Search

Purpose: Mucosal melanoma is a rare, aggressive form of melanoma with extremely high recurrence rates despite definitive surgical resection with curative intent. Currently there is no consensus on adjuvant therapy. Data on checkpoint inhibitors for adjuvant therapy are lacking. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-arm, multicenter clinical trial using “flip dose” ipilimumab (1 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), and nivolumab (3 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), then nivolumab 480 mg q4w × 11 cycles to complete a year of adjuvant therapy. Participants must have had R0/R1 resection ≤90 days before registration, no prior systemic therapy (adjuvant radiotherapy allowed), ECOG 0/1, and no uncontrolled autoimmune disease or other invasive cancer. Patients were recruited through the Midwest Melanoma Partnership/Hoosier Oncology Network. Results: From September 2017 to August 2021, 35 patients were enrolled. Of these, 29 (83%) had R0 resections, and 7 (20%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. Median age was 67 years, 21 (60.0%) female. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates at 1 and 2 years were 50% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31%–66%] and 37% (95% CI, 19%–55%), respectively. Overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 87% (95% CI, 68%–95%) and 68% (95% CI, 46%–83%), respectively. Median RFS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 5.7–25.8). Most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (14%), hypertension (14%), and hyponatremia (11%), with no grade 4/5 toxicities. Conclusions: Flip-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab after resection of mucosal melanoma is associated with outcomes improved over that of surgical resection alone. Long-term follow-up, subgroup analyses and correlative studies are ongoing.

Purpose:Mucosal melanoma is a rare, aggressive form of melanoma with extremely high recurrence rates despite definitive surgical resection with curative intent. Currently there is no consensus on adjuvant therapy. Data on checkpoint inhibitors for adjuvant therapy are lacking.Patients and Methods:We performed a single-arm, multicenter clinical trial using “flip dose” ipilimumab (1 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), and nivolumab (3 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), then nivolumab 480 mg q4w × 11 cycles to complete a year of adjuvant therapy. Participants must have had R0/R1 resection ≤90 days before registration, no prior systemic therapy (adjuvant radiotherapy allowed), ECOG 0/1, and no uncontrolled autoimmune disease or other invasive cancer. Patients were recruited through the Midwest Melanoma Partnership/Hoosier Oncology Network.Results:From September 2017 to August 2021, 35 patients were enrolled. Of these, 29 (83%) had R0 resections, and 7 (20%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. Median age was 67 years, 21 (60.0%) female. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates at 1 and 2 years were 50% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31%–66%] and 37% (95% CI, 19%–55%), respectively. Overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 87% (95% CI, 68%–95%) and 68% (95% CI, 46%–83%), respectively. Median RFS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 5.7–25.8). Most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (14%), hypertension (14%), and hyponatremia (11%), with no grade 4/5 toxicities.Conclusions:Flip-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab after resection of mucosal melanoma is associated with outcomes improved over that of surgical resection alone. Long-term follow-up, subgroup analyses and correlative studies are ongoing.

Grade 3+ Adverse Events

Patients with advanced melanoma that is resistant to PD-1 blockade therapy have limited treatment options. Vidutolimod (formerly CMP-001), a virus-like particle containing a CpG-A Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist, may reverse PD-1 blockade resistance by triggering a strong IFN response to induce and attract antitumor T cells. In the dose-escalation part of this phase Ib study, vidutolimod was administered intratumorally at escalating doses with intravenous pembrolizumab to 44 patients with advanced melanoma who had progressive disease or stable disease on prior anti–PD-1 therapy. The combination of vidutolimod and pembrolizumab had a manageable safety profile, and durable responses were observed in 25% of patients, with tumor regression in both injected and noninjected lesions, including visceral lesions. Patients who responded to vidutolimod and pembrolizumab had noninflamed tumors at baseline and induction of an IFNγ gene signature following treatment, as well as increased systemic expression of the IFN-inducible chemokine CXCL10.Significance:In this phase Ib study in patients with advanced melanoma, intratumoral TLR9 agonist vidutolimod in combination with pembrolizumab had a manageable safety profile and showed promising clinical activity, supporting the further clinical development of vidutolimod to overcome PD-1 blockade resistance through induction of an IFN response.See related commentary by Sullivan, p. 2960.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2945

Supplementary figures 1-6, supplementary tables 1-4

Background Olutasidenib (FT-2102) is a highly potent, orally bioavailable, brain-penetrant and selective inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1). The aim of the study was to determine the safety and clinical activity of olutasidenib in patients with relapsed/refractory gliomas harboring an IDH1R132X mutation. Methods This was an open-label, multicenter, nonrandomized, phase Ib/II clinical trial. Eligible patients (≥18 years) had histologically confirmed IDH1R132X-mutated glioma that relapsed or progressed on or following standard therapy and had measurable disease. Patients received olutasidenib, 150 mg orally twice daily (BID) in continuous 28-day cycles. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (cycle 1) and safety in phase I and objective response rate using the Modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria in phase II. Results Twenty-six patients were enrolled and followed for a median 15.1 months (7.3‒19.4). No DLTs were observed in the single-agent glioma cohort and the pharmacokinetic relationship supported olutasidenib 150 mg BID as the recommended phase II dose. In the response-evaluable population, disease control rate (objective response plus stable disease) was 48%. Two (8%) patients demonstrated a best response of partial response and eight (32%) had stable disease for at least 4 months. Grade 3‒4 adverse events (≥10%) included alanine aminotransferase increased and aspartate aminotransferase increased (three [12%], each). Conclusions Olutasidenib 150 mg BID was well tolerated in patients with relapsed/refractory gliomas harboring an IDH1R132X mutation and demonstrated preliminary evidence of clinical activity in this heavily pretreated population.

Recurrence after resection of metastatic sarcoma is common. The gangliosides GM2, GD2 and GD3 are strongly expressed across sarcoma subtypes. We hypothesised that generation of anti-ganglioside antibodies would control micrometastases and improve outcomes in sarcoma patients who were disease-free after metastasectomy.We conducted a randomised phase II trial of the immunological adjuvant OPT-821 with a KLH-conjugated ganglioside vaccine targeting GM2, GD2 and GD3, versus OPT-821 alone in patients with metastatic sarcoma following complete metastasectomy. Patients received 10 subcutaneous injections at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 8, 16, 28, 40, 52, 68 and 84 and were followed for evidence of recurrent disease. The primary end-point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end-points included overall survival and serologic response.A total of 136 patients were randomised, 68 to each arm. The mean age was 51.2, 52.2% were male, 90.4% had relapsed disease, 86.8% had high-grade tumours and 14% had ≥4 metastases resected. Histologies included leiomyosarcoma (33%), spindle cell sarcoma (14%), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (13%), osteosarcoma (10%), synovial sarcoma (9%), liposarcoma (9%) and others (12%). Most adverse events were Grade ≤2 (83.8% and 70.6% in the vaccine and adjuvant arms, respectively). The most common (≥20% of patients) were injection site reaction (89.7%), fatigue (44.1%) and pyrexia (27.9%) on the vaccine arm, and injection site reaction (69.1%) on the adjuvant only arm. The 1-year relapse-free survival rate (34.5% and 34.8% in the vaccine and OPT-821 monotherapy arm, respectively) did not differ between arms (P = 0.725). One-year overall survival rates were 93.1% and 91.5% in the vaccine and OPT-821 monotherapy arm, respectively (P = 0.578). Serologic responses at week 9 were more frequent on the vaccine arm (96.5% of patients) than in the adjuvant arm (32.8%), and the difference between groups was durable.A sustained serologic response to vaccination was induced with the vaccine, but no difference in recurrence-free or overall survival was observed between treatment arms.gov identifier: NCT01141491.

Background Pazopanib is active in refractory soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) and significantly prolongs PFS. Prior studies of combinations of metronomic topotecan with pazopanib have indicated preclinical evidence of response in patients with sarcoma. Methods This prospective, single arm, phase II study evaluated the efficacy of the combination of pazopanib with topotecan in patients with metastatic or unresectable non-adipocytic STS. Furthermore, it incorporated exploratory arms for osteosarcoma and liposarcoma. The primary endpoint was progression-free rate at 12 weeks in the non-adipocytic STS cohort. Results 57.5% of patients in the non-adipocytic STS cohort were progression free at 12 weeks, which did not meet the primary endpoint of the study (66%). The exploratory osteosarcoma cohort exceeded previously established phase II trial comparator data benchmark of 12% with a PFR at 12 weeks of 69.55%. Treatment with the combination of pazopanib and topotecan was accompanied by a grade 3 or 4 toxicities in most patients. Conclusions In this prospective trial in refractory metastatic or unresectable STS and osteosarcoma, the combination of pazopanib with topotecan did not meet its primary endpoint of progression-free rate at 12 weeks. The combination of pazopanib with topotecan was associated with a high degree of toxicity.

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

Background: Bicycles are a novel class of synthetic molecules formed by using a central scaffold to constrain short linear peptides into a stabilized bi-cyclic structure, which can then be readily conjugated to other molecules. BT7480 is a trimeric first-in-class Bicycle tumor-targeted immune cell agonist (Bicycle TICA) comprised of two unique bicyclic peptides: one that binds to Nectin-4 and two identical Bicycles that bind and agonize CD137. The resulting multi-specific molecule stimulates an immune response in the presence of both Nectin-4-expressing tumor cells as well as CD137-expressing immune cells. Nectin-4, a cell adhesion molecule overexpressed on the surface of tumor cells and CD137, a costimulatory receptor expressed on immune cells, are co-expressed in a variety of solid tumors including lung, head and neck, breast, ovarian, and bladder. Co-ligation of Nectin-4 and CD137 by BT7480 is hypothesized to induce oligomerization and activation of CD137, resulting in a tumor-localized costimulatory signal. A favorable preclinical profile supported the initiation of this first-in-human study to investigate the safety and efficacy of BT7480 in patients with solid tumors associated with Nectin-4 expression (NCT05163041). Methods: This is a phase 1/2, open-label, multicenter study to assess safety, clinical activity, and pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of BT7480. Patients must have an advanced malignancy associated with Nectin-4 expression that is not eligible for standard therapy. Additional key criteria include ≥18 years of age, ECOG of 0 or 1, adequate organ function, and no prior therapy with a CD137-targeted agent. Patients are treated at one of the escalating doses (3+3 design) by weekly IV infusion in a 4-week cycle. Primary objectives are to assess safety (phase 1) and clinical activity per RECIST v1.1 (phase 2). Secondary objectives include assessment of PK parameters, measurement of anti-drug antibodies, and evaluation of CD137 target engagement in blood. Key exploratory objectives include evaluating pharmacogenomics, ctDNA, and biomarkers in blood and tumors associated with pharmacological activity, including signals of immune activations and target expression. PK and PD analyses will be performed to support dose escalation decisions and to further the understanding of safety and clinical activity signals as a result of treatment with BT7480. This study is actively recruiting. Citation Format: Thomas R. Evans, Afshin Dowlati, Juanita S. Lopez, Mohammed M. Milhem, Jordi Rodón Ahnert, Alexander Spira, Richard D. Carvajal, Matthew Zibelman, Sebastien J. Hazard, Amy Dickson, Lei Xu, Heather Cohen, Justin Bader, Kristen Hurov, Rajiv Sharma, Dominic Smethurst, Kyriakos P. Papadopoulos. Phase 1/2 study of the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity of BT7480 in patients with nectin-4 associated advanced malignancies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT253.

The treatment of sarcoma necessitates a collaborative approach, given its rarity and complex management. At a single institution, multidisciplinary teams of specialists determine and execute treatment plans involving surgical, radiation, and medical management. Treatment guidelines for systemic therapies in advanced or nonresectable soft tissue sarcoma have advanced in recent years as new immunotherapies and targeted therapies become available. Collaboration between institutions is necessary to facilitate accrual to clinical trials. Here, we describe the success of the Midwest Sarcoma Trials Partnership (MWSTP) in creating a network encompassing large academic centers and local community sites. We propose a new model utilizing online platforms to expand the reach of clinical expertise for the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

Background Therapeutic options for patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) are limited. The goal of the current phase 2 study was to examine the clinical activity and safety of the combination of gemcitabine plus pazopanib, a multityrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in STS. Methods The current randomized, phase 2 trial enrolled patients with advanced nonadipocytic STS who had received prior anthracycline-based therapy. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 with pazopanib at a dose of 800 mg daily (G+P) or gemcitabine at a dose of 900 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and docetaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m2 on day 8 (G+T) every 3 weeks. Crossover was allowed at the time of disease progression. The study used a noncomparative statistical design based on the precision of 95% confidence intervals for reporting the primary endpoints of median progression-free survival (PFS) and rate of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) for these 2 regimens based on the intent-to-treat patient population (AEs were graded using version 4.0 of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). Results A total of 90 patients were enrolled: 45 patients on each treatment arm. The median PFS was 4.1 months for each arm (P = .3, log-rank test). The best overall response of stable disease or better (complete response + partial response + stable disease) was the same for both treatment arms (64% for both the G+T and G+P arms). The rate of related grade ≥3 AEs was 82% for the G+T arm and 78% for the G+P arm. Related grade ≥3 AEs occurring in ≥10% of patients in the G+T and G+P arms were anemia (36% and 20%, respectively), fatigue (29% and 13%, respectively), thrombocytopenia (53% and 49%, respectively), neutropenia (20% and 49%, respectively), lymphopenia (13% and 11%, respectively), and hypertension (2% and 20%, respectively). Conclusions The data from the current study have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of G+P as an alternative to G+T for patients with nonadipocytic STS.

Purpose CC-486 is an oral formulation of azacitidine that allows for extended dosing schedules to prolong azacitidine exposure to malignant cells and maximize clinical activity. CC-486 300 mg daily, administered for 14 or 21 days of 28-day treatment cycles, is currently under investigation in two ongoing phase III trials. The 300-mg daily dose in these studies is administered as two 150-mg tablets (Formulation A). Methods We evaluated the bioequivalence of one 300-mg CC-486 tablet (Formulation B) with Formulation A and food effect on Formulation B, in adult patients with cancer in a 2-stage crossover design study. Results The ratios of the geometric means of the maximum azacitidine plasma concentration (Cmax) and of the area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC∞) were 101.5% and 105.7%, demonstrating the bioequivalence of Formulations A and B. Formulation B was rapidly absorbed under fasted and fed conditions. The geometric mean of Cmax was significantly decreased by ~ 21% in the fed state. Median Tmax was reached at 2 h and 1 h post-dose in fed and fasted states, respectively (P Cmax and Tmax are not expected to have a clinical impact. Conclusion The single 300-mg CC-486 tablet was bioequivalent to two 150-mg tablets, which have shown to be efficacious and generally well-tolerated in clinical trials, and can be taken with or without food.

Currently, several targeted therapy regimens are approved as first-line treatment in V600E/K-mutant advanced and metastatic melanoma. Patients with the third most common pathologic variant in the BRAF gene, V600R, were not included in BRAF/MEK inhibitors clinical trials, so there is lack of information about the clinical characteristics and predictive value of this mutation in systemic therapy of unresectable disease. We retrospectively reviewed clinical BRAF mutation testing results and the records of melanoma patients at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics from 2011 to 2017. DNA from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor specimens were sequenced using a next-generation sequencing panel or dye terminator sequencing covering exon 15 of the BRAF gene. The study protocol was approved by the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board. Nine patients (5.3% of 168 cases with BRAF mutation) were found to have the V600R mutation. We report our experience in treatment of seven patients with V600R-mutant melanoma, whose clinical records were available for review. Four patients in our cohort received BRAF inhibitors. Three patients demonstrated partial objective response to BRAF/MEK targeted therapy. V600R-mutant melanoma accounts for a significant number of cases even in single-institution practices. We believe that testing for BRAF-mutation status should include rare variants of this mutation. From our experience, the high rate of ulceration, male predominance and advanced age at diagnosis are features of melanoma with V600R mutation, which are similar to those reported for V600K mutation. We observed objective response to BRAF/MEK inhibitors in three cases with V600R variant.

Olutasidenib (FT2102) is a highly potent, orally bioavailable, brain-penetrant and selective inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1). The aim of the study was to determine the safety and clinical activity of olutasidenib in patients with relapsed/refractory gliomas harboring an IDH1 R132X mutation.This was an open-label, multicenter, non-randomized, phase 1b/2 clinical trial. Eligible patients (≥18 years) had histologically confirmed IDH1 R132Xmutated glioma that relapsed or progressed on or following standard therapy and had measurable disease. Patients received olutasidenib, 150 mg orally twice daily (BID) in continuous 28-day cycles. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (cycle 1) and safety in phase 1 and objective response rate using the Modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria in phase 2.Twenty-six patients were enrolled and followed for a median 15.1 months (7.3‒19.4). No DLTs were observed in the single-agent glioma cohort and the pharmacokinetic relationship supported olutasidenib 150 mg BID as the recommended phase 2 dose. In the response-evaluable population, disease control rate (objective response plus stable disease) was 48%. Two (8%) patients demonstrated a best response of partial response and eight (32%) had stable disease for at least 4 months. Grade 3‒4 adverse events (≥10%) included alanine aminotransferase increased and aspartate aminotransferase increased (three [12%], each).Olutasidenib 150 mg BID was well tolerated in patients with relapsed/refractory gliomas harboring an IDH1 R132X mutation and demonstrated preliminary evidence of clinical activity in this heavily pretreated population.

Pembrolizumab is an effective therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma. However, not all patients derive benefit. It is postulated that an increase in regulatory T cells in melanoma patients can impair the response to immunotherapies. Continuous low-dose temozolomide has shown to cause immunomodulatory effects resulting in CD4 + lymphopenia due to which Treg population can also decrease significantly. Herein, we present a case series of three patients with metastatic melanoma who after progression on pembrolizumab showed a radiological response after just one cycle of metronomic temozolomide (75 mg/m daily for 6 weeks on 8-week cycle). This suggests that temozolomide may be a useful alternative for patients with metastatic melanoma after disease progression on pembrolizumab. Further studies with biomarkers are warranted to elucidate which patients will derive benefit from this strategy.

BackgroundRP1 is an enhanced potency oncolytic HSV-1 which expresses a fusogenic glycoprotein (GALV-GP R-) and granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF).1 In pre-clinical studies, RP1 demonstrated potent GALV-GP R-enhanced anti-tumor activity and immunogenic cell death. This Phase 1/2 (Ph 1/2) study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RP1 ± nivolumab (nivo) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors, including pts whose disease failed prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and has reported promising interim data in a number of tumor types including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) and anti-PD1 failed melanoma to date.2MethodsThis is a multi-center, first-in-human, open label, multi-cohort, non-randomized Ph1 study of RP1 alone and combined with nivo followed by Ph2 in combination with nivo in pts with recurrent advanced solid tumors including those that progressed after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. The Ph 1 monotherapy dose escalation (n=14) and RP-1 combination expansion (n=22) cohorts are fully enrolled. Approximately 260 pts are expected to be enrolled in the ongoing Ph 2 portion across five cohorts; melanoma (n=30, enrollment complete), non-melanoma skin cancer (n=45, to include 15 pts with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 failed disease), anti-PD-1 failed MSI-H/dMMR tumors (n=30), anti-PD-1/PD-L1-failed non-small-cell lung cancer (n=30) and a registration-directed cohort in anti-PD-1 failed cutaneous melanoma (n=125). Pts in the Ph 2 portion receive up to 10 mL of RP1 intratumorally into one or more superficial or deep seated/visceral lesions at the recommended Ph 2 dose (1x10^6 PFU/mL × 1 followed by 1x10^7 PFU/mL × 7, Q2W). Following the first dose of RP1, nivo (240 mg IV Q2W for 4 months then 480 mg IV Q4W for up to 2 years) is subsequently administered in combination. Pts may receive up to 8 additional doses of RP1 if they meet protocol-specified criteria. Tumor assessments are performed Q8W. The primary objectives of the Ph 2 part of the study are to assess the safety, tolerability, and overall response rate (ORR) of RP1 in combination with nivo, by independent review for the anti-PD1 failed melanoma cohort. Secondary objectives include duration of response, complete response rate, disease control rate, PFS, 1-year and 2-year survival rates. Exploratory objectives include biodistribution and shedding analysis of RP1 and biomarker studies, including analyses of tumor biopsies and blood samples. Enrollment is currently ongoing in the UK and US, with additional sites in the EU (including France and Spain) are expected to open in 2021.Trial RegistrationNCT03767348ReferencesThomas S, Kuncheria L, Roulstone V, Kyula JN, Mansfield D, Bommareddy PK, Smith H, Kaufman HL, Harrington KJ, Coffin RS. Development of a new fusion-enhanced oncolytic immunotherapy platform based on herpes simplex virus type 1. J Immunother Cancer 2019;7(1):214.Coffin R, Astley-Sparke P, and Middleton M (2021, June 3rd). Retrieved from https://ir.replimune.com/static-files/f4fe3349-e082-4d41-94a1-106ce7e78a23Ethics ApprovalThe study was approved by institutional review board or the local ethics committee at each site. Informed consent was obtained from patients prior to enrollment.

BackgroundThere are limited therapeutic options for patients with progressive disease (PD) on or after PD-1–blocking antibody therapy. Vidutolimod (CMP-001) is a first-in-class, immunostimulatory virus-like particle containing a CpG-A Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist. This phase 1b study evaluated the safety and clinical activity of intratumoral vidutolimod with and without pembrolizumab in patients with refractory melanoma.MethodsThis two-part, open-label, multicenter, phase 1b study (NCT02680184) enrolled adults with histologically confirmed metastatic or unresectable cutaneous melanoma who had stable disease after ≥12 weeks or PD on anti−PD-1 treatment, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS 0/1, and ≥1 lesion accessible for intratumoral injection. Part 1 evaluated vidutolimod + pembrolizumab and Part 2 evaluated vidutolimod monotherapy. Key objectives included assessment of safety and clinical activity, and exploratory analyses were performed on available tumor biopsies using immunohistochemistry and RNAseq.ResultsAt data cutoff (August 17, 2021), 159 patients had enrolled in Part 1 and 40 patients in Part 2. The median age was 64 years in Part 1 (range, 30-90) and 68 years in Part 2 (range, 30-89). Most patients had PD as their last response to prior anti–PD-1 therapy (Part 1, 93.1%; Part 2, 80.0%). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 37.1% of patients treated with vidutolimod + pembrolizumab and in 22.5% of patients treated with vidutolimod monotherapy. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Based on the efficacy data presented in Table 1, vidutolimod polysorbate 20 (PS20) A was selected for further development as this formulation in combination with pembrolizumab had a best objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1) of 23.5%, with a median duration of response (DOR) of 25.2 months. Vidutolimod monotherapy had an ORR of 20.0%, with a median DOR of 5.6 months. Exploratory translational analyses identified association of unique biomarkers with response among patients with T cell–inflamed versus non-T cell–inflamed tumors at baseline.Abstract 950 Table 1Safety and clinical activity of vidutolomod ± pembrolizumabConclusionsPromising clinical activity was observed with vidutolimod + pembrolizumab and vidutolimod monotherapy in patients with PD-1 blockade–refractory melanoma. A manageable safety profile was observed. The DOR with vidutolimod + pembrolizumab was substantially longer than with vidutolimod monotherapy. Clinical studies to confirm the efficacy of vidutolimod + PD-1 blockade in patients with previously untreated unresectable/metastatic melanoma (phase 2/3, NCT04695977) or PD-1 blockade–refractory melanoma (phase 2, NCT04698187) are ongoing.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. Medical writing assistance was provided by Steffen Biechele, PhD (ApotheCom, San Francisco, CA, USA), and funded by Checkmate Pharmaceuticals.Trial RegistrationNCT02680184Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the WCG-WIRB; WIRB approval tracking number: 20152597.

Background: Perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms (PEComas) are a diverse family of mesenchymal tumors with myomelanocytic differentiation that disproportionately affect women and can be associated with tuberous sclerosis (TS). Although mTOR inhibition is widely used as first-line treatment, it is unclear what genomic alterations exist in these tumors and how they influence the response to therapy. Methods: This was a multicenter study conducted at five sites within the US. The data were collected from 1 January 2004 to 31 January 2021. We conducted a retrospective analysis to identify PEComa patients with next-generation sequencing (NGS) data and compared outcomes based on mutations. Results: No significant differences in survival were identified between TSC-1 and TSC-2 mutated PEComa or TSC-1/-2 versus other mutations. No significant difference was seen in progression-free survival (PFS) after first-line therapy between mTOR inhibition versus other systemic therapies. Conclusions: We were unable to detect differences in survival based on genomic alterations or PFS between mTOR inhibition versus other systemic therapies. Future studies should seek to identify other drivers of TSC-1/-2 silencing that could predict response to mTOR inhibition.

BackgroundSoft-tissue sarcomas (STS) in the extremities and trunk treated with standard-of-care preoperative external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by surgical resection are associated with local and distant relapses. In preclinical studies, oncolytic virotherapy in sarcoma has demonstrated antitumor effects via direct intratumoral oncolysis and cytotoxic T-cell–mediated immune responses. Talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) is a replication-competent, immune-enhanced, oncolytic herpes simplex virus type 1 engineered for intratumoral injection; it has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic melanoma.MethodsWe explored a novel combination of TVEC with standard-of-care EBRT administered preoperatively in patients with locally advanced STS of the extremities and trunk in a phase IB/II clinical trial. Thirty patients with primary STS >5 cm for which EBRT was indicated to achieve negative margins were enrolled. FDA-approved TVEC doses were used. Immune correlative studies in peripheral blood, biopsy and resected tumor tissues were performed.ResultsNo dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Adverse events were similar to those reported in prior studies with TVEC. One patient with myxoid liposarcoma exhibited a partial response. Seven of the 29 (24%) evaluable patients achieved 95% pathological necrosis. None of the patients developed a herpes infection due to the treatment. Eight of the 29 (27%) patients developed postoperative wound complications, which is consistent with previous studies. None of the patients developed local recurrence after surgical resection of the primary sarcoma. 2-year progression-free and overall survival were 57% and 88%, respectively. Caspase-3 demonstrated increased expression of both in TVEC-treated tissue samples as compared with control samples treated with radiation alone.ConclusionPreoperative intratumoral TVEC with concurrent EBRT for locally advanced STS is safe and well-tolerated. This combination treatment may enhance immune responses in some cases but did not increase the proposed rate of pathological necrosis. The Caspase-3 biomarker may be associated with a positive effect of TVEC in sarcoma tumor tissue and should be explored in future studies.Trial registration numberNCT02453191.

Immunotherapies have an established role in the management of several advanced malignancies. Their responses are largely dependent on the presence of PD-L1, microsatellite instability (MSI), and high tumor mutation burden. Sarcomas are heterogenous tumors which comprise over 100 subtypes. They are broadly considered immunologically inert or "cold". Immunotherapy as monotherapy has shown interesting responses in a certain handful of subtypes, such as undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, dedifferentiated and pleomorphic liposarcoma, and alveolar soft part sarcoma. However, the mechanisms of action of immunotherapy agents in several sarcoma subtypes remains unknown. Several sarcoma types such as leiomyosarcoma have been shown to have an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Early clinical studies suggest the emergence of B cell infiltration in sarcoma tumor tissues as well as the role of PD-1 and PD-L1 as biomarkers of response. Immunotherapy combinations with conventional chemotherapies, radiation therapies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and oncolytic viruses are showing promise in turning these "cold" tumors "hot". Several novel agents as well as repurposing therapies with the potential to enhance immunotherapy responses are undergoing pre-clinical and clinical studies in other tumor types. Herein we review current clinical studies which have explored the use of immunotherapeutic agents in the management of sarcomas and discuss the challenges and future directions.

Background This single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of pazopanib in patients with unresectable or metastatic conventional chondrosarcoma. Methods Eligible patients had conventional chondrosarcoma of any grade with measurable tumors that were unresectable or metastatic. Patients with mesenchymal, dedifferentiated, and extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma subtypes and patients who received prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy were excluded. Pazopanib at 800 mg once daily was administered for 28-day cycles. Tumor responses were evaluated by local radiology assessments every 2 cycles. The primary endpoint was the disease control rate (DCR) at week 16 (4 cycles). Results Forty-seven patients were enrolled. The DCR at 16 weeks was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28%-58%), which was superior to the null hypothesis rate of 30%, but the 2-sided P value (exact test) was .09 (1-sided P = .045). One patient had a partial response. The median overall survival was 17.6 months (95% CI, 11.3-35.0 months), and the median progression-free survival was 7.9 months (95% CI, 3.7-12.6 months). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were infrequent; hypertension (26%) and elevated alanine aminotransferase (9%) were most common. Conclusions This study provides evidence of positive drug activity for pazopanib in conventional chondrosarcoma.

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).

Introduction. Anti-PD-1 therapies, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, are currently the standard of care for treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. Treatment is usually continued until toxicity or disease progression. Though these therapies are well tolerated, some patients discontinue them due to immune-related adverse events (irAE). Discontinuation of therapy brings challenges to their management due to limited treatment options and lack of long-term prognostic information for these patients. Herein, we reviewed patients at our institution to analyze their clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods. Charts of 1264 consecutive patients enrolled between 8/1/2012 and 7/31/2017 at Melanoma Skin & Ocular Tissue Repositories at Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinic were reviewed. Eligible patients were those who received single-agent anti-PD-1 therapy and subsequently discontinued it due to irAE. Reviewed data included patient demographics, prior medical history, baseline disease parameters, and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was done to determine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results. Overall 169 patients with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma received anti-PD-1 therapy of which 16 (9.5%) white, non-Hispanic patients with median age of 64.5 (range 35 to 81 years) discontinued treatment due to irAE. Fifteen patients received pembrolizumab and one received nivolumab. The median duration of treatment was 4.7 (range 0.7 to 11.5) months. Median follow-up was 30.3 (range 4.6 to 49.4) months. Median PFS was 24.6 months and median OS was not reached. Durable clinical benefit (time to progression or next treatment of more than 6 months from last treatment) was observed in 13 (81.2%) patients. At the time of analysis, 8 patients had progressed and 4 patients died (all-cause). Discussion. Our results suggest that advanced melanoma patients discontinuing anti-PD-1 therapy due to irAE usually experience durable clinical benefit. However, caution is needed with these agents in patients with underlying autoimmune diseases.

Talimogene laherparepvec is a novel, genetically engineered, oncolytic herpes virus approved for local treatment of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with melanoma recurrent after initial surgery. It is administered as an intralesional injection. However, if the lesion continues to persist, it presents with a clinical challenge as when to stop treatment. Herein, we present two cases from our institution wherein the disease appeared to be persistent radiologically; however, on pathological excision, there was no evidence of disease and patients continue to be in durable remission after stopping treatment.

Metastatic melanoma therapies have proliferated over the last ten years. Prior to this, decades passed with only very few drugs available to offer our patients, and even then, those few drugs had minimal survival benefits. Many treatment options emerged over the last ten years with diverse mechanisms of action. Further, combination regimens have demonstrated superiority over monotherapy, especially for targeted agents. Each therapeutic combination possesses different advantages and side effect profiles. In this review, we outline the United States Food and Drug Administration-approved melanoma treatment agents and therapies currently in clinical development, focusing on combination approaches.

9585 Background: Tebentafusp (tebe) is the first T cell receptor therapeutic to demonstrate overall survival (OS) benefit in a randomized Phase 3 study vs investigator’s choice (IC) [ NCT03070392 ]. OS benefit was also observed in patients (pts) with best objective response (BOR) PD (HR 0.43), and in pts who had tumor growth ≥20% as best change in tumor size (HR 0.41), suggesting tebe-treated pts may exhibit atypical radiological responses and could benefit from treatment beyond radiographic progression (TBP), a well-established concept in immuno-oncology. Here we analyzed tumor kinetics and clinical benefit in pts treated with tebe beyond initial radiographic progression (TBP). Methods: 378 mUM pts were randomized 2:1 to tebe vs. IC. BOR was assessed by investigators using RECIST v1.1. TBP was permitted until: 1) additional ≥20% increase in tumor burden with absolute increase of ≥5 mm, or 2) unequivocal PD of non-target lesions; or 3) new non-measurable lesions. A Cox model adjusted for baseline covariates and for covariates at time of progression for TBP-eligible pts was used to compare survival post progression between those who did (TBP) and did not receive TBP (non-TBP). Stepwise selection of covariates (using p < 0.1 as the entry and staying criterion) was applied. Analysis performed on data cut-off 13Oct2020. Results: 183 tebe pts were eligible for TBP per protocol; 60% (109/183) received TBP with median duration of 8 wks. 21% of all tebe doses were administered as TBP. The proportion of pts with new lesions at initial progression (44% vs 57%) and median time to initial progression (2.9 mo vs 2.9 mo) were similar between TBP and non-TBP pts. Pts receiving TBP were more likely to have favorable key prognostic factors at baseline or at time of progression. After adjusting for these differences, a numerical benefit in post-progression OS favoring TBP was observed (HR 0.67, 95% CI [0.38,1.19]). Serial review of radiographic time points identified initial progression of sum of target lesions followed by stabilization for > 3 months after initial progression in some TBP pts. Safety profile during TBP was consistent with that expected for pts established on tebe and no pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: An OS benefit observed for tebentafusp among mUM patients who have initial radiographic progression demonstrates that RECIST assessment underestimates benefit. In a post-hoc analysis of OS following initial radiographic progression, continued treatment with tebentafusp was associated with numerically longer OS after adjusting for key prognostic variables. Tebentafusp treatment beyond progression was tolerated without new safety signals and, in some patients, was associated with radiological stabilization of sum of target lesions for > 3 months following the initial progression. Clinical trial information: NCT03070392.

9553 Background: RP1 is an enhanced potency oncolytic version of HSV1 that expresses human GM-CSF and the fusogenic protein GALV-GP R-. IGNYTE is a multicohort phase 1/2 study that evaluates the safety and efficacy of RP1 in combination with nivo (NCT03767348) in a range of tumor types. Preliminary data demonstrated a durable anti-tumor activity and tolerability for RP1+nivo. Here, we present updated results from the initial and melanoma (mel) and anti-PD1 naïve non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) cohorts with RP1+nivo. Methods: RP1 is administered via intratumoral injection Q2W, up to 10 mL/visit, first alone at a dose of 106 PFU/mL and then starting with the 2nd dose at 107 PFU/mL in combination with nivo (240 mg IV Q2W for 4 months (mos) then 480 mg IV Q4W up to 2 yrs) for up to 8 doses, with the option to re-initiate RP-1. Eligible patients (pts) must have at least one measurable & injectable tumor of ≥ 1 cm, ECOG 0-1, and no prior oncolytic therapy. For mel, both anti-PD1 naïve and failed pts were eligible, for NMSC pts who were anti-PD1 naïve. Results: As of data extraction on January 31, 2022, 13/36 pts with mel (36.1%) and 19/31 pts with NMSC (61.3%) had a best response of PR or CR. For mel this was 5/8 (62.5%), 6/16 (37.5%), 0/6 and 2/6 (33.3%) for pts with anti-PD1 naïve cutaneous, anti-PD1/anti-PD1+anti-CTLA-4 failed cutaneous, uveal and mucosal mel respectively. For the anti-PD1 naïve NMSC this included 11/17 (64.7%), 1/4 (25%), 3/4 (75%) and 4/6 (66.6%) patients with CSCC, BCC, MCC and angiosarcoma respectively, including 8/17 (47.1%) being CR for CSCC. Current immature median DOR was 13.27 mos (current range 3.67-16.93 mos) for mel, and 7.32 mos (current range 1.88-23.11mos) for anti-PD1 naïve NMSC. Any grade TEAE ( > 25%) in all cohorts combined were fatigue, nausea, pyrexia, chills, diarrhoea, pruritus, and influenza-like illness. TEAE ≥grade 3 ( > 5%) were disease progression and fatigue. No deaths related to RP1 was observed, with one death related to nivo (myocarditis). Biomarker data from paired biopsies indicated robust T cell infiltration and an increase in tumor inflammation gene signature post-treatment. Clinical responses observed were independent of baseline tumor PD-L1 expression status. Conclusions: RP1 in combination with nivo provides a durable anti-tumor activity in pts with skin cancers, including anti-PD1 failed and anti-PD1/anti-CTLA-4 failed mel. The combination continued to be generally well tolerated with no new safety signals identified. Based on this data, enrollment into both a registration-directed cohort of pts who have anti-PD1 failed cutaneous mel (n = 125) and a cohort of pts with anti-PD1 failed NMSC (n = 30) is ongoing. Up-to-date data from this ongoing trial will be reported at the conference. A randomized Ph2 trial of RP1+cemiplimab vs. cemiplimab alone in anti-PD1 naïve NMSC is also underway (NCT04050436). Clinical trial information: NCT03767348.

9534 Background: Uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignant tumor in adults and, approximately 40-50% of the patients eventually develop metastatic disease. Metastatic uveal melanoma has a dismal prognosis with an overall survival of < 50% at 1-year. Single-agent check point inhibitors revealed minimal benefit and novel approaches are underway to improve the outcomes with the recent approval of Tebentafusp in uveal melanoma. The purpose of this metanalysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of combined immunotherapy with ipilimumab (3 mg/kg x q3w for 4 cycles) and nivolumab (1 mg/kg x q3w for 4 cycles) in metastatic uveal melanoma. Methods: A comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science was conducted. Two independent reviewers screened the literature and extracted data. Our search strategy included MeSH terms and key words for metastatic uveal melanoma; ipilimumab and nivolumab. OpenMeta[Analyst] software was used for the analysis. The endpoints included the prevalence of overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), ≥grade-III diarrhea/colitis, and ≥grade-III hepatic toxicity. Additional endpoint included the median overall survival (OS) was reported as a range. Random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird method) was applied. Results: Overall, eight studies (n = 379) were included for the analysis. Five studies were phase II, three studies were retrospective. 52% of the patients were male with good performance status. Median follow-up ranged from 9.2 mo-28 mo. 40% of the patients (n = 142) had elevated LDH at the time of treatment. GNAQ and GNA11 mutations were reported in three studies, BRAF mutation was reported in two studies. The pooled prevalence for ORR was 13.7% (95% CI: 9.2–18.2%, N = 6 studies, n = 33/226) with CR of 2.1% (95% CI: 0.3–3.9%, N = 6 studies, n = 8/226). The median OS ranged from 12.7 to 19.1 months (N = 7 studies). Majority of the patients experienced treatment-related adverse events. Most common side effects included diarrhea, colitis, hepatic toxicities, skin disorders, hypothyroidism. The pooled prevalence for ≥grade III hepatic toxicity was 26.2% (95% CI: 13.9–0.385%, N = 5 studies, n = 60/219). Conclusions: Combined checkpoint blockade with ipilimumab and nivolumab showed an ORR of 13.7% which appears to show better clinical activity than single-agent checkpoint inhibitor. Most common treatment side effect was hepatic toxicity.

9573 Background: Mucosal melanoma is a rare, highly aggressive form of melanoma with extremely high recurrence rates, despite definitive surgical resection. Median RFS has been reported to be 5.4m, with RFS rates at 1 and 2 years of 10%, and 0%, respectively (Lian B, Si L, Cui C, et al. Phase II Randomized Trial Comparing High-Dose IFN-α2b with Temozolomide Plus Cisplatin as Systemic Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Mucosal Melanoma. Clinical Cancer Research 2013, 19(16):4488-4498). Currently there is no consensus on recommendations for adjuvant therapy. Data on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) adjuvantly is lacking. Methods: We performed a single arm, multicenter clinical trial using “flip dose” ipilimumab (1mg/kg q3w x4 cycles),and nivolumab (3 mg.kg q3w x4 cycles), then Nivolumab 480 mg q4w x 11 cycles to complete a year of adjuvant therapy. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS), and the study had 85% power to detect an improvement in RFS between 5.5 and 9.5 months using a one-sided log rank test. Participants must have had R0/R1 resection

Over the last decade, melanoma treatment has taken rapid strides with the advent of immunotherapies and targeted agents. With these new agents, there has been a significant improvement in patient survival. However, these new treatment options may sometimes lead to unanticipated side effects that make these treatments challenging to administer and monitor. In preclinical studies, BRAF and MEK inhibitors have shown to modulate tumor microenvironment and potentiate immunotherapies. Therefore, some patients who had prior treatment with immunotherapies can develop immune toxicities even with these targeted agents due to the long half-life of these monoclonal antibodies. Herein, we present our institutional experience with regard to these unexpected toxicities with targeted agents in patients who had previous treatment with immunotherapies. This case series lays out the various side effects along with details of their management, outcomes, and patient response.

Purpose Angiosarcomas represents a diverse group of aggressive high-grade vascular tumours with limited therapeutic options. We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of regorafenib, a small-molecule multikinase inhibitor, in the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced unresectable angiosarcoma. Patients and methods In this single-arm multicentre, open-label phase II clinical trial, 31 patients were enrolled and received regorafenib 160 mg PO daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint for the study was progression-free survival at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, response rate, and safety. Patients (≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0–1, a life expectancy of at least 4 months who had progressed on at least one but no more than 4 prior lines of therapy were eligible. Results Of the 23 patients evaluable for efficacy, 2 had a complete response (8.7%), and 2 had a partial response (8.7%), for a total overall response rate of 17.4%. Median PFS was 5.5 months, and 12/23 patients (52.2%) had a PFS of greater than 4 months. 10/31 (32.3%) patients evaluable for toxicity had a grade 3 or higher adverse events. Conclusions Regorafenib is a safe and active treatment for refractory metastatic and unresectable angiosarcoma. Rates of adverse events were comparable to prior studies of regorafenib for other tumour types. Regorafenib, the single agent, could be considered as therapy for patients with metastatic or unresectable AS.

Background: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial assessed pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma. At 15-month median follow-up, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [98·4% CI 0·43–0·74], p1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC (without in-transit metastasis), and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central interactive voice response system to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified according to disease stage and region, using a minimisation technique, and clinical investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing the data were masked to treatment assignment. The two coprimary endpoints were recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours. The secondary endpoint reported here was distant metastasis-free survival in the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37. Findings: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were assigned to receive either pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). At an overall median follow-up of 42·3 months (IQR 40·5–45·9), 3·5-year distant metastasis-free survival was higher in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group in the ITT population (65·3% [95% CI 60·9–69·5] in the pembrolizumab group vs 49·4% [44·8–53·8] in the placebo group; HR 0·60 [95% CI 0·49–0·73]; p

Patients with advanced melanoma that is resistant to PD-1 blockade therapy have limited treatment options. Vidutolimod (formerly CMP-001), a virus-like particle containing a CpG-A Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist, may reverse PD-1 blockade resistance by triggering a strong IFN response to induce and attract antitumor T cells. In the dose-escalation part of this phase Ib study, vidutolimod was administered intratumorally at escalating doses with intravenous pembrolizumab to 44 patients with advanced melanoma who had progressive disease or stable disease on prior anti–PD-1 therapy. The combination of vidutolimod and pembrolizumab had a manageable safety profile, and durable responses were observed in 25% of patients, with tumor regression in both injected and noninjected lesions, including visceral lesions. Patients who responded to vidutolimod and pembrolizumab had noninflamed tumors at baseline and induction of an IFNγ gene signature following treatment, as well as increased systemic expression of the IFN-inducible chemokine CXCL10. Significance: In this phase Ib study in patients with advanced melanoma, intratumoral TLR9 agonist vidutolimod in combination with pembrolizumab had a manageable safety profile and showed promising clinical activity, supporting the further clinical development of vidutolimod to overcome PD-1 blockade resistance through induction of an IFN response. See related commentary by Sullivan, p. 2960. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2945

BackgroundThe indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) pathway is a key counter-regulatory mechanism that, in cancer, is exploited by tumors to evade antitumor immunity. Indoximod is a small-molecule IDO pathway inhibitor that reverses the immunosuppressive effects of low tryptophan (Trp) and high kynurenine (Kyn) that result from IDO activity. In this study, indoximod was used in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) pembrolizumab for the treatment for advanced melanoma.MethodsPatients with advanced melanoma were enrolled in a single-arm phase II clinical trial evaluating the addition of indoximod to standard of care CPI approved for melanoma. Investigators administered their choice of CPI including pembrolizumab (P), nivolumab (N), or ipilimumab (I). Indoximod was administered continuously (1200 mg orally two times per day), with concurrent CPI dosed per US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved label.ResultsBetween July 2014 and July 2017, 131 patients were enrolled. (P) was used more frequently (n=114, 87%) per investigator’s choice. The efficacy evaluable population consisted of 89 patients from the phase II cohort with non-ocular melanoma who received indoximod combined with (P).The objective response rate (ORR) for the evaluable population was 51% with confirmed complete response of 20% and disease control rate of 70%. Median progression-free survival was 12.4 months (95% CI 6.4 to 24.9). The ORR for Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive patients was 70% compared with 46% for PD-L1-negative patients. The combination was well tolerated, and side effects were similar to what was expected from single agent (P).ConclusionIn this study, the combination of indoximod and (P) was well tolerated and showed antitumor efficacy that is worth further evaluation in selected patients with advanced melanoma.

Simple Summary Advanced sarcomas have yet to undergo improved outcomes seen in other cancer subtypes. Verteporfin has the potential to show landmark change in sarcoma due to its anti-proliferative properties: inhibition of the Hippo pathway and as photodynamic therapy. The effect of verteporfin on the Hippo pathway is reviewed specifically in the setting of sarcoma due to increased activation of this pathway in multiple subtypes. Role and efficacy of photodynamic therapy in other malignancies is also reviewed, with additional discussion of preclinical studies demonstrating synergistic effects of photodynamic therapy within current sarcoma standard of care treatment. Future investigations of the feasibility of incorporating verteporfin into sarcoma treatment are discussed. Abstract Sarcoma is a widely varied and devastating oncological subtype, with overall five-year survival of 65% that drops to 16% with the presence of metastatic disease at diagnosis. Standard of care for localized sarcomas is predicated on local control with wide-local resection and radiation therapy, or, less commonly, chemotherapy, depending on tumor subtype. Verteporfin has the potential to be incorporated into this standard of care due to its unique molecular properties: inhibition of the upregulated Hippo pathway that frequently drives soft tissue sarcoma and photodynamic therapy-mediated necrosis due to oxidative damage. The initial anti-proliferative effect of verteporfin is mediated via binding and dissociation of YAP/TEAD proteins from the nucleus, ultimately leading to decreased cell proliferation as demonstrated in multiple in vitro studies. This effect has the potential to be compounded with use of photodynamic therapy to directly induce cellular necrosis with use of a clinical laser. Photodynamic therapy has been incorporated into multiple malignancies and has the potential to be incorporated into sarcoma treatment.

Background: Translation of basic discoveries to clinical care for patients with cancer is a difficult process greatly enabled by physician-trained researchers. Three categories of physicians, with responsibilities spanning from laboratory and preclinical research to direct patient care, are involved in the translational research continuum: physician-scientist (PS), clinician investigator (CI), and academic clinician (AC). Methods: To define how protected time for research efforts is supported, the Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) conducted a survey of their member institutions, obtaining 56 responses documenting time spent in research and clinical activities across multiple cancer disciplines, and providing information about funding streams for the different categories of cancer physicians. Results: Responses showed that PSs and ACs are minimally involved in clinical research activities; the driver or clinical research in academic cancer centers is the CI. A significant concern was a lack of stable funding streams for nonbillable clinical research activities, putting the sustainability of the CI in jeopardy. Limited funding was derived from hospital sources, with most support derived from cancer center sources. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of the CI in translational cancer medicine and represents a call to action for institutions and research funding agencies to develop new programs targeted toward CI support to ensure continued progress against cancer.

Combination immunotherapy with sequential administration may enhance metastatic melanoma (MM) patients with long-term disease control. High Dose Aldesleukin/Recombinant Interleukin-2 (HD rIL-2) and ipilimumab (IPI) offer complementary mechanisms against MM. This phase IV study assessed the sequenced use of HD rIL-2 and IPI in MM patients. Eligible Stage IV MM patients were randomized to treatment with either two courses of HD rIL-2(600,000 IU/kg) followed by four doses of IPI 3 mg/kg or vice-versa. The primary objective was to compare one-year overall survival (OS) with historical control (46%, Hodi et al., NEJM 2010). Secondary objectives were 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) profile. Evaluable Population (EP) included patients who received at least 50% of planned treatment with each drug. Thirteen and 16 patients were randomized to receive HD rIL-2 first, and IPI first, respectively. One-year OS rate was 75% for intention to treat population. Eighteen patients were included in EP, 8 in HD rIL-2, 10 in IPI first arm. In EP, 1-year OS, PFS and ORR rates were 87%, 68%, and 50%, respectively. The frequency of AEs was similar in both arms with 13 patients experiencing Grade 3 or higher AEs, 3 resulting in the end of study participation. There was one HD rIL-2-related death, from cerebral hemorrhage due to thrombocytopenia. In this study with small sample size, HD rIL-2 and IPI were safe to administer sequentially in MM patients and showed more than additive effects. 1-year OS was superior to that of IPI alone from historical studies.