Christian U. Blank

Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Pembrolizumab inhibits the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint and has antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, we assigned 834 patients with advanced melanoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks. Primary end points were progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS The estimated 6-month progression-free-survival rates were 47.3% for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 46.4% for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and 26.5% for ipilimumab (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.58; P<0.001 for both pembrolizumab regimens versus ipilimumab; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.46 to 0.72 and 0.47 to 0.72, respectively). Estimated 12-month survival rates were 74.1%, 68.4%, and 58.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for death for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.83; P=0.0005; hazard ratio for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P=0.0036). The response rate was improved with pembrolizumab administered every 2 weeks (33.7%) and every 3 weeks (32.9%), as compared with ipilimumab (11.9%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Responses were ongoing in 89.4%, 96.7%, and 87.9% of patients, respectively, after a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Efficacy was similar in the two pembrolizumab groups. Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 to 5 severity were lower in the pembrolizumab groups (13.3% and 10.1%) than in the ipilimumab group (19.9%). CONCLUSIONS The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01866319.).

Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: A multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in studies of phase 1 and 2 in patients with BRAF(V600)-mutated metastatic melanoma. We studied the efficacy of dabrafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutated metastatic melanoma. METHODS We enrolled patients in this open-label phase 3 trial between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 1, 2011. This report is based on a data cutoff date of Dec 19, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, stage IV or unresectable stage III BRAF(V600E) mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily, orally) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (unresectable III+IVM1a+IVM1b vs IVM1c). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and was analysed by intention to treat; safety was assessed per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227889. FINDINGS Of the 733 patients screened, 250 were randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib (187 patients) or dacarbazine (63 patients). Median progression-free survival was 5·1 months for dabrafenib and 2·7 months for dacarbazine, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·30 (95% CI 0·18-0·51; p<0·0001). At data cutoff, 107 (57%) patients in the dabrafenib group and 14 (22%) in the dacarbazine group remained on randomised treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 100 (53%) of the 187 patients who received dabrafenib and in 26 (44%) of the 59 patients who received dacarbazine. The most common adverse events with dabrafenib were skin-related toxic effects, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. The most common adverse events with dacarbazine were nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, fatigue, and asthenia. Grade 3-4 adverse events were uncommon in both groups. INTERPRETATION Dabrafenib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Genomic correlates of response to CTLA-4 blockade in metastatic melanoma

Is cancer immunotherapy a private affair? Immune checkpoint blockade, a relatively new cancer treatment, substantially extends the survival of a subset of patients. Previous work has shown that patients whose tumors harbor the largest number of mutations—and thus produce a large number of “neoantigens” recognized as foreign by the immune system—are most likely to benefit. Expanding on these earlier studies, Van Allen et al. studied over 100 patients with melanoma and found a similar correlation (see the Perspective by Gubin and Schreiber). There was no evidence, however, that specific neoantigen sequences were shared by patients who responded. Science, this issue p. 207, see also p. 158 Melanoma patients who respond to immunotherapy do not appear to share common tumor neoantigens. [Also see Perspective by Gubin and Schreiber ] Monoclonal antibodies directed against cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), such as ipilimumab, yield considerable clinical benefit for patients with metastatic melanoma by inhibiting immune checkpoint activity, but clinical predictors of response to these therapies remain incompletely characterized. To investigate the roles of tumor-specific neoantigens and alterations in the tumor microenvironment in the response to ipilimumab, we analyzed whole exomes from pretreatment melanoma tumor biopsies and matching germline tissue samples from 110 patients. For 40 of these patients, we also obtained and analyzed transcriptome data from the pretreatment tumor samples. Overall mutational load, neoantigen load, and expression of cytolytic markers in the immune microenvironment were significantly associated with clinical benefit. However, no recurrent neoantigen peptide sequences predicted responder patient populations. Thus, detailed integrated molecular characterization of large patient cohorts may be needed to identify robust determinants of response and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

PD-L1/B7H-1 Inhibits the Effector Phase of Tumor Rejection by T Cell Receptor (TCR) Transgenic CD8+ T Cells

Although increased circulating tumor antigen-specific CD8+ T cells can be achieved by vaccination or adoptive transfer, tumor progression nonetheless often occurs through resistance to effector function. To develop a model for identifying mechanisms of resistance to antigen-specific CTLs, poorly immunogenic B16-F10 melanoma was transduced to express the Kb-binding peptide SIYRYYGL as a green fluorescent protein fusion protein that should be recognized by high-affinity 2C TCR transgenic T cells. Although B16.SIY cells expressed high levels of antigen and were induced to express Kb in response to IFN-γ, they were poorly recognized by primed 2C/RAG2−/− T cells. A screen for candidate inhibitory ligands revealed elevated PD-L1/B7H-1 on IFN-γ-treated B16-F10 cells and also on eight additional mouse tumors and seven human melanoma cell lines. Primed 2C/RAG2−/−/PD-1−/− T cells showed augmented cytokine production, proliferation, and cytolytic activity against tumor cells compared with wild-type 2C cells. This effect was reproduced with anti-PD-L1 antibody present during the effector phase but not during the priming culture. Adoptive transfer of 2C/RAG2−/−/PD-1−/− T cells in vivo caused tumor rejection under conditions in which wild-type 2C cells or CTLA-4-deficient 2C cells did not reject. Our results support interfering with PD-L1/PD-1 interactions to augment the effector function of tumor antigen-specific CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment.

MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study

BACKGROUND Patients with melanoma harbouring Val600 BRAF mutations benefit from treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, no targeted treatments exist for patients with BRAF wild-type tumours, including those with NRAS mutations. We aimed to assess the use of MEK162, a small-molecule MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with NRAS-mutated or Val600 BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. METHODS In our open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study, we assigned patients with NRAS-mutated or BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma to one of three treatment arms on the basis of mutation status. Patients were enrolled at university hospitals or private cancer centres in Europe and the USA. The three arms were: twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for NRAS-mutated melanoma, twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma, and twice-daily MEK162 60 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma. Previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors was permitted, but previous MEK inhibitor therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective response (ie, a complete response or confirmed partial response). We report data for the 45 mg groups. We assessed clinical activity in all patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 and in patients assessable for response (with two available CT scans). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01320085, and is currently recruiting additional patients with NRAS mutations (based on a protocol amendment). FINDINGS Between March 31, 2011, and Jan 17, 2012, we enrolled 71 patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 45 mg. By Feb 29, 2012 (data cutoff), median follow-up was 3·3 months (range 0·6-8·7; IQR 2·2-5·0). No patients had a complete response. Six (20%) of 30 patients with NRAS-mutated melanoma had a partial response (three confirmed) as did eight (20%) of 41 patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma (two confirmed). The most frequent adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (18 [60%] patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and 15 [37%] patients with the BRAF-mutated melanoma), rash (six [20%] and 16 [39%]), peripheral oedema (ten [33%] and 14 [34%]), facial oedema (nine [30%] and seven [17%]), diarrhoea (eight [27%] and 15 [37%]), and creatine phosphokinase increases (11 [37%] and nine [22%]). Increased creatine phosphokinase was the most common grade 3-4 adverse event (seven [23%] and seven [17%]). Four patients had serious adverse events (two per arm), which included diarrhoea, dehydration, acneiform dermatitis, general physical deterioration, irregular heart rate, malaise, and small intestinal perforation. No deaths occurred from treatment-related causes. INTERPRETATION To our knowledge, MEK162 is the first targeted therapy to show activity in patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and might offer a new option for a cancer with few effective treatments. FUNDING Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Reversible and adaptive resistance to BRAF(V600E) inhibition in melanoma

Treatment of BRAF(V600E) mutant melanoma by small molecule drugs that target the BRAF or MEK kinases can be effective, but resistance develops invariably. In contrast, colon cancers that harbour the same BRAF(V600E) mutation are intrinsically resistant to BRAF inhibitors, due to feedback activation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Here we show that 6 out of 16 melanoma tumours analysed acquired EGFR expression after the development of resistance to BRAF or MEK inhibitors. Using a chromatin-regulator-focused short hairpin RNA (shRNA) library, we find that suppression of sex determining region Y-box 10 (SOX10) in melanoma causes activation of TGF-β signalling, thus leading to upregulation of EGFR and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-β (PDGFRB), which confer resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Expression of EGFR in melanoma or treatment with TGF-β results in a slow-growth phenotype with cells displaying hallmarks of oncogene-induced senescence. However, EGFR expression or exposure to TGF-β becomes beneficial for proliferation in the presence of BRAF or MEK inhibitors. In a heterogeneous population of melanoma cells having varying levels of SOX10 suppression, cells with low SOX10 and consequently high EGFR expression are rapidly enriched in the presence of drug, but this is reversed when the drug treatment is discontinued. We find evidence for SOX10 loss and/or activation of TGF-β signalling in 4 of the 6 EGFR-positive drug-resistant melanoma patient samples. Our findings provide a rationale for why some BRAF or MEK inhibitor-resistant melanoma patients may regain sensitivity to these drugs after a ‘drug holiday’ and identify patients with EGFR-positive melanoma as a group that may benefit from re-treatment after a drug holiday.

Immune resistance orchestrated by the tumor microenvironment

Summary:  It is now little disputed that most if not all cancer cells express antigens that can be recognized by specific CD8+ T lymphocytes. However, a central question in the field of anti‐tumor immunity is why such antigen‐expressing tumors are not spontaneously eliminated by the immune system. While in some cases, this lack of rejection may be due to immunologic ignorance, induction of anti‐tumor T‐cell responses in many patients has been detected in the peripheral blood, either spontaneously or in response to vaccination, without accompanying tumor rejection. These observations argue for the importance of barriers downstream from initial T‐cell priming that need to be addressed to translate immune responses into clinical tumor regression. Recent data suggest that the proper trafficking of effector T cells into the tumor microenvironment may not always occur. T cells that do effectively home to tumor metastases are often found to be dysfunctional, pointing toward immunosuppressive mechanisms in the tumor microenvironment. T‐cell anergy due to insufficient B7 costimulation, extrinsic suppression by regulatory cell populations, inhibition by ligands such as programmed death ligand‐1, metabolic dysregulation by enzymes such as indoleamine‐2,3‐dioxygenase, and the action of soluble inhibitory factors such as transforming growth factor‐β have all been clearly implicated in generating this suppressive microenvironment. Identification of these downstream processes points to new therapeutic targets that should be manipulated to facilitate the effector phase of anti‐tumor immune responses in concert with vaccination or T‐cell adoptive transfer.

Parallel detection of antigen-specific T-cell responses by multidimensional encoding of MHC multimers.

The use of fluorescently labeled major histocompatibility complex multimers has become an essential technique for analyzing disease- and therapy-induced T-cell immunity. Whereas classical major histocompatibility complex multimer analyses are well-suited for the detection of immune responses to a few epitopes, limitations on human-subject sample size preclude a comprehensive analysis of T-cell immunity. To address this issue, we developed a combinatorial encoding strategy that allows the parallel detection of a multitude of different T-cell populations in a single sample. Detection of T cells from peripheral blood by combinatorial encoding is as efficient as detection with conventionally labeled multimers but results in a substantially increased sensitivity and, most notably, allows comprehensive screens to be performed. We obtained proof of principle for the feasibility of large-scale screening of human material by analysis of human leukocyte antigen A3–restricted T-cell responses to known and potential melanoma-associated antigens in peripheral blood from individuals with melanoma.

Anti–CTLA-4 therapy broadens the melanoma-reactive CD8+ T cell response

Anti–CTLA-4 treatment increases the diversity of the melanoma-specific CD8 T cell response. Anti–CTLA-4 Therapy Expands T Cell Range An antibody to the immune inhibitory molecule CTLA-4, ipilimumab, can improve survival in patients with advanced melanoma. However, how anti–CTLA-4 works to improve the tumor immune response in humans remains unclear. Now, Kvistborg et al. show that although the magnitude of T cell responses was largely unaltered after therapy, the number of different T cell responses was significantly increased. Indeed, this increased breadth suggests that anti–CTLA-4 may work by increasing priming of T cells to tumor-related antigens rather than boosting preexisting immune responses. If so, other strategies that improve the range of T cells may have similar success battling cancer. Anti–CTLA-4 treatment improves the survival of patients with advanced-stage melanoma. However, although the anti–CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab is now an approved treatment for patients with metastatic disease, it remains unknown by which mechanism it boosts tumor-specific T cell activity. In particular, it is unclear whether treatment amplifies previously induced T cell responses or whether it induces new tumor-specific T cell reactivities. Using a combination ultraviolet (UV)–induced peptide exchange and peptide–major histocompatibility complex (pMHC) combinatorial coding, we monitored immune reactivity against a panel of 145 melanoma-associated epitopes in a cohort of patients receiving anti–CTLA-4 treatment. Comparison of pre- and posttreatment T cell reactivities in peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples of 40 melanoma patients demonstrated that anti–CTLA-4 treatment induces a significant increase in the number of detectable melanoma-specific CD8 T cell responses (P = 0.0009). In striking contrast, the magnitude of both virus-specific and melanoma-specific T cell responses that were already detected before start of therapy remained unaltered by treatment (P = 0.74). The observation that anti–CTLA-4 treatment induces a significant number of newly detected T cell responses—but only infrequently boosts preexisting immune responses—provides strong evidence for anti–CTLA-4 therapy–enhanced T cell priming as a component of the clinical mode of action.

Overall survival and PD-L1 expression in metastasized malignant melanoma.

Cancers are known to elude the immune system, for example, by MHC loss, FAS up‐regulation, or increased secretion of TGF‐beta. Recently, ligands of coinhibitory receptors like programmed cell death ligand–1 (PD‐L1, B7‐H1) have come to attention for their role in tumor immune escape. Various tumors have been tested for PD‐L1 expression, and conflicting results were obtained regarding its correlative impact on patient survival. This study aimed to determine the prognostic relevance of PD‐L1 expression for the survival of melanoma patients.