Prolonged Survival in Stage III Melanoma with Ipilimumab Adjuvant Therapy.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of data from a phase 2 trial that compared the checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab at doses of 0.3 mg, 3 mg, and 10 mg per kilogram of body weight in patients with advanced melanoma, this phase 3 trial evaluated ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram in patients who had undergone complete resection of stage III melanoma. METHODS: After patients had undergone complete resection of stage III cutaneous melanoma, we randomly assigned them to receive ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram (475 patients) or placebo (476) every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years or until disease recurrence or an unacceptable level of toxic effects occurred. Recurrence-free survival was the primary end point. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, the 5-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 40.8% in the ipilimumab group, as compared with 30.3% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). The rate of overall survival at 5 years was 65.4% in the ipilimumab group, as compared with 54.4% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95.1% CI, 0.58 to 0.88; P=0.001). The rate of distant metastasis-free survival at 5 years was 48.3% in the ipilimumab group, as compared with 38.9% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death or distant metastasis, 0.76; 95.8% CI, 0.64 to 0.92; P=0.002). Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 54.1% of the patients in the ipilimumab group and in 26.2% of those in the placebo group. Immune-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 41.6% of the patients in the ipilimumab group and in 2.7% of those in the placebo group. In the ipilimumab group, 5 patients (1.1%) died owing to immune-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: As adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram resulted in significantly higher rates of recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo. There were more immune-related adverse events with ipilimumab than with placebo. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00636168 , and EudraCT number, 2007-001974-10 .).

Health-related quality of life with adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): secondary outcomes of a multinational, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The EORTC 18071 phase 3 trial compared adjuvant ipilimumab with placebo in patients with stage III melanoma. The primary endpoint, recurrence-free survival, was significantly longer in the ipilimumab group than in the placebo group. Investigator-reported toxic effects of ipilimumab consisted mainly of skin, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and hepatic immune-related adverse events. Adjuvant treatment with ipilimumab in this setting was approved in October, 2014, by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the results of the primary outcome of this trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), of this trial. METHODS: EORTC 18071 was a multinational, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) in 19 countries worldwide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by an interactive voice response system, to receive either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geographical region. HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality-of-life instrument at baseline, weeks 4, 7, 10, and 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter up to 2 years, irrespective of disease progression. Results were summarised by timepoint and in a longitudinal manner in the intention-to-treat population. Two summary scores were calculated for each HRQoL scale: the average score reported during induction (ipilimumab or placebo at a dose of 10 mg/kg, administered as one single dose at the start of days 1, 22, 43, and 64-ie, four doses in 3 weeks), and the average score reported after induction. A predefined threshold of a 10 point difference between arms was considered clinically relevant. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the global health scale, with the predefined hypothesis of no clinically relevant differences after induction between groups. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2007-001974-10, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00636168. FINDINGS: Between July 10, 2008, and Aug 1, 2011, 951 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 475 in the ipilimumab group and 476 in the placebo group. Compliance with completing the HRQoL questionnaire was 893 (94%) of 951 patients at baseline, 693 (75%) of 924 at week 24, and 354 (51%) of 697 at week 108. Patient mean global health scores during (77·32 [SD 17·36] vs 72·96 [17·82]; p=0·00011) and after induction (76·48 [17·52] vs 72·32 [18·60]; p=0·00067) were statistically significantly different between groups but were not clinically relevant. Mean global health scores differed most between the groups at week 7 (77 [SD 19] in the placebo group vs 72 [22] in the ipilimumab group) and week 10 (77 [20] vs 70 [23]). Mean HRQoL scores differed by more than 10 points at week 10 between treatment groups for diarrhoea (7·67 [SD 17·05] for placebo vs 18·17 [28·35] for ipilimumab) and insomnia (15·17 [22·53] vs 25·60 [29·19]). INTERPRETATION: Despite increased toxicity, which led to treatment discontinuation for most patients during the induction phase of ipilimumab administration, overall HRQoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, was similar between groups, as no clinically relevant differences (10 points or more) in global health status scores were observed during or after induction. Clinically relevant deterioration for some symptoms was observed at week 10, but after induction, no clinically relevant differences remained. Together with the primary analysis, results from this trial show that treatment with ipilimumab results in longer recurrence-free survival compared with that for treatment with placebo, with little impairment in HRQoL despite grade 3-4 investigator-reported adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab is an approved treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. We aimed to assess ipilimumab as adjuvant therapy for patients with completely resected stage III melanoma at high risk of recurrence. METHODS: We did a double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) with adequate resection of lymph nodes (ie, the primary cutaneous melanoma must have been completely excised with adequate surgical margins) who had not received previous systemic therapy for melanoma from 91 hospitals located in 19 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), centrally by an interactive voice response system, to receive intravenous infusions of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab or placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geographical region. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival, assessed by an independent review committee, and analysed by intention to treat. Enrollment is complete but the study is ongoing for follow-up for analysis of secondary endpoints. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2007-001974-10, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00636168. FINDINGS: Between July 10, 2008, and Aug 1, 2011, 951 patients were randomly assigned to ipilimumab (n=475) or placebo (n=476), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. At a median follow-up of 2·74 years (IQR 2·28-3·22), there were 528 recurrence-free survival events (234 in the ipilimumab group vs 294 in the placebo group). Median recurrence-free survival was 26·1 months (95% CI 19·3-39·3) in the ipilimumab group versus 17·1 months (95% CI 13·4-21·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·75; 95% CI 0·64-0·90; p=0·0013); 3-year recurrence-free survival was 46·5% (95% CI 41·5-51·3) in the ipilimumab group versus 34·8% (30·1-39·5) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events in the ipilimumab group were gastrointestinal (75 [16%] vs four [<1%] in the placebo group), hepatic (50 [11%] vs one [<1%]), and endocrine (40 [8%] vs none). Adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in 245 (52%) of 471 patients who started ipilimumab (182 [39%] during the initial treatment period of four doses). Five patients (1%) died due to drug-related adverse events. Five (1%) participants died because of drug-related adverse events in the ipilimumab group; three patients died because of colitis (two with gastrointestinal perforation), one patient because of myocarditis, and one patient because of multiorgan failure with Guillain-Barré syndrome. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant ipilimumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival for patients with completely resected high-risk stage III melanoma. The adverse event profile was consistent with that observed in advanced melanoma, but at higher incidences in particular for endocrinopathies. The risk-benefit ratio of adjuvant ipilimumab at this dose and schedule requires additional assessment based on distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival endpoints to define its definitive value. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

gp100 peptide vaccine and interleukin-2 in patients with advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Stimulating an immune response against cancer with the use of vaccines remains a challenge. We hypothesized that combining a melanoma vaccine with interleukin-2, an immune activating agent, could improve outcomes. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma receiving high-dose interleukin-2 plus the gp100:209-217(210M) peptide vaccine had a higher rate of response than the rate that is expected among patients who are treated with interleukin-2 alone. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, phase 3 trial involving 185 patients at 21 centers. Eligibility criteria included stage IV or locally advanced stage III cutaneous melanoma, expression of HLA*A0201, an absence of brain metastases, and suitability for high-dose interleukin-2 therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive interleukin-2 alone (720,000 IU per kilogram of body weight per dose) or gp100:209-217(210M) plus incomplete Freund's adjuvant (Montanide ISA-51) once per cycle, followed by interleukin-2. The primary end point was clinical response. Secondary end points included toxic effects and progression-free survival. RESULTS: The treatment groups were well balanced with respect to baseline characteristics and received a similar amount of interleukin-2 per cycle. The toxic effects were consistent with those expected with interleukin-2 therapy. The vaccine-interleukin-2 group, as compared with the interleukin-2-only group, had a significant improvement in centrally verified overall clinical response (16% vs. 6%, P=0.03), as well as longer progression-free survival (2.2 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 3.9 vs. 1.6 months; 95% CI, 1.5 to 1.8; P=0.008). The median overall survival was also longer in the vaccine-interleukin-2 group than in the interleukin-2-only group (17.8 months; 95% CI, 11.9 to 25.8 vs. 11.1 months; 95% CI, 8.7 to 16.3; P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma, the response rate was higher and progression-free survival longer with vaccine and interleukin-2 than with interleukin-2 alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00019682.).

Multicenter phase II study of matured dendritic cells pulsed with melanoma cell line lysates in patients with advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Several single center studies have provided evidence of immune activation and antitumor activity of therapeutic vaccination with dendritic cells (DC) in patients with metastatic melanoma. The efficacy of this approach in patients with favorable prognosis metastatic melanoma limited to the skin, subcutaneous tissues and lung (stages IIIc, M1a, M1b) was tested in a multicenter two stage phase 2 study with centralized DC manufacturing. METHODS: The vaccine (IDD-3) consisted 8 doses of autologous monocyte-derived matured DC generated in serum-free medium with granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and interleukin-13 (IL-13), pulsed with lysates of three allogeneic melanoma cell lines, and matured with interferon gamma. The primary endpoint was antitumor activity. RESULTS: Among 33 patients who received IDD-3 there was one complete response (CR), two partial responses (PR), and six patients had stable disease (SD) lasting more than eight weeks. The overall prospectively defined tumor growth control rate was 27% (90% confidence interval of 13-46%). IDD-3 administration had minimal toxicity and it resulted in a high frequency of immune activation to immunizing melanoma antigens as assessed by in vitro immune monitoring assays. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of matured DC loaded with tumor lysates has significant immunogenicity and antitumor activity in patients with limited metastatic melanoma. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00107159.

Reducing Unwarranted Oncology Care Variation Across a Clinically Integrated Network: A Collaborative Physician Engagement Strategy.

PURPOSE: Addressing unwarranted clinical variation in oncology is a high priority for health systems that aspire to ensure consistent levels of high-quality and cost-effective care. Efforts to improve clinical practice and standardize care have proven challenging. Advocate Physician Partners undertook a patient simulation-based practice measurement and feedback project that was focused on breast and lung cancer to engage oncologists in the care standardization process. METHODS: One hundred three medical oncologists cared for online simulated patients using the Clinical Performance and Value platform, receiving feedback on how their care decisions compared with evidence-based guidelines and their peers. We repeated this process every 4 months over six rounds, measuring changes in quality-of-care scores. We then compared simulated patient results with available patient-level claims data. RESULTS: Over the course of the project, overall quality-of-care scores improved 11.9% (P < .001). Diagnostic accuracy increased 6.7% (P < .001) and correlated with improved treatment scores, including a nearly 10-percentage point increase in evidence-based chemotherapy regimens (P = .009) and a 56% increase in addressing palliative needs for patients with late-stage disease (P < .001). Unnecessary test ordering declined 25% (P < .001). We compared these results with available patient data and observed concordance with the metastatic imaging workup order rate for early-stage breast cancer. As unnecessary workups declined in the simulations and became more closely aligned with evidence-based guidelines, we saw similar rates of decline in the patient-level data. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that an oncology care standardization system that combines simulated patients with serial feedback increases evidence-based and cost-effective clinical decisions in patient simulations and patient-level data.

Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of stage III melanoma: long-term follow-up results of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 double-blind phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Since 2015, adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab is an approved treatment for stage III melanoma based on a significantly prolonged recurrence-free survival (RFS). At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, RFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were each significantly prolonged in the ipilimumab group compared with the placebo group, despite a 53.3% (ipilimumab) versus 4.6% (placebo) treatment discontinuation rate due to adverse events. We present now long-term follow-up results of this European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18071 trial. PATIENTS, METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 99 sites randomised 951 patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) with adequate resection of lymph nodes to receive intravenous infusions of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo, every 3 weeks for 4 doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. The RFS, DMFS and OS, as reported by the local investigators, were assessed by the intention-to-treat analysis. Among 431 patients randomised at 63 sites and who were still alive at the analysis reported in 2016, recent follow-up information could be obtained for 264 patients. The median OS follow-up was 6.9 years. The RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.88; P < 0.001), DMFS (HR 0.76, 0.64-0.90; P = 0.002) and OS (HR 0.73, 0.60-0.89; P = 0.002) benefit observed in the ipilimumab group was durable with an 8.7% absolute difference at 7 years for OS. The benefit was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab prolongs RFS, DMFS and OS significantly. The benefit is sustained long term and consistent across subgroups.

An update on the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on tumor immunotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma: version 2.0.

BACKGROUND: Cancer immunotherapy has been firmly established as a standard of care for patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma. Therapeutic outcomes in clinical trials have resulted in the approval of 11 new drugs and/or combination regimens for patients with melanoma. However, prospective data to support evidence-based clinical decisions with respect to the optimal schedule and sequencing of immunotherapy and targeted agents, how best to manage emerging toxicities and when to stop treatment are not yet available. METHODS: To address this knowledge gap, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Melanoma Task Force developed a process for consensus recommendations for physicians treating patients with melanoma integrating evidence-based data, where available, with best expert consensus opinion. The initial consensus statement was published in 2013, and version 2.0 of this report is an update based on a recent meeting of the Task Force and extensive subsequent discussions on new agents, contemporary peer-reviewed literature and emerging clinical data. The Academy of Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine) clinical practice guidelines were used as a basis for consensus development with an updated literature search for important studies published between 1992 and 2017 and supplemented, as appropriate, by recommendations from Task Force participants. RESULTS: The Task Force considered patients with stage II-IV melanoma and here provide consensus recommendations for how they would incorporate the many immunotherapy options into clinical pathways for patients with cutaneous melanoma. CONCLUSION: These clinical guidleines provide physicians and healthcare providers with consensus recommendations for managing melanoma patients electing treatment with tumor immunotherapy.

The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on tumour immunotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma.

Immunotherapy is associated with durable clinical benefit in patients with melanoma. The goal of this article is to provide evidence-based consensus recommendations for the use of immunotherapy in the clinical management of patients with high-risk and advanced-stage melanoma in the USA. To achieve this goal, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer sponsored a panel of melanoma experts--including physicians, nurses, and patient advocates--to develop a consensus for the clinical application of tumour immunotherapy for patients with melanoma. The Institute of Medicine clinical practice guidelines were used as a basis for this consensus development. A systematic literature search was performed for high-impact studies in English between 1992 and 2012 and was supplemented as appropriate by the panel. This consensus report focuses on issues related to patient selection, toxicity management, clinical end points and sequencing or combination of therapy. The literature review and consensus panel voting and discussion were used to generate recommendations for the use of immunotherapy in patients with melanoma, and to assess and rate the strength of the supporting evidence. From the peer-reviewed literature the consensus panel identified a role for interferon-α2b, pegylated-interferon-α2b, interleukin-2 (IL-2) and ipilimumab in the clinical management of melanoma. Expert recommendations for how to incorporate these agents into the therapeutic approach to melanoma are provided in this consensus statement. Tumour immunotherapy is a useful therapeutic strategy in the management of patients with melanoma and evidence-based consensus recommendations for clinical integration are provided and will be updated as warranted.

Results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, dose-evaluating phase 2/3 study of lenalidomide in the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no systemic treatments for stage IV melanoma, which have been proven in randomized trials to benefit overall survival (OS). Lenalidomide has efficacy against melanoma in animal models and safety in phase 1 trials. The authors reported the results of a phase 2/3 study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed metastatic melanoma disease refractory to previous treatment with dacarbazine, temozolomide, interleukin-2, or interferon-alpha. METHODS: A total of 294 patients were randomized to oral lenalidomide at 5 mg or 25 mg dose. Tumor response, time to progression, and OS were evaluated. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. RESULTS: No significant differences in response rate, OS, or time to progression were observed between lenalidomide 25 mg versus 5 mg (overall response rate: 5.5% vs 3.4%, P = .38; median OS: 6.8 months vs 7.2 months, P = .71; and median time to progression: 2.2 months vs 1.9 months, P = .24). Myelosuppression was observed in 37.0% of patients in the 25 mg group and 13.7% of patients in the 5 mg group. Treatment-related serious adverse events were seen in 39.0% of patients at the 25 mg dose and 35.4% of patients at the 5 mg dose. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the occurrence of treatment-related serious adverse events, approximately 80% of patients continued treatment. The higher dose of lenalidomide did not improve response rate, time to progression, or OS of patients with relapsed/refractory stage IV melanoma. A parallel placebo-controlled study has been conducted to further assess the efficacy of lenalidomide in stage IV melanoma patients.

Randomized trial of an allogeneic melanoma lysate vaccine with low-dose interferon Alfa-2b compared with high-dose interferon Alfa-2b for Resected stage III cutaneous melanoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients with resected stage III melanoma administered active specific immunotherapy and low-dose interferon alfa-2b (IFN-alpha-2b) with the OS achieved using high-dose IFN-alpha-2b. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An Ad Hoc Melanoma Working Group of 25 investigators treated 604 patients from April 1997 to January 2003. Patients were stratified by sex and number of nodes and were randomly assigned to receive either 2 years of treatment with active specific immunotherapy with allogeneic melanoma lysates and low-dose IFN-alpha-2b (arm 1) or high-dose IFN-alpha-2b alone for 1 year (arm 2). Active specific immunotherapy was injected subcutaneously (SC) weekly for 4 weeks, at week 8, and bimonthly thereafter. IFN-alpha-2b SC was begun on week 4 and continued thrice weekly at 5 MU/m2 for 2 years. IFN-alpha-2b in arm 2 was administered according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1684 study regimen. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 32 months for all patients and 42 months for surviving patients. Median OS time exceeds 84 months in arm 1 and is 83 months in arm 2 (P = .56). Five-year OS rate is 61% in arm 1 and 57% in arm 2. Estimated 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate is 50% in arm 1 and 48% in arm 2, with median RFS times of 58 and 50 months, respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events as a result of treatment was the same in both arms, but more severe neuropsychiatric toxicity was seen in arm 2. CONCLUSION: OS and RFS achieved by active specific immunotherapy and low-dose IFN-alpha-2b were indistinguishable from those achieved by high-dose IFN-alpha-2b. Long RFS and OS times were observed in both treatment arms.