April K. Salama

Nivolumab and Ipilimumab versus Ipilimumab in Untreated Melanoma

BACKGROUND In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069) we recruited patients from 19 specialist cancer centres in two countries (France and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for four doses. Subsequently, patients assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipilimumab alone received placebo every 2 weeks during this phase. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The study funder, patients, investigators, and study site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, which has been reported previously, was the proportion of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma achieving an investigator-assessed objective response. Overall survival was an exploratory endpoint and is reported in this Article. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01927419, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS Between Sept 16, 2013, and Feb 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients and enrolled 142, randomly assigning 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab alone. In each treatment group, one patient no longer met the study criteria following randomisation and thus did not receive study drug. At a median follow-up of 24·5 months (IQR 9·1-25·7), 2-year overall survival was 63·8% (95% CI 53·3-72·6) for those assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 53·6% (95% CI 38·1-66·8) for those assigned to ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43-1·26; p=0·26). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 51 (54%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nine (20%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were colitis (12 [13%] of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [11%]) in the combination group and diarrhoea (five [11%] of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two [4%]) in the ipilimumab alone group. Serious grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 (36%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (including colitis in ten [11%] of 94 patients, and diarrhoea in five [5%]) compared with four (9%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone (including diarrhoea in two [4%] of 46 patients, colitis in one [2%], and hypophysitis in one [2%]). No new types of treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this updated analysis. INTERPRETATION Although follow-up of the patients in this study is ongoing, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab might lead to improved outcomes compared with first-line ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this population of patients. FUNDING Bristol-Myers Squibb.

BRAF in Melanoma: Current Strategies and Future Directions

Selective BRAF inhibitors have now been established as a standard of care option for patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma whose tumors carry a BRAF mutation. Their successful development represents a milestone in the treatment of this disease, and has the potential to impact therapy for other malignancies as well. The use of these agents, however, has introduced a number of critical questions about the optimal use and selection of patients for BRAF inhibitor therapy. This review discusses the current status of BRAF inhibitor clinical development, the clinicopathologic features of BRAF-mutated melanoma, as well as strategies for overcoming resistance. Clin Cancer Res; 19(16); 4326–34. ©2013 AACR.

Phase II study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor R115777 in advanced melanoma (CALGB 500104)

BackgroundMultiple farnesylated proteins are involved in signal transduction in cancer. Farnesyltransferase inhibitors (FTIs) have been developed as a strategy to inhibit the function of these proteins. As FTIs inhibit proliferation of melanoma cell lines, we undertook a study to assess the impact of a FTI in advanced melanoma. As farnesylated proteins are also important for T cell activation, measurement of effects on T cell function was also pursued.MethodsA 3-stage trial design was developed with a maximum of 40 patients and early stopping if there were no responders in the first 14, or fewer than 2 responders in the first 28 patients. Eligibility included performance status of 0–1, no prior chemotherapy, at most 1 prior immunotherapy, no brain metastases, and presence of at least 2 cutaneous lesions amenable to biopsy. R115777 was administered twice per day for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Patients were evaluated every 2 cycles by RECIST. Blood and tumor were analyzed pre-treatment and during week 7.ResultsFourteen patients were enrolled. Two patients had grade 3 toxicities, which included myelosuppression, nausea/vomiting, elevated BUN, and anorexia. There were no clinical responses. All patients analyzed showed potent inhibition of FT activity (85-98%) in tumor tissue; inhibition of phosphorylated ERK and Akt was also observed. T cells showed evidence of FT inhibition and diminished IFN-γ production.ConclusionsDespite potent target inhibition, R115777 showed no evidence of clinical activity in this cohort of melanoma patients. Inhibition of T cell function by FTIs has potential clinical implications.Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00060125

Melanoma, version 4.2014: Featured updates to the NCCN guidelines

The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with melanoma. This NCCN Guidelines Insights report highlights notable recent updates. Foremost of these is the exciting addition of the novel agents ipilimumab and vemurafenib for treatment of advanced melanoma. The NCCN panel also included imatinib as a treatment for KIT-mutated tumors and pegylated interferon alfa-2b as an option for adjuvant therapy. Also important are revisions to the initial stratification of early-stage lesions based on the risk of sentinel lymph node metastases, and revised recommendations on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for low-risk groups. Finally, the NCCN panel reached clinical consensus on clarifying the role of imaging in the workup of patients with melanoma.

A randomized controlled comparison of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma

2 and 10 mg/kg Q3W, respectively, over control (P<0.00001 for both comparisons). The 6-month PFS rate was 34% (95% CI 27%-41%) and 38% (95% CI 31%45%) for pembrolizumab 2 and 10 mg/kg, respectively, compared with 16% (95% CI 10%-22%) for the control arm. PFS by investigator assessment was similar to that of central review. The PFS effect was consistent in all subgroups. ORR was 21% at 2 mg/kg, 25% at 10 mg/kg, and 4% in the control arm (P<0.0001 for both comparisons). Median response duration was not reached in either pembrolizumab arm and was 37 weeks in the control arm. Forty-eight percent of patients in the control arm crossed over to pembrolizumab treatment. OS data are not mature (final OS analysis will be performed after 370 deaths have occurred). The safety profile was consistent with that previously observed for pembrolizumab. Despite a decreased therapy duration, rates of grade 3-5 drug-related AEs were numerically higher in the chemotherapy control arm (26%) than in the pembrolizumab 2-mg/kg (11%) and 10-mg/kg (14%) arms.

The efficacy of anti-PD-1 agents in acral and mucosal melanoma

Therapeutic antibodies against programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD‐1) are considered front‐line therapy in metastatic melanoma. The efficacy of PD‐1 blockade for patients with biologically distinct melanomas arising from acral and mucosal surfaces has not been well described.

Personalized Treatment of Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is a heterogenous group of disorders, and a difficult disease to treat. The traditional approach of surgical resection for early-stage disease, potentially followed by chemotherapy, as well chemotherapy (with or without radiation) in later stages of disease is being supplemented with a personalized approach. The personalized approach has classically been used by the oncologist based on clinical/pathological parameters such as the performance status of the patient and histology of lung cancer. As molecular mechanisms have been explored in lung cancer more recently, the personalized approach also has incorporated molecular abnormalities. In particular, EGFR, K-ras, ALK, MET, CBL, and COX2, have come to the forefront as potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets. Thus, we review the various molecular mechanisms in lung cancer and the role of novel therapeutics.

Rapid complete response of metastatic melanoma in a patient undergoing ipilimumab immunotherapy in the setting of active ulcerative colitis

While blockade of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) T cell regulatory receptor has become a commonly utilized strategy in the management of advanced melanoma, many questions remain regarding the use of this agent in patient populations with autoimmune disease. We present a case involving the treatment of a patient with stage IV melanoma and ulcerative colitis (UC) with anti-CTLA-4 antibody immunotherapy. Upon initial treatment, the patient developed grade III colitis requiring tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) blocking antibody therapy, however re-treatment with anti-CTLA-4 antibody following a total colectomy resulted in a rapid complete response accompanied by the development of a tracheobronchitis, a previously described extra-intestinal manifestation of UC. This case contributes to the evolving literature on the use of checkpoint inhibitors in patients also suffering from autoimmune disease, supports future clinical trials investigating the use of these agents in patients with autoimmune diseases, and suggests that an understanding of the specific molecular pathways involved in a patient’s autoimmune pathology may provide insight into the development of more effective novel combinatorial immunotherapeutic strategies.

Irradiation and immunotherapy: From concept to the clinic.

In recent years, an increased understanding of T‐cell–regulatory mechanisms has led to the development of a novel class of immune‐checkpoint inhibitors that have robust clinical activity against a broad array of malignancies—even those that historically were not believed to be sensitive to immune therapy. With this, there has been renewed interest in the potential for synergy with more traditional forms of anticancer therapy like radiation therapy (RT). The role of RT in palliation or as definitive treatment for certain malignancies has been well established. Yet, in recent years, the concept has come to light that RT could be an attractive partner for use in combination with other immunotherapies. The effects of RT include not only control of an irradiated tumor but also multiple immunomodulatory effects on both the tumor and the microenvironment, priming tumors for an immune‐mediated response. Herein, the authors summarize relevant preclinical data and rationale supporting the synergy of combined RT and immunotherapy and highlight recent clinical work on promising combination strategies. Cancer 2016;122:1659‐71.