Sanjiv S. Agarwala

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.).

Multicenter Phase II Study of Erlotinib, an Oral Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Cancer of the Head and Neck

PURPOSE To determine the efficacy and safety profiles of erlotinib in patients with advanced recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (HNSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with locally recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC, regardless of their HER1/EGFR status, were treated with erlotinib at an initial dose of 150 mg daily. Dose reductions or escalations were allowed based on tolerability of erlotinib. RESULTS One-hundred fifteen patients were enrolled onto this study. Forty-seven percent of patients received erlotinib at 150 mg daily throughout the entire study, 6% had dose escalations, and 46% required dose reductions and/or interruptions. Five patients achieved partial responses on study, for an overall objective response rate of 4.3% (95% CI, 1.4% to 9.9%). Disease stabilization was maintained in 44 patients (38.3%) for a median duration of 16.1 weeks. The median progression-free survival was 9.6 weeks (95% CI, 8.1 to 12.1 weeks), and the median overall survival was 6.0 months (95% CI, 4.8 to 7.0 months). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant difference in overall survival favoring patients who developed at least grade 2 skin rashes versus those who did not (P =.045), whereas no difference was detected based on HER1/EGFR expression. Rash and diarrhea were the most common drug-related toxicities, encountered in 79% and 37% of patients, respectively, though the severity was mild to moderate in most cases. CONCLUSION Erlotinib was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated HNSCC population and produced prolonged disease stabilization; hence, further evaluation of its role in this tumor type is warranted.

Talimogene Laherparepvec Improves Durable Response Rate in Patients With Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a herpes simplex virus type 1-derived oncolytic immunotherapy designed to selectively replicate within tumors and produce granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) to enhance systemic antitumor immune responses. T-VEC was compared with GM-CSF in patients with unresected stage IIIB to IV melanoma in a randomized open-label phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with injectable melanoma that was not surgically resectable were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to intralesional T-VEC or subcutaneous GM-CSF. The primary end point was durable response rate (DRR; objective response lasting continuously ≥ 6 months) per independent assessment. Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate. RESULTS Among 436 patients randomly assigned, DRR was significantly higher with T-VEC (16.3%; 95% CI, 12.1% to 20.5%) than GM-CSF (2.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 4.5%]; odds ratio, 8.9; P < .001). Overall response rate was also higher in the T-VEC arm (26.4%; 95% CI, 21.4% to 31.5% v 5.7%; 95% CI, 1.9% to 9.5%). Median OS was 23.3 months (95% CI, 19.5 to 29.6 months) with T-VEC and 18.9 months (95% CI, 16.0 to 23.7 months) with GM-CSF (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P = .051). T-VEC efficacy was most pronounced in patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease and in patients with treatment-naive disease. The most common adverse events (AEs) with T-VEC were fatigue, chills, and pyrexia. The only grade 3 or 4 AE occurring in ≥ 2% of T-VEC-treated patients was cellulitis (2.1%). No fatal treatment-related AEs occurred. CONCLUSION T-VEC is the first oncolytic immunotherapy to demonstrate therapeutic benefit against melanoma in a phase III clinical trial. T-VEC was well tolerated and resulted in a higher DRR (P < .001) and longer median OS (P = .051), particularly in untreated patients or those with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease. T-VEC represents a novel potential therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma.

Results of a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Sorafenib in Combination With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel As Second-Line Treatment in Patients With Unresectable Stage III or Stage IV Melanoma

PURPOSE This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) in patients with advanced melanoma who had progressed on a dacarbazine- or temozolomide-containing regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 270 patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 plus intravenous carboplatin at area under curve 6 (AUC 6) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle followed by either placebo (n = 135) or oral sorafenib 400 mg (n = 135) twice daily on days 2 to 19. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary and tertiary end points included overall survival and incidence of best response, respectively. RESULTS The median PFS was 17.9 weeks for the placebo plus CP arm and 17.4 weeks for the sorafenib plus CP arm (hazard ratio, 0.91; 99% CI, 0.63 to 1.31; two-sided log-rank test P = .49). Response rate was 11% with placebo versus 12% with sorafenib. Dermatologic events, grade 3 thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and fatigue were more common in patients treated with sorafenib plus CP versus placebo plus CP. CONCLUSION In this study, the addition of sorafenib to CP did not improve any of the end points over placebo plus CP and cannot be recommended in the second-line setting for patients with advanced melanoma. Both regimens had clinically acceptable toxicity profiles with no unexpected adverse events. A trial of similar design for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma (intergroup trial E2603) is currently ongoing.

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.

Temozolomide for the Treatment of Brain Metastases Associated With Metastatic Melanoma: A Phase II Study

PURPOSE Temozolomide is a well-tolerated oral alkylating agent with activity in the CNS. A multicenter, open-label, phase II study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of temozolomide in patients with brain metastases from metastatic melanoma (MM) who did not require immediate radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had histologically confirmed MM to the brain, and no prior radiotherapy or radiosurgery for brain metastases. Previously untreated patients received temozolomide at 200 mg/m(2)/d x 5 days; previously treated patients received 150 mg/m(2)/d x 5 days every 28 days. Treatment continued for 1 year or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS Of 151 patients enrolled, 117 had received no prior systemic chemotherapy, and 34 had received prior chemotherapy for MM. Among previously untreated patients, 25% had more than four brain lesions, eight (7%) achieved an objective response (one complete and seven partial), and 34 (29%) had stable disease in brain metastases. Median overall survival was 3.5 months. Among previously treated patients, 21% had more than four brain lesions, one had a partial response, and six (18%) had stable disease in brain metastases. Median overall survival was 2.2 months. Temozolomide was well tolerated, with four (3%) patients discontinuing because of adverse events. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included thrombocytopenia (3%), neutropenia (2%), and leukopenia (1%). Headache (9%) and vomiting (8%) were the most common nonhematologic grade 3/4 adverse events. CONCLUSION Temozolomide was well tolerated and demonstrated activity in the treatment of brain metastases from MM. Further evaluation of temozolomide combination therapy is warranted.

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.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Joint Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) sought to provide an evidence-based guideline on the use of lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in staging patients with newly diagnosed melanoma. METHODS A comprehensive systematic review of the literature published from January 1990 through August 2011 was completed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Abstracts from ASCO and SSO annual meetings were included in the evidence review. An Expert Panel was convened to review the evidence and develop guideline recommendations. RESULTS Seventy-three studies met full eligibility criteria. The evidence review demonstrated that SLN biopsy is an acceptable method for lymph node staging of most patients with newly diagnosed melanoma. RECOMMENDATIONS SLN biopsy is recommended for patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (Breslow thickness, 1 to 4 mm) of any anatomic site; use of SLN biopsy in this population provides accurate staging. Although there are few studies focusing on patients with thick melanomas (T4; Breslow thickness, > 4 mm), SLN biopsy may be recommended for staging purposes and to facilitate regional disease control. There is insufficient evidence to support routine SLN biopsy for patients with thin melanomas (T1; Breslow thickness, < 1 mm), although it may be considered in selected patients with high-risk features when staging benefits outweigh risks of the procedure. Completion lymph node dissection (CLND) is recommended for all patients with a positive SLN biopsy and achieves good regional disease control. Whether CLND after a positive SLN biopsy improves survival is the subject of the ongoing Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II.

Double-Blind Randomized Phase II Study of the Combination of Sorafenib and Dacarbazine in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: A Report From the 11715 Study Group

PURPOSE This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus dacarbazine in patients with advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study enrolled chemotherapy-naive patients with stage III (unresectable) or IV melanoma. A total of 101 patients received placebo plus dacarbazine (n = 50) or sorafenib plus dacarbazine (n = 51). On day 1 of a 21-day cycle, patients received intravenous dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m(2) for a maximum of 16 cycles. Oral sorafenib 400 mg or placebo was administered twice a day continuously. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent assessment. Secondary and tertiary end points included time to progression (TTP), response rate, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median PFS in the sorafenib plus dacarbazine arm was 21.1 weeks versus 11.7 weeks in the placebo plus dacarbazine arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.665; P = .068). There were statistically significant improvements in PFS rates at 6 and 9 months, and in TTP (median, 21.1 v 11.7 weeks; HR, 0.619) in favor of the sorafenib plus dacarbazine arm. No difference in OS was observed (median, 51.3 v 45.6 weeks in the placebo plus dacarbazine and sorafenib plus dacarbazine arms, respectively; HR, 1.022). The regimen was well tolerated and had a manageable toxicity profile. CONCLUSION Sorafenib plus dacarbazine was well tolerated in patients with advanced melanoma and yielded an encouraging improvement in PFS. Based on these findings, additional studies with the combination are warranted in this patient population.

Mechanisms and Management of Toxicities Associated With High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b Therapy

PURPOSE The toxicity associated with adjuvant high-dose interferon-alfa-2b therapy (HDI) for high-risk melanoma can lead to premature discontinuation. It is important to understand the expected adverse events and their underlying mechanisms and to anticipate and aggressively manage toxicity during treatment in order to ensure that patients receive the maximum therapeutic benefit. METHODS The toxicity profile of HDI was reviewed by examining data from the United States cooperative group trials. Available published data related to the potential mechanisms responsible for the observed adverse events are discussed, and comprehensive recommendations for managing side effects are presented. RESULTS The HDI regimen is associated with acute constitutional symptoms, chronic fatigue, myelosuppression, elevated liver enzyme levels, and neurologic symptoms. The majority of patients tolerate 1 year of therapy with an understanding of the anticipated toxicities in conjunction with appropriate dose modifications and supportive care. Ongoing monitoring for liver dysfunction and hematologic toxicity is critical to ensure safety. Many of the toxicities associated with interferon-alfa (IFN-alpha) seem to be the result of endogenous cytokines and their effects on the neuroendocrine system. Recent data have also demonstrated that IFN-alpha suppresses the activity of specific CYP450 isoenzymes and that this correlates with discrete toxicities. Pharmacologic interventions are under study for fatigue and depression. An increased understanding of the mechanisms of IFN-alpha-associated toxicity will lead to more rational and effective supportive care and improved quality of life. CONCLUSION Continued research in this area should lead to improvements in the safety and tolerability of adjuvant therapy for melanoma.