Patrick A. Ott

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.).

CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade: New Immunotherapeutic Modalities with Durable Clinical Benefit in Melanoma Patients

Immune checkpoint blockade with monoclonal antibodies directed at the inhibitory immune receptors CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1 has emerged as a successful treatment approach for patients with advanced melanoma. Ipilimumab is the first agent associated with a documented improved overall survival benefit in this patient population. A striking attribute of CTLA-4 blockade is the durability of objective responses, leading to speculation of a possible cure for some patients. Many tumor responses achieved with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition were durable in the phase I trials and were seen in a higher proportion of patients with melanoma than typically observed with ipilimumab. Biomarker development to identify the subset of patients with melanoma who will achieve durable clinical benefit with checkpoint blockade is critical; tumor PD-L1 expression has been promising in early studies. The contrast between unprecedented response rates but limited durability of responses achieved with BRAF and MEK inhibition in BRAFV600-mutated melanoma and the impressive durability but relatively low rate of response achieved with immune checkpoint blockade is striking. Preclinical data on potential synergies between CTLA-4/PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition and MAPK-targeted therapy is emerging, and combined immune checkpoint blockade and MAPK inhibition are being explored in clinical trials. Other promising approaches to increase the number of patients with melanoma who benefit from durable responses with immune checkpoint blockade include concurrent or sequenced CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition and combination with other immunotherapeutic strategies. Clin Cancer Res; 19(19); 5300–9. ©2013 AACR.

Phase II Study of the MEK1/MEK2 Inhibitor Trametinib in Patients With Metastatic BRAF-Mutant Cutaneous Melanoma Previously Treated With or Without a BRAF Inhibitor

PURPOSE BRAF mutations promote melanoma cell proliferation and survival primarily through activation of MEK. The purpose of this study was to determine the response rate (RR) for the selective, allosteric MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212), in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was an open-label, two-stage, phase II study with two cohorts. Patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor (cohort A) or treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (BRAF-inhibitor naive; cohort B) were enrolled. Patients received 2 mg of trametinib orally once daily. RESULTS In cohort A (n = 40), there were no confirmed objective responses and 11 patients (28%) with stable disease (SD); the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. In cohort B (n = 57), there was one (2%) complete response, 13 (23%) partial responses (PRs), and 29 patients (51%) with SD (confirmed RR, 25%); the median PFS was 4.0 months. One patient each with BRAF K601E and BRAF V600R had prolonged PR. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events for all patients were skin-related toxicity, nausea, peripheral edema, diarrhea, pruritis, and fatigue. No cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma was observed. CONCLUSION Trametinib was well tolerated. Significant clinical activity was observed in BRAF-inhibitor-naive patients previously treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Minimal clinical activity was observed as sequential therapy in patients previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor. Together, these data suggest that BRAF-inhibitor resistance mechanisms likely confer resistance to MEK-inhibitor monotherapy. These data support further evaluation of trametinib in BRAF-inhibitor-naive BRAF-mutant melanoma, including rarer forms of BRAF-mutant melanoma.

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.

An immunogenic personal neoantigen vaccine for patients with melanoma

Effective anti-tumour immunity in humans has been associated with the presence of T cells directed at cancer neoantigens, a class of HLA-bound peptides that arise from tumour-specific mutations. They are highly immunogenic because they are not present in normal tissues and hence bypass central thymic tolerance. Although neoantigens were long-envisioned as optimal targets for an anti-tumour immune response, their systematic discovery and evaluation only became feasible with the recent availability of massively parallel sequencing for detection of all coding mutations within tumours, and of machine learning approaches to reliably predict those mutated peptides with high-affinity binding of autologous human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules. We hypothesized that vaccination with neoantigens can both expand pre-existing neoantigen-specific T-cell populations and induce a broader repertoire of new T-cell specificities in cancer patients, tipping the intra-tumoural balance in favour of enhanced tumour control. Here we demonstrate the feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity of a vaccine that targets up to 20 predicted personal tumour neoantigens. Vaccine-induced polyfunctional CD4+ and CD8+ T cells targeted 58 (60%) and 15 (16%) of the 97 unique neoantigens used across patients, respectively. These T cells discriminated mutated from wild-type antigens, and in some cases directly recognized autologous tumour. Of six vaccinated patients, four had no recurrence at 25 months after vaccination, while two with recurrent disease were subsequently treated with anti-PD-1 (anti-programmed cell death-1) therapy and experienced complete tumour regression, with expansion of the repertoire of neoantigen-specific T cells. These data provide a strong rationale for further development of this approach, alone and in combination with checkpoint blockade or other immunotherapies.

Pharmacodynamic Effects and Mechanisms of Resistance to Vemurafenib in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma

PURPOSE To assess pharmacodynamic effects and intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma, leading to an understanding of the mechanism of action of vemurafenib and ultimately to optimization of metastatic melanoma therapy. METHODS In the phase II clinical study NP22657 (BRIM-2), patients received oral doses of vemurafenib (960 mg twice per day). Serial biopsies were collected to study changes in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, cell-cycle progression, and factors causing intrinsic or acquired resistance by immunohistochemistry, DNA sequencing, or somatic mutation profiling. Results Vemurafenib inhibited MAPK signaling and cell-cycle progression. An association between the decrease in extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) phosphorylation and objective response was observed in paired biopsies (n = 22; P = .013). Low expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog showed a modest association with lower response. Baseline mutations in MEK1(P124) coexisting with BRAF(V600) were noted in seven of 92 samples; their presence did not preclude objective tumor responses. Acquired resistance to vemurafenib associated with reactivation of MAPK signaling as observed by elevated ERK1/2 phosphorylation levels in progressive lesions and the appearance of secondary NRAS(Q61) mutations or MEK1(Q56P) or MEK1(E203K) mutations. These two activating MEK1 mutations had not previously been observed in vivo in biopsies of progressive melanoma tumors. CONCLUSION Vemurafenib inhibits tumor proliferation and oncogenic BRAF signaling through the MAPK pathway. Acquired resistance results primarily from MAPK reactivation driven by the appearance of secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK1 in subsets of patients. The data suggest that inhibition downstream of BRAF should help to overcome acquired resistance.

Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial

BACKGROUND Treatments for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy are limited. We assessed safety and activity of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with SCLC who progressed after one or more previous regimens. METHODS The SCLC cohort of this phase 1/2 multicentre, multi-arm, open-label trial was conducted at 23 sites (academic centres and hospitals) in six countries. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older, had limited-stage or extensive-stage SCLC, and had disease progression after at least one previous platinum-containing regimen. Patients received nivolumab (3 mg/kg bodyweight intravenously) every 2 weeks (given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg plus 3 mg/kg, or 3 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, intravenously) every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were either assigned to nivolumab monotherapy or assessed in a dose-escalating safety phase for the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination beginning at nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Depending on tolerability, patients were then assigned to nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All analyses included patients who were enrolled at least 90 days before database lock. This trial is ongoing; here, we report an interim analysis of the SCLC cohort. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01928394. FINDINGS Between Nov 18, 2013, and July 28, 2015, 216 patients were enrolled and treated (98 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, three with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 61 with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 54 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg). At database lock on Nov 6, 2015, median follow-up for patients continuing in the study (including those who had died or discontinued treatment) was 198·5 days (IQR 163·0-464·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg, 302 days (IQR not calculable) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 361·0 days (273·0-470·0) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 260·5 days (248·0-288·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. An objective response was achieved in ten (10%) of 98 patients receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg, one (33%) of three patients receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 14 (23%) of 61 receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and ten (19%) of 54 receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (13%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg cohort, 18 (30%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg cohort, and ten (19%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort; the most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (none vs 5 [8%] vs none) and diarrhoea (none vs 3 [5%] vs 1 [2%]). No patients in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event. Six (6%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg group, seven (11%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group, and four (7%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg group discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events. Two patients who received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg died from treatment-related adverse events (myasthenia gravis and worsening of renal failure), and one patient who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg died from treatment-related pneumonitis. INTERPRETATION Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed antitumour activity with durable responses and manageable safety profiles in previously treated patients with SCLC. These data suggest a potential new treatment approach for a population of patients with limited treatment options and support the evaluation of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in phase 3 randomised controlled trials in SCLC. FUNDING Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, two-stage, multi-arm, phase 1/2 trial

Summary Background There are few effective treatments for advanced urothelial carcinoma after progression following platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed after prior platinum-based therapy. Methods This phase 1/2 multicentre open-label study enrolled patients aged ≥18 years with urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder, or urethra unselected by programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1). Tumour PD-L1 membrane expression was assessed. Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression or study treatment discontinuation, whichever occurred later. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by investigator assessment. All patients who received at least one dose of any study medication were analysed. Here we report an interim analysis of this ongoing trial. CheckMate 032 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01928394. Findings Between June 2014 and April 2015, 86 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma were enrolled and 78 were treated with nivolumab monotherapy. At data cutoff (March 24, 2016), minimum follow-up was 9 months. A confirmed investigator-assessed objective response was achieved in 19 (24·4%) of 78 patients (95% CI 15·3–35·4). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (21·8%) of 78 patients, the most common being laboratory abnormalities: asymptomatic elevated lipase in four (5·1%) and asymptomatic elevated amylase three (3·8%) patients. Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (46·2%) of 78 patients. Two (2·6%) of 78 patients discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events (pneumonitis and thrombocytopenia) and subsequently died. Interpretation Nivolumab monotherapy was associated with significant and durable clinical responses and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. These data indicate a favourable benefit:risk profile for nivolumab and support further investigation of nivolumab monotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Ipilimumab Therapy in Patients With Advanced Melanoma and Preexisting Autoimmune Disorders

IMPORTANCE Ipilimumab and other immune therapies are effective treatment options for patients with advanced melanoma but cause frequent immune-related toxic effects. Autoimmune diseases are common, and the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab therapy in patients with preexisting autoimmune disorders is not known. OBJECTIVE To determine the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab therapy in patients with advanced melanoma with preexisting autoimmune disorders. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective review of patients with advanced melanoma and preexisting autoimmune disorders who received ipilimumab at 9 academic tertiary referral centers from January 1, 2012, through August 1, 2015. The data analysis was performed on August 24, 2015. EXPOSURE Ipilimumab therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Safety, in terms of frequency of autoimmune flares and conventional immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and efficacy, in terms of response rates and overall survival, were evaluated descriptively. RESULTS Of the 30 patients who received ipilimumab (17 [57%] male; median [range] age, 59.5 [30-80] y), 6 had rheumatoid arthritis, 5 had psoriasis, 6 had inflammatory bowel disease, 2 had systemic lupus erythematosus, 2 had multiple sclerosis, 2 had autoimmune thyroiditis, and 7 had other conditions. Thirteen patients (43%) were receiving immunosuppressive therapy at the time of initiation of ipilimumab therapy, most commonly low-dose prednisone or hydroxychloroquine. With ipilimumab treatment, 8 patients (27%) experienced exacerbations of their autoimmune condition necessitating systemic treatment; all were managed with corticosteroids. Conventional grade 3 to 5 irAEs occurred in 10 patients (33%) and were reversible with corticosteroids or with infliximab therapy in 2 cases. One patient with baseline psoriasis died of presumed immune-related colitis after a 1-week delay prior to reporting symptoms. Fifteen patients (50%) had neither autoimmune disease flares nor irAEs. Six patients experienced an objective response (20%), including 1 with a durable complete response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE To our knowledge, this is the largest series of patients with preexisting autoimmune disease treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ipilimumab was clinically active and was associated with exacerbations of autoimmune disease and conventional ipilimumab-induced irAEs that were readily manageable with standard therapies when started in a timely fashion. Ipilimumab therapy may be considered in this setting with vigilant clinical monitoring.

Ipilimumab in melanoma with limited brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery.

The anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody ipilimumab has been shown to improve survival in patients with metastatic non-CNS melanoma. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of CTLA-4 inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with limited brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Between January 2008 and June 2011, 58 patients with limited brain metastases from melanoma were treated with SRS with a median dose of 20 Gy delivered to the 50% isodose line (range, 15–20 Gy). In 25 patients, ipilimumab was administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg/kg over 90 min every 3 weeks for a median of four doses (range, 1–8). Local control (LC), freedom from new brain metastases, and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the date of the SRS procedure. The median LC, freedom from new brain metastases, and OS for the entire group were 8.7, 4.3, and 5.9 months, respectively. The cause of death was CNS progression in all but eight patients. Six-month LC, freedom from new brain metastases, and OS were 65, 35, and 56%, respectively, for those who received ipilimumab and 63, 47, and 46% for those who did not (P=NS). Intracranial hemorrhage was noted in seven patients who received ipilimumab compared with 10 patients who received SRS alone (P=NS). In this retrospective study, administration of ipilimumab neither increased toxicity nor improved intracerebral disease control in patients with limited brain metastases who received SRS.