Neoadjuvant Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Resectable Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1-2 trials involving patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma have shown that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is more efficacious than adjuvant immunotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive two cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab and then undergo surgery or to undergo surgery and then receive 12 cycles of adjuvant nivolumab. Only the patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a partial response or nonresponse received subsequent adjuvant treatment. The primary end point was event-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 423 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 9.9 months, the estimated 12-month event-free survival was 83.7% (99.9% confidence interval [CI], 73.8 to 94.8) in the neoadjuvant group and 57.2% (99.9% CI, 45.1 to 72.7) in the adjuvant group. The difference in restricted mean survival time was 8.00 months (99.9% CI, 4.94 to 11.05; P<0.001; hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.32; 99.9% CI, 0.15 to 0.66). In the neoadjuvant group, 59.0% of the patients had a major pathological response, 8.0% had a partial response, 26.4% had a nonresponse (>50% residual viable tumor), and 2.4% had progression; in 4.2%, surgery had not yet been performed or was omitted. The estimated 12-month recurrence-free survival was 95.1% among patients in the neoadjuvant group who had a major pathological response, 76.1% among those who had a partial response, and 57.0% among those who had a nonresponse. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were related to systemic treatment occurred in 29.7% of the patients in the neoadjuvant group and in 14.7% in the adjuvant group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by surgery and response-driven adjuvant therapy resulted in longer event-free survival than surgery followed by adjuvant nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; NADINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04949113.).

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Therapy or Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable benefit. Phase 1-2 trials of adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have shown promising responses, but data from phase 3 trials are lacking to determine the role of TILs in treating advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive TIL or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 therapy (ipilimumab at 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). Infusion of at least 5×109 TILs was preceded by nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine) and followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (86% with disease refractory to anti-programmed death 1 treatment) were assigned to receive TILs (84 patients) or ipilimumab (84 patients). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 13.1) in the TIL group and 3.1 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.3) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72; P<0.001); 49% (95% CI, 38 to 60) and 21% (95% CI, 13 to 32) of the patients, respectively, had an objective response. Median overall survival was 25.8 months (95% CI, 18.2 to not reached) in the TIL group and 18.9 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 32.6) in the ipilimumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in all patients who received TILs and in 57% of those who received ipilimumab; in the TIL group, these events were mainly chemotherapy-related myelosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received TIL therapy than among those who received ipilimumab. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02278887.).

Neoadjuvant Cytoreductive Treatment With BRAF/MEK Inhibition of Prior Unresectable Regionally Advanced Melanoma to Allow Complete Surgical Resection, REDUCTOR: A Prospective, Single-arm, Open-label Phase II Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potency of short-term neoadjuvant cytoreductive therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib (BRAF and MEK inhibitor) to allow for radical surgical resection in patients with unresectable locally advanced melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Approximately 5% of stage III melanoma patients presents with unresectable locally advanced disease, making standard of care with resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy impossible. Although neoadjuvant targeted therapy has shown promising results in resectable stage III melanoma, its potency to enable surgical resection in patients with primarily unresectable locally advanced stage III melanoma is still unclear. METHODS: In this prospective, single-arm, phase II trial, patients with unresectable BRAF-mutated locally advanced stage IIIC or oligometastatic stage IV melanoma were included. After 8 weeks of treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib, evaluation by positron emission tomography/computed tomography and physical examination were used to assess sufficient downsizing of the tumor to enable resection. The primary objective was the percentage of patients who achieved a radical (R0) resection. RESULTS: Between August 2014 and March 2019, 21 patients (20/21 stage IIIC American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual 7th edition) were included. Planned inclusion of 25 patients was not reached due to slow accrual and changing treatment landscape. Despite this, the predefined endpoint was successfully met. In 18/21 (86%) patients a resection was performed, of which 17 were R0 resections. At a median follow-up of 50 months (interquartile range 37.7-57.1 months), median recurrence-free survival was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval 7.52-not reached) in patients undergoing surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, single-arm, open-label phase II trial, shows neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib as a potent cytoreductive treatment, allowing radical resection of metastases in 17/21 (81%) patients with prior unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Identification of the optimal combination dosing schedule of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma (OpACIN-neo): a multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma is poor. Neoadjuvant treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab at the standard dosing schedule induced pathological responses in a high proportion of patients in two small independent early-phase trials, and no patients with a pathological response have relapsed after a median follow up of 32 months. However, toxicity of the standard ipilimumab plus nivolumab dosing schedule was high, preventing its broader clinical use. The aim of the OpACIN-neo trial was to identify a dosing schedule of ipilimumab plus nivolumab that is less toxic but equally effective. METHODS: OpACIN-neo is a multicentre, open-label, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0-1, had resectable stage III melanoma involving lymph nodes only, and measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were enrolled from three medical centres in Australia, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by site, to one of three neoadjuvant dosing schedules: group A, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks intravenously; group B, two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks intravenously; or group C, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks directly followed by two cycles of nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks intravenously. The investigators, site staff, and patients were aware of the treatment assignment during the study participation. Pathologists were masked to treatment allocation and all other data. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with grade 3-4 immune-related toxicity within the first 12 weeks and the proportion of patients achieving a radiological objective response and pathological response at 6 weeks. Analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02977052, and is ongoing with an additional extension cohort and to complete survival analysis. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2016 and June 28, 2018, 105 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 89 (85%) eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Three patients were excluded after randomisation because they were found to be ineligible, and 86 received at least one dose of study drug; 30 patients in group A, 30 in group B, and 26 in group C (accrual to this group was closed early upon advice of the Data Safety Monitoring Board on June 4, 2018 because of severe adverse events). Within the first 12 weeks, grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events were observed in 12 (40%) of 30 patients in group A, six (20%) of 30 in group B, and 13 (50%) of 26 in group C. The difference in grade 3-4 toxicity between group B and A was -20% (95% CI -46 to 6; p=0·158) and between group C and group A was 10% (-20 to 40; p=0·591). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated liver enzymes in group A (six [20%)]) and colitis in group C (five [19%]); in group B, none of the grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in more than one patient. One patient (in group A) died 9·5 months after the start of treatment due to the consequences of late-onset immune-related encephalitis, which was possibly treatment-related. 19 (63% [95% CI 44-80]) of 30 patients in group A, 17 (57% [37-75]) of 30 in group B, and nine (35% [17-56]) of 26 in group C achieved a radiological objective response, while pathological responses occurred in 24 (80% [61-92]) patients in group A, 23 (77% [58-90]) in group B, and 17 (65% [44-83]) in group C. INTERPRETATION: OpACIN-neo identified a tolerable neoadjuvant dosing schedule (group B: two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg) that induces a pathological response in a high proportion of patients and might be suitable for broader clinical use. When more mature data confirm these early observations, this schedule should be tested in randomised phase 3 studies versus adjuvant therapies, which are the current standard-of-care systemic therapy for patients with stage III melanoma. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

IMPemBra: a phase 2 study comparing pembrolizumab with intermittent/short-term dual MAPK pathway inhibition plus pembrolizumab in patients with melanoma harboring the BRAFV600 mutation.

BACKGROUND: Continuous combination of MAPK pathway inhibition (MAPKi) and anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 (PD-(L)1) showed high response rates, but only limited improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at the cost of a high frequency of treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma. Short-term MAPKi induces T-cell infiltration in patients and is synergistic with anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) in a preclinical melanoma mouse model. The aim of this phase 2b trial was to identify an optimal regimen of short-term MAPKi with dabrafenib plus trametinib in combination with pembrolizumab. METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve BRAFV600E/K-mutant advanced melanoma started pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. In week 6, patients were randomized to continue pembrolizumab only (cohort 1), or to receive, in addition, intermittent dabrafenib 150 mg two times per day plus trametinib 2 mg one time per day for two cycles of 1 week (cohort 2), two cycles of 2 weeks (cohort 3), or continuously for 6 weeks (cohort 4). All cohorts continued pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. Primary endpoints were safety and treatment-adherence. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) at week 6, 12, 18 and PFS. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and August 2018, 33 patients with advanced melanoma have been included and 32 were randomized. Grade 3-4 TRAE were observed in 12%, 12%, 50%, and 63% of patients in cohort 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. All planned targeted therapy was given in 88%, 63%, and 38% of patients in cohort 2, 3, and 4. ORR at week 6, 12, and 18 were 38%, 63%, and 63% in cohort 1; 25%, 63%, and 75% in cohort 2; 25%, 50%, and 75% in cohort 3; and 0%, 63%, and 50% in cohort 4. After a median follow-up of 43.5 months, median PFS was 10.6 months for pembrolizumab monotherapy and not reached for patients treated with pembrolizumab and intermittent dabrafenib and trametinib (p=0.17). The 2-year and 3-year landmark PFS were both 25% for cohort 1, both 63% for cohort 2, 50% and 38% for cohort 3 and 75% and 60% for cohort 4. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pembrolizumab plus intermittent dabrafenib and trametinib seems more feasible and tolerable than continuous triple therapy. The efficacy is promising and appears to be favorable over pembrolizumab monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02625337.

IFN-γ signature enables selection of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with stage III melanoma.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab has demonstrated high pathologic response rates in stage III melanoma. Patients with low intra-tumoral interferon-γ (IFN-γ) signatures are less likely to benefit. We show that domatinostat (a class I histone deacetylase inhibitor) addition to anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 increased the IFN-γ response and reduced tumor growth in our murine melanoma model, rationalizing evaluation in patients. To stratify patients into IFN-γ high and low cohorts, we developed a baseline IFN-γ signature expression algorithm, which was prospectively tested in the DONIMI trial. Patients with stage III melanoma and high intra-tumoral IFN-γ scores were randomized to neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab + domatinostat, while patients with low IFN-γ scores received nivolumab + domatinostat or ipilimumab + nivolumab + domatinostat. Domatinostat addition to neoadjuvant nivolumab ± ipilimumab did not delay surgery but induced unexpected severe skin toxicity, hampering domatinostat dose escalation. At studied dose levels, domatinostat addition did not increase treatment efficacy. The baseline IFN-γ score adequately differentiated patients who were likely to benefit from nivolumab alone versus patients who require other therapies.

Personalized response-directed surgery and adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab in high-risk stage III melanoma: the PRADO trial.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in clinical stage III nodal melanoma, and pathologic response is strongly associated with prolonged relapse-free survival (RFS). The PRADO extension cohort of the OpACIN-neo trial ( NCT02977052 ) addressed the feasibility and effect on clinical outcome of using pathologic response after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab as a criterion for further treatment personalization. In total, 99 patients with clinical stage IIIb-d nodal melanoma were included and treated with 6 weeks of neoadjuvant ipilimumab 1 mg kg-1 and nivolumab 3 mg kg-1. In patients achieving major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% viable tumor) in their index lymph node (ILN, the largest lymph node metastasis at baseline), therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) and adjuvant therapy were omitted. Patients with pathologic partial response (pPR; >10 to ≤50% viable tumor) underwent TLND only, whereas patients with pathologic non-response (pNR; >50% viable tumor) underwent TLND and adjuvant systemic therapy ± synchronous radiotherapy. Primary objectives were confirmation of pRR (ILN, at week 6) of the winner neoadjuvant combination scheme identified in OpACIN-neo; to investigate whether TLND can be safely omitted in patients achieving MPR; and to investigate whether RFS at 24 months can be improved for patients achieving pNR. ILN resection and ILN-response-tailored treatment were feasible. The pRR was 72%, including 61% MPR. Grade 3-4 toxicity within the first 12 weeks was observed in 22 (22%) patients. TLND was omitted in 59 of 60 patients with MPR, resulting in significantly lower surgical morbidity and better quality of life. The 24-month relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 93% and 98% in patients with MPR, 64% and 64% in patients with pPR, and 71% and 76% in patients with pNR, respectively. These findings provide a strong rationale for randomized clinical trials testing response-directed treatment personalization after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Phase Ib/II trial testing combined radiofrequency ablation and ipilimumab in uveal melanoma (SECIRA-UM).

Approximately, 50% of patients with uveal melanoma develop distant metastasis for which no standard therapy is established. In contrast to cutaneous melanoma, the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab showed no clinical activity in uveal melanoma. Liver directed therapies improve local control, but fail to show overall survival (OS) benefit. Preclinical experiments demonstrated that radiofrequency ablation (RFA) induced durable responses in combination with anti-CTLA-4. The aim of this phase Ib/II study was to assess safety and efficacy of RFA plus ipilimumab in uveal melanoma. Patients underwent RFA of one liver lesion and subsequently received four courses ipilimumab 0.3, 3 or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks in a 3 + 3 design. Primary endpoints were safety in terms of dose limiting toxicities per cohort to define the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in the phase Ib part and confirmed the objective response rate and disease control rate (DCR) of non-RFA lesions in the phase II part. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg + RFA was initially defined as the RP2D. However, after 19 patients, the study was amended to adjust the RP2D to ipilimumab 3 mg/kg + RFA, because 47% of patients treated with 10 mg/kg had developed grade 3 colitis. In the 3 mg/kg cohort, also 19 patients have been treated. Immunotherapy-related grade ≥3 adverse events were observed in 53% of patients in the 10 mg/kg cohort versus 32% in the 3 mg/kg cohort. No confirmed objective responses were observed; the confirmed DCR was 5% in the 10 mg/kg cohort and 11% in the 3 mg/kg cohort. Median PFS was 3 months and comparable for both cohorts, median OS was 14.2 months for the 10 mg/kg cohort versus 9.7 months for the 3 mg/kg cohort. Combining RFA with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was well tolerated, but showed very limited clinical activity in uveal melanoma.

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma.

Adjuvant ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) both improve relapse-free survival of stage III melanoma patients1,2. In stage IV disease, the combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab is superior to ipilimumab alone and also appears to be more effective than nivolumab monotherapy3. Preclinical work suggests that neoadjuvant application of checkpoint inhibitors may be superior to adjuvant therapy4. To address this question and to test feasibility, 20 patients with palpable stage III melanoma were 1:1 randomized to receive ipilimumab 3 mg kg-1 and nivolumab 1 mg kg-1, as either four courses after surgery (adjuvant arm) or two courses before surgery and two courses postsurgery (neoadjuvant arm). Neoadjuvant therapy was feasible, with all patients undergoing surgery at the preplanned time point. However in both arms, 9/10 patients experienced one or more grade 3/4 adverse events. Pathological responses were achieved in 7/9 (78%) patients treated in the neoadjuvant arm. None of these patients have relapsed so far (median follow-up, 25.6 months). We found that neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab expand more tumor-resident T cell clones than adjuvant application. While neoadjuvant therapy appears promising, with the current regimen it induced high toxicity rates; therefore, it needs further investigation to preserve efficacy but reduce toxicity.