NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma (termed Melanoma: Cutaneous) provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the update to neoadjuvant systemic therapy options and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma.

Urelumab alone or in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma.

Urelumab, a fully human, non-ligand binding, CD137 agonist IgG4 monoclonal antibody, enhances T-cell and natural killer-cell antitumor activity in preclinical models, and may enhance cytotoxic activity of rituximab. Here we report results in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other B-cell lymphomas, in phase 1 studies evaluating urelumab alone (NCT01471210) or combined with rituximab (NCT01775631). Sixty patients received urelumab (0.3 mg/kg IV Q3W, 8 mg IV Q3W, or 8 mg IV Q6W); 46 received urelumab (0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, or 8 mg IV Q3W) plus rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV QW. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of urelumab was determined to be 0.1 mg/kg or 8 mg Q3W after a single event of potential drug-induced liver injury occurred with urelumab 0.3 mg/kg. Treatment-related AEs were reported in 52% (urelumab: grade 3/4, 15%) and 72% (urelumab + rituximab: grade 3/4, 28%); three led to discontinuation (grade 3 increased AST, grade 4 acute hepatitis [urelumab]; one death from sepsis syndrome [urelumab plus rituximab]). Objective response rates/disease control rates were 6%/19% (DLBCL, n = 31), 12%/35% (FL, n = 17), and 17%/42% (other B-cell lymphomas, n = 12) with urelumab and 10%/24% (DLBCL, n = 29) and 35%/71% (FL, n = 17) with urelumab plus rituximab. Durable remissions in heavily pretreated patients were achieved; however, many were observed at doses exceeding the MTD. These data show that urelumab alone or in combination with rituximab demonstrated manageable safety in B-cell lymphoma, but the combination did not enhance clinical activity relative to rituximab alone or other current standard of care.

A phase 2, randomized trial evaluating the combination of dalantercept plus axitinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a prior open-label study, the combination of dalantercept, a novel antiangiogenic targeting activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1), plus axitinib was deemed safe and tolerable with a promising efficacy signal in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: In the current phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with clear cell RCC previously treated with 1 prior angiogenesis inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to receive axitinib plus dalantercept versus axitinib plus placebo. Randomization was stratified by the type of prior therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS in patients with ≥2 prior lines of anticancer therapy, overall survival, and the objective response rate. RESULTS: Between June 10, 2014, and February 23, 2017, a total of 124 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib plus dalantercept (59 patients) or placebo (65 patients). The median PFS was not found to be significantly different between the treatment groups (median, 6.8 months vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.73; P = .670]). Neither group reached the median overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.70-2.77; P = .349]). The objective response rate was 19.0% (11 of 58 patients; 95% CI, 9.9%-31.4%) in the dalantercept plus axitinib group and 24.6% (15 of 61 patients; 95% CI, 14.5%-37.3%) in the placebo plus axitinib group. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event of ≥grade 3 was observed in 59% of patients (34 of 58 patients) in the dalantercept group and 64% of patients (39 of 61 patients) in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo plus axitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Although well tolerated, the addition of dalantercept to axitinib did not appear to improve treatment-related outcomes in previously treated patients with advanced RCC.

NCI 8628: A randomized phase 2 study of ziv-aflibercept and high-dose interleukin 2 or high-dose interleukin 2 alone for inoperable stage III or IV melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 2 (IL-2) is a growth factor for T and natural killer cells, promotes proinflammatory cytokines, and can lead to durable responses in patients with melanoma. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) promotes angiogenesis and modulates host innate and adaptive immunity. High VEGF levels were found to be associated with nonresponse to IL-2. Ziv-aflibercept may deplete VEGF and thereby enhance antitumor T-cell responses, thus supporting a combination immunotherapeutic strategy with IL-2. METHODS: NCI 8628 was a phase 2 trial of ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 (arm A) versus IL-2 alone (arm B) randomized at 2:1, respectively. Eligible patients had inoperable American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III or stage IV melanoma. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were enrolled and 84 patients were treated. The median follow-up was 41.4 months. Among treated patients (55 patients in arm A and 29 patients in arm B), PFS was significantly improved in favor of arm A, with a median of 6.9 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.1-8.7 months) versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.5 months) (P<.001). No significant difference was noted with regard to overall survival, with a median of 26.9 months (95% CI, 14.4-63.6 months) for arm A and 24.2 months (95% CI, 11.3-36.4 months) for arm B. The response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST]) was 22% in arm A (4 complete responses [CRs] and 8 partial responses [PRs]) and 17% in arm B (1 CR and 4 PRs). Stable disease or PR or CR was noted in 65% of patients in arm A and 48% of patients in arm B. The combination was found to be superior to monotherapy in patients with high and low levels of serum VEGF and VEGF receptor 2. Adverse events were consistent with the expected profiles of monotherapy with IL-2 and ziv-aflibercept. CONCLUSIONS: Ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 were found to significantly improve PFS compared with IL-2 alone, thereby meeting the primary endpoint of the current study. These findings support further study of immunotherapeutic combination strategies involving VEGF inhibitors.

Sequential administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab with a planned switch in patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 064): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. FUNDING: Novartis and Pfizer.

Contemporary experience with high-dose interleukin-2 therapy and impact on survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) was approved for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 1992 and for metastatic melanoma (mM) in 1998, in an era predating targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. The PROCLAIMSM registry was established to collect and analyze data for patients treated with HD IL-2 in the current era. This analysis includes 170 patients with mM and 192 patients with mRCC treated between 2005 and 2012 with survival data current as of July 27, 2015. For patients with mM, complete response (CR) was observed in 5 %, partial response (PR) in 10 %, stable disease (SD) in 22 %, and 63 % had progressive disease (PD). The median overall survival (mOS) for these patients was 19.6 months, with a median follow-up of 43.1 months. The mOS was not reached for patients achieving CR or PR, and was 33.4 months for patients with SD. For patients with mRCC, 6 % achieved CR, 9 % had PR, 22 % had SD, and 62 % had PD. The mOS was 41 months, with a median follow-up of 46.6 months. The mOS for patients who had CR and PR was not reached and was 49.6 months for patients with SD. There were no treatment-related deaths among 362 patients. The duration of mOS for patients with mM and mRCC is longer than historically reported. These data support a continued role for IL-2 in the treatment of eligible patients with mM or mRCC and warrant further evaluation of HD IL-2 in combination or sequence with other therapeutic agents.

Discordancy in BRAF mutations among primary and metastatic melanoma lesions: clinical implications for targeted therapy.

Systemic targeted molecular therapy, in the form of a selective BRAF inhibitor with or without a MEK inhibitor, is a standard treatment for patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma with unresectable stage III and IV disease. Patients with BRAF mutation-negative primary tumors may manifest BRAF mutation-positive metastatic disease. It is unclear whether all metastatic lesions carry the same BRAF mutation status found in the primary tumor and if discordancy exists, in what frequency it occurs. Primary and matched metastatic lesions in 25 melanoma patients were tested for the BRAF V600E/Ec, V600K, V600D, and V600R mutations using a BRAF RGQ PCR kit (Qiagen). Four patients (16%) had discrepancies between their primary and metastatic melanoma BRAF status. Of these patients, 2 (8%) had BRAF mutation-positive primary melanomas with BRAF mutation-negative metastatic lesions and 2 (8%) patient had BRAF mutation-negative melanoma with a BRAF mutation-positive metastatic lesion. In summary, discordancy of BRAF mutation status is not an infrequent finding between primary and metastatic melanoma. It may be prudent in previously negative patients to determine BRAF mutation status of new metastatic tumors for proper allocation of BRAF inhibitor therapy. Discordant BRAF status may have a role in the varying patterns of response and inevitable resistance seen with BRAF inhibitor therapies.

Combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma: a phase 1b study.

BACKGROUND: Addition of a MEK inhibitor to a BRAF inhibitor enhances tumour growth inhibition, delays acquired resistance, and abrogates paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway in preclinical models of BRAF-mutated melanoma. We assessed the safety and efficacy of combined BRAF inhibition with vemurafenib and MEK inhibition with cobimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. METHODS: We undertook a phase 1b study in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma. We included individuals who had either recently progressed on vemurafenib or never received a BRAF inhibitor. In the dose-escalation phase of our study, patients received vemurafenib 720 mg or 960 mg twice a day continuously and cobimetinib 60 mg, 80 mg, or 100 mg once a day for either 14 days on and 14 days off (14/14), 21 days on and 7 days off (21/7), or continuously (28/0). The primary endpoint was safety of the drug combination and to identify dose-limiting toxic effects and the maximum tolerated dose. Efficacy was a key secondary endpoint. All patients treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib were included in safety and efficacy analyses (intention-to-treat). The study completed accrual and all analyses are final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01271803. FINDINGS: 129 patients were treated at ten dosing regimens combining vemurafenib and cobimetinib: 66 had recently progressed on vemurafenib and 63 had never received a BRAF inhibitor. Dose-limiting toxic effects arose in four patients. One patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 80 mg once a day 14/14 had grade 3 fatigue for more than 7 days; one patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg once a day 21/7 had a grade 3 prolongation of QTc; and two patients on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg 28/0 had dose-limiting toxic effects-one developed grade 3 stomatitis and fatigue and one developed arthralgia and myalgia. The maximum tolerated dose was established as vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day in combination with cobimetinib 60 mg 21/7. Across all dosing regimens, the most common adverse events were diarrhoea (83 patients, 64%), non-acneiform rash (77 patients, 60%), liver enzyme abnormalities (64 patients, 50%), fatigue (62 patients, 48%), nausea (58 patients, 45%), and photosensitivity (52 patients, 40%). Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (12 patients, 9%; all grade 3), raised amounts of alkaline phosphatase (11 patients, 9%]), and anaemia (nine patients, 7%). Confirmed objective responses were recorded in ten (15%) of 66 patients who had recently progressed on vemurafenib, with a median progression-free survival of 2·8 months (95% CI 2·6-3·4). Confirmed objective responses were noted in 55 (87%) of 63 patients who had never received a BRAF inhibitor, including six (10%) who had a complete response; median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 10·1-17·5). INTERPRETATION: The combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable when administered at the respective maximum tolerated doses. The combination has promising antitumour activity and further clinical development is warranted in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma, particularly in those who have never received a BRAF inhibitor; confirmatory clinical testing is ongoing. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Delivery of progenitors to the thymus limits T-lineage reconstitution after bone marrow transplantation.

T-cell production depends on the recruitment of hematopoietic progenitors into the thymus. T cells are among the last of the hematopoietic lineages to recover after bone marrow transplantation (BMT), but the reasons for this delay are not well understood. Under normal physiologic conditions, thymic settling is selective and either CCR7 or CCR9 is required for progenitor access into the thymus. The mechanisms of early thymic reconstitution after BMT, however, are unknown. Here we report that thymic settling is briefly CCR7/CCR9-independent after BMT but continues to rely on the selectin ligand PSGL-1. The CCR7/CCR9 independence is transient, and by 3 weeks after BMT these receptors are again strictly required. Despite the normalization of thymic settling signals, the rare bone marrow progenitors that can efficiently repopulate the thymus are poorly reconstituted for at least 4 weeks after BMT. Consistent with reduced progenitor input to the thymus, intrathymic progenitor niches remain unsaturated for at least 10 weeks after BMT. Finally, we show that thymic recovery is limited by the number of progenitors entering the thymus after BMT. Hence, T-lineage reconstitution after BMT is limited by progenitor supply to the thymus.

Foretinib (XL880): c-MET inhibitor with activity in papillary renal cell cancer.

Papillary renal cell cancer (RCC) constitutes approximately 10 % of renal cancers and is the commonest form after clear cell RCC, which accounts for approximately 75 % of cases. Until recently, most clinical trials in RCC were open to patients of all histologic types. Very recent clinical trials have been performed predominately in patients with clear cell RCC and relatively few trials have been done for patients with papillary RCC. The clinical characteristics of papillary RCC are less well appreciated because of both its relative rarity in the general oncology population and the lack of related clinical studies. This article reviews papillary RCC as a clinical entity separate from clear cell RCC. The MET signaling pathway, its association with increased invasion and progression of human cancer, and its dysregulation in papillary RCC is discussed. Lastly, foretinib, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of several receptors, including MET and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, is described in preclinical and phase I studies as well as in a phase II study in papillary RCC patients.

Ipilimumab in patients with melanoma and brain metastases: an open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases commonly develop in patients with melanoma and are a frequent cause of death of patients with this disease. Ipilimumab improves survival in patients with advanced melanoma. We aimed to investigate the safety and activity of this drug specifically in patients with brain metastases. METHODS: Between July 31, 2008, and June 3, 2009, we enrolled patients with melanoma and brain metastases from ten US centres who were older than 16 years into two parallel cohorts. Patients in cohort A were neurologically asymptomatic and were not receiving corticosteroid treatment at study entry; those in cohort B were symptomatic and on a stable dose of corticosteroids. Patients were to receive four doses of 10 mg/kg intravenous ipilimumab, one every 3 weeks. Individuals who were clinically stable at week 24 were eligible to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous ipilimumab every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with disease control, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease after 12 weeks, assessed with modified WHO criteria. Analyses of safety and efficacy included all treated patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00623766. FINDINGS: We enrolled 72 patients: 51 into cohort A and 21 into cohort B. After 12 weeks, nine patients in cohort A exhibited disease control (18%, 95% CI 8-31), as did one patient in cohort B (5%, 0·1-24). When the brain alone was assessed, 12 patients in cohort A (24%, 13-38) and two in cohort B (10%, 1-30) achieved disease control. We noted disease control outside of the brain in 14 patients (27%, 16-42) in cohort A and in one individual (5%, 0·1-24) in cohort B. The most common grade 3 adverse events in cohort A were diarrhoea (six patients [12%]) and fatigue (six [12%]); in cohort B, they were dehydration (two individuals [10%]), hyperglycaemia (two [10%]), and increased concentrations of serum aspartate aminotransferase (two [10%]). One patient in each cohort had grade 4 confusion. The most common grade 3 immune-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six patients [12%]) and rash (one [2%]) in cohort A, and rash (one individual [5%]) and increased concentrations of serum aspartate aminotransferase (two [10%]) in cohort B. One patient in cohort A died of drug-related complications of immune-related colitis. INTERPRETATION: Ipilimumab has activity in some patients with advanced melanoma and brain metastases, particularly when metastases are small and asymptomatic. The drug has no unexpected toxic effects in this population. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Talimogene laherparepvec in combination with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone for advanced melanoma: 5-year final analysis of a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial.

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus ipilimumab has demonstrated greater antitumor activity versus ipilimumab alone, without additional toxicity, in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year outcomes from a randomized phase II study. These data provide the longest efficacy and safety follow-up for patients with melanoma treated with a combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor.Eligible patients with unresectable stage IIIB‒IV melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. T-VEC was administered intralesionally at 106 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL in week 1, followed by 108 PFU/mL in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter. Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; ≤4 doses) was administered intravenously starting at week 1 in the ipilimumab arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per immune-related response criteria; key secondary end points included durable response rate (DRR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.Overall, 198 patients were randomized to receive the combination (n=98) or ipilimumab (n=100). The combination improved the ORR versus ipilimumab (35.7% vs 16.0%; OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.7; p=0.003). DRR was 33.7% and 13.0% (unadjusted OR 3.4; 95% CI 1.7 to 7.0; descriptive p=0.001), respectively. Among the objective responders, the median DOR was 69.2 months (95% CI 38.5 to not estimable) with the combination and was not reached with ipilimumab. Median PFS was 13.5 months with the combination and 6.4 months with ipilimumab (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09; descriptive p=0.14). Estimated 5-year OS was 54.7% (95% CI 43.9 to 64.2) in the combination arm and 48.4% (95% CI 37.9 to 58.1) in the ipilimumab arm. Forty-seven (48.0%) and 65 (65.0%) patients in the combination and ipilimumab arms, respectively, received subsequent therapies. No new safety signals were reported.At the 5-year follow-up, the improved response rates observed with T-VEC plus ipilimumab were durable. This is the first randomized controlled study of the combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor that meets its primary end point.Trial registration number: NCT01740297.

Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Safety profile and pharmacokinetic analyses of the anti-CTLA4 antibody tremelimumab administered as a one hour infusion.

BACKGROUND: CTLA4 blocking monoclonal antibodies provide a low frequency but durable tumor responses in patients with metastatic melanoma, which led to the regulatory approval of ipilimumab based on two randomized clinical trials with overall survival advantage. The similarly fully human anti-CTLA4 antibody tremelimumab had been developed in the clinic at a fixed rate infusion, resulting in very prolonged infusion times. A new formulation of tremelimumab allowed testing a shorter infusion time. METHODS: A phase 1 multi-center study to establish the safety and tolerability of administering tremelimumab as a 1-hour infusion to patients with metastatic melanoma. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetic and clinical effects of tremelimumab. RESULTS: No grade 3 or greater infusion-related adverse events or other adverse events preventing the administration of the full tremelimumab dose were noted in 44 treated patients. The overall side effect profile was consistent with prior experiences with anti-CTLA4 antibodies. Objective tumor responses were noted in 11% of evaluable patients with metastatic melanoma, which is also consistent with the prior experience with CTLA4 antagonistic antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not identify any safety concerns when tremelimumab was administered as a 1-hour infusion. These data support further clinical testing of the 1-hour infusion of tremelimumab. (Clinical trial registration number NCT00585000).

CCR7 and CCR9 together recruit hematopoietic progenitors to the adult thymus.

T lymphopoiesis requires settling of the thymus by bone marrow-derived precursors throughout adult life. Progenitor entry into the thymus is selective, but the molecular basis of this selectivity is incompletely understood. The chemokine receptor CCR9 has been demonstrated to be important in this process. However, progenitors lacking CCR9 can still enter the thymus, suggesting a role for additional molecules. Here we report that the chemokine receptor CCR7 is also required for efficient thymic settling. CCR7 is selectively expressed on bone marrow progenitors previously shown to have the capacity to settle the thymus, and CCR7(-/-) progenitors are defective in settling the thymus. We further demonstrate that CCR7 sustains thymic settling in the absence of CCR9. Mice deficient for both CCR7 and CCR9 have severe reductions in the number of early thymic progenitors, and in competitive assays CCR7(-/-)CCR9(-/-) double knockout progenitors are almost completely restricted from thymic settling. However, these mice possess near-normal thymic cellularity. Compensatory expansion of intrathymic populations can account for at least a part of this recovery. Together our results illustrate the critical role of chemokine receptor signaling in thymic settling and help to clarify the cellular identity of the physiologic thymic settling progenitors.

A phase II study of 2-methoxyestradiol nanocrystal colloidal dispersion alone and in combination with sunitinib malate in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma progressing on sunitinib malate.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment for metastatic renal cell cancer with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have provided improved overall survival, but complete responses are rare. We conducted a multicenter phase II study to evaluate the objective response rate of 2-methoxyestradiol (2ME2 NCD) alone and in combination with sunitinib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on sunitinib alone. METHODS: Adults with metastatic kidney cancer were stratified depending on whether they were still taking sunitinib or had discontinued sunitinib therapy at the time of registration. Patients were treated with 2ME2 NCD alone or in combination with sunitinib. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. RESULTS: In total, 17 patients were enrolled, and 12 were evaluable for response (arm A, n = 7; arm b, n = 5). In arm A, four patients had the best response of stable disease, and three patients developed disease progression. In arm B, three patients had a best response of stable disease, and two patients had disease progression. One patient continued to receive treatment for a total of 14 cycles before developing disease progression. Fatigue was the most common observed toxicities. Thirty five percent of patients required discontinuation of therapy secondary to toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: 2ME2 NCD had minimal anti-tumor activity, with no observed objective responses. The study was terminated because 2ME2 NCD was not found to be tolerable at the recommended phase 2 dose in this patient population. A newer 2ME2 analog is in development with a more favorable toxicity profile and increased potency.

Long-term progression-free survival of patients with metastatic melanoma or renal cell carcinoma following high-dose interleukin-2.

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) was approved in the 1990s after demonstrating durable complete responses (CRs) in some patients with metastatic melanoma (mM) and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients who achieve this level of disease control have also demonstrated improved survival compared with patients who progress, but limited data are available describing the long-term course. The aim of this study was to better characterize long-term survival following successful HD IL-2 treatment in patients with no subsequent systemic therapy. Eleven HD IL-2 treatment centers identified patients with survival ≥5 years after HD IL-2, with no subsequent systemic therapy. Survival was evaluated from the date of IL-2 treatment to June 2017. Treatment courses consisted of 2 1-week cycles of HD IL-2. Patients were treated with HD IL-2 alone, or HD IL-2 followed by local therapy to achieve maximal response. 100 patients are reported: 54 patients with mM and 46 patients with mRCC. Progression-free survival (PFS) after HD IL-2 ranges from 5+ years to 30+ years, with a median follow-up of 10+ years. 27 mRCC and 32 mM are alive ≥10 years after IL-2. Thus, a small subset of patients with mM and mRCC achieve long-term PFS (≥5 years) after treatment with HD IL-2 as their only systemic therapy. The ability of HD IL-2 therapy to induce prolonged PFS should be a major consideration in studies of new immunotherapy combinations for mM and mRCC.

Tissue based biomarkers in non-clear cell RCC: Correlative analysis from the ASPEN clinical trial.

Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC), particularly papillary renal cell carcinoma, in order to inform on initial treatment selection and identify potentially novel targets for therapy. We enrolled 108 patients in ASPEN, an international randomized open-label phase 2 trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC treated with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (n=57) or the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitor sunitinib (n=51), stratified by MSKCC risk and histology. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary efficacy endpoints for this exploratory biomarker analysis were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) defined by intention-to-treat using the RECIST 1.1 criteria and radiographic response rates. Tissue biomarkers (n=78) of mTOR pathway activation (phospho-S6 and -Akt, c-kit) and VEGF pathway activation (HIF-1α, c-MET) were prospectively explored in tumor tissue by immunohistochemistry prior to treatment and associated with clinical outcomes. We found that S6 activation was more common in poor risk NC-RCC tumors and S6/Akt activation was associated with worse PFS and OS outcomes with both everolimus and sunitinib, while c-kit was commonly expressed in chromophobe tumors and associated with improved outcomes with both agents. C-MET was commonly expressed in papillary tumors and was associated with lower rates of radiographic response but did not predict PFS for either agent. In multivariable analysis, both pAkt and c-kit were statistically significant prognostic biomarkers of OS. No predictive biomarkers of treatment response were identified for clinical outcomes. Most biomarker subgroups had improved outcomes with sunitinib as compared to everolimus.

Angiokines Associated with Targeted Therapy Outcomes in Patients with Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: We enrolled 108 patients, 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus; of these, 99 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 94 PFS and 64 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), TIMP-1, thrombospondin-2 (TSP-2), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 (SDF-1) was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine-treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. Angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2), CD-73, HER-3, HGF, IL6, OPN, PIGF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, SDF-1, TGF-b1-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VCAM-1, VEGF, and VEGF-R1 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while CD-73, ICAM-1, IL6, OPN, PlGF, SDF-1, TGF-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VEGF, VEGF-D, and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.