Search

Treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has evolved rapidly since the development of checkpoint inhibitors. Most of the studies have been conducted in patients with metastatic disease and led to a significant change in the treatment landscape. Currently, many studies are investigating immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting and the efficacy of combination therapies. It remains difficult to predict which patients will respond best. Consequently, there is a high need for predictive biomarkers. In this review, we discuss the different studies with ICI in RCC and the molecular correlates with clinical outcome.

Background: Guidelines for pathological evaluation of neoadjuvant specimens and pathological response categories have been developed by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC). As part of the Optimal Neo-adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (OpACIN-neo) clinical trial of neoadjuvant combination anti-programmed cell death protein 1/anti-cytotoxic T-Iymphocyte-associated protein 4 immunotherapy for stage III melanoma, we sought to determine interobserver reproducibility of INMC histopathological assessment principles, identify specific tumour bed histopathological features of immunotherapeutic response that correlated with recurrence and relapse-free survival (RFS) and evaluate proposed INMC pathological response categories for predicting recurrence and RFS.Patients and methods: Clinicopathological characteristics of lymph node dissection specimens of 83 patients enrolled in the OpACIN-neo clinical trial were evaluated. Two methods of assessing histological features of immunotherapeutic response were evaluated: the previously described immune-related pathologic response (irPR) score and our novel immunotherapeutic response score (ITRS). For a subset of cases (n = 29), cellular composition of the tumour bed was analysed by flow cytometry.Results: There was strong interobserver reproducibility in assessment of pathological response (kappa = 0.879) and percentage residual viable melanoma (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.965). The immunotherapeutic response subtype with high fibrosis had the strongest association with lack of recurrence (P = 0.008) and prolonged RFS (P = 0.019). Amongst patients with criteria for pathological non-response (pNR, >50% viable tumour), all who recurred had >= 70% viable melanoma. Higher ITRS and irPR scores correlated with lack of recurrence in the entire cohort (P = 0.002 and P = 70% viable melanoma and incorporating additional criteria of

BACKGROUND Historically leptomeningeal metastases (LM) from melanoma have a poor prognosis, with a median survival of only 2 months despite treatment. Targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors are promising new treatment options in advanced melanoma. We sought to determine the impact of targeted therapy and immunotherapy on the outcome of melanoma patients with LM and to evaluate the influence of prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS We analyzed a series of 39 consecutive patients diagnosed with LM from melanoma between May 2010 and March 2015 treated at the Netherlands Cancer Institute. Thirty-four of these patients also had brain metastases (BM). Statistical analyses assessed the influence of clinical and biological characteristics on survival. RESULTS Median overall survival of the entire cohort was 6.9 weeks (95% confidence interval 0.9-12.8). Due to a poor performance status or rapidly progressive disease, 14 patients received no treatment. Median overall survival of untreated patients after the diagnosis of LM was 2.9 versus 16.9 weeks for treated patients (P < 0.001). The median survival of 21 patients treated with systemic targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy, with or without RT was 21.7 weeks (range 2-235 weeks). Five patients had LM without BM. Three of these patients died within 3 weeks before any treatment was given, whereas 2 patients are in ongoing remission for 26 weeks (following dabrafenib) and 235 weeks (following WBRT and ipilimumab). Elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase and S100B at diagnosis of LM were associated with shorter survival. CONCLUSION LM from melanoma still has an extremely poor prognosis. As observed in extracranial metastatic disease, new treatment modalities such as systemic targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to increase overall survival in LM, and may result in long-term remission. These new treatment options should be considered in patients with LM.

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking monoclonal antibodies improve the overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma but the optimal duration of treatment has not been established.PATIENTS AND METHODS: This academic real-world cohort study investigated the outcome of 185 advanced melanoma patients who electively discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab (N = 167) or nivolumab (N = 18) in the absence of disease progression (PD) or treatment limiting toxicity (TLT) at 14 medical centres across Europe and Australia.RESULTS: Median time on treatment was 12 months (range 0.7-43). The best objective tumour response at the time of treatment discontinuation was complete response (CR) in 117 (63%) patients, partial response (PR) in 44 (24%) patients and stable disease (SD) in 16 (9%) patients; 8 (4%) patients had no evaluable disease (NE). After a median follow-up of 18 months (range 0.7-48) after treatment discontinuation, 78% of patients remained free of progression. Median time to progression was 12 months (range 2-23). PD was less frequent in patients with CR (14%) compared with patients with PR (32%) and SD (50%). Six out of 19 (32%) patients who were retreated with an anti-PD-1 at the time of PD obtained a new antitumour response.CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of advanced melanoma patients discontinuing anti-PD-1 therapy in the absence of TLT or PD, the duration of anti-PD-1 therapy was shorter when compared with clinical trials. In patients obtaining a CR, and being treated for >6 months, the risk of relapse after treatment discontinuation was low. Patients achieving a PR or SD as best tumour response were at higher risk for progression after discontinuing therapy, and defining optimal treatment duration in such patients deserves further study. Retreatment with an anti-PD-1 at the time of progression may lead to renewed antitumour activity in some patients.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02673970 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02673970?cond=melanoma&cntry=BE&city=Jette&rank=3).

Background Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) with T cell receptor (TCR) gene modified peripheral blood T cells creates large pools of tumor reactive T cells. Based on preclinical validation we have selected a high affinity MART-1-specific TCR for TCR gene therapy in metastatic melanoma (MM). Utilizing a novel GMP production protocol we performed a phase I trial to asses feasibility, safety and efficacy of TCR gene therapy in pts with MM. Methods HLA-A2*0201+ pts with irresectable stage IIIc/IV melanoma, expressing MART-1 and MHC class I, with no standard treatment options were included. Autologous T cells were isolated via apheresis and transduced with a MP-71 retroviral vector encoding the 1D3HMCys MART-1 TCR and expanded ex vivo in presence of IL-7 and IL-15. Non-myeloablative chemotherapy was given prior to one i.v. infusion of MART-1 TCR transduced T cells in a dose escalating manner after evaluation of adverse events (AEs). Feasibility, safety (CTCAE 4.0) and ORR (RECIST 1.1) were assessed. Results Twelve heavily pretreated metastatic cutaneous (n = 7) and uveal (n = 5) melanoma (mUM) pts were treated with MART-1 TCR transduced T cells across 4 dose cohorts. Transduction efficiency was 42-76%. Viability of the cell product was 92.9-98.5%. Pt 1 received 4.56 x 109 MART-1 TCR transduced T cells but died 9 days post infusion due to multiple organ failure. Subsequent pts received 5 x 107 (n = 3; cohort (c) 2), 25 x 107 (n = 2; c3) and 10 x 107 (n = 6; c4) cells. On-target AEs were dose-dependent and included dermatitis (10/11) max grade 3, uveitis (3/11) max grade 2 and ototoxicity (4/11) max grade 3, highest in cohort 3. Four pts (n = 2 c3; n = 2 c4) showed signs of cytokine release syndrome and 3 pts required tocilizumab. Objective PR by RECIST 1.1 was seen in 2 pts (17%), with a DOR of 4.2 (mUM, c4) and 8.4 (c3) months. Persistence of transduced T cells in peripheral blood was correlated with infused cell dose. Conclusions Treatment with MART-1 TCR transduced peripheral blood T cells expanded in presence of IL-7 and IL-15 led to severe dose-dependent toxicity with a maximum tolerated dose of 10 x 107 transduced cells. Despite observed responses, toxicity limited further development and use of this MART-1 TCR cellular therapy in MM patients. NCT02654821. Clinical trial identification NCT02654821. Legal entity responsible for the study Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek hospital (NKI-AVL). Funding KWF Kankerbestrijding. Disclosure J.H. Beijnen: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Modra Pharmaceuticals BV . J.V. van Thienen: Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer ; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. C.U. Blank: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: GenMab; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre ; Research grant / Funding (institution): NanoString. T.N. Schumacher: Advisory / Consultancy: Adaptive Biotechnologies; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: AIMM Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Allogene Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Merus; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Scenic Biotech; Advisory / Consultancy: Third Rock Ventures; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck KGaA; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Neogene Therapeutics; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Scenic Biotech. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: AZ/MedImmune; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Immunocore; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Neon Therapeutics; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Celsius Therapeutics; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Gadet ; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: GSK. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Selective BRAF inhibition (BRAFi) by vemurafenib or dabrafenib has become approved standard treatment in BRAF V600 mutated advanced stage melanoma. While the response rate is high, the response duration is limited with a progression-free survival (PFS) of 5–6months. Our observation of accelerated disease progression within some patients after stopping vemurafenib treatment has fostered the idea of treatment beyond progression (BRAFi TBP). Method In this retrospective study, we analysed 70 metastatic melanoma patients, treated at our institute, who experienced progression after prior objective response upon treatment with vemurafenib. Thirty-five patients that continued treatment beyond progression are compared with 35 patients who stopped BRAFi treatment at disease progression. Results Median overall survival beyond documented progression was found to be 5.2months versus 1.4months (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8–7.4 versus 0.6–3.4; Log-Rank p =0.002) in favour of BRAFi TBP. In the multivariate survival analysis, stopping treatment at disease progression was significantly associated with shorter survival (hazard ratio: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.04–3.55; p =0.04). Conclusion Our results suggest that continuing vemurafenib treatment beyond progression may be beneficial in advanced melanoma patients, who prior to progression responded to vemurafenib.

Background Outcome of high-risk stage III melanoma patients (pts) was poor with a 5-year OS rate of Methods Between Augustus 2015 and October 2016, 20 stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma pts with palpable nodal disease were included in the phase Ib feasibility OpACIN trial. Pts were randomized to receive IPI 3 mg/kg + NIVO 1 mg/kg, either adj 4 courses or split 2 courses neoadj and 2 adj. Path response, as reviewed by a blinded pathologist, was defined as Results After a median FU of 36.7 months (minimum 28.3 months FU of pts alive) none of the 7 pts with a path response in the neoadj arm have relapsed. Both non-responding pts in the neoadj have relapsed versus 4 pts in the adj arm. One pt has died in the neoadj arm and 3 in the adj arm. The estimated 3-year RFS rate was 80% for the neoadj arm and 60% for the adj arm. The 3-year OS rates were 90% and 67%, respectively. Of the 18 (90%) pts that had developed 1 or more grade 3-4 adverse events all have recovered to ≤ grade 1, except for grade 2 endocrine toxicities needing hormonal supplementation therapy that are ongoing in 8 (50%) of 16 pts alive. Conclusions OpACIN was the first trial investigating neoadj IPI + NIVO in pts with macroscopic stage III melanoma, thus having the longest FU. At 3 years FU, no new safety events occurred and none of the pts with a path response have relapsed, suggesting that path response could be considered as surrogate marker for RFS and OS in neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor trials. Clinical trial identification NCT02437279. Legal entity responsible for the study Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding BMS. Disclosure C.U. Blank: Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: GenMab; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): NanoString; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. J.V. van Thienen: Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: AZ/MedImmune; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunocore; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Celsius Therapautics; Advisory / Consultancy: Gadet; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK. A.C.J. van Akkooi: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck-Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC. T.N. Schumacher: Advisory / Consultancy: Adaptive Biotechnologies; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: AIMM Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Allogene Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Merus; Advisory / Consultancy, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Scenic Biotech; Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck KGaA; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Neogene Therapeutics; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Venture partner: Third Rock Venture. E.A. Rozeman: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Immune-checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized advanced melanoma care. Despite major improvements in survival, many patients do not derive long-term benefit and treatment could cause severe side-effects. Since several new (combination) therapies are or will become available, early prediction of non-responsiveness (NR) to anti-PD-1 monotherapy becomes relevant in order to enable early switch to next line (combination) treatment and avoid nonsensical care. Methods Advanced melanoma patients treated with pembrolizumab (PEM) who started PEM between June 2014 and August 2016 were included in this retrospective analysis. S100 and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels were routinely determined prior to initiation of PEM and every 3-weeks during treatment. NR to treatment was defined as progressive disease or death at 6 months after start of PEM. Biomarker response characteristic (BReC) plots were obtained and LDH and S100 response cut-offs were determined based on two criteria: specificity for NR > 95% and feasibility to use in clinical practice. Next, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were generated per follow-up time point (week 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15). Results 166 advanced melanoma patients were included. The BReC analyses showed clear relations between an early (week 3 to 15) increase in tumor biomarker and NR. An increase of > 50% in LDH or a > 100% increase in S100 above the upper limit of normal compared to baseline at any follow-up interval was determined as criterion to positively test for NR. Obtained specificity ranged from 0.97-0.98 and the positive predictive value ranged from 0.92-0.96 for the studied follow-up intervals. Obtained sensitivity for detecting non-responsiveness ranged from 0.25 (95% CI; 0.16-0.35) at 3 weeks of follow-up to 0.35 (95% CI; 0.24-0.47) at 12 weeks of follow-up. Conclusions An early increase in S100 and/or LDH are strong parameters for non-responsiveness to PD-1 blockade in advanced melanoma. Prospective confirmation is needed before clinical implementation. Legal entity responsible for the study Netherlands Cancer Institute. Funding Netherlands Cancer Institute. Disclosure E.A. Rozeman: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: NanoString; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD. J.V. van Thienen: Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: AZ/MedImmune; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunocore; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Celsius; Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics; Advisory / Consultancy: Gadet. C.U. Blank: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly ; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy: GenMab; Research grant / Funding (institution): NanoString; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Anthracycline-based regimens are still commonly used in HER2 positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC), despite added toxicity compared to non-anthracycline containing regimens. The benefit of antracyclines in the era of trastuzumab containing regimens is controversial. Moreover, the value of anthracyclines in combination with dual-HER2 blockade is uncertain. We recently showed high pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with a weekly neoadjuvant paclitaxel-trastuzumab-carboplatin (PTC) regimen. We now aim to evaluate the effect of replacing 3 PTC cycles in this regimen with 3 FE90C-trastuzumab cycles, while adding pertuzumab to all cycles in both arms. Secondly, combined blockade of the estrogen-receptor (ER) pathway and the HER2-pathway in the presence of chemotherapy has not previously been investigated in HER2+/ER+ tumors. Trial design This is a randomized comparative trial evaluating pCR rate (ypT0/is ypN0) at surgery as primary endpoint after neoadjuvant systemic therapy with 9 cycles PTC plus pertuzumab q3w (paclitaxel 80mg/m2 day 1, 8 – trastuzumab 6mg/kg (loading dose 8mg/kg) day 1 – carboplatin AUC = 6 day 1 – pertuzumab 420mg (loading dose 840mg) day 1) versus 3 cycles FE90C-T plus pertuzumab q3w followed by 6 cycles PTC plus pertuzumab q3w. An optional second randomization (2×2 factorial design) will compare concurrent endocrine treatment with an aromatase inhibitor (and ovarian function suppression in premenopausal women and men) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in combination with dual HER2-blockade, in patients with HER2+/ER+ tumors. Eligibility criteria Patients aged ≥18 year with histologically confirmed invasive HER2+ BC, stage II or III. Eligible patients have a performance status of 0 to 1 and adequate cardiac and organ function. Specific aims The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of 6 cycles neoadjuvant PTC plus pertuzumab preceded by either 3 cycles FE90C-T plus pertuzumab or 3 cycles PTC plus pertuzumab in stage II and III HER2+ BC. Secondary objectives are to describe the efficacy of combined HER2 and ER pathway blockade in HER2+/ER+ BC, to describe the safety of the various regimens and to identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers for pCR. Statistical methods The sample size of the study will be based on the primary objective. To detect an increase in pCR rate from 44% in the PTC arm to 58% in the FE90C-T arm at the 5% (2-sided) level of significance with an 80% power 437 patients need to be randomized (assuming ∼10% of patients will be not evaluable). Target accrual Recruitment will start in the summer of 2013 across ∼30 sites in the Netherlands. Unrestricted research support and pertuzumab are kindly provided by Roche Netherlands. The trial is sponsored by the Dutch Breast Cancer Trialists’ Group (BOOG). Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr OT1-1-01.