertook a phase II, multi‐center, single cohort, open‐label study in patients with mRCC. Patients were treated with alternating dosing of 4 weeks of sunitinib 50 mg PO daily, followed by 2 weeks rest, then 4 weeks of temsirolimus 25 mg IV weekly, followed by 2 weeks rest (12 weeks total per cycle). The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included clinical response rate and characterization of the toxicity profile of this combination therapy. Results Nineteen patients were enrolled into the study. The median observed PFS (n = 13 evaluable for PFS) was 8.8 months (95% CI 6.8–25.2 months). Best responses achieved were five partial response, nine stable disease, and three disease progression according to RECIST 1.1 guidelines (two non‐evaluable). The most commonly observed toxicities were fatigue, platelet count decrease, creatinine increased, diarrhea, oral mucositis, edema, anemia, rash, hypophosphatemia, dysgeusia, and palmar‐plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome. Conclusion Alternating sunitinib and temsirolimus did not improve the PFS in patients with mRCC.

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

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

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

Cell-based immunotherapies have had remarkable success in the clinic, specifically in the treatment of hematologic malignancies. However, these strategies have had limited efficacy in patients with solid tumors. To better understand the challenges involved, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened an initial workshop with immuno-oncology thought leaders in December 2018 and a follow-up workshop in December 2020. The goals of the NCI workshops on cell-based immunotherapy for solid tumors were to discuss the current state of the field of cell-based immunotherapy, obtain insights into critical knowledge gaps, and identify ways in which NCI could facilitate progress. At both meetings, subjects emphasized four main types of challenges in further developing cell-based immunotherapy for patients with solid tumors: scientific, technical, clinical, and regulatory. The scientific barriers include selecting appropriate targets, ensuring adequate trafficking of cell therapy products to tumor sites, overcoming the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and identifying appropriate models for these investigations. While mouse models may provide some useful data, the majority of those that are commonly used are immunodeficient and unable to fully recapitulate the immune response in patients. There is therefore a need for enhanced support of small early-phase human clinical studies, preferably with adaptive trial designs, to provide proof of concept for novel cell therapy approaches. Furthermore, the requirements for manufacturing, shipping, and distributing cell-based therapies present technical challenges and regulatory questions, which many research institutions are not equipped to address. Overall, workshop subjects identified key areas where NCI support might help the research community in driving forward innovation and clinical utility: 1) provide focused research support on topics such as tumor target selection, immune cell fitness and persistence, cell trafficking, and the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment; 2) support the rapid translation of preclinical findings into proof of concept clinical testing, harmonize clinical trial regimens, and facilitate early trial data sharing (including negative results); 3) expand manufacturing support for cell therapies, including vectors and reagents, and provide training programs for technical staff; and 4) develop and share standard operating procedures for cell handling and analytical assays, and work with the Food and Drug Administration to harmonize product characterization specifications.

Exosomes play a vital role in intercellular communication and their immunomodulatory potential have become an important focus in cancer research. Various methods have been developed for the isolation although each method differs in the number and purity of exosomes they yield. In melanoma, tumor-derived exosomes drive immunosuppression within the tumor microenvironment. The co-elution of exosomes and soluble factors such as cytokines during isolation, however, make it difficult to ascertain the contribution of exosome cargo, as soluble cytokines are equally capable of immune suppression. In this review we will expound upon the biological relevance that exosome-associated cytokines possess. Furthermore, we discuss the technical challenges that arise during exosome isolation and what this means for further studies into the TME and in vivo work.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer therapy. Nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, markedly improved overall survival in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, ICIs can rarely trigger massive inflammation, a phenomenon characterized by rapid acceleration in radiographic tumor growth, the mechanisms underlying which are largely unknown. We report three patients with metastatic RCC who experienced rapid radiographic progression and clinical deterioration following treatment with nivolumab. However, histological analysis revealed no viable cancer despite the evidence of radiological progression. Instead, extensive necrosis and lymphohistiocytic infiltration were noted, as described previously in patients with ICI-induced pseudoprogression. Based on these observations, we postulate that exuberant antitumor inflammatory responses may contribute to adverse clinical outcomes in some patients with ICI-induced radiographic progression. Prospective studies incorporating tumor biopsies may shed more light on this rare phenomenon.

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.

Abstract Background Regulatory approval of next generation sequencing (NGS) by the FDA is advancing the use of genomic-based precision medicine for the therapeutic management of cancer as standard care. Recent FDA guidance for the classification of genomic variants based on clinical evidence to aid clinicians in understanding the actionability of identified variants provided by comprehensive NGS panels has also been set forth. In this retrospective analysis, we interpreted and applied the FDA variant classification guidance to comprehensive NGS testing performed for advanced cancer patients and assessed oncologist agreement with NGS test treatment recommendations. Methods NGS comprehensive genomic profiling was performed in a CLIA certified lab (657 completed tests for 646 patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center) between June 2016 and June 2017. Physician treatment recommendations made within 120 days post-test were gathered from tested patients’ medical records and classified as targeted therapy, precision medicine clinical trial, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy, chemotherapy/radiation, surgery, transplant, or non-therapeutic (hospice, surveillance, or palliative care). Agreement between NGS test report targeted therapy recommendations based on the FDA variant classification and physician targeted therapy treatment recommendations were evaluated. Results Excluding variants contraindicating targeted therapy (i.e., KRAS or NRAS mutations), at least one variant with FDA level 1 companion diagnostic supporting evidence as the most actionable was identified in 14% of tests, with physicians most frequently recommending targeted therapy (48%) for patients with these results. This stands in contrast to physicians recommending targeted therapy based on test results with FDA level 2 (practice guideline) or FDA level 3 (clinical trial or off label) evidence as the most actionable result (11 and 4%, respectively). Conclusions We found an appropriate “dose-response” relationship between the strength of clinical evidence supporting biomarker-directed targeted therapy based on application of FDA guidance for NGS test variant classification, and subsequent treatment recommendations made by treating physicians. In view of recent changes at FDA, it is paramount to define regulatory grounds and medical policy coverage for NGS testing based on this guidance.

Both exosomes and soluble factors have been implicated in the generation of an immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment. Determining the contribution of each requires stringent control of purity of the isolated analytes. The present study compares several conventional exosome isolation methods for the presence of co-enriched soluble factors while isolating exosomes from human melanoma-derived cell lines. The resultant preparations were analysed by multiplex bead array analysis for cytokine profiles, and by electron microscopy and nanotracking analysis for exosome size distribution and concentration. It is demonstrated that the amount and repertoire of soluble factors in exosome preparations is dependent upon the isolation method used. A combination of ultrafiltration and size exclusion chromatography yielded up to 58-fold more exosomes than ultracentrifugation, up to 836-fold lower concentrations of co-purified soluble factors when adjusted for exosome yield, and a greater than two-fold increase in PD-L1 expressing exosomes. Mechanistically, in context of the immunomodulatory effects of exosomes, the exosome isolation method should be carefully considered in order to limit any effects due instead to co-eluted soluble factors.

Abstract Background Preclinical studies suggest that BRAF inhibitors enhance anti-tumor immunity and antigen presentation. Combination BRAF inhibition with immunotherapy is an appealing therapeutic approach. We sequenced vemurafenib with HD IL-2 in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma to improve long term outcomes. Methods Eligible patients were HD IL-2 eligible with metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma. Cohort 1 was treatment naïve and received vemurafenib 960 mg BID for 6 weeks before HD IL-2. Cohort 2 received vemurafenib for 7–18 weeks before enrollment. Both cohorts received HD IL-2 at 600,000 IU/kg every 8 h days 1–5 and days 15–19. The primary objective was to assess complete responses (CR) at 10 weeks ±3 (assessment 1) and 26 weeks ±3 (assessment 2) from the start of HD IL-2. Results Fifty-three patients were enrolled, (cohort 1, n = 38; cohort 2, n = 15). Of these, 39 underwent assessment 1 and 15 assessment 2. The CR rate at assessment 1 was 10% (95% CI 3–24) for both cohorts combined, and 27% (95% CI 8–55) at assessment 2. Three-year survival was 30 and 27% for cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. No unexpected toxicities occurred. A shift in the melanoma treatment landscape during this trial adversely affected accrual, leading to early trial closure. Conclusions Vemurafenib in sequence with HD IL-2 did not change the known toxicity profile for either agent. Lower than expected response rates to vemurafenib were observed. Overall response rates and durability of responses appear similar to that observed with HD IL-2 alone. Trial registration NCTN, NCT01683188. Registered 11 September 2012, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01683188

Abstract Background Cancer immunotherapy has been firmly established as a standard of care for patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma. Therapeutic outcomes in clinical trials have resulted in the approval of 11 new drugs and/or combination regimens for patients with melanoma. However, prospective data to support evidence-based clinical decisions with respect to the optimal schedule and sequencing of immunotherapy and targeted agents, how best to manage emerging toxicities and when to stop treatment are not yet available. Methods To address this knowledge gap, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Melanoma Task Force developed a process for consensus recommendations for physicians treating patients with melanoma integrating evidence-based data, where available, with best expert consensus opinion. The initial consensus statement was published in 2013, and version 2.0 of this report is an update based on a recent meeting of the Task Force and extensive subsequent discussions on new agents, contemporary peer-reviewed literature and emerging clinical data. The Academy of Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine) clinical practice guidelines were used as a basis for consensus development with an updated literature search for important studies published between 1992 and 2017 and supplemented, as appropriate, by recommendations from Task Force participants. Results The Task Force considered patients with stage II-IV melanoma and here provide consensus recommendations for how they would incorporate the many immunotherapy options into clinical pathways for patients with cutaneous melanoma. Conclusion These clinical guidleines provide physicians and healthcare providers with consensus recommendations for managing melanoma patients electing treatment with tumor immunotherapy.

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the clinical management of melanoma. However, not all patients respond, and current biomarkers including PD-L1 and mutational burden show incomplete predictive performance. The clinical validity and utility of complex biomarkers have not been studied in melanoma. Methods Cutaneous metastatic melanoma patients at eight institutions were evaluated for PD-L1 expression, CD8+ T-cell infiltration pattern, mutational burden, and 394 immune transcript expression. PD-L1 IHC and mutational burden were assessed for association with overall survival (OS) in 94 patients treated prior to ICI approval by the FDA (historical-controls), and in 137 patients treated with ICIs. Unsupervised analysis revealed distinct immune-clusters with separate response rates. This comprehensive immune profiling data were then integrated to generate a continuous Response Score (RS) based upon response criteria (RECIST v.1.1). RS was developed using a single institution training cohort (n = 48) and subsequently tested in a separate eight institution validation cohort (n = 29) to mimic a real-world clinical scenario. Results PD-L1 positivity ≥1% correlated with response and OS in ICI-treated patients, but demonstrated limited predictive performance. High mutational burden was associated with response in ICI-treated patients, but not with OS. Comprehensive immune profiling using RS demonstrated higher sensitivity (72.2%) compared to PD-L1 IHC (34.25%) and tumor mutational burden (32.5%), but with similar specificity. Conclusions In this study, the response score derived from comprehensive immune profiling in a limited melanoma cohort showed improved predictive performance as compared to PD-L1 IHC and tumor mutational burden.

Background High dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) can induce durable responses in a subset of patients leading to long-term survival. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated similarly durable responses in a larger proportion of patients. However, not all patients respond to immune checkpoint blockade and subsequent therapeutic options need to be explored.Methods The PROCLAIM database was queried for patients with metastatic melanoma who had received HD IL-2 after treatment with ipilimumab or without prior ICB. Patient characteristics, toxicity and efficacy were analyzed.Results A total of 52 metastatic melanoma patients were treated with high dose IL-2 after ipilimumab and 276 patients were treated with high dose IL-2 without prior ICB. The overall response rate in the prior ipilimumab group was 21 % as compared to 12 % in the group that had not received prior ipilimumab. The median overall survival, measured from the initiation of HD IL-2 therapy, was 19.3 months in the prior ipilimumab group and 19.4 months in the no prior ICB group. Toxicities observed on HD IL-2 were relatively equivalent between the groups although there were cases of CTLA4 antibody-induced colitis reported after HD IL-2 treatment and a CTLA4 antibody-induced colitis related death.Conclusion In this retrospective analysis HD IL-2 therapy displayed antitumor activity in melanoma patients who progressed following treatment with ipilimumab. Most HD IL-2 toxicity was not worsened by prior ipilimumab therapy except for one treatment related death from colitis. Care should be taken to avoid reactivation of CTLA4 antibody-induced colitis.

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