Survival update of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma in the OpACIN and OpACIN-neo trials.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab has yielded high response rates in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma. These response rates translated to high short-term survival rates. However, data on long-term survival and disease recurrence are lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In OpACIN, 20 patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized to ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg q3w four cycles of adjuvant or split two cycles of neoadjuvant and two adjuvant. In OpACIN-neo, 86 patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma were randomized to arm A (2× ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg q3w; n = 30), arm B (2× ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg q3w; n = 30), or arm C (2× ipilimumab 3 mg/kg q3w plus 2× nivolumab 3 mg/kg q2w; n = 26) followed by surgery. RESULTS: The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached in either trial. After a median follow-up of 69 months for OpACIN, 1/7 patients with a pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy had disease recurrence. The estimated 5-year RFS and OS rates for the neoadjuvant arm were 70% and 90% versus 60% and 70% for the adjuvant arm. After a median follow-up of 47 months for OpACIN-neo, the estimated 3-year RFS and OS rates were 82% and 92%, respectively. The estimated 3-year RFS rate for OpACIN-neo was 95% for patients with a pathologic response versus 37% for patients without a pathologic response (P < 0.001). In multiple regression analyses, pathologic response was the strongest predictor of disease recurrence. Of the 12 patients with distant disease recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy, 5 responded to subsequent anti-PD-1 and 8 to targeted therapy, although 7 patients showed progression after the initial response. CONCLUSIONS: Updated data confirm the high survival rates after neoadjuvant combination checkpoint inhibition in macroscopic stage III melanoma, especially for patients with a pathologic response. Pathologic response is the strongest surrogate marker for long-term outcome.

89Zr-pembrolizumab imaging as a non-invasive approach to assess clinical response to PD-1 blockade in cancer.

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody treatment is standard of care for melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Accurately predicting which patients will benefit is currently not possible. Tumor uptake and biodistribution of the PD-1 antibody might play a role. Therefore, we carried out a positron emission tomography (PET) imaging study with zirconium-89 (89Zr)-labeled pembrolizumab before PD-1 antibody treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma or NSCLC received 37 MBq (1 mCi) 89Zr-pembrolizumab (∼2.5 mg antibody) intravenously plus 2.5 or 7.5 mg unlabeled pembrolizumab. After that, up to three PET scans were carried out on days 2, 4, and 7. Next, PD-1 antibody treatment was initiated. 89Zr-pembrolizumab tumor uptake was calculated as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and expressed as geometric mean. Normal organ uptake was calculated as SUVmean and expressed as a mean. Tumor response was assessed according to (i)RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Eighteen patients, 11 with melanoma and 7 with NSCLC, were included. The optimal dose was 5 mg pembrolizumab, and the optimal time point for PET scanning was day 7. The tumor SUVmax did not differ between melanoma and NSCLC (4.9 and 6.5, P = 0.49). Tumor 89Zr-pembrolizumab uptake correlated with tumor response (P trend = 0.014) and progression-free (P = 0.0025) and overall survival (P = 0.026). 89Zr-pembrolizumab uptake at 5 mg was highest in the spleen with a mean SUVmean of 5.8 (standard deviation ±1.8). There was also 89Zr-pembrolizumab uptake in Waldeyer's ring, in normal lymph nodes, and at sites of inflammation. CONCLUSION: 89Zr-pembrolizumab uptake in tumor lesions correlated with treatment response and patient survival. 89Zr-pembrolizumab also showed uptake in lymphoid tissues and at sites of inflammation.

Conversion of unresponsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibition by fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with metastatic melanoma: study protocol for a randomized phase Ib/IIa trial.

BACKGROUND: The gut microbiome plays an important role in immune modulation. Specifically, presence or absence of certain gut bacterial taxa has been associated with better antitumor immune responses. Furthermore, in trials using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat melanoma patients unresponsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), complete responses (CR), partial responses (PR), and durable stable disease (SD) have been observed. However, the underlying mechanism determining which patients will or will not respond and what the optimal FMT composition is, has not been fully elucidated, and a discrepancy in microbial taxa associated with clinical response has been observed between studies. Furthermore, it is unknown whether a change in the microbiome itself, irrespective of its origin, or FMT from ICI responding donors, is required for reversion of ICI-unresponsiveness. To address this, we will transfer microbiota of either ICI responder or nonresponder metastatic melanoma patients via FMT. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded phase Ib/IIa trial, 24 anti-PD1-refractory patients with advanced stage cutaneous melanoma will receive an FMT from either an ICI responding or nonresponding donor, while continuing anti-PD-1 treatment. Donors will be selected from patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. Two patients with a good response (≥ 30% decrease according to RECIST 1.1 within the past 24 months) and two patients with progression (≥ 20% increase according to RECIST 1.1 within the past 3 months) will be selected as ICI responding or nonresponding donors, respectively. The primary endpoint is clinical benefit (SD, PR or CR) at 12 weeks, confirmed on a CT scan at 16 weeks. The secondary endpoint is safety, defined as the occurrence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity. Exploratory endpoints are progression-free survival and changes in the gut microbiome, metabolome, and immune cells. DISCUSSION: Transplanting fecal microbiota to restore the patients' perturbed microbiome has proven successful in several indications. However, less is known about the potential role of FMT to improve antitumor immune response. In this trial, we aim to investigate whether administration of FMT can reverse resistance to anti-PD-1 treatment in patients with advanced stage melanoma, and whether the ICI-responsiveness of the feces donor is associated with its effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05251389 (registered 22-Feb-2022). Protocol V4.0 (08-02-2022).

Pathological response and tumour bed histopathological features correlate with survival following neoadjuvant immunotherapy in stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for pathological evaluation of neoadjuvant specimens and pathological response categories have been developed by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC). As part of the Optimal Neo-adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (OpACIN-neo) clinical trial of neoadjuvant combination anti-programmed cell death protein 1/anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 immunotherapy for stage III melanoma, we sought to determine interobserver reproducibility of INMC histopathological assessment principles, identify specific tumour bed histopathological features of immunotherapeutic response that correlated with recurrence and relapse-free survival (RFS) and evaluate proposed INMC pathological response categories for predicting recurrence and RFS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinicopathological characteristics of lymph node dissection specimens of 83 patients enrolled in the OpACIN-neo clinical trial were evaluated. Two methods of assessing histological features of immunotherapeutic response were evaluated: the previously described immune-related pathologic response (irPR) score and our novel immunotherapeutic response score (ITRS). For a subset of cases (n = 29), cellular composition of the tumour bed was analysed by flow cytometry. RESULTS: There was strong interobserver reproducibility in assessment of pathological response (κ = 0.879) and percentage residual viable melanoma (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.965). The immunotherapeutic response subtype with high fibrosis had the strongest association with lack of recurrence (P = 0.008) and prolonged RFS (P = 0.019). Amongst patients with criteria for pathological non-response (pNR, >50% viable tumour), all who recurred had ≥70% viable melanoma. Higher ITRS and irPR scores correlated with lack of recurrence in the entire cohort (P = 0.002 and P ≤ 0.0001). The number of B lymphocytes was significantly increased in patients with a high fibrosis subtype of treatment response (P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: There is strong reproducibility for assessment of pathological response using INMC criteria. Immunotherapeutic response of fibrosis subtype correlated with improved RFS, and may represent a biomarker. Potential B-cell contribution to fibrosis development warrants further study. Reclassification of pNR to a threshold of ≥70% viable melanoma and incorporating additional criteria of <10% fibrosis subtype of response may identify those at highest risk of recurrence, but requires validation.

Early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade upon achieving a complete or partial response in patients with advanced melanoma: the multicentre prospective Safe Stop trial.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockers (i.e. nivolumab and pembrolizumab) has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma. However, the long treatment duration (i.e. two years or longer) has a high impact on patients and healthcare systems in terms of (severe) toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and healthcare costs. While durable tumour responses have been observed and PD-1 blockade is discontinued on an individual basis, no consensus has been reached on the optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade is safe in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma who achieve a radiological response. METHODS: The Safe Stop trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 200 patients with advanced and metastatic cutaneous melanoma and a confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 will be included to early discontinue first-line monotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. The primary objective is the rate of ongoing responses at 24 months after discontinuation of PD-1 blockade. Secondary objectives include best overall and duration of response, need and outcome of rechallenge with PD-1 blockade, and changes in (serious) adverse events and HRQoL. The impact of treatment discontinuation on healthcare resource use, productivity losses, and hours of informal care will also be assessed. Results will be compared to those from patients with CR or PR who completed 24 months of treatment with PD-1 blockade and had an ongoing response at treatment discontinuation. It is hypothesised that it is safe to early stop first-line nivolumab or pembrolizumab at confirmed tumour response while improving HRQoL and reducing costs. DISCUSSION: From a patient, healthcare, and economic perspective, shorter treatment duration is preferred and overtreatment should be prevented. If early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade appears to be safe, early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade may be implemented as the standard of care in a selected group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Safe Stop trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL7293 (old NTR ID: 7502), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7293 . Date of registration September 30, 2018.

Autoimmune diseases and immune-checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy: review of the literature and personalized risk-based prevention strategy.

Patients with cancer and with preexisting active autoimmune diseases (ADs) have been excluded from immunotherapy clinical trials because of concerns for high susceptibility to the development of severe adverse events resulting from exacerbation of their preexisting ADs. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be safe and effective in this patient population. However, baseline corticosteroids and other nonselective immunosuppressants appear to negatively impact drug efficacy, whereas retrospective and case report data suggest that use of specific immunosuppressants may not have the same consequences. Therefore, we propose here a two-step strategy. First, to lower the risk of compromising ICI efficacy before their initiation, nonselective immunosuppressants could be replaced by specific selective immunosuppressant drugs following a short rotation phase. Subsequently, combining ICI with the selective immunosuppressant could prevent exacerbation of the AD. For the most common active ADs encountered in the context of cancer, we propose specific algorithms to optimize ICI therapy. These preventive strategies go beyond current practices and recommendations, and should be practiced in ICI-specialized clinics, as these require multidisciplinary teams with extensive knowledge in the field of clinical immunology and oncology. In addition, we challenge the exclusion from ICI therapy for patients with cancer and active ADs and propose the implementation of an international registry to study such novel strategies in a prospective fashion.

Managing cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ESMO multidisciplinary expert consensus.

We established an international consortium to review and discuss relevant clinical evidence in order to develop expert consensus statements related to cancer management during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The steering committee prepared 10 working packages addressing significant clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a virtual consensus meeting of 62 global experts and one patient advocate, led by the European Society for Medical Oncology, statements were discussed, amended and voted upon. When consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements until a consensus was reached. Overall, the expert panel agreed on 28 consensus statements that can be used to overcome many of the clinical and technical areas of uncertainty ranging from diagnosis to therapeutic planning and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Updated efficacy results from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial: first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population. RESULTS: Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490-0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1-20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7-9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574-0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1-15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7-9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596-1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616-1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392]. CONCLUSION: Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02684006.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of locoregional melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment of brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of metastatic melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment for brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of metastatic melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

Gender medicine and oncology: report and consensus of an ESMO workshop.

BACKGROUND: The importance of sex and gender as modulators of disease biology and treatment outcomes is well known in other disciplines of medicine, such as cardiology, but remains an undervalued issue in oncology. Considering the increasing evidence for their relevance, European Society for Medical Oncology decided to address this topic and organized a multidisciplinary workshop in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 30 November and 1 December 2018. DESIGN: Twenty invited faculty members and 40 selected physicians/scientists participated. Relevant content was presented by faculty members on the basis of a literature review conducted by each speaker. Following a moderated consensus session, the final consensus statements are reported here. RESULTS: Clinically relevant sex differences include tumour biology, immune system activity, body composition and drug disposition and effects. The main differences between male and female cells are sex chromosomes and the level of sexual hormones they are exposed to. They influence both local and systemic determinants of carcinogenesis. Their effect on carcinogenesis in non-reproductive organs is largely unknown. Recent evidence also suggests differences in tumour biology and molecular markers. Regarding body composition, the difference in metabolically active, fat-free body mass is one of the most prominent: in a man and a woman of equal weight and height, it accounts for 80% of the man's and 65% of the woman's body mass, and is not taken into account in body-surface area based dosing of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Sex differences in cancer biology and treatment deserve more attention and systematic investigation. Interventional clinical trials evaluating sex-specific dosing regimens are necessary to improve the balance between efficacy and toxicity for drugs with significant pharmacokinetic differences. Especially in diseases or disease subgroups with significant differences in epidemiology or outcomes, men and women with non-sex-related cancers should be considered as biologically distinct groups of patients, for whom specific treatment approaches merit consideration.

Efficacy of adoptive therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and recombinant interleukin-2 in advanced cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) using autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) has been tested in advanced melanoma patients at various centers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess its efficacy on previously treated advanced metastatic cutaneous melanoma. The PubMed electronic database was searched from inception to 17 December 2018 to identify studies administering TIL-ACT and recombinant interleukin-2 (IL-2) following non-myeloablative chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic melanoma patients. Objective response rate (ORR) was the primary end point. Secondary end points were complete response rate (CRR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR) and toxicity. Pooled estimates were derived from fixed or random effect models, depending on the amount of heterogeneity detected. Analysis was carried out separately for high dose (HD) and low dose (LD) IL-2. Sensitivity analyses were carried out. Among 1211 records screened, 13 studies (published 1988 - 2016) were eligible for meta-analysis. Among 410 heavily pretreated patients (some with brain metastasis), 332 received HD-IL-2 and 78 LD-IL-2. The pooled overall ORR estimate was 41% [95% confidence interval (CI) 35% to 48%], and the overall CRR was 12% (95% CI 7% to 16%). For the HD-IL-2 group, the ORR was 43% (95% CI 36% to 50%), while for the LD-IL-2 it was 35% (95% CI 25% to 45%). Corresponding pooled estimates for CRR were 14% (95% CI 7% to 20%) and 7% (95% CI 1% to 12%). The majority of HD-IL-2 complete responders (27/28) remained in remission during the extent of follow-up after CR (median 40 months). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Higher number of infused cells was associated with a favorable response. The ORR for HD-IL-2 compared favorably with the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination following anti-PD-1 failure. TIL-ACT therapy, especially when combined with HD-IL-2, achieves durable clinical benefit and warrants further investigation. We discuss the current position of TIL-ACT in the therapy of advanced melanoma, particularly in the era of immune checkpoint blockade therapy, and review future opportunities for improvement of this approach.

Discontinuation of anti-PD-1 antibody therapy in the absence of disease progression or treatment limiting toxicity: clinical outcomes in advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking monoclonal antibodies improve the overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma but the optimal duration of treatment has not been established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This academic real-world cohort study investigated the outcome of 185 advanced melanoma patients who electively discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab (N = 167) or nivolumab (N = 18) in the absence of disease progression (PD) or treatment limiting toxicity (TLT) at 14 medical centres across Europe and Australia. RESULTS: Median time on treatment was 12 months (range 0.7-43). The best objective tumour response at the time of treatment discontinuation was complete response (CR) in 117 (63%) patients, partial response (PR) in 44 (24%) patients and stable disease (SD) in 16 (9%) patients; 8 (4%) patients had no evaluable disease (NE). After a median follow-up of 18 months (range 0.7-48) after treatment discontinuation, 78% of patients remained free of progression. Median time to progression was 12 months (range 2-23). PD was less frequent in patients with CR (14%) compared with patients with PR (32%) and SD (50%). Six out of 19 (32%) patients who were retreated with an anti-PD-1 at the time of PD obtained a new antitumour response. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of advanced melanoma patients discontinuing anti-PD-1 therapy in the absence of TLT or PD, the duration of anti-PD-1 therapy was shorter when compared with clinical trials. In patients obtaining a CR, and being treated for >6 months, the risk of relapse after treatment discontinuation was low. Patients achieving a PR or SD as best tumour response were at higher risk for progression after discontinuing therapy, and defining optimal treatment duration in such patients deserves further study. Retreatment with an anti-PD-1 at the time of progression may lead to renewed antitumour activity in some patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02673970 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02673970?cond=melanoma&cntry=BE&city=Jette&rank=3).

Predicting response to cancer immunotherapy using noninvasive radiomic biomarkers.

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapy is regarded as one of the major breakthroughs in cancer treatment. Despite its success, only a subset of patients responds-urging the quest for predictive biomarkers. We hypothesize that artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can automatically quantify radiographic characteristics that are related to and may therefore act as noninvasive radiomic biomarkers for immunotherapy response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, we analyzed 1055 primary and metastatic lesions from 203 patients with advanced melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing anti-PD1 therapy. We carried out an AI-based characterization of each lesion on the pretreatment contrast-enhanced CT imaging data to develop and validate a noninvasive machine learning biomarker capable of distinguishing between immunotherapy responding and nonresponding. To define the biological basis of the radiographic biomarker, we carried out gene set enrichment analysis in an independent dataset of 262 NSCLC patients. RESULTS: The biomarker reached significant performance on NSCLC lesions (up to 0.83 AUC, P < 0.001) and borderline significant for melanoma lymph nodes (0.64 AUC, P = 0.05). Combining these lesion-wide predictions on a patient level, immunotherapy response could be predicted with an AUC of up to 0.76 for both cancer types (P < 0.001), resulting in a 1-year survival difference of 24% (P = 0.02). We found highly significant associations with pathways involved in mitosis, indicating a relationship between increased proliferative potential and preferential response to immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that radiographic characteristics of lesions on standard-of-care imaging may function as noninvasive biomarkers for response to immunotherapy, and may show utility for improved patient stratification in both neoadjuvant and palliative settings.

Starting the fight in the tumor: expert recommendations for the development of human intratumoral immunotherapy (HIT-IT).

A European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-sponsored expert meeting was held in Paris on 8 March 2018 which comprised 11 experts from academia, 11 experts from the pharmaceutical industry and 2 clinicians who were representatives of ESMO. The focus of the meeting was exclusively on the intratumoral injection/delivery of immunostimulatory agents with the aim of harmonizing the standard terms and methodologies used in the reporting of human intratumoral immunotherapy (HIT-IT) clinical trials to ensure quality assurance and avoid a blurring of the data reported from different studies. The goal was to provide a reference document, endorsed by the panel members that could provide guidance to clinical investigators, pharmaceutical companies, ethics committees, independent review boards, patient advocates and the regulatory authorities and promote an increase in the number and quality of HIT-IT clinical trials in the future. Particular emphasis was placed not only on the development of precise definitions to facilitate a better understanding between investigators but also on the importance of systematic serial biopsies as a driver for translational research and the need for the recording and reporting of data, to facilitate a better understanding of the key processes involved.

Short-term CTLA-4 blockade directly followed by PD-1 blockade in advanced melanoma patients: a single-center experience.

Background: Combination of T cell checkpoint blockade by CTLA-4- and PD-1-blockade is one of the most promising therapies in patients with advanced melanoma. It induces superior response rates when compared with single-agent therapy, but at the cost of a high percentage of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs). This combination therapy was until July 2016 not available in the Netherlands, which prompted several physicians to treat patients with less than standard numbers of courses of ipilimumab followed directly by nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Patients and methods: In this retrospective analysis, patients were included who were treated with two courses (day 0 and 21) anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab 3 mg/kg q3wk), directly followed by anti-PD-1 (starting at day 22 with nivolumab 3mg/kg q2wk or pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg q3wk). Data on treatment-related AEs were collected from electronic patient records and scored according to CTCAE 4.03 criteria. Overall response was evaluated using RECIST 1.1 for CT-scans and EORTC criteria for PET-scans. Results: Forty advanced melanoma patients could be included (29/40 pembrolizumab, 11/40 nivolumab). Median follow-up (FU) was 51 weeks (range: 4-63 weeks) with a minimum FU of 26 weeks. Treatment-related AEs of grade 3 and 4 occurred in 38% of the patients. The best overall response rate (BORR) was 55% (95% CI 39-70) and disease control rate was 75% (95% CI 59-87). Ongoing responses were observed in 82% of responding patients. Conclusion: Treatment with short-term CTLA-4 blockade directly followed by PD-1 blockade may have similar efficacy but potentially lower toxicity when compared with concurrent therapy with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1. These results warrant further investigation in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: final overall survival results of the randomized BRIM-3 study.

BACKGROUND: The BRIM-3 trial showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. We present final OS data from BRIM-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). OS and PFS were co-primary end points. OS was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with and without censoring of data for dacarbazine patients who crossed over to vemurafenib. RESULTS: Between 4 January 2010 and 16 December 2010, a total of 675 patients were randomized to vemurafenib (n = 337) or dacarbazine (n = 338, of whom 84 crossed over to vemurafenib). At the time of database lock (14 August 2015), median OS, censored at crossover, was significantly longer for vemurafenib than for dacarbazine {13.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.0-15.4] versus 9.7 months [95% CI 7.9-12.8; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]; P = 0.03}, as was median OS without censoring at crossover [13.6 months (95% CI 12.0-15.4) versus 10.3 months (95% CI 9.1-12.8); HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.96); P = 0.01]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS rates for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine were 56% versus 46%, 30% versus 24%, 21% versus 19% and 17% versus 16% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. Overall, 173 of the 338 patients (51%) in the dacarbazine arm and 175 of the 337 (52%) of those in the vemurafenib arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, most commonly ipilimumab. Safety data were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib continues to be associated with improved median OS in the BRIM-3 trial after extended follow-up. OS curves converged after ≈3 years, likely as a result of crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib and receipt of subsequent anticancer therapies. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01006980.