Prognostic and predictive value of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected high-risk stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Pain is common in patients with cancer. The World Health Organisation recommends paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild pain and combined with other agents for moderate/severe pain. This study estimated associations of NSAIDs with recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in high-risk patients with resected melanoma in the EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AJCC7 stage IIIA, IIIB or IIIC resected melanoma were randomized to receive 200 mg of adjuvant pembrolizumab (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) 3-weekly for one year or until recurrence. As previously reported, pembrolizumab prolonged RFS and DMFS. NSAID use was defined as administration between 7 days pre-randomization and starting treatment. Multivariable Cox and Fine and Gray models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for associations of NSAIDs with RFS, DMFS and irAEs. RESULTS: Of 1019 patients randomized, 59 and 44 patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively, used NSAIDs. NSAIDs were not associated with RFS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.43) or DMFS in the pembrolizumab (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65-1.66) or placebo arms (for RFS, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48-1.20; for DMFS, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.31). NSAIDs were associated with the incidence of irAEs in the placebo arm (HR 3.06, 95% CI 1.45-6.45) but not in the pembrolizumab arm (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.58-1.53). CONCLUSION: NSAIDs were not associated with efficacy outcomes nor the risk of irAEs in patients with resected high-risk stage III melanoma receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab.

An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the lived experience of people with multimorbidity in low- and middle-income countries.

People living with multimorbidity (PLWMM) have multiple needs and require long-term personalised care, which necessitates an integrated people-centred approach to healthcare. However, people-centred care may risk being a buzzword in global health and cannot be achieved unless we consider and prioritise the lived experience of the people themselves. This study captures the lived experiences of PLWMM in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by exploring their perspectives, experiences, and aspirations.We analysed 50 semi-structured interview responses from 10 LMICs across three regions-South Asia, Latin America, and Western Africa-using an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach.The bodily, social, and system experiences of illness by respondents were multidirectional and interactive, and largely captured the complexity of living with multimorbidity. Despite expensive treatments, many experienced little improvements in their conditions and felt that healthcare was not tailored to their needs. Disease management involved multiple and fragmented healthcare providers with lack of guidance, resulting in repetitive procedures, loss of time, confusion, and frustration. Financial burden was exacerbated by lost productivity and extreme finance coping strategies, creating a vicious cycle. Against the backdrop of uncertainty and disruption due to illness, many demonstrated an ability to cope with their conditions and navigate the healthcare system. Respondents' priorities were reflective of their desire to return to a pre-illness way of life-resuming work, caring for family, and maintaining a sense of independence and normalcy despite illness. Respondents had a wide range of needs that required financial, health education, integrated care, and mental health support.In discussion with respondents on outcomes, it appeared that many have complementary views about what is important and relevant, which may differ from the outcomes established by clinicians and researchers. This knowledge needs to complement and be incorporated into existing research and treatment models to ensure healthcare remains focused on the human and our evolving needs.

Individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected melanoma (KEYNOTE-942): a randomised, phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors are standard adjuvant treatment for stage IIB-IV resected melanoma, but many patients recur. Our study aimed to evaluate whether mRNA-4157 (V940), a novel mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy, combined with pembrolizumab, improved recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected high-risk melanoma. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2b, adjuvant study of mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients, enrolled from sites in the USA and Australia, with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma. Patients with completely resected melanoma (stage IIIB-IV) were assigned 2:1 to receive open-label mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy. mRNA-4157 was administered intramuscularly (maximum nine doses) and pembrolizumab intravenously (maximum 18 doses) in 3-week cycles. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03897881. FINDINGS: From July 18, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 157 patients were assigned to mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab combination therapy (n=107) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=50); median follow-up was 23 months and 24 months, respectively. Recurrence-free survival was longer with combination versus monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence or death, 0·561 [95% CI 0·309-1·017]; two-sided p=0·053), with lower recurrence or death event rate (24 [22%] of 107 vs 20 [40%] of 50); 18-month recurrence-free survival was 79% (95% CI 69·0-85·6) versus 62% (46·9-74·3). Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the monotherapy group, with no mRNA-4157-related grade 4-5 events. Immune-mediated adverse event frequency was similar for the combination (37 [36%]) and monotherapy (18 [36%]) groups. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with resected high-risk melanoma and showed a manageable safety profile. These results provide evidence that an mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy might be beneficial in the adjuvant setting. FUNDING: Moderna in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

The features and management of acquired resistance to PD1-based therapy in metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (PD1) either alone or with anti-CTLA-4 (CTLA4), has high initial response rates, however 20% of patients (pts) with complete response (CR) and 30% with partial response (PR) within 12 months of treatment experience subsequent disease progression by 6 years. The nature and optimal management of this acquired resistance (AR) remains unknown. METHODS: Pts from 16 centres who responded to PD1-based therapy and who later progressed were examined. Demographics, disease characteristics and subsequent treatments were evaluated. RESULTS: 299 melanoma pts were identified, median age 64y, 44% BRAFV600m. 172 (58%) received PD1 alone, 114 (38%) PD1/CTLA4 and 13 (4%) PD1 and an investigational drug. 90 (30%) pts had CR, 209 (70%) PR. Median time to AR was 12.6 mo (95% CI, 11.3, 14.2). Most (N = 193, 65%) progressed in a single organ site, and in a solitary lesion (N = 151, 51%). The most frequent sites were lymph nodes (38%) and brain (25%). Management at AR included systemic therapy (ST, 45%), local therapy (LT) +ST (31%), LT alone (21%), or observation (3%). There was no statistical difference in PFS2 or OS based on management, however, PFS2 was numerically superior for pts treated with ST alone who progressed off PD1 therapy than those who progressed on PD1 (2-year PFS2 42% versus 25%, p = 0.249). mOS from AR was 38.0 months (95% CI, 29.5-NR); longer in single-site versus multi-site progression (2-year OS 70% vs 54%, p < 0·001). CONCLUSIONS: Acquired resistance to PD1 therapy in melanoma is largely oligometastatic, and pts may have a favorable survival outcome following salvage treatment.

The role of diabetes in metastatic melanoma patients treated with nivolumab plus relatlimab.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nivolumab + relatlimab is superior to nivolumab alone in the treatment of naive patients and has activity in PD-1 refractory melanoma. We had previously observed a reduced expression of LAG3 in melanoma tissue from patients with type 2 diabetes. METHOD: To evaluate the impact of diabetes on oncological outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab plus the LAG3 inhibitor relatlimab we performed a retrospective multicenter study. RESULTS: Overall, 129 patients were included: 88 without diabetes before the treatment, 37 who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before the start of treatment, and 4 without diabetes before treatment who developed immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced diabetes (ICI-DM). PFS was 21.71 months (95% CI: 15.61-27.81) in patients without diabetes, 10.23 months (95% CI: 5.81-14.66) in patients with type 2 diabetes, and 50.85 months (95% CI: 23.04-78.65) in patients who developed ICI-DM. OS was 37.94 months (95% CI: 31.02-44.85) in patients without diabetes, 22.12 months (95% CI: 14.41-29.85) in those with type 2 diabetes and 57.64 months (95% CI: 42.29-72.99) in those who developed ICI-DM. Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of diabetes and LDH was correlated with OS and PFS. The mean OS was 64.63 months in subjects with low levels of glucose (< 137 mg/dl) and 36.27 months in those with high levels (hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04-0.58; p = 0.005). The patients whose glucose blood level increased after 3 months of treatment with nivolumab + relatinib compared to baseline (ratio of blood level at baseline/after 3 months > 1.5) had a worse prognosis than those whose glucose level had not increased. This result was observed also in subgroups treated either in first line or further lines. Patients who developed ICI-DM during the study period had better outcomes than the overall population and patients without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: LAG3 inhibition for treating metastatic or unresectable melanoma has a reduced efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes, possibly due to a low expression of LAG3 in tumor tissue. Higher level evidence should be obtained.

Long-term outcomes and persistent toxicities following BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy for advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that approximately 20% of patients have 4-5 year progression free survival (PFS) on BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The long-term safety and efficacy in these patients with more durable responses have not been studied. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study assessed response, progression, and adverse events in patients from eight institutions in four countries with >4-year PFS following BRAF/MEK inhibitors. RESULTS: Among 146 patients, 112 (76.7%) remained progression-free at median follow-up of 7.8 years from treatment start; 131 (89.7%) were alive. Among progressors (n = 34), 21 (62%) were on treatment at progression. Among those who discontinued treatment for reasons other than progression (toxicity, preference, etc.) (n = 68, with median 49 months treatment duration), 13 (19%) progressed (median 15.3 months from treatment cessation to progression). Surgery or radiation for single-organ progression resulted in durable benefit in 11 of 22 patients (50%). Subsequent systemic therapy included immune therapy (24% responded) and BRAF/MEK rechallenge (56% responded). Thirteen (8.9%) patients had ongoing toxicities at last follow-up, 10 (77%) of which remained on active treatment; all cardiac adverse events had resolved (n = 9). Twenty-four (16.4%) patients developed any new primary cancer, and 28 (19%) patients experienced other major health events. CONCLUSIONS: Over 75% of patients with 4-year PFS from BRAF/MEK inhibitors had continued durable antitumor responses after nearly 8-year median follow-up, with similar results in patients who discontinued therapy for reasons other than progression. Long-term toxicities were uncommon and low-grade. These findings highlight the often-favourable outcomes in patients with extended benefit from BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

Circulating Tumor DNA: A Promising Biomarker for Predicting Recurrence in Patients with BRAF-Negative Melanoma.

For patients with BRAF wild-type stage III and IV melanoma, there is an urgent clinical need to identify prognostic biomarkers and biomarkers predictive of treatment response. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is emerging as a blood-based biomarker and has shown promising results for many cancers, including melanoma. The purpose of this study was to identify targetable, tumor-derived mutations in patient blood that may lead to treatment alternatives and improved outcomes for patients with BRAF-negative melanoma. Using a CAncer Personalized Profiling by deep Sequencing (CAPP-seq) pan-cancer gene panel, ctDNA from 150 plasma samples (n = 106 patients) was assessed, including serial blood collections for a subset of patients (n = 16). ctDNA variants were detected in 85% of patients, all in targetable pathways, such as vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT, Bcl2/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), ALK/MET, and cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6. Patients with stage IV melanoma with low ctDNA concentrations, <10 ng/mL, had significantly better disease-specific survival and progression-free survival. Patients with both a high concentration of ctDNA and any detectable ctDNA variants had the worst prognosis. In addition, these results indicated that longitudinal changes in ctDNA correlated with treatment response and disease progression determined by radiology. This study confirms that ctDNA may be used as a noninvasive liquid biopsy to identify recurrent disease and detect targetable variants in patients with late-stage melanoma.

Supportive care needs in Australian melanoma patients and caregivers: results from a quantitative cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the supportive care needs of Australian melanoma patients and their caregivers to form the basis for improving services. METHODS: General and melanoma-related supportive care needs in melanoma patients were measured using the SCNS-SF34 and SCNS-M12 respectively, whereas caregivers completed the SCNS-P&C. Patients also completed the MCQ-28 and FCRI-9, with all participants completing the QLQ-C30, DASS-21, and questions measuring utilisation and preference for supportive health services. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with unmet needs in melanoma patients. RESULTS: A total of 56 early-stage patients, 100 advanced-stage patients, and 37 caregivers participated. At least three-quarters ([Formula: see text] 75%) of each participant group reported at least one unmet need. Of the ten most reported unmet needs in each participant group, at least six ([Formula: see text] 60%) were related to psychological and emotional well-being, with access to a psychologist the most desired service (> 25%). Fear of cancer recurrence was equally prevalent in both patient groups at a level indicative of need for intervention. Advanced-stage patients reported significantly (p < 0.05) more unmet psychological, physical and daily living, and sexuality needs, and significantly (p < 0.05) worse functioning than early-stage patients. CONCLUSION: Australian melanoma patients and caregivers report substantial unmet supportive care needs, particularly regarding their psychological and emotional well-being. Psychological and emotional well-being services, such as access to a clinical psychologist or implementation of patient-reported outcome measures, should be incorporated into routine melanoma care to address unmet patient and caregiver needs and improve well-being.

Prognostic and predictive value of metformin in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 phase III trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected high-risk stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is a commonly prescribed and well-tolerated medication. In laboratory studies, metformin suppresses BRAF wild-type melanoma cells but accelerates the growth of BRAF-mutated cells. This study investigated the prognostic and predictive value of metformin, including with respect to BRAF mutation status, in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with resected high-risk stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma received 200 mg of pembrolizumab (n = 514) or placebo (n = 505) every 3 weeks for twelve months. Pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) at approximately 42 months median follow-up (Eggermont et al., TLO, 2021). Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate associations of metformin with RFS and DMFS. Interaction terms were used to model effect modification by treatment and BRAF mutation. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (0.5%) used metformin at baseline. Metformin was not significantly associated with RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.45) and DMFS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.47-1.44). The interaction between metformin and the treatment arm was not significant for either RFS (p = 0.92) or DMFS (p = 0.93). Among patients with mutated BRAF, the association of metformin with RFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.37-1.33) was greater in magnitude though not significantly different to those without mutated BRAF (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.56-1.69). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant impact of metformin use on pembrolizumab efficacy in resected high-risk stage III melanoma. However, larger studies or pooled analyses are needed, particularly to explore a possible effect of metformin in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Health-related quality of life in patients with melanoma brain metastases treated with immunotherapy.

Aims: To describe the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) patients throughout the first 18 weeks of ipilimumab-nivolumab or nivolumab treatment. Materials & methods: HRQoL data (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Core Quality of Life Questionnaire, additional Brain Neoplasm Module, and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level Questionnaire) were collected as a secondary outcome of the Anti-PD1 Brain Collaboration phase II trial. Mixed linear modeling assessed changes over time, whereas the Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine median time to first deterioration. Results: Asymptomatic MBM patients treated with ipilimumab-nivolumab (n = 33) or nivolumab (n = 24) maintained baseline HRQoL. MBM patients with symptoms or leptomeningeal/progressive disease treated with nivolumab (n = 14) reported a statistically significant trend toward improvement. Conclusion: MBM patients treated with either ipilimumab-nivolumab or nivolumab did not report a significant deterioration in HRQoL within 18 weeks of treatment initiation. Clinical trial registration: NCT02374242 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Historically, people whose melanoma had spread to the brain (known as brain metastases) lived only 4­6 months after diagnosis, with less than 15% alive at 12 months. However, the development of immunotherapies such as nivolumab and ipilimumab to treat advanced melanoma has resulted in more than 50% of patients being alive 5 years after diagnosis. With the effectiveness of these immunotherapies demonstrated in clinical trials, we wanted to examine the impact of these treatments on the health-related quality of life of people with melanoma brain metastases. Using data from a clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of immunotherapies in people diagnosed with melanoma brain metastases, this study investigated the impact of nivolumab and nivolumab combined with ipilimumab on quality of life. We found that neither nivolumab alone nor nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had a negative effect on quality of life. In summary, this study provides further support for the use of these immunotherapies as first-line treatment for melanoma brain metastases.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results from CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

Case series: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced transverse myelitis.

Introduction: Increasing implementation of the highly efficacious immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has raised awareness of their various complications in the form of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Transverse myelitis following ICIs is thought to be a rare but serious neurologic irAE and knowledge is limited about this distinct clinical entity. Cases: We describe four patients across three tertiary centers in Australia with ICI-induced transverse myelitis. Three patients had a diagnosis of stage III-IV melanoma treated with nivolumab and one patient had stage IV non-small cell lung cancer treated with pembrolizumab. All patients had longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) spine and clinical presentation was accompanied by inflammatory cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings. Half of our cohort had received spinal radiotherapy, with the areas of transverse myelitis extending beyond the level of previous radiation field. Inflammatory changes on neuroimaging did not extend to the brain parenchyma or caudal nerve roots, except for one case involving the conus medullaris. All patients received high dose glucocorticoids as first-line therapy, however the majority relapsed or had a refractory state (3/4) despite this, requiring escalation of their immunomodulation, with either induction intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or plasmapheresis. Patients in our cohort who relapsed had a poorer outcome with more severe disability and reduced functional independence following resolution of their myelitis. Two patients had no progression of their malignancy and two patients had malignancy progression. Of the three patients who survived, two had resolution of their neurological symptoms and one remained symptomatic. Conclusion: We propose that prompt intensive immunomodulation is favored for patients with ICI-transverse myelitis in an attempt to reduce associated significant morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, there is a significant risk of relapse following cessation of immunomodulatory therapy. We suggest one treatment approach of IVMP and induction IVIg for all patients presenting with ICI-induced transverse myelitis based on such findings. With the increasing use of ICIs across oncology, further studies are required to explore this neurological phenomenon in greater detail to help establish management consensus guidelines.

Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma That Had Progressed on Anti-Programmed Death-1/Programmed Death Ligand 1 Therapy: Results From the Phase I/IIa RELATIVITY-020 Trial.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab and relatlimab activity in advanced melanoma with prior progression on anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-(L)1)-containing regimens is under investigation. RELATIVITY-047 demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for nivolumab and relatlimab over nivolumab in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS: The phase I/IIa, open-label RELATIVITY-020 trial part D assessed efficacy and safety of nivolumab and relatlimab in advanced melanoma with progression during, or within 3 months of, 1 (D1) or ≥ 1 (D2) anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimens. Safety was a primary end point. Objective response rate (coprimary end point) and PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) were assessed. RESULTS: Five hundred eighteen patients (D1 = 354; D2 = 164) received nivolumab and relatlimab. Among evaluable patients, the objective response rate by BICR was 12.0% (95% CI, 8.8 to 15.8) in D1 (n = 351) and 9.2% (95% CI, 5.2 to 14.7) in D2 (n = 163). Responses appeared to be enriched among patients with tumors expressing programmed death ligand 1 or lymphocyte activation gene 3; however, responses were observed regardless of programmed death ligand 1 and lymphocyte activation gene 3 expression (1%). The median duration of response was not reached (95% CI, 12.9 to not reached) in D1 and 12.8 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.9) in D2. The median PFS by BICR was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.5) in D1 and 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.6) in D2; the 6-month PFS rate was 29.1% (95% CI, 24.2 to 34.1) and 27.7% (95% CI, 20.5 to 35.4), respectively. The grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event incidence was 15.0% in D1 and 12.8% in D2. One case of grade 3 myocarditis and no treatment-related deaths occurred across part D. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab and relatlimab had a manageable safety profile and demonstrated durable clinical activity in a proportion of patients with heavily pretreated advanced melanoma with prior progression on anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimens.[Media: see text].

Resolution of Melanoma to Programmed Death-1 Blockade but Simultaneous Rapid Progression of Concomitant Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

Here, we present a novel case of a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who received CTLA-4 and then PD-1 immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) as treatment for concomitant metastatic melanoma. Whereas the metastatic melanoma was responsive to ICB, the CLL rapidly progressed (but responded to ICB cessation and ibrutinib). There were no new genetic mutational drivers to explain the altered clinical course. PD-1/PD-L1/PD-L2 and CTLA-4/CD80/CD86 expression was not increased in CLL B cells, CD8+ or CD4+ T-cell subsets, or monocytes. The patient's CLL B cells demonstrated strikingly prolonged in vitro survival during PD-1 blockade, which was not observed in samples taken before or after ICB, or with other patients. To our knowledge, a discordant clinical course to ICB coupled with these biological features has not been reported in a patient with dual malignancies.

BRAF inhibitor cessation prior to disease progression in metastatic melanoma: Long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: BRAF mutant melanoma treated with BRAF ± MEK inhibitor (targeted therapy) has a high response rate; however, most patients progress (PD). Some patients have durable response, but it is unknown whether treatment can be discontinued in these patients. We describe the recurrence risk, progression patterns, response to subsequent treatment, and survival of patients with advanced melanoma who ceased targeted therapy prior to PD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients who ceased targeted therapy without progression were identified retrospectively from 11 centres: 45 were male; 81 V600E; 88 stage IV. Fifty-nine were treated with BRAF + MEK inhibitor, and 35 were treated with BRAF inhibitor alone. Median treatment duration was 29.6 months (range 0.36-77.9). At cessation, 67 were in complete response, 21 in partial response, and 2 stable disease. RESULTS: After median follow-up from cessation of 42.9 months (range 0.0-88.7), 36 (38%) progressed; median time to progression was 4.7 months (range 0.7-56.9); 30 (83%) were asymptomatic and 7 (19%) had new brain metastases. Progression rates did not differ by best response: 34% for complete response and 43% for partial response (P = 0.65). Treatment duration was strongly associated with risk of progression: Median treatment duration was 18.3 (range 0.85-65.7) months for those who progressed and 34.6 (range 0.36-77.9) months for those who did not (P = 0.0004). Twenty-two received further targeted therapy with 15 (68%) responses. CONCLUSION: Risk of progression after cessation of targeted therapy is strongly associated with treatment duration. Response to retreatment with targeted therapy is high.

Phase 1b study of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma progressing on prior anti-programmed death-1 therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with advanced BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma who had progressed on prior anti‒programmed death-1 (PD-1) therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase 1b, open-label, international multicentre study enrolled 3 cohorts. Herein, we report on patients in cohorts A and B who had progressed on prior anti‒PD-1 therapy. Patients in cohort A received cobimetinib 60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day break and concurrent intravenous atezolizumab 840 mg every 2 weeks. Patients in cohort B received the same dosing regimen as cohort A except for cycle 1 in which patients received cobimetinib only for the first 14 days prior to initiation of atezolizumab on cycle 1 day 15. Coprimary end-points were objective response rate and disease control rate. Secondary end-points were duration of response, progression free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Between 19th June 2017 and 12th December 2018, 103 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 6.9 months (interquartile range, 4.8-10.1 months); objective response rate was 14.6% and disease control rate was 38.8% (95% confidence interval, 29.39-48.94). The median duration of response, progression-free survival and overall survival was 12.7 months, 3.8 months and 14.7 months, respectively. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (75/103; 72.8%), dermatitis acneiform (57/103; 55.3%) and nausea (52/103; 50.5%). Thirty-four patients (33.0%) died: 33 (91.7%) due to progressive disease and one (1%) due to treatment-related oesophagitis. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with advanced BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma with disease progression on or after prior anti‒PD-1 therapy demonstrated limited activity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03178851.

Phase II LEAP-004 Study of Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab for Melanoma With Confirmed Progression on a Programmed Cell Death Protein-1 or Programmed Death Ligand 1 Inhibitor Given as Monotherapy or in Combination.

PURPOSE: Effective treatments are needed for melanoma that progresses on inhibitors of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1). We conducted the phase II LEAP-004 study to evaluate the combination of the multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib and the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in this population (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03776136). METHODS: Eligible patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma with confirmed progressive disease (PD) within 12 weeks of the last dose of a PD-1/L1 inhibitor given alone or with other therapies, including cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, received lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus ≤ 35 doses of pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST, version 1.1, by independent central review. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were enrolled and treated. The median study follow-up was 15.3 months. ORR in the total population was 21.4% (95% CI, 13.9 to 30.5), with three (2.9%) complete responses and 19 (18.4%) partial responses. The median duration of response was 8.3 months (range, 3.2-15.9+). ORR was 33.3% in the 30 patients with PD on prior anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 therapy. The median progression-free survival and overall survival in the total population were 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.1) and 14.0 months (95% CI, 10.8 to not reached), respectively. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (45.6%) patients, most commonly hypertension (21.4%); one patient died from a treatment-related event (decreased platelet count). CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab provides clinically meaningful, durable responses in patients with advanced melanoma with confirmed PD on prior PD-1/L1 inhibitor-based therapy, including those with PD on anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 therapy. The safety profile was as expected. These data support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a potential regimen for this population of high unmet need.

Adjuvant Therapy of Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab Versus Nivolumab Alone in Patients With Resected Stage IIIB-D or Stage IV Melanoma (CheckMate 915).

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab and nivolumab have each shown treatment benefit for high-risk resected melanoma. The phase III CheckMate 915 trial evaluated adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with resected stage IIIB-D or IV melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 1,833 patients received nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks (916 patients) or nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (917 patients) for ≤ 1 year. After random assignment, patients were stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and stage. Dual primary end points were recurrence-free survival (RFS) in randomly assigned patients and in the tumor PD-L1 expression-level < 1% subgroup. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of approximately 23.7 months, there was no significant difference between treatment groups for RFS in the all-randomly assigned patient population (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.09; P = .269) or in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1% (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14). In all patients, 24-month RFS rates were 64.6% (combination) and 63.2% (nivolumab). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 32.6% of patients in the combination group and 12.8% in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 0.4% of patients in the combination group and in no nivolumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks did not improve RFS versus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with stage IIIB-D or stage IV melanoma. Nivolumab showed efficacy consistent with previous adjuvant studies in a population resembling current practice using American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition, reaffirming nivolumab as a standard of care for melanoma adjuvant treatment.

Neurological adverse effects associated with anti-PD1 antibodies alone or in combination with ipilimumab: a multicenter case series.

Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) antibodies, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, alone or in combination with ipilimumab, have become standard treatment for melanoma and multiple other malignancies. Neurological adverse effects are rare and have not been well characterized to date. Patients who developed neurological adverse effects while being treated with PD1, alone or in combination with ipilimumab, were retrospectively identified from 10 cancer centers. Fifty-eight patients were included, and the median time from treatment initiation to development of neurological adverse effects was 7 weeks (range, 1-86.5 weeks). Thirty-seven (64%) toxicities affected the peripheral nervous system. Fifty (86%) patients were treated with corticosteroids, with 22 (37%) patients requiring further immunomodulation including intravenous immunoglobulin (16), plasmapheresis (7), mycophenolate mofetil (4), cyclophosphamide (1), and rituximab (1). Twenty-seven (46%) had a complete resolution of their neurological symptoms, and two (4%) patients died secondary to complications from their neurological adverse effects. The response rate of the cancer to immunotherapy was 78%, and the median progression free survival was not reached. Neurological adverse effects can occur with PD1 treatment, do not appear to impact treatment response, but may be irreversible or worsen in some patients. Management may require immunomodulation beyond corticosteroids.

Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab (CheckMate 238 trial): Reassessment of 4-year efficacy outcomes in patients with stage III melanoma per AJCC-8 staging criteria.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma based on data from CheckMate 238, which enrolled patients per American Joint Committee on Cancer version 7 (AJCC-7) criteria. Here, we analyse long-term outcomes per AJCC-8 staging criteria compared with AJCC-7 results to inform clinical decisions for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a double-blind, phase 3 trial (NCT02388906), patients aged ≥15 years with resected, histologically confirmed AJCC-7 stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma were randomised to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously ≤1 year. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed in patients with stage III disease, per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8. RESULTS: Per AJCC-7 staging, 42.4% and 57.3% of patients were in substage IIIB and IIIC, respectively; per AJCC-8, 1.1%, 30.4%, 62.8%, and 5.0% were in IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IIID. After 4 years' minimum follow-up, the AJCC-7 superior efficacy of nivolumab over ipilimumab in patients with resected stage III melanoma was preserved per AJCC-8 analysis. No statistically significant difference in RFS between stage III substage hazard ratios was observed per AJCC-7 or -8 staging criteria (interaction test: AJCC-7, P = 0.8115; AJCC-8, P = 0.1051; P = 0.8392 ((AJCC-7) and P = 0.8678 (AJCC-8) for DMFS). CONCLUSIONS: CheckMate 238 4-year RFS and DMFS outcomes are consistent per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging criteria. Outcome benefits can therefore be translated for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8.