Tumor and Microenvironment Evolution during Immunotherapy with Nivolumab.

The mechanisms by which immune checkpoint blockade modulates tumor evolution during therapy are unclear. We assessed genomic changes in tumors from 68 patients with advanced melanoma, who progressed on ipilimumab or were ipilimumab-naive, before and after nivolumab initiation (CA209-038 study). Tumors were analyzed by whole-exome, transcriptome, and/or T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing. In responding patients, mutation and neoantigen load were reduced from baseline, and analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity during therapy demonstrated differential clonal evolution within tumors and putative selection against neoantigenic mutations on-therapy. Transcriptome analyses before and during nivolumab therapy revealed increases in distinct immune cell subsets, activation of specific transcriptional networks, and upregulation of immune checkpoint genes that were more pronounced in patients with response. Temporal changes in intratumoral TCR repertoire revealed expansion of T cell clones in the setting of neoantigen loss. Comprehensive genomic profiling data in this study provide insight into nivolumab's mechanism of action.

CD40 agonistic monoclonal antibody APX005M (sotigalimab) and chemotherapy, with or without nivolumab, for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b study.

BACKGROUND: Standard chemotherapy remains inadequate in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Combining an agonistic CD40 monoclonal antibody with chemotherapy induces T-cell-dependent tumour regression in mice and improves survival. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety of combining APX005M (sotigalimab) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, with and without nivolumab, in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma to establish the recommended phase 2 dose. METHODS: This non-randomised, open-label, multicentre, four-cohort, phase 1b study was done at seven academic hospitals in the USA. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years and older with untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. All patients were treated with 1000 mg/m2 intravenous gemcitabine and 125 mg/m2 intravenous nab-paclitaxel. Patients received 0·1 mg/kg intravenous APX005M in cohorts B1 and C1 and 0·3 mg/kg in cohorts B2 and C2. In cohorts C1 and C2, patients also received 240 mg intravenous nivolumab. Primary endpoints comprised incidence of adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug, incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in all patients who had a DLT or received at least two doses of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and one dose of APX005M during cycle 1, and establishing the recommended phase 2 dose of intravenous APX005M. Objective response rate in the DLT-evaluable population was a key secondary endpoint. This trial (PRINCE, PICI0002) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03214250 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 22, 2017, and July 10, 2018, of 42 patients screened, 30 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of any study drug; 24 were DLT-evaluable with median follow-up 17·8 months (IQR 16·0-19·4; cohort B1 22·0 months [21·4-22·7], cohort B2 18·2 months [17·0-18·9], cohort C1 17·9 months [14·3-19·7], cohort C2 15·9 months [12·7-16·1]). Two DLTs, both febrile neutropenia, were observed, occurring in one patient each for cohorts B2 (grade 3) and C1 (grade 4). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were lymphocyte count decreased (20 [67%]; five in B1, seven in B2, four in C1, four in C2), anaemia (11 [37%]; two in B1, four in B2, four in C1, one in C2), and neutrophil count decreased (nine [30%]; three in B1, three in B2, one in C1, two in C2). 14 (47%) of 30 patients (four each in B1, B2, C1; two in C2) had a treatment-related serious adverse event. The most common serious adverse event was pyrexia (six [20%] of 30; one in B2, three in C1, two in C2). There were two chemotherapy-related deaths due to adverse events: one sepsis in B1 and one septic shock in C1. The recommended phase 2 dose of APX005M was 0·3 mg/kg. Responses were observed in 14 (58%) of 24 DLT-evaluable patients (four each in B1, C1, C2; two in B2). INTERPRETATION: APX005M and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, with or without nivolumab, is tolerable in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and shows clinical activity. If confirmed in later phase trials, this treatment regimen could replace chemotherapy-only standard of care in this population. FUNDING: Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Cancer Research Institute, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS: Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS: The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (a programmed death 1 [PD-1] checkpoint inhibitor) and ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] checkpoint inhibitor) have been shown to have complementary activity in metastatic melanoma. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab was compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, 945 previously untreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma to nivolumab alone, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or ipilimumab alone. Progression-free survival and overall survival were coprimary end points. Results regarding progression-free survival are presented here. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS: We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

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

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

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069) we recruited patients from 19 specialist cancer centres in two countries (France and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for four doses. Subsequently, patients assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipilimumab alone received placebo every 2 weeks during this phase. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The study funder, patients, investigators, and study site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, which has been reported previously, was the proportion of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma achieving an investigator-assessed objective response. Overall survival was an exploratory endpoint and is reported in this Article. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01927419, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2013, and Feb 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients and enrolled 142, randomly assigning 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab alone. In each treatment group, one patient no longer met the study criteria following randomisation and thus did not receive study drug. At a median follow-up of 24·5 months (IQR 9·1-25·7), 2-year overall survival was 63·8% (95% CI 53·3-72·6) for those assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 53·6% (95% CI 38·1-66·8) for those assigned to ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43-1·26; p=0·26). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 51 (54%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nine (20%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were colitis (12 [13%] of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [11%]) in the combination group and diarrhoea (five [11%] of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two [4%]) in the ipilimumab alone group. Serious grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 (36%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (including colitis in ten [11%] of 94 patients, and diarrhoea in five [5%]) compared with four (9%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone (including diarrhoea in two [4%] of 46 patients, colitis in one [2%], and hypophysitis in one [2%]). No new types of treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this updated analysis. INTERPRETATION: Although follow-up of the patients in this study is ongoing, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab might lead to improved outcomes compared with first-line ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this population of patients. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with melanoma, ipilimumab (an antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4]) prolongs overall survival, and nivolumab (an antibody against the programmed death 1 [PD-1] receptor) produced durable tumor regression in a phase 1 trial. On the basis of their distinct immunologic mechanisms of action and supportive preclinical data, we conducted a phase 1 trial of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: We administered intravenous doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone every 3 weeks for 4 doses (concurrent regimen). The combined treatment was subsequently administered every 12 weeks for up to 8 doses. In a sequenced regimen, patients previously treated with ipilimumab received nivolumab every 2 weeks for up to 48 doses. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients received concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and 33 received sequenced treatment. The objective-response rate (according to modified World Health Organization criteria) for all patients in the concurrent-regimen group was 40%. Evidence of clinical activity (conventional, unconfirmed, or immune-related response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks) was observed in 65% of patients. At the maximum doses that were associated with an acceptable level of adverse events (nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight and ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram), 53% of patients had an objective response, all with tumor reduction of 80% or more. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 53% of patients in the concurrent-regimen group but were qualitatively similar to previous experience with monotherapy and were generally reversible. Among patients in the sequenced-regimen group, 18% had grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy and the objective-response rate was 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab had a manageable safety profile and provided clinical activity that appears to be distinct from that in published data on monotherapy, with rapid and deep tumor regression in a substantial proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01024231.).

Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAF(V 600) mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01721746. FINDINGS: Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5-40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5-23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3-4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three [1%] of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two [1%] each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 [14%] of 102), thrombocytopenia (six [6%]), and anaemia (five [5%]). We noted grade 3-4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Neoadjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by ixabepilone or paclitaxel in early stage breast cancer and evaluation of ßIII-tubulin expression as a predictive marker.

BACKGROUND: This randomized phase II trial was designed to compare the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) induced by neoadjuvant cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin (AC) followed by ixabepilone or paclitaxel in women with early stage breast cancer (BC). Expression of ßIII-tubulin as a predictive marker was also evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with untreated, histologically confirmed primary invasive breast adenocarcinoma received four cycles of AC followed by 1:1 randomization to either ixabepilone 40 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion) every 3 weeks for four cycles (n = 148) or weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (1-hour infusion) for 12 weeks (n = 147). All patients underwent a core needle biopsy of the primary cancer for molecular marker analysis prior to chemotherapy. ßIII-Tubulin expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the rate of pCR in the ixabepilone treatment arm (24.3%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 18.6-30.8) and the paclitaxel treatment arm (25.2%; 90% CI, 19.4-31.7). ßIII-Tubulin-positive patients obtained higher pCR rates compared with ßIII-tubulin-negative patients in both treatment arms; however, ßIII-tubulin expression was not significantly associated with a differential response to ixabepilone or paclitaxel. The safety profiles of both regimens were generally similar, although neutropenia occurred more frequently in the ixabepilone arm (grade 3/4: 41.3% vs. 8.4%). The most common nonhematologic toxicity was peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant treatment of early stage BC with AC followed by ixabepilone every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel was well tolerated with no significant difference in efficacy. Higher response rates were observed among ßIII-tubulin-positive patients.

Metastasis gets site specific.

Organ-specific homing and colonization of cancer cells are important and interesting features of metastasis. Molecular programs that contribute to this tropism may be elucidated through gene expression profiling with DNA microarrays. Using experimentally derived breast cancer cells that home specifically to bone or to lung, several investigators have concluded that distinct alterations in gene expression underlie metastasis to these sites. Minn et al. (2005) report a set of genes involved in lung-specific metastasis of breast cancer; the authors have determined the functional contribution of several genes to the metastatic cascade, as well as the relevance of these genes to human disease.

Hallmarks of Resistance to Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), although revolutionary in improving long-term survival outcomes, are mostly effective in patients with immune-responsive tumors. Most patients with cancer either do not respond to ICIs at all or experience disease progression after an initial period of response. Treatment resistance to ICIs remains a major challenge and defines the biggest unmet medical need in oncology worldwide. In a collaborative workshop, thought leaders from academic, biopharma, and nonprofit sectors convened to outline a resistance framework to support and guide future immune-resistance research. Here, we explore the initial part of our effort by collating seminal discoveries through the lens of known biological processes. We highlight eight biological processes and refer to them as immune resistance nodes. We examine the seminal discoveries that define each immune resistance node and pose critical questions, which, if answered, would greatly expand our notion of immune resistance. Ultimately, the expansion and application of this work calls for the integration of multiomic high-dimensional analyses from patient-level data to produce a map of resistance phenotypes that can be utilized to guide effective drug development and improved patient outcomes.

Altered gene and protein expression by Nm23-H1 in metastasis suppression.

Metastasis suppressor genes (MSG) are characterized by their ability to inhibit the formation of metastasis, while not affecting the growth of the primary tumor in vivo. Nm23-H1, the first MSG to be characterized, has been shown to alter both gene and protein expression in cancer cells. Recently, microarray expression profiling revealed that Nm23-H1 downregulated EDG2, which encodes for a lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) receptor. Reintroduction of EDG2 into cells that express Nm23-H1 overcame the metastasis suppressive ability of Nm23-H1 in both in vivo pulmonary colonization and spontaneous metastasis assays. In addition, isotope capture affinity tag (ICAT) proteomic analysis was performed to identify differentially expressed proteins not accounted for by microarray analysis. ICAT identified several differentially regulated proteins, including GEMIN5, a protein involved in differential mRNA splicing. The contribution of alternative mRNA splicing to cancer and cancer metastasis is poorly defined. It is possible that Nm23-H1, through the regulation of RNA processing proteins, may play a role in proteome stability.

Clinical-translational approaches to the Nm23-H1 metastasis suppressor.

Nm23-H1 significantly reduces metastasis without effects on primary tumor size and was the first discovered metastasis suppressor gene. At least three mechanisms are thought to contribute to the metastasis-suppressive effect of Nm23-H1: (a) its histidine kinase activity toward ATP-citrate lyase, aldolase C, and the kinase suppressor of ras, with the last inactivating mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling; (b) binding proteins that titer out "free" Nm23-H1 and inhibit its ability to suppress metastasis; and (c) altered gene expression downstream of Nm23-H1, particularly an inverse association with the lysophosphatidic acid receptor endothelial differentiation gene-28 (EDG2). Most metastasis suppressor genes, including Nm23-H1, affect metastatic colonization, which is the outgrowth of tumor cells in distant locations; therefore, they are of high translational interest. A phase II trial is ongoing to test the hypothesis that a compound, high-dose medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), used as an unconventional gluocorticoid, will stimulate breast cancer cells to reexpress Nm23-H1 and limit subsequent metastatic colonization.

Nm23-H1 suppresses tumor cell motility by down-regulating the lysophosphatidic acid receptor EDG2.

Exogenous overexpression of the metastasis suppressor gene Nm23-H1 reduces the metastatic potential of multiple types of cancer cells and suppresses in vitro tumor cell motility and invasion. Mutational analysis of Nm23-H1 revealed that substitution mutants P96S and S120G did not inhibit motility and invasion. To elucidate the molecular mechanism of Nm23-H1 motility suppression, expression microarray analysis of an MDA-MB-435 cancer cell line overexpressing wild-type Nm23-H1 was done and cross-compared with expression profiles from lines expressing the P96S and S120G mutants. Nine genes, MET, PTN, SMO, FZD1, L1CAM, MMP2, NETO2, CTGF, and EDG2, were down-regulated by wild-type but not by mutant Nm23-H1 expression. Reduced expression of these genes coincident with elevated Nm23-H1 expression was observed in human breast tumor cohorts, a panel of breast carcinoma cell lines, and hepatocellular carcinomas from control versus Nm23-M1 knockout mice. The functional significance of the down-regulated genes was assessed by transfection and in vitro motility assays. Only EDG2 overexpression significantly restored motility to Nm23-H1-suppressed cancer cells, enhancing motility by 60-fold in these cells. In addition, silencing EDG2 expression with small interfering RNA reduced the motile phenotype of metastatic breast cancer cells. These data suggest that Nm23-H1 suppresses metastasis, at least in part, through down-regulation of EDG2 expression.

Association of Tumor Microenvironment T-cell Repertoire and Mutational Load with Clinical Outcome after Sequential Checkpoint Blockade in Melanoma.

To understand prognostic factors for outcome between differentially sequenced nivolumab and ipilimumab in a randomized phase II trial, we measured T-cell infiltration and PD-L1 by IHC, T-cell repertoire metrics, and mutational load within the tumor. We used next-generation sequencing (NGS) and assessed the association of those parameters with response and overall survival. Immunosequencing of the T-cell receptor ß-chain locus (TCRß) from DNA of 91 pretreatment tumor samples and an additional 22 pairs of matched pre- and posttreatment samples from patients who received nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (nivo/ipi), or the reverse (ipi/nivo), was performed to measure T-cell clonality and fraction. Mutational and neoantigen load were also assessed by NGS in 82 of the 91 patients. Tumors were stained using IHC for PD-L1+ and CD8+ T cells. Pretreatment tumor TCR clonality and neoantigen load were marginally associated with best response with nivo/ipi (P = 0.04 and 0.05, respectively), but not with ipi/nivo. Amalgamated pretreatment mutational load and tumor T-cell fraction were significantly associated with best response with nivo/ipi (P = 0.002). Pretreatment PD-L1 staining intensity and CD8+ T-cell counts were correlated with T-cell fraction and clonality, but not mutational or neoantigen load. Patients with increased T-cell fraction posttreatment at week 13 had a 30-fold increased likelihood of survival (P = 0.002). Mutational and neoantigen load, and T-cell infiltrate within the tumor, were associated with outcome of sequential checkpoint inhibition using nivolumab then ipilimumab, but not when ipilimumab was administered before nivolumab.

irRECIST for the Evaluation of Candidate Biomarkers of Response to Nivolumab in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of a Phase II Prospective Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Immune-related RECIST (irRECIST) were designed to capture atypical responses seen with immunotherapy. We hypothesized that, in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC), candidate biomarkers for nivolumab response would show improved association with clinical endpoints capturing atypical responders (irRECIST) compared with standard clinical endpoints (RECISTv1.1). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Endpoints based on RECISTv1.1 [objective response rate (ORR)/progression-free survival (PFS)] or irRECIST [immune-related ORR (irORR)/immune-related PFS (irPFS)] were compared in patients enrolled in the CheckMate-010 trial. Pretreatment tumors were analyzed by PD-L1 and PD-L2 IHC, and by multiplex immunofluorescence for CD8, PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3. T-cell activation signatures were assessed by RNA sequencing. RESULTS: Median irPFS was significantly longer than median PFS. irORR was not significantly different from ORR, but immune-related progressive disease (irPD) rate was significantly lower than progressive disease (PD) rate. Tumor cell (TC) PD-L1 expression was not associated with PFS or ORR, but patients with TC PD-L1 ≥1% had longer median irPFS and higher irORR. High percentage of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating cells (TIC) that are PD-1+TIM-3-LAG-3- (% CD8+PD-1+TIM-3-LAG-3- TIC) correlated with high levels of T-cell activation and was associated with longer median irPFS and higher irORR. Notably, combination of TC PD-L1 expression with % CD8+PD-1+TIM-3-LAG-3- TIC identified three groups of patients for which irPFS and irORR were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Atypical responders to nivolumab were identified in the CheckMate-010 trial. We observed improved association of candidate biomarkers for nivolumab response with endpoints defined by irRECIST compared with RECISTv1.1. TC PD-L1 expression in combination with PD-1 expression on CD8+ TIC may predict outcome on nivolumab in mccRCC.

Metabolomic adaptations and correlates of survival to immune checkpoint blockade.

Despite remarkable success of immune checkpoint inhibitors, the majority of cancer patients have yet to receive durable benefits. Here, in order to investigate the metabolic alterations in response to immune checkpoint blockade, we comprehensively profile serum metabolites in advanced melanoma and renal cell carcinoma patients treated with nivolumab, an antibody against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1). We identify serum kynurenine/tryptophan ratio increases as an adaptive resistance mechanism associated with worse overall survival. This advocates for patient stratification and metabolic monitoring in immunotherapy clinical trials including those combining PD1 blockade with indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase/tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase   (IDO/TDO) inhibitors.

Nm23-H1 homologs suppress tumor cell motility and anchorage independent growth.

Nm23-H1 suppresses metastasis, as well as in vitro cell motility, invasion and anchorage independent growth, in a variety of cancer models. Eight human homologs of Nm23 have been identified that share 26-88% identity with the prototype Nm23-H1. Here, we examine the potential of its homologs, -H2, DR-, -H4 and -H5, to inhibit in vitro correlates of metastasis in two highly metastatic human cell lines, MDA-MB-435 and MDA-MB-231. The metastatic cells were transfected with mammalian expression constructs containing the genes encoding for Nm23-H1, -H2, DR-, -H4 and -H5 and the resultant transfectants were analyzed by Boyden chamber motility and soft agar colonization assays. Nm23-H1 suppressed motility by 3.3- and 1.5-fold in MDA-MB-435 and MDA-MB-231 cells, respectively and inhibited anchorage independent growth in soft agar by 2.9- and 1.9-fold, respectively. None of the -H1 homologs were capable of suppressing motility in MDA-MB-435 cells, but in MDA-MB-231 cells, -H2 inhibited motility by 3-fold upon overexpression. When anchorage independent growth was assessed, -H2, -H4 and -H5 suppressed growth from 1.2- to 2.0-fold in both cell lines. Given their ability to suppress anchorage independent growth, Nm23-H1 homologs -H2, -H4 and -H5 may have some capacity to suppress metastasis. Motility suppression appears to be cell context dependent, but sequence disparities between -H1/H2 and the other family members may reveal regions critical for this inhibitory phenotype. Similarly, sequence differences between DR-Nm23 and its homologs may be important for anchorage independent growth suppression.

The role of metastasis suppressor genes in metastatic dormancy.

Metastasis suppressor genes (MSGs) are defined by their ability to inhibit overt metastasis in a secondary organ without affecting tumor growth at the primary site. Over 20 MSGs have been confirmed in vivo. This class of genes is only unified by their capacity to suppress metastasis, as they encode for proteins with a wide range of biochemical activities that are components of a variety of signaling pathways. In addition, metastasis suppressors impinge upon different stages of the metastatic cascade to manifest their suppressive effects. The MSGs KISS1, KAI1, MKK4/7 and Nm23-H1 promote tumor dormancy at the metastatic site, since tumor cells with induced expression of these MSGs disseminate, but do not form overt metastases in the secondary organ throughout the duration of a metastasis assay. Evidence suggests that KISS1 triggers dormancy in solitary, metastatic tumor cells by causing growth arrest of solitary cells at the secondary site. KAI1 induces growth arrest prior to extravasation by binding a vascular endothelial cell surface marker. MKK4, MKK7 and Nm23-H1 appear to promote dormancy of micrometastatic colonies, after disseminated tumor cells have undergone several rounds of proliferation. Other MSGs may also function in tumor dormancy, but so far their role has not been fully elucidated. Therapeutic approaches that either mimic the effects of MSGs or re-establish MSG expression in metastatic lesions may hold promise for the establishment or maintenance of dormancy.