Metastatic Melanoma Treatment in Special Populations.

ABSTRACT: This review outlines the most up-to-date metastatic melanoma treatment recommendations and relevant risks for patients with solid organ transplants, patients with renal dysfunction, and patients with preexisting autoimmune conditions. These specific treatment populations were excluded from the original clinical trials, which studied immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the advanced melanoma setting. We have synthesized the current body of literature, mainly case series and retrospective analyses, to reflect the evidence for the treatment of these special patient populations at present.

Outcomes of patients with resected stage III/IV acral or mucosal melanoma, treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 based therapy.

IMPORTANCE: Acral (AM) and mucosal melanomas (MM) are rare subtypes with a poor prognosis. In those with advanced disease, anti-PD-1 (PD1) therapy has reduced activity compared to that seen in non-acral cutaneous melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 in resected AM or MM. DESIGN: An international, retrospective cohort study SETTING: Data up to November 2021 collected from 20 centres across 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety four patients with resected stage III or IV1 AM or MM who received adjuvant PD1 were included and compared to matched patients from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database using a propensity score matching analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated. RESULTS: Forty five of 139 (32%) AM and 9 of 55 (16%) MM patients completed adjuvant therapy. The main reason for early treatment cessation in both groups was disease recurrence: 51 (37%) and 30 (55%) in the AM and MM groups, respectively. In the AM group adjuvant PD1 was associated with a longer RFS [HR-0.69 (0.52-0.92, p = 0.0127)], DMFS [HR0.58 (0.38-0.89, p = 0.0134)] and OS [HR of 0.59 (0.38-0.92, p-value 0.0196)] when compared to the historical cohort. In the MM group there was no statistical difference in RFS [HR1.36 (0.69-2.68,p-value 0.3799], DMFS or OS. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: After adjuvant PD1, both AM and MM have a high risk of recurrence. Our data suggests a benefit to using adjuvant PD1 therapy in resected AM but not in resected MM. Additional studies to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 for MM are needed.

Extended Follow-Up of Chronic Immune-Related Adverse Events Following Adjuvant Anti-PD-1 Therapy for High-Risk Resected Melanoma.

Importance: Anti-programmable cell death-1 (anti-PD-1) improves relapse-free survival when used as adjuvant therapy for high-risk resected melanoma. However, it can lead to immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which become chronic in approximately 40% of patients with high-risk melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1. Objective: To determine the incidence, characteristics, and long-term outcomes of chronic irAEs from adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective multicenter cohort study analyzed patients treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy for advanced and metastatic melanoma between 2015 and 2022 from 6 institutions in the US and Australia with at least 18 months of evaluable follow-up after treatment cessation (range, 18.2 to 70.4 months). Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence, spectrum, and ultimate resolution vs persistence of chronic irAEs (defined as those persisting at least 3 months after therapy cessation). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier curves assessed survival, and Wilson score intervals were used to calculate CIs for proportions. Results: Among 318 patients, 190 (59.7%) were male (median [IQR] age, 61 [52.3-72.0] years), 270 (84.9%) had a cutaneous primary, and 237 (74.5%) were stage IIIB or IIIC at presentation. Additionally, 226 patients (63.7%) developed acute irAEs arising during treatment, including 44 (13.8%) with grade 3 to 5 irAEs. Chronic irAEs, persisting at least 3 months after therapy cessation, developed in 147 patients (46.2%; 95% CI, 0.41-0.52), of which 74 (50.3%) were grade 2 or more, 6 (4.1%) were grade 3 to 5, and 100 (68.0%) were symptomatic. With long-term follow-up (median [IQR], 1057 [915-1321] days), 54 patients (36.7%) experienced resolution of chronic irAEs (median [IQR] time to resolution of 19.7 [14.4-31.5] months from anti-PD-1 start and 11.2 [8.1-20.7] months from anti-PD-1 cessation). Among patients with persistent irAEs present at last follow-up (93 [29.2%] of original cohort; 95% CI, 0.25-0.34); 55 (59.1%) were grade 2 or more; 41 (44.1%) were symptomatic; 24 (25.8%) were using therapeutic systemic steroids (16 [67%] of whom were on replacement steroids for hypophysitis (8 [50.0%]) and adrenal insufficiency (8 [50.0%]), and 42 (45.2%) were using other management. Among the 54 patients, the most common persistent chronic irAEs were hypothyroid (38 [70.4%]), arthritis (18 [33.3%]), dermatitis (9 [16.7%]), and adrenal insufficiency (8 [14.8%]). Furthermore, 54 [17.0%] patients experienced persistent endocrinopathies, 48 (15.1%) experienced nonendocrinopathies, and 9 (2.8%) experienced both. Of 37 patients with chronic irAEs who received additional immunotherapy, 25 (67.6%) experienced no effect on chronic irAEs whereas 12 (32.4%) experienced a flare in their chronic toxicity. Twenty patients (54.1%) experienced a distinct irAE. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 318 patients who received adjuvant anti-PD-1, chronic irAEs were common, affected diverse organ systems, and often persisted with long-term follow-up requiring steroids and additional management. These findings highlight the likelihood of persistent toxic effects when considering adjuvant therapies and need for long-term monitoring and management.

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.

A phase I trial of riluzole and sorafenib in patients with advanced solid tumors: CTEP #8850.

BACKGROUND: Overexpression of metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 (GRM1) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of multiple cancers. Riluzole, an inhibitor of glutamate release, showed synergistic antitumor activity in combination with the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib in preclinical models. This phase I trial identified the toxicity profile, dose-limiting toxicities, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of riluzole combined with sorafenib in patients with advanced cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with refractory solid tumors were enrolled utilizing a 3+3 dose-escalation design. Riluzole was given at 100 mg PO BID in combination with sorafenib, beginning at 200 mg PO daily and escalating in 200 mg increments per level in 28-day cycles. Restaging evaluations were performed every 2 cycles. RESULTS: 35 patients were enrolled over 4 dose levels. The MTD was declared at dose level 3 (riluzole: 100 mg PO BID; sorafenib: 400 mg AM/200 mg PM). Pharmacokinetic analyses did not reveal definitive evidence of drug-drug interactions. Consistent decreases in phospho-forms of ERK and AKT in tumor tissue analyses with accompanying decrease in GRM1 expression and increase in pro-apoptotic BIM suggest target engagement by the combination. Best responses included a partial response in 1 (2.9%) patient with pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma with a KANK4-RAF1 fusion, and stable disease in 11 (36%) patients. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with riluzole and sorafenib was safe and tolerable in patients with advanced solid tumors. The partial response in a patient with a RAF1 fusion suggests that further exploration in a genomically selected cohort may be warranted.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2022, Naples, December 1st-3rd, 2022.

The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1-3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate.

A phase Ib study of interleukin-2 plus pembrolizumab for patients with advanced melanoma.

Introduction: High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) and pembrolizumab are each approved as single agents by the U.S. F.D.A. for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. There is limited data using the agents concurrently. The objectives of this study were to characterize the safety profile of IL-2 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Methods: In this Phase Ib study, patients received pembrolizumab (200 mg IV every 3 weeks) and escalating doses of IL-2 (6,000 or 60,000 or 600,000 IU/kg IV bolus every 8 hours up to 14 doses per cycle) in cohorts of 3 patients. Prior treatment with a PD-1 blocking antibody was allowed. The primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IL-2 when co-administered with pembrolizumab. Results: Ten participants were enrolled, and 9 participants were evaluable for safety and efficacy. The majority of the evaluable participants (8/9) had been treated with PD-1 blocking antibody prior to enrollment. Patients received a median of 42, 22, and 9 doses of IL-2 in the low, intermediate, and high dose cohorts, respectively. Adverse events were more frequent with increasing doses of IL-2. No dose limiting toxicities were observed. The MTD of IL-2 was not reached. One partial response occurred in 9 patients (11%). The responding patient, who had received treatment with an anti-PD-1 prior to study entry, was treated in the HD IL-2 cohort. Discussion: Although the sample size was small, HD IL-2 therapy in combination with pembrolizumab appears feasible and tolerable. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02748564.

Expanding access to early phase trials: the CATCH-UP.2020 experience.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer outcomes persist for underserved populations; one important aspect of this is limited access to promising early phase clinical trials. To address this, the National Cancer Institute-funded Create Access to Targeted Cancer Therapy for Underserved Populations (CATCH-UP.2020) was created. We report the tools developed and accrual metrics of the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020 with a focus on racial, ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomically underserved populations. METHODS: CATCH-UP.2020 is a P30 supplement awarded to 8 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers with existing resources to rapidly open and accrue to Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) trials with emphasis on engaging patients from underserved populations. Sites used patient-based, community-based, investigator-based, and program-based tools to meet specific program goals. RESULTS: From September 2020 to August 2021, CATCH-UP.2020 sites opened 45 ETCTN trials. Weighted average trial activation time for the 7 sites reporting this was 107 days. In the initial year, sites enrolled 145 patients in CATCH-UP.2020 with 68 (46.9%) representing racial, ethnic, rural, and socioeconomically underserved populations using the broader definition of underserved encompassed in the grant charge. During the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020, a time impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, 15.8% (66 of 417) and 21.4% (31 of 145) of patients enrolled to ETCTN trials at network and at CATCH-UP sites, respectively, were from racial and ethnic minority groups, a more limited definition of underserved for which comparable data are available. CONCLUSION: Targeted funding accelerated activation and accrual of early phase trials and expanded access to this therapeutic option for underserved populations.

A phase 1b single-arm trial of intratumoral oncolytic virus V937 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma: results from the CAPRA study.

BACKGROUND: CAPRA (NCT02565992) evaluated Coxsackievirus A21 (V937) + pembrolizumab for metastatic/unresectable stage IIIB-IV melanoma. METHODS: Patients received intratumoral V937 on days 1, 3, 5, and 8 (then every 3 weeks [Q3W]) and intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Q3W from day 8. Primary endpoint was safety. RESULTS: Median time from first dose to data cutoff was 32.0 months. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred; 14% (5/36) of patients experienced grade 3‒5 treatment-related adverse events. Objective response rate was 47% (complete response, 22%). Among 17 responders, 14 (82%) had responses ≥ 6 months. Among 8 patients previously treated with immunotherapy, 3 responded (1 complete, 2 partial). Responses were associated with increased serum CXCL10 and CCL22, suggesting viral replication contributes to antitumor immunity. For responders versus nonresponders, there was no difference in baseline tumor PD-L1 expression, ICAM1 expression, or CD3+ infiltrates. Surprisingly, the baseline cell density of CD3+CD8- T cells in the tumor microenvironment was significantly lower in responders compared with nonresponders (P = 0.0179). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest responses to this combination may be seen even in patients without a typical "immune-active" microenvironment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02565992.

Genomic and Transcriptomic Analyses of NF1-Mutant Melanoma Identify Potential Targeted Approach for Treatment.

There is currently no targeted therapy to treat NF1-mutant melanomas. In this study, we compared the genomic and transcriptomic signatures of NF1-mutant and NF1 wild-type melanoma to reveal potential treatment targets for this subset of patients. Genomic alterations were verified using qPCR, and differentially expressed genes were independently validated using The Cancer Genome Atlas data and immunohistochemistry. Digital spatial profiling with multiplex immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence were used to validate the signatures. The efficacy of combinational regimens driven by these signatures was tested through in vitro assays using low-passage cell lines. Pathogenic NF1 mutations were identified in 27% of cases. NF1-mutant melanoma expressed higher proliferative markers MK167 and CDC20 than NF1 wild-type (P = 0.008), which was independently validated both in The Cancer Genome Atlas dataset (P = 0.01, P = 0.03) and with immunohistochemistry (P = 0.013, P = 0.036), respectively. Digital spatial profiling analysis showed upregulation of LY6E within the tumor cells (false discovery rate < 0.01, log2 fold change > 1), confirmed with multiplex immunofluorescence showing colocalization of LY6E in melanoma cells. The combination of MAPK/extracellular signal‒regulated kinase kinase and CDC20 coinhibition induced both cytotoxic and cytostatic effects, decreasing CDC20 expression in multiple NF1-mutant cell lines. In conclusion, NF1-mutant melanoma is associated with a distinct genomic and transcriptomic profile. Our data support investigating CDC20 inhibition with MAPK pathway inhibitors as a targeted regimen in this melanoma subtype.

First-in-human phase I/II, open-label study of the anti-OX40 agonist INCAGN01949 in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: OX40 is a costimulatory receptor upregulated on antigen-activated T cells and constitutively expressed on regulatory T cells (Tregs). INCAGN01949, a fully human immunoglobulin G1κ anti-OX40 agonist monoclonal antibody, was designed to promote tumor-specific immunity by effector T-cell activation and Fcγ receptor-mediated Treg depletion. This first-in-human study was conducted to determine the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of INCAGN01949. METHODS: Phase I/II, open-label, non-randomized, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study conducted in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Patients received INCAGN01949 monotherapy (7-1400 mg) in 14-day cycles while deriving benefit. Safety measures, clinical activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic effects were assessed and summarized with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were enrolled; most common tumor types were colorectal (17.2%), ovarian (8.0%), and non-small cell lung (6.9%) cancers. Patients received a median three (range 1-9) prior therapies, including immunotherapy in 24 patients (27.6%). Maximum tolerated dose was not reached; one patient (1.1%) receiving 350 mg dose reported dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 colitis. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 45 patients (51.7%), with fatigue (16 (18.4%)), rash (6 (6.9%)), and diarrhea (6 (6.9%)) being most frequent. One patient (1.1%) with metastatic gallbladder cancer achieved a partial response (duration of 6.3 months), and 23 patients (26.4%) achieved stable disease (lasting >6 months in one patient). OX40 receptor occupancy was maintained over 90% among all patients receiving doses of ≥200 mg, while no treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies were detected across all dose levels. Pharmacodynamic results demonstrated that treatment with INCAGN01949 did not enhance proliferation or activation of T cells in peripheral blood or reduce circulating Tregs, and analyses of tumor biopsies did not demonstrate any consistent increase in effector T-cell infiltration or function, or decrease in infiltrating Tregs. CONCLUSION: No safety concerns were observed with INCAGN01949 monotherapy in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors. However, tumor responses and pharmacodynamic effects on T cells in peripheral blood and post-therapy tumor biopsies were limited. Studies evaluating INCAGN01949 in combination with other therapies are needed to further evaluate the potential of OX40 agonism as a therapeutic approach in patients with advanced solid tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02923349.

Baseline Serum Autoantibody Signatures Predict Recurrence and Toxicity in Melanoma Patients Receiving Adjuvant Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant immunotherapy produces durable benefit for patients with resected melanoma, but many develop recurrence and/or immune-related adverse events (irAE). We investigated whether baseline serum autoantibody (autoAb) signatures predicted recurrence and severe toxicity in patients treated with adjuvant nivolumab, ipilimumab, or ipilimumab plus nivolumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This study included 950 patients: 565 from CheckMate 238 (408 ipilimumab versus 157 nivolumab) and 385 from CheckMate 915 (190 nivolumab versus 195 ipilimumab plus nivolumab). Serum autoAbs were profiled using the HuProt Human Proteome Microarray v4.0 (CDI Laboratories, Mayaguez, PR). Analysis of baseline differentially expressed autoAbs was followed by recurrence and severe toxicity signature building for each regimen, testing of the signatures, and additional independent validation for nivolumab using patients from CheckMate 915. RESULTS: In the nivolumab independent validation cohort, high recurrence score predicted significantly worse recurrence-free survival [RFS; adjusted HR (aHR), 3.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.98-6.55], and outperformed a model composed of clinical variables including PD-L1 expression (P < 0.001). Severe toxicity score was a significant predictor of severe irAEs (aHR, 13.53; 95% CI, 2.59-86.65). In the ipilimumab test cohort, high recurrence score was associated with significantly worse RFS (aHR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.38-7.45) and severe toxicity score significantly predicted severe irAEs (aHR, 11.04; 95% CI, 3.84-37.25). In the ipilimumab plus nivolumab test cohort, high autoAb recurrence score was associated with significantly worse RFS (aHR, 6.45; 95% CI, 1.48-28.02), and high severe toxicity score was significantly associated with severe irAEs (aHR, 23.44; 95% CI, 4.10-212.50). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline serum autoAb signatures predicted recurrence and severe toxicity in patients treated with adjuvant immunotherapy. Prospective testing of the signatures that include datasets with longer follow-up and rare but more severe toxicities will help determine their generalizability and potential clinical utility. See related commentary by Hassel and Luke, p. 3914.

Risk and tropism of central nervous system (CNS) metastases in patients with stage II and III cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that patients with stage III melanoma are at high risk for developing central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Because a subset of patients with stage II melanoma experiences worse survival outcomes than some patients with stage III disease, the authors investigated the risk of CNS metastasis in stage II melanoma to inform surveillance guidelines for this population. METHODS: The authors examined clinicopathologic data prospectively collected from 1054 patients who had cutaneous melanoma. The χ2 test, the cumulative incidence, and Cox multivariable regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between baseline characteristics and the development of CNS metastases. RESULTS: Patients with stage III melanoma had a higher rate of developing brain metastases than those with stage II melanoma (100 of 468 patients [21.4%] vs. 82 of 586 patients [14.0%], respectively; p = .002). However, patients who had stage IIC melanoma had a significantly higher rate of isolated first recurrences in the CNS compared with those who had stage III disease (12.1% vs. 3.6%; p = .002). The risk of ever developing brain metastases was similarly elevated for patients who had stage IIC disease (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; 95% CI, 1.77-5.66), stage IIIB disease (HR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.63-4.91), and stage IIIC disease (HR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.81-4.74), and the risk was highest in patients who had stage IIID disease (HR, 8.59; 95% CI: 4.11-17.97). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage IIC melanoma are at elevated risk for first recurrence in the CNS. Surveillance strategies that incorporate serial neuroimaging should be considered for these individuals until more accurate predictive markers can be identified.

Melanoma central nervous system metastases: An update to approaches, challenges, and opportunities.

Brain metastases are the most common brain malignancy. This review discusses the studies presented at the third annual meeting of the Melanoma Research Foundation in the context of other recent reports on the biology and treatment of melanoma brain metastases (MBM). Although symptomatic MBM patients were historically excluded from immunotherapy trials, efforts from clinicians and patient advocates have resulted in more inclusive and even dedicated clinical trials for MBM patients. The results of checkpoint inhibitor trials were discussed in conversation with current standards of care for MBM patients, including steroids, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy. Advances in the basic scientific understanding of MBM, including the role of astrocytes and metabolic adaptations to the brain microenvironment, are exposing new vulnerabilities which could be exploited for therapeutic purposes. Technical advances including single-cell omics and multiplex imaging are expanding our understanding of the MBM ecosystem and its response to therapy. This unprecedented level of spatial and temporal resolution is expected to dramatically advance the field in the coming years and render novel treatment approaches that might improve MBM patient outcomes.

A phase Ib dose-escalation study of troriluzole (BHV-4157), an oral glutamatergic signaling modulator, in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Glutamate signaling activates MAPK and PI3K/AKT pathways in tumor cells. Treatment with riluzole, a glutamate release inhibitor, has been previously shown to be safe in melanoma patients and produced biologic effects, but did not lead to radiographic responses, possibly due to poor pharmacokinetic properties. Therefore, we conducted a phase Ib trial to determine the safety and tolerability of the combination of the riluzole prodrug troriluzole (BHV-4157, trigriluzole) and the PD-1 antibody nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with advanced or refractory solid tumors and measurable disease per RECIST 1.1 were treated with increasing doses of troriluzole using a semi-Bayesian modified toxicity probability interval dose escalation procedure. Troriluzole monotherapy was orally self-administered for a 14-day lead-in period followed by continuation of troriluzole in combination with nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks. Endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy. RESULTS: We enrolled 14 patients with advanced solid tumors (melanoma = 3, NSCLC = 3, renal cell carcinoma = 2, bladder/urothelial = 2, ovarian cancer = 1, adenoid cystic carcinoma = 1, pleural mesothelial = 1, head and neck cancer = 1). Eleven patients had cancer progression on prior therapy with PD-1 or PD-L1 agent. Patients received troriluzole total daily doses from 140 to 560 mg (divided). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) occurring in ≥ 5 patients (> 35%) were transaminitis and increased lipase. DLT (dose-limiting toxicity) occurred in 3 patients: (1) grade 3 anorexia, (2) grade 3 fatigue and, (3) grade 3 atrial fibrillation. Six patients were treated at the MTD (maximum tolerated dose). No subjects discontinued treatment due to AEs. One response occurred (7%), which was a partial response in a subject who had PD-1 refractory disease. The 6-month PFS rate was 21%. PK data showed that the prodrug troriluzole was efficiently cleaved into riluzole by 2-h post-dosing in all dose cohorts tested. CONCLUSION: The combination of troriluzole and nivolumab was safe and well-tolerated. The MTD of troriluzole was determined to be 420 mg total daily dose. The observed antitumor activity, primarily disease stabilization, is of interest in patients with PD-1 resistant tumors. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03229278.

Significant survival improvements for patients with melanoma brain metastases: can we reach cure in the current era?

PURPOSE: New therapies for melanoma have been associated with increasing survival expectations, as opposed to the dismal outcomes of only a decade ago. Using a prospective registry, we aimed to define current survival goals for melanoma patients with brain metastases (BM), based on state-of-the-art multimodality care. METHODS: We reviewed 171 melanoma patients with BM receiving stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) who were followed with point-of-care data collection between 2012 and 2020. Clinical, molecular and imaging data were collected, including systemic treatment and radiosurgical parameters. RESULTS: Mean age was 63 ± 15 years, 39% were female and 29% had BRAF-mutated tumors. Median overall survival after radiosurgery was 15.7 months (95% Confidence Interval 11.4-27.7) and 25 months in patients managed since 2015. Thirty-two patients survived [Formula: see text] 5 years from their initial SRS. BRAF mutation-targeted therapies showed a survival advantage in comparison to chemotherapy (p = 0.009), but not to immunotherapy (p = 0.09). In a multivariable analysis, both immunotherapy and the number of metastases at 1st SRS were predictors of long-term survival ([Formula: see text] 5 years) from initial SRS (p = 0.023 and p = 0.018, respectively). Five patients (16%) of the long-term survivors required no active treatment for [Formula: see text] 5 years. CONCLUSION: Long-term survival in patients with melanoma BM is achievable in the current era of SRS combined with immunotherapies. For those alive [Formula: see text] 5 years after first SRS, 16% had been also off systemic or local brain therapy for over 5 years. Given late recurrences of melanoma, caution is warranted, however prolonged survival off active treatment in a subset of our patients raises the potential for cure.

Double Trouble: Immunotherapy Doublets in Melanoma-Approved and Novel Combinations to Optimize Treatment in Advanced Melanoma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors, particularly anti-PD-1-based immune checkpoint inhibitors, have dramatically improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma and are currently deemed a standard of care. Ipilimumab/nivolumab is the first combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors to improve progression-free survival and overall survival in the first-line setting, with durable responses and the longest median overall survival, 72.1 months, of any drug therapy approved for advanced melanoma. However, its use is limited by the high rate of severe (grade 3-4) treatment-related adverse events. More recently, the novel immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of nivolumab/relatlimab (anti-PD-1/anti-LAG3) showed improved progression-free survival compared with nivolumab alone in the first-line setting and was well tolerated; thus, it is likely this combination will be added to the armamentarium as a first-line treatment for advanced melanoma. These changes in the treatment landscape have several treatment implications for decision-making. The choice of first-line systemic drug therapy, and the decision between immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy or combination therapy, requires a comprehensive assessment of disease-related factors and patient characteristics. Despite this striking progress, many patients' disease still progresses. Several new agents and therapeutic approaches are under investigation in clinical trials. Intralesional treatments hold promise for accessible metastases, although their broad application in the clinic will be limited. Prognostic and predictive biomarkers, as well as strategies to reduce treatment-related toxicities and overcome resistance, are required and are now the focus of clinical and translational research.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2021, December 2nd-4th, 2021.

The Great Debate session at the 2021 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 2-4) featured counterpoint views from experts on seven important issues in melanoma. The debates considered the use of adoptive cell therapy versus use of bispecific antibodies, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors versus immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whether the use of corticosteroids for the management of side effects have an impact on outcomes, the choice of programmed death (PD)-1 combination therapy with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 or lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3, whether radiation is needed for brain metastases, when lymphadenectomy should be integrated into the treatment plan and then the last debate, telemedicine versus face-to-face. As with previous Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their respective personal view. Audiences voted both before and after each debate.

A phase I study of talazoparib (BMN 673) combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors (NCI9782).

BACKGROUND: Inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) proteins potentiate antitumor activity of platinum chemotherapy. This study sought to determine the safety and tolerability of PARP inhibitor talazoparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel. METHODS: We conducted a phase I study of talazoparib with carboplatin AUC5-6 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2  days 1, 8, 15 of 21-day cycles in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients enrolled using a 3 + 3 design in two cohorts with talazoparib for 7 (schedule A) or 3 days (schedule B). After induction with 4-6 cycles of triplet therapy, patients received one of three maintenance options: (a) continuation of triplet (b) carboplatin/talazoparib, or (c) talazoparib monotherapy. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were treated. The MTD for both schedules was talazoparib 250mcg daily. The main toxicity was myelosuppression including grade 3/4 hematologic treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Dose modification occurred in 87% and 100% of patients for schedules A and B, respectively. Discontinuation due to TRAEs was 13% in schedule A and 10% in B. Ten out of 22 evaluable patients in schedule A and 5/16 patients in schedule B had a complete or partial response. Twelve out of 43 patients received ≥6 cycles of talazoparib after induction, with a 13-month median duration of maintenance. CONCLUSION: We have established the recommended phase II dose of Talazoparib at 250mcg on a 3- or 7-day schedule with carboplatin AUC6 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 of 21-day cycles. This regimen is associated with significant myelosuppression, and in addition to maximizing supportive care, modification of the chemotherapy component would be a consideration for further development of this combination with the schedules investigated in this study.