Search

PURPOSE Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma. METHODS SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447 ). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. RESULTS A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSION Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.

PURPOSE Effective treatments are needed for melanoma that progresses on inhibitors of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1). We conducted the phase II LEAP-004 study to evaluate the combination of the multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib and the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in this population (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03776136 ). METHODS Eligible patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma with confirmed progressive disease (PD) within 12 weeks of the last dose of a PD-1/L1 inhibitor given alone or with other therapies, including cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, received lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus ≤ 35 doses of pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST, version 1.1, by independent central review. RESULTS A total of 103 patients were enrolled and treated. The median study follow-up was 15.3 months. ORR in the total population was 21.4% (95% CI, 13.9 to 30.5), with three (2.9%) complete responses and 19 (18.4%) partial responses. The median duration of response was 8.3 months (range, 3.2-15.9+). ORR was 33.3% in the 30 patients with PD on prior anti–PD-1 plus anti–CTLA-4 therapy. The median progression-free survival and overall survival in the total population were 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.1) and 14.0 months (95% CI, 10.8 to not reached), respectively. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (45.6%) patients, most commonly hypertension (21.4%); one patient died from a treatment-related event (decreased platelet count). CONCLUSION Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab provides clinically meaningful, durable responses in patients with advanced melanoma with confirmed PD on prior PD-1/L1 inhibitor-based therapy, including those with PD on anti–PD-1 plus anti–CTLA-4 therapy. The safety profile was as expected. These data support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a potential regimen for this population of high unmet need.

PURPOSE Combination treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has demonstrated benefits on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and is a standard of care for the treatment of advanced BRAF V600–mutant melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year update from the COLUMBUS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01909453 ). METHODS Patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600–mutant melanoma, untreated or progressed after first-line immunotherapy, were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily. An updated analysis was conducted 65 months after the last patient was randomly assigned. RESULTS Five hundred seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned: 192 to encorafenib plus binimetinib, 191 to vemurafenib, and 194 to encorafenib. The 5-year PFS and OS rates with encorafenib plus binimetinib were 23% and 35% overall and 31% and 45% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. In comparison, the 5-year PFS and OS rates with vemurafenib were 10% and 21% overall and 12% and 28% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. The median duration of response with encorafenib plus binimetinib was 18.6 months, with disease control achieved in 92.2% of patients. In comparison, the median duration of response with vemurafenib was 12.3 months, with disease control achieved in 81.2% of patients. Long-term follow-up showed no new safety concerns, and results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at COLUMBUS dashboard. CONCLUSION In this 5-year update of part 1 of the COLUMBUS trial, encorafenib plus binimetinib treatment demonstrated continued long-term benefits and a consistent safety profile in patients with BRAF V600–mutant melanoma.

Dataset of 65 tumor samples.

(A) Average body weight of mice treated with each BRAF inhibitor in the experiment depicted in Figure 1C; (B) Encorafenib plasma exposure in mice following the last dose from the experiment depicted in Figure 1C. To estimate daily exposure on the BID regimen, multiply the AUC x 2. Encorafenib is 98.6% protein bound in mouse plasma; (C) Gastric hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis observed in the forestomach of mice treated with BRAFi. Hematoxylin and eosin stains of forestomach sections from mice following 14 days of treatment with vehicle, encorafenib, dabrafenib, or vemurafenib from the study depicted in Figure 1C.

Expression of the 23 genes and signatures across the 3 cancer groups in the nCounter-based dataset

Antibody targeting of the immune checkpoint receptor PD1 produces therapeutic activity in a variety of solid tumors, but most patients exhibit partial or complete resistance to treatment for reasons that are unclear. In this study, we evaluated tumor specimens from 65 patients with melanoma, lung nonsquamous, squamous cell lung or head and neck cancers who were treated with the approved PD1-targeting antibodies pembrolizumab or nivolumab. Tumor RNA before anti-PD1 therapy was analyzed on the nCounter system using the PanCancer 730-Immune Panel, and we identified 23 immune-related genes or signatures linked to response and progression-free survival (PFS). In addition, we evaluated intra- and interbiopsy variability of PD1, PD-L1, CD8A, and CD4 mRNAs and their relationship with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) and PD-L1 IHC expression. Among the biomarkers examined, PD1 gene expression along with 12 signatures tracking CD8 and CD4 T-cell activation, natural killer cells, and IFN activation associated significantly with nonprogressive disease and PFS. These associations were independent of sample timing, drug used, or cancer type. TIL correlated moderately (∼0.50) with PD1 and CD8A mRNA levels and weakly (∼0.35) with CD4 and PD-L1. IHC expression of PD-L1 correlated strongly with PD-L1 (0.90), moderately with CD4 and CD8A, and weakly with PD1. Reproducibility of gene expression in intra- and interbiopsy specimens was very high (total SD Cancer Res; 77(13); 3540–50. ©2017 AACR.

Purpose: Encorafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi), has a pharmacologic profile that is distinct from that of other clinically active BRAFis. We evaluated encorafenib in a phase I study in patients with BRAFi treatment-naïve and pretreated BRAF-mutant melanoma.Experimental Design: The pharmacologic activity of encorafenib was first characterized preclinically. Encorafenib monotherapy was then tested across a range of once-daily (50–700 mg) or twice-daily (75–150 mg) regimens in a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation and -expansion study in adult patients with histologically confirmed advanced/metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma. Study objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D), characterize the safety and tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile, and assess the preliminary antitumor activity of encorafenib.Results: Preclinical data demonstrated that encorafenib inhibited BRAF V600E kinase activity with a prolonged off-rate and suppressed proliferation and tumor growth of BRAF V600E–mutant melanoma models. In the dose-escalation phase, 54 patients (29 BRAFi-pretreated and 25 BRAFi-naïve) were enrolled. Seven patients in the dose-determining set experienced dose-limiting toxicities. Encorafenib at a dose of 300 mg once daily was declared the RP2D. In the expansion phase, the most common all-cause adverse events were nausea (66%), myalgia (63%), and palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia (54%). In BRAFi-naïve patients, the overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) were 60% and 12.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.4–not reached (NR)]. In BRAFi-pretreated patients, the ORR and mPFS were 22% and 1.9 months (95% CI, 0.9–3.7).Conclusions: Once-daily dosing of single-agent encorafenib had a distinct tolerability profile and showed varying antitumor activity across BRAFi-pretreated and BRAFi-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res; 23(18); 5339–48. ©2017 AACR.

Biochemical and cellular potency of encorafenib, dabrafenib, and vemurafenib in biochemical and cell-based assays. Purified BRAF V600E kinase domain was used in the biochemical experiments, using kinase-dead MEK1 as a substrate and a phosphorylated MEK1 (Ser217/221) alpha-screen readout. A375 cells were incubated with inhibitors for 3 hours to determine the phosphorylated ERK (pERK) half maximal effective concentration (EC50) and 72 hours to determine the proliferation EC50

Supplementary Table 3 from Ability to Acquire Drug Resistance Arises Early during the Tumorigenesis Process

Resistance to chemotherapy is one of the principal causes of cancer mortality and is generally considered a late event in tumor progression. Although cellular models of drug resistance have been useful in identifying the molecules responsible for conferring drug resistance, most of these cellular models are derived from cell lines isolated from patients at a late stage in cancer progression. To ask at which stage in the tumorigenic progression does the cell gain the ability to acquire drug resistance, we generated a series of pretumorigenic and tumorigenic cells from human embryonic skin fibroblasts by introducing, sequentially, the catalytic subunit of telomerase, SV40 large T and small T oncoproteins, and an oncogenic form of ras. We show that the ability to acquire multidrug resistance (MDR) can arise before the malignant transformation stage. The minimal set of changes necessary to obtain pretumorigenic drug-resistant cells is expression of telomerase and inactivation of p53 and pRb. Thus, the pathways inactivated during tumorigenesis also confer the ability to acquire drug resistance. Microarray and functional studies of drug-resistant pretumorigenic cells indicate that the drug efflux pump P-glycoprotein is responsible for the MDR phenotype in this pretumorigenic cell model. [Cancer Res 2007;67(3):1130–7]

Supplementary Table 2 from Ability to Acquire Drug Resistance Arises Early during the Tumorigenesis Process

Supplementary Figure 2 from Ability to Acquire Drug Resistance Arises Early during the Tumorigenesis Process

Supplementary Table 4 from Ability to Acquire Drug Resistance Arises Early during the Tumorigenesis Process

Supplementary Figure Legends 1-2 from Ability to Acquire Drug Resistance Arises Early during the Tumorigenesis Process

Supplementary Table 1 from Ability to Acquire Drug Resistance Arises Early during the Tumorigenesis Process

Supplementary Table 5 from Ability to Acquire Drug Resistance Arises Early during the Tumorigenesis Process

Supplementary Figure 1 from Ability to Acquire Drug Resistance Arises Early during the Tumorigenesis Process

4-year survival data of clinical trial SECOMBIT

Central nervous system (CNS) dissemination is a severe complication in cancer and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Brain metastases (BMs) are the most common types of malignant intracranial tumors and are reported in approximately 25% of patients with metastatic cancers. The recent increase in incidence of BMs is due to several factors including better diagnostic assessments and the development of improved systemic therapies that have lower activity on the CNS. However, newer systemic therapies are being developed that can cross the blood–brain barrier giving us additional tools to treat BMs. The guidelines presented here focus on the efficacy of new targeted systemic therapies and immunotherapies on CNS BMs from breast, melanoma, and lung cancers.

Background: Non-adherence or early discontinuation from systemic adjuvant therapy is associated with an increased risk of disease recurrence and mortality. In the phase 3 ExteNET trial, neratinib (NERLYNX®), an oral irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) when given for 12 months in patients with early-stage HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer after trastuzumab-based therapy. Anti-diarrheal prophylaxis was not mandated by protocol and 17% of patients discontinued neratinib early because of diarrhea. Improved iDFS, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival (OS) have since been reported in patients who completed the planned duration of neratinib therapy compared with all randomized patients [ASCO 2021]. Here we assess central nervous system disease-free survival (CNS-DFS) in 3 discrete groups of patients who completed planned therapy with neratinib in ExteNET: intent-to-treat (ITT) population; patients with hormone receptor-positive disease who initiated neratinib within 1 year after prior trastuzumab (HR+/≤1 year, the population for which neratinib is approved in the EU); and HR+/≤1 year with residual disease post-neoadjuvant therapy (i.e. no pathologic complete response [pCR]). Methods: Patients with early-stage HER2+ breast cancer received oral neratinib 240 mg/day or placebo after trastuzumab-based (neo)adjuvant therapy for 12 months. Patients who completed neratinib therapy (defined as treatment duration ≥11 months or cessation of neratinib if recurrence occurred prior to 11 months) were compared with placebo (all randomized patients). CNS-DFS was defined as time from randomization to any CNS recurrence or death from any cause (exploratory endpoint). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate CNS-DFS and OS rates. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for neratinib versus placebo were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Data cutoffs: March 2017 (CNS-DFS); July 2019 (OS); median follow-up 8.0 (range 0-9.8) years. Results: 2840 patients were included in the ITT population (1420 per group). Among patients who completed neratinib therapy, CNS-DFS was improved versus placebo in each of the 3 patient groups (see Table). For CNS-DFS, the magnitude of effect of neratinib versus placebo was consistently greater in patients who completed neratinib therapy than in the corresponding overall randomized patient group: ITT HR, 0.70 vs 0.73; HR+/≤1 year HR, 0.27 vs 0.41; HR+/≤ 1 year no pCR HR: 0.16 vs 0.24, respectively. Conclusions: These descriptive findings suggest that, in addition to improved OS, patients who receive the recommended 12-month course of neratinib may have improved CNS outcomes. A dose-escalation strategy, which was shown to improve the tolerability of neratinib, decrease the proportion of patients who discontinue treatment due to diarrhea (3.3%), and allow more patients to stay on treatment for 11 months or longer in the CONTROL trial (NCT02400476) compared with ExteNET, may help to realize these benefits in the real-world setting. Table: CNS-DFS and OS in patients who completed planned therapy with neratinib (ITT, HR+/≤1 year and HR+/≤1 year no pCR)NCNS-DFS rate (5 years)OS rateaPopulation/group NeratinibPlaceboDifference, %bHR (95% CI)Difference, %bHR (95% CI)ITT14201420+1.10.73 (0.45-1.17)-0.10.95 (0.75-1.21)cCompleted therapyd8721420+1.20.70 (0.40-1.19)+2.00.78 (0.58-1.04)HR+/≤1 yeare670664+2.70.41 (0.18-0.85)+2.10.79 (0.55-1.13)Completed therapyd402664+3.20.27 (0.08-0.69)+5.80.49 (0.29-0.78)HR+/≤1 yearb no pCRf131164+6.40.24 (0.04-0.92)+9.10.47 (0.23-0.92)Completed therapyd92164+6.90.16 (0.01-0.81)+13.20.29 (0.10-0.68)aOS analysis after a median follow-up of 8.0 (range 0-9.8) years; bDifference (neratinib vs placebo); cStratified by randomization stratification factors; dDefined as ≥11 months of therapy or ended treatment due to disease recurrence (neratinib arm), and all randomized subjects (placebo arm); eHR+ and ≤1 year after prior trastuzumab; fResidual disease post-neoadjuvant therapy. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CNS-DFS, central nervous system disease-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; HR+, hormone receptor-positive; OS, overall survival; pCR, pathologic complete response. Citation Format: Frankie Ann Holmes, Debra Patt, Yvonne Manalo, Julie C Smith, Steven W Papish, Noa Efrat, Ana Arance, Bo Zhang, Deepa Lalla, Alvin Wong, Miguel Martin. Improved central nervous system outcomes in patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer who receive neratinib for the recommended duration: Findings from the phase 3 ExteNET trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-13-21.

Combination treatment with BRAF (BRAFi) plus MEK inhibitors (MEKi) has demonstrated survival benefit in patients with advanced melanoma harboring activating BRAF mutations. Previous preclinical studies suggested that an intermittent dosing of these drugs could delay the emergence of resistance. Contrary to expectations, the first published phase 2 randomized study comparing continuous versus intermittent schedule of dabrafenib (BRAFi) plus trametinib (MEKi) demonstrated a detrimental effect of the “on−off” schedule. Here we report confirmatory data from the Phase II randomized open-label clinical trial comparing the antitumoral activity of the standard schedule versus an intermittent combination of vemurafenib (BRAFi) plus cobimetinib (MEKi) in advanced BRAF mutant melanoma patients (NCT02583516). The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of progression free survival (PFS) improvement. Our results show that the antitumor activity of the experimental intermittent schedule of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib is not superior to the standard continuous schedule. Detection of BRAF mutation in cell free tumor DNA has prognostic value for survival and its dynamics has an excellent correlation with clinical response, but not with progression. NGS analysis demonstrated de novo mutations in resistant cases., Whether intermittent strategies of delivering drugs can improve cancer patients survival is still unclear. Here, the authors reports the results of a randomized phase II clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two dosing regimens (continuous and intermittent) of vemurafenib and cobimetinib combination as first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic advanced melanoma with BRAFV600 mutation

Diabetes is a rare, but potentially life‐threatening, adverse event of immune checkpoint inhibitors that requires prompt recognition and treatment. It usually occurs in the first 3 months of treatment and is typically related to programmed cell death‐1 antibodies, alone or in combined therapy. It has rarely been described developing after immunotherapy cessation. We present a 51‐year‐old man with metastatic melanoma, who developed acute‐onset diabetes 52 days after combined immunotherapy cessation with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and 25.6 months after receiving the first dose. He presented with acute hyperglycemic symptoms, ketosis, complete insulin depletion and negative autoimmunity, fulfilling the criteria of fulminant type 1 diabetes. The patient had previously developed hypophysitis with isolated adrenocorticotropic hormone deficiency during immunotherapy. We describe a case of late‐onset fulminant type 1 diabetes developing after immunotherapy cessation. Patient education and active follow up after immunotherapy discontinuation are crucial to warrant a timely intervention., We describe a case of immunotherapy‐related type 1 diabetes developing after combined immunotherapy cessation. The patient developed fulminant type 1 diabetes >2 years after the first immunotherapy dose, and had previously developed immune‐related hypophysitis.

Improved selection of cancer patients who are most likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors remains an unmet clinical need. Recently, a positive correlation between levels of

Background: SAR441000 is an intratumoral (IT) therapy consisting of a mixture of mRNAs encoding the cytokines IL-12, IFN-α 2b, GM-CSF, and IL-15sushi. SAR441000 is hypothesized to induce a local and systemic immune response with reduced toxicity, and potentially enhance anti-tumor response when combined with checkpoint inhibitors. Methods: We conducted a phase 1 dose escalation and expansion study (NCT03871348) in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors to investigate SAR441000 as monotherapy (QW) and in combination with cemiplimab (350mg Q3W). The recommended dose (RD) of SAR44100 in combination with cemiplimab was further investigated to confirm the anti-tumor activity in patients with metastatic melanoma who had previously exhausted all standard of care options and failed treatment with anti-PD-(L)1 therapies. Serum samples and tumor biopsies were collected at baseline and post-treatment to characterize the PK/PD profile, and immune cell tumor infiltration. Tumor assessment was performed per RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST, where ≥1 non-injected lesion was considered as target lesion. Analysis was triggered after the last treated patient underwent their 2nd tumor assessment. Results: 77 patients were treated, 36 in escalation phase (21 in monotherapy, 15 in combination therapy) across eight dose levels (8µg-4000µg) and 41 in expansion phase. No dose limiting toxicities were observed. During escalation phase, 1 patient (6%) achieved confirmed complete response (iCR), 1 (6%) partial response (iPR), and 3 (20%) stable disease (iSD) as per iRECIST in combination therapy. Paired biopsies from the iPR patient showed significant increases in CD3+ and CD8+ immune cells in both injected and non-injected lesions compared to baseline. Increase of peripheral PK and PD (IFN-γ and IP-10) cytokines were observed post-treatment but no clear dose response relationship was established. Based on the overall data, 4000µg was chosen as the RD. During expansion phase, 2 (5%) melanoma patients achieved confirmed iPR and 12 (29%) achieved iSD as best overall response. Although clinically meaningful responses of injected and/or non-injected lesions were observed in 13 (32 %) patients, responses were mostly limited to loco-regional disease and no significant distant non-injected lesion response was seen. Post-treatment biopsies showed increased CD3+ and CD8+ immune cells in approximately 50% and 40% of injected and non-injected tumors, respectively. Most frequent (>10%) related TEAEs observed in expansion phase included injection site pain (26.8%), fatigue, diarrhea, pruritus, and asthenia (each 12.2%). Conclusion: IT with SAR441000 in combination with cemiplimab was generally well tolerated and demonstrated anti-tumor activity and immune cell infiltration in both injected and non-injected tumors. Citation Format: Oliver Bechter, Carmen Loquai, Stephane Champiat, Jean Francois Baurain, Jean-Jacques Grob, Jochen Utikal, Sylvie Rottey, Alfonso Berrocal, Jessica Hassel, Ana Arance, Miguel F. Sanmamed, Marye Boers-Sonderen, Brian Gastman, Christoffer Gebhardt, Brant Delafontaine, Ugur Sahin, Özlem Türeci, Giovanni Abbadessa, Gianfranco Di Genova, Patrick Brueck, Rahul Marpadga, Helen Lee, Céleste Lebbe. A first-in-human, open-label, multicenter study of intratumoral SAR441000 (mixture of cytokine encoding mRNAs), as monotherapy and in combination with cemiplimab in patients with advanced solid tumors [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 LB198.

PURPOSEPreclinical data suggest the combination of an anti–programmed death receptor 1 antibody plus dabrafenib and trametinib to have superior antitumor activity compared with dabrafenib plus trametinib alone. These observations are supported by translational evidence suggesting that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus targeted therapy may improve treatment outcomes in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-i is a phase III trial evaluating spartalizumab, an anti–programmed death receptor 1 antibody, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram), versus placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in patients with BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma.METHODSPatients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally twice daily and trametinib 2 mg orally once daily or placebo-DabTram. Participants were age ≥ 18 years with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600–mutant melanoma. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary end point (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02967692 ).RESULTSAt data cutoff (July 1, 2020), the median progression-free survival was 16.2 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 23.9 months) in the sparta-DabTram arm versus 12.0 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 15.4 months) in the placebo-DabTram arm (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.03]; P = .042 [one-sided; nonsignificant]). The objective response rates were 69% (183 of 267 patients) versus 64% (170 of 265 patients), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 55% (146 of 267) of patients in the sparta-DabTram arm and 33% (88 of 264) in the placebo-DabTram arm.CONCLUSIONThe study did not meet its primary end point; broad first-line use of sparta-DabTram is not supported by these results. Further biomarker-driven investigation may identify patient subpopulations who could benefit from checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combinations.

The aims of the study were to investigate and compare the immunophenotype of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and PD-L1 expression in a series of benign, intermediate and malignant Spitzoid lesions showing marked inflammatory lymphoid component, to find out its possible relation with the prognosis of these lesions. Six out of 97 Spitz nevus (SN) (6 %), five out of 26 atypical Spitz tumors (AST) (16 %) and seven out of 37 Spitzoid melanomas (SM) (19 %) showed diffuse, intense inflammatory component and were included in the study. The biological risk of the tumors was assessed in all AST through the melanoma 4 probe-FISH assay and the 9p21 locus exploration. TILs were quantitatively immunophenotyped using CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20, TIA1, FOXP3 and PD1 antibodies. PD-L1 was assessed in tumoral cells and inflammatory cells adjacent to the tumor. No significant differences of TILs immunophenotype were found between SN, AST and SM. However, the classification of tumors according to the biological risk showed that grouped SN plus low-risk AST had a significantly higher number of T-cells CD8+ and TIA-1+, as well as a lower CD4/CD8 relation and B- lymphocyte number than high-risk of progression tumors (grouped high-risk AST plus SM). Immunoregulatory T-cell markers PD1 and FOXP3 only correlated with each other and with PD-L1 expression. In conclusion, The TILs immunoprofile differences between low-risk and high-risk of progression Spitzoid tumors, especially regarding CD8 and the cytotoxic immune response, can add prognostic information about these challenging tumors and impact the clinical management of patients.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are frequent and could be associated with improved response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). A prospective cohort of advanced melanoma patients receiving ICI as first-line therapy was retrospectively reviewed (January 2011–February 2019). A total of 116 of 153 patients presented with at least one irAE (75.8%). The most frequent irAEs were dermatological (derm irAEs, 50%), asthenia (38%), and gastrointestinal (29%). Most irAEs appeared within the first 90 days, while 11.2% appeared after discontinuation of the therapy. Mild grade 1–2 derm irAEs tended to appear within the first 2 months of therapy with a median time of 65.5 days (IQR 26-139.25), while grade 3–4 derm irAEs appeared later (median 114 days; IQR 69-218) and could be detected at any time during therapy. Only derm irAE occurrence was related to improved survival (HR 6.46). Patients presenting derm irAEs showed better 5-year overall survival compared to those with no derm irAEs (53.1% versus 24.9%; p < 0.001). However, the difference was not significant when adjusting for the duration of therapy. In conclusion: the timeline of immune-related-AEs differs according to the organ involved. The (apparent) improved survival of patients who present derm AEs during immunotherapy could be partially explained by longer times under treatment.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) are distinct inhibitory immune checkpoints that contribute to T-cell exhaustion. The combination of relatlimab, a LAG-3-blocking antibody, and nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, has been shown to be safe and to have antitumor activity in patients with previously treated melanoma, but the safety and activity in patients with previously untreated melanoma need investigation. METHODS: In this phase 2-3, global, double-blind, randomized trial, we evaluated relatlimab and nivolumab as a fixed-dose combination as compared with nivolumab alone when administered intravenously every 4 weeks to patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4 to 15.7) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 5.6) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92]; P = 0.006 by the log-rank test). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 47.7% (95% CI, 41.8 to 53.2) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 36.0% (95% CI, 30.5 to 41.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival across key subgroups favored relatlimab-nivolumab over nivolumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.9% of patients in the relatlimab-nivolumab group and in 9.7% of patients in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: The inhibition of two immune checkpoints, LAG-3 and PD-1, provided a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than inhibition of PD-1 alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. Relatlimab and nivolumab in combination showed no new safety signals. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; RELATIVITY-047 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03470922.).

Improved selection of cancer patients who are most likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors remains an unmet clinical need. Recently, a positive correlation between levels of PD1 mRNA and clinical outcome in response to PD1 blockade across diverse tumor histologies has been confirmed in several datasets. ACROPOLI is a parallel cohort, non-randomized, phase II study that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitor spartalizumab as monotherapy in metastatic patients with solid tumors that express high levels of PD1 (cohort 1; n = 111). An additional cohort of 30 patients with tumors expressing low levels of PD1, where PD1/PD-L1 antibodies in monotherapy are standard treatment, will also be included (cohort 2). Primary end point is overall response rate in cohort 1. Considering previous data, we hypothesized that anti-PD1 monotherapy is effective across multiple cancer types in patients with PD1-high mRNA expressing tumors. Given these observations, ACROPOLI is a phase II study designed to study spartalizumab in this population. This article describes the SOLTI-1904 ACROPOLI phase II trial, `Efficacy of spartalizumab across multiple cancertypes in patients with PD1-highmRNA expressing tumors defined by a single and pre-specified cutoff.' The primary objective is to determine overall response rate (ORR) in the PD1-high population. Secondary objectives include other measures of clinical efficacy and evaluation of safety and tolerability. Spartalizumab has shown to have a manageable safety profile and preliminary clinical efficacy according to several phase I/II clinical trials [1-3].

Incidence rates of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), an uncommon skin cancer with an aggressive disease course, have increased in recent decades. Limited treatment options are available for patients with metastatic MCC (mMCC). Avelumab, an anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 monoclonal antibody, became the first approved treatment for mMCC after the results of the phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 study. Prior to its regulatory approval, an expanded access program (EAP) enabled compassionate use of avelumab in patients with mMCC. Here we report findings from patients enrolled in the EAP in Europe and the Middle East. Efficacy and safety data were provided at the discretion of treating physicians. Between March 2, 2016, and December 22, 2018, 403 requests for avelumab were received from 21 countries, and avelumab was supplied to 335 patients. Most patients (96.7%) received avelumab as second-line or later treatment. In 150 patients for whom response data were available, the objective response rate was 48.0%, and in responding patients, median duration of treatment was 7.4 months (range, 1.0-41.7 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (2.4%) and pyrexia (2.1%), and no new safety signals were observed. Overall, results from European and Middle Eastern patients enrolled in this EAP confirm the efficacy and safety of avelumab treatment observed in previous studies in patients with mMCC. ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER vol:149 issue:11 pages:1926-1934 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BackgroundIntratumoral immunotherapies are being tested in different solid tumors. They trigger local and systemic responses.1 2 BO-112 is a double stranded RNA nanoplexed with polyethyleneimine (PEI), which mimics a viral infection and mobilizes the immune system.In preclinical models and in a first in human clinical trial BO-112 activated dendritic cells, induced CD-8 infiltration, apoptosis and enhancement of immunogenic cell death and achieved an objective response in 2 out of 10 patients with melanoma with primary resistance to antiPD-1.3 4MethodsIn this phase 2 study, BO-112 plus pembrolizumab is evaluated in patients with advanced melanoma, who have developed progressive disease while on or within 12 weeks after anti-PD1/PD-L1 based therapy (either as first line or as adjuvant treatment). BO-112 is administered intratumorally once weekly in 1 to 8 tumor lesions, total dose 1 to 2 mg, for the first 7 weeks and thereafter every three weeks; pembrolizumab 200 mg is administered intravenously every three weeks. Overall response rate (ORR) is analyzed as primary endpoint by independent reviewer. Secondary objectives include disease control rate (DCR), duration of response and progression free survival (PFS); response assessment is done by RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST; in addition, CD-8 and PD-L1 IHC, NGS, itRECIST and radiomics signatures are prospectively assessed. Key eligibility criteria include cutaneous or mucosal melanoma with known BRAF status; at least one lesion RECIST 1.1 measurable and amenable for IT injection. Enrollment has been completed on 26th August.ResultsWith 26 evaluable patients with a first response assessment, seven have progressive disease (PD), five have partial response (PR) and fourteen patients show stable disease (SD). Preliminary ORR is 19.2% and DCR is 73.1% at week 8. Three patients with PR at week 8 have undergone a second assessment at week 16, with further decrease in sum of diameters (SOD) in both injected and non-injected lesions. Three out of five patients with SD and a second assessment maintain SD, showing a decrease in SOD in two cases (figure 1). In addition, two patients with only skin lesions have a pathological complete response. CD8 and PD-L1 have increased in 8 and 7 out of 13 patients with paired biopsies, being related with clinical benefit (figure 2).Abstract 961 Figure 1Swimmer plot, efficacy data for evaluable patients undergoing at least one response assessmentAbstract 961 Figure 2Immunohistochemistry data for CPS and CD8 data from paired biopsiesConclusionsDespite these data being preliminary, there is a trend for benefit in terms of ORR and also in long lasting stable diseases. BO-112 is able to increase PD-L1 expression in tumor cells and increase CD8-T cell infiltrates.AcknowledgementsMerck, Pivotal SLU, Quibim radiomics, Pangaea laboratories, all participating sites and patientsTrial RegistrationNCT04570332ReferencesAznar MA, Planelles L, Perez-Olivares M, et al. Immunotherapeutic effects of intratumoral nanoplexed poly I:C. J Immunother Cancer. 2019 May 2;7(1):116.5. Hamid O, Ismail R, Puzanov I. Intratumoral immunotherapy-update 2019. The Oncologist 2020;25:e423–438.Márquez-Rodas I, Longo F, Rodríguez-Ruiz M, et al. Intratumoral nanoplexed poly I:C BO-112 in combination with systemic anti-PD-1 for patients with anti-PD-1-refractory tumors. Sci Transl Med 2020 Oct 14;12(565):eabb0391.Kalbasi A, Tariveranmoshabad M, Hakimi K, Kremer S, et al. A. Uncoupling interferon signaling and antigen presentation to overcome immunotherapy resistance due to JAK1 loss in melanoma. Sci Transl Med 2020 Oct 14;12(565):eabb0152.Ethics ApprovalThe study obtained ethics approval by Spanish Health Agency (AEMPS), on 11th December 2020, and French Health Agency (ANSM) on 27th January 2021; study obtained approval from two Ethics Committee: Vall D’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain on 7th December 2020 (number 467), and Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France, CPP 20.11.10.38825 on 11th February 2021.For each study patient, written informed consent is obtained prior to any protocol-related activities. As part of this procedure, the principal investigator or one of his/her associates must explain orally and in writing the nature, duration, and purpose of the study, and the action of the study drug in such a manner that the patient is aware of the potential risks, inconveniences, or adverse effects that may occur. They should be informed that the patient may withdraw from the study at any time. They will receive all information that is required by the regulatory authorities and ICH guidelines. The ICF has been signed by the patient and a copy provided to them.ConsentN/A

BackgroundA significant number of melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 have transient or no response to treatment. Sotigalimab is a CD40 agonist antibody with unique epitope specificity and Fc receptor binding profile for optimal therapeutic application. Preclinical studies suggest that sotigalimab can be combined with PD-1 blockade to trigger effective anti-tumor immunity. We conducted a multi-center, open label, Phase Ib-parallel arm phase II trial (NCT03123783) to evaluate the combination of sotigalimab with nivolumab in subjects with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 refractory metastatic melanoma.MethodsThe study objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sotigalimab in combination with nivolumab in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 refractory advanced melanoma patients. Subjects received sotigalimab (0.3mg/kg) combined with nivolumab (360mg) every 3 weeks. Thirty-eight subjects with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had confirmed progressive disease during treatment with anti-PD-1 therapy (documented by 2 consecutive tumor assessments) were enrolled (evaluable for safety) and 33 subjects were evaluable for efficacy.ResultsSix subjects had PR (including one unconfirmed PR) for an ORR of 18%. The mDOR was 18.7 months. Two subjects with PR received treatment for >2 years. Three of the six responding subjects remain off all therapy for ≥26 months, and one patient required stereotactic radiosurgery to a single brain lesion ten months after stopping therapy and has not required additional local or systemic therapy since. Three additional subjects had prolonged SD (12.6, 7.6, 6.2 months). The DCR was 48% and 33% of subjects experienced reduction in target lesions. Efficacy was observed in patients regardless of their tumor PD-L1 expression. The overall safety profile of the combination is consistent with the profiles of individual agents. The majority of AEs observed were of mild to moderate intensity (CTCAE Grade ≤2). The most commonly observed AEs were: pyrexia, chills, nausea, fatigue, pruritus, transaminitis, headache, asthenia, myalgia, rash, vomiting and arthralgia. There were no Grade 4 or 5 AEs related to study drugs. There were no treatment discontinuations due to AEs.ConclusionsThe combination of sotigalimab and nivolumab demonstrated treatment benefit (tumor response or prolonged disease control) in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 refractory melanoma patients with an overall favorable safety and tolerability profile. Notably, a subset of patients remain in response off treatment for ≥26 months. These results warrant further study of this combination in advanced, refractory melanoma.AcknowledgementsWe extend our gratitude to the patients and their families who made this trial possible and the clinical study teams involved in this trial. We thank BMS for providing the nivolumab for this study.Trial RegistrationNCT03123783Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Yale University (#20170300), University of Nebraska Medical Center (#543-18-CB) and The Hospital Regional de Málaga (#19.03.1341E1-GHM).

BackgroundSeveral therapeutic options are now available in the adjuvant melanoma setting, mandating an understanding of their benefit‒risk profiles in order to make informed treatment decisions. Herein we characterize adjuvant nivolumab select (immune-related) treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and evaluate possible associations between safety and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the phase III CheckMate 238 trial.MethodsPatients with resected stage IIIB–C or IV melanoma received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=452) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (n=453) for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. First-occurrence and all-occurrence select TRAEs were analyzed within discrete time intervals: from 0 to 3 months of treatment, from >3–12 months of treatment, and from the last dose (regardless of early or per-protocol treatment discontinuation) to 100 days after the last dose. Possible associations between select TRAEs and RFS were investigated post randomization in 3-month landmark analyses and in Cox model analyses (including a time-varying covariate of select TRAE), within and between treatment groups.ResultsFrom the first nivolumab dose to 100 days after the last dose, first-occurrence select TRAEs were reported in 67.7% (306/452) of patients. First-occurrence select TRAEs were reported most frequently from 0 to 3 months (48.0%), during which the most common were pruritus (15.5%) and diarrhea (15.3%). Most select TRAEs resolved within 6 months. There was no clear association between the occurrence (or not) of select TRAEs and RFS by landmark analysis or by Cox model analysis within treatment arms or comparing nivolumab to the ipilimumab comparator arm.ConclusionResults of this safety analysis of nivolumab in adjuvant melanoma were consistent with its established safety profile. In the discrete time intervals evaluated, most first-occurrence TRAEs occurred early during treatment and resolved. No association between RFS and select TRAEs was evident.Trial registration numberNCT02388906.

Given recent developments in the treatment of metastatic melanoma, early detection of disease recurrence is crucial. The aim of this single-centre retrospective cohort study was to investigate the impact of the initial stage of primary melanoma on the pattern and timing of disease recurrence and post-recurrence survival. Patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma with initial stage IA-IIID, between January 1996 and December 2018 and who developed disease recurrence until May 2019 were included (n = 784). Earlier stage at diagnosis was associated with a higher proportion of locoregional and a lower proportion of distant metastasis (p = 0.01). The median time to first metastasis decreased with the more advanced stages at initial diagnosis: 3.32 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.72-6.14 years) for stage I, 1.85 years (IQR 0.99-3.78 years) for stage II and 1.19 years (IQR 0.70-2.42 years) for stage III disease (p

In COLUMBUS, treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma showed improved progression-free and overall survival with favourable tolerability compared to vemurafenib treatment. Here, results on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are presented.COLUMBUS was a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase III study in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. In PART-I, 577 patients were randomised (1:1:1) to encorafenib plus binimetinib, encorafenib or vemurafenib. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival. As a secondary objective, HRQoL was assessed by the EQ-5D, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-M questionnaires. Furthermore, time to definitive 10% deterioration was estimated with a Kaplan-Meier analysis and differences in mean scores between groups were calculated with a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Hospitalisation rate and the impact of hospitalisation on HRQoL were also assessed.Patients receiving the combination treatment showed improvement of their FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores, compared to those receiving vemurafenib (post-baseline score differences: 3.03 [p 0.0001] for FACT M and 5.28 [p = 0.0042] for EORTC QLQ-C30), indicative of a meaningful change in patient's status. Furthermore, a delay in the deterioration of QoL was observed in non-hospitalised patients compared to hospitalised patients (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.16 [0.80; 1.68] for EORTC QLQ-C30 and 1.27 [0.81; 1.99] for FACT-M) and a risk reduction of 10% deterioration, favoured the combination in both groups.The improved efficacy of encorafenib plus binimetinib compared to vemurafenib, translates into a positive impact on the perceived health status as assessed by the HRQoL questionnaires. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453 and EudraCT number 2013-001176-38.