Fibrinogen-like Protein 1 Is a Major Immune Inhibitory Ligand of LAG-3.

Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) is an immune inhibitory receptor, with major histocompatibility complex class II (MHC-II) as a canonical ligand. However, it remains controversial whether MHC-II is solely responsible for the inhibitory function of LAG-3. Here, we demonstrate that fibrinogen-like protein 1 (FGL1), a liver-secreted protein, is a major LAG-3 functional ligand independent from MHC-II. FGL1 inhibits antigen-specific T cell activation, and ablation of FGL1 in mice promotes T cell immunity. Blockade of the FGL1-LAG-3 interaction by monoclonal antibodies stimulates tumor immunity and is therapeutic against established mouse tumors in a receptor-ligand inter-dependent manner. FGL1 is highly produced by human cancer cells, and elevated FGL1 in the plasma of cancer patients is associated with a poor prognosis and resistance to anti-PD-1/B7-H1 therapy. Our findings reveal an immune evasion mechanism and have implications for the design of cancer immunotherapy.

KDM5B promotes immune evasion by recruiting SETDB1 to silence retroelements.

Tumours use various strategies to evade immune surveillance1,2. Immunotherapies targeting tumour immune evasion such as immune checkpoint blockade have shown considerable efficacy on multiple cancers3,4 but are ineffective for most patients due to primary or acquired resistance5-7. Recent studies showed that some epigenetic regulators suppress anti-tumour immunity2,8-12, suggesting that epigenetic therapies could boost anti-tumour immune responses and overcome resistance to current immunotherapies. Here we show that, in mouse melanoma models, depletion of KDM5B-an H3K4 demethylase that is critical for melanoma maintenance and drug resistance13-15-induces robust adaptive immune responses and enhances responses to immune checkpoint blockade. Mechanistically, KDM5B recruits the H3K9 methyltransferase SETDB1 to repress endogenous retroelements such as MMVL30 in a demethylase-independent manner. Derepression of these retroelements activates cytosolic RNA-sensing and DNA-sensing pathways and the subsequent type-I interferon response, leading to tumour rejection and induction of immune memory. Our results demonstrate that KDM5B suppresses anti-tumour immunity by epigenetic silencing of retroelements. We therefore reveal roles of KDM5B in heterochromatin regulation and immune evasion in melanoma, opening new paths for the development of KDM5B-targeting and SETDB1-targeting therapies to enhance tumour immunogenicity and overcome immunotherapy resistance.

CD4 T cells and toxicity from immune checkpoint blockade.

Immune-related toxicities, otherwise known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs), occur in a substantial fraction of cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Ranging from asymptomatic to life-threatening, ICI-induced irAEs can result in hospital admission, high-dose corticosteroid treatment, ICI discontinuation, and in some cases, death. A deeper understanding of the factors underpinning severe irAE development will be essential for improved irAE prediction and prevention, toward maximizing the benefits and safety profiles of ICIs. In recent work, we applied mass cytometry, single-cell RNA sequencing, single-cell V(D)J sequencing, bulk RNA sequencing, and bulk T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing to identify pretreatment determinants of severe irAE development in patients with advanced melanoma. Across 71 patients separated into three cohorts, we found that two baseline features in circulation-elevated activated CD4 effector memory T-cell abundance and TCR diversity-are associated with severe irAE development, independent of the affected organ system within 3 months of ICI treatment initiation. Here, we provide an extended perspective on this work, synthesize and discuss related literature, and summarize practical considerations for clinical translation. Collectively, these findings lay a foundation for data-driven and mechanistic insights into irAE development, with the potential to reduce ICI morbidity and mortality in the future.

Clinical Predictors of Survival in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma Treated With Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibitors After Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Prospective and between trial comparisons indicate that first-line treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors improves survival outcomes compared to first-line therapy with combined BRAF and MEK inhibitors in metastatic melanoma containing BRAFV600E/K mutations. Long-term outcomes for BRAF/MEK inhibition after progression on immunotherapy have not been reported. Moreover, clinical variables associated with outcome from treatment with combined BRAF/MEK inhibition were previously identified in the first-line setting but have not been investigated when targeted therapies are administered after progression on immune therapy. We performed a retrospective single institution analysis of 40 metastatic melanoma patients receiving combined BRAF/MEK inhibitors after progression on an anti-PD-1 or ipilimumab plus nivolumab to assess response rate by RECIST 1.1, progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS). Pretreatment clinical variables were analyzed for association with OS. Ipilimumab/nivolumab was the first-line immunotherapy regimen in 39 patients (97.5%), and BRAFV600E/K mutations were present in 33 (83%) and 7 (17%) patients, respectively. The median OS from start of BRAF/MEK inhibitors was 20.3 months (1.73-106.4+, 95% CI of median 13.3-30.7). Clinical characteristics associated with worse survival prior to starting BRAF/MEK inhibitors included age > 60 years (median OS 14 vs. 28 months; HR 2.5; 95% CI 0.91-6.87, P = .023), ECOG-PS > 2 (median OS 7 vs. 33 months; HR 2.89; 95% CI 0.78-10.76, P = .018), and presence of bone metastases (median OS 9 vs. 52 months; HR 3.17; 95% CI 1.33-7.54, P = .002). These associations with shorter survival maintained their significance on multivariate analysis. If confirmed in larger cohorts, the identified prognostic variables can be used for stratification of patients in future randomized trials.

A bedside to bench study of anti-PD-1, anti-CD40, and anti-CSF1R indicates that more is not necessarily better.

BACKGROUND: Stimulating inflammatory tumor associated macrophages can overcome resistance to PD-(L)1 blockade. We previously conducted a phase I trial of cabiralizumab (anti-CSF1R), sotigalimab (CD40-agonist) and nivolumab. Our current purpose was to study the activity and cellular effects of this three-drug regimen in anti-PD-1-resistant melanoma. METHODS: We employed a Simon's two-stage design and analyzed circulating immune cells from patients treated with this regimen for treatment-related changes. We assessed various dose levels of anti-CSF1R in murine melanoma models and studied the cellular and molecular effects. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled in the first stage. We observed one (7.7%) confirmed and one (7.7%) unconfirmed partial response, 5 patients had stable disease (38.5%) and 6 disease progression (42.6%). We elected not to proceed to the second stage. CyTOF analysis revealed a reduction in non-classical monocytes. Patients with prolonged stable disease or partial response who remained on study for longer had increased markers of antigen presentation after treatment compared to patients whose disease progressed rapidly. In a murine model, higher anti-CSF1R doses resulted in increased tumor growth and worse survival. Using single-cell RNA-sequencing, we identified a suppressive monocyte/macrophage population in murine tumors exposed to higher doses. CONCLUSIONS: Higher anti-CSF1R doses are inferior to lower doses in a preclinical model, inducing a suppressive macrophage population, and potentially explaining the disappointing results observed in patients. While it is impossible to directly infer human doses from murine studies, careful intra-species evaluation can provide important insight. Cabiralizumab dose optimization is necessary for this patient population with limited treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03502330.

Determinants of overall survival in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in the treatment of primary uveal melanoma (UM), patients with metastatic disease continue to exhibit poor survival. METHODS: A retrospective review of metastatic UM patients at Yale (initial cohort) and Memorial Sloan Kettering (validation cohort) was conducted. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine baseline factors that are associated with overall survival, including sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status Scale, laboratory measurements, metastasis location, and use of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapies. Differences in overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients with metastatic UM were identified; 71 and 18, in the initial and validation cohorts, respectively. In the initial cohort, median follow-up was 19.8 months (range, 2-127 months) and median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 16.6-31.3). Female sex, anti-CTLA-4, and anti-PD-1 therapy were associated with better survival outcomes with adjusted death hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.40 (95% CI, 0.20-0.78), 0.44 (0.20-0.97), and 0.42 (0.22-0.84), respectively, whereas development of hepatic metastases and ECOG score ≥1 (per 1 U/L) were associated with worse survival outcomes with HRs of 2.86 (1.28-7.13) and 2.84 (1.29-6.09), respectively. In both the initial and validation cohorts, use of immune checkpoint inhibitors was associated with improved overall survival after adjusting for sex and ECOG score, with death HRs of 0.22 (0.08-0.56) and 0.04 (0.002-0.26), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Development of extrahepatic-only metastases, ECOG of 0, immune checkpoint therapy, and female sex were each associated with more than 2-fold reductions in risk of death. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Metastatic uveal melanoma patients face limited treatment options and poor survival rates. Results from this retrospective analysis indicate that immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapies, were associated with improved survival outcomes. Factors such as extrahepatic-only metastases, better baseline performance status, and female sex contributed to a more than 2-fold reduction in death risk. These findings highlight the potential of immunotherapy in treating metastatic uveal melanoma.

Validation of the Prognostic Usefulness of the Gene Expression Profiling Test in Patients with Uveal Melanoma.

PURPOSE: To validate the prognostic usefulness of gene expression profile (GEP) testing in patients with uveal melanoma. To determine whether combining tumor size with the GEP classification provides additional prognostic value. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a diagnosis of choroidal melanoma examined at Yale New Haven Hospital; University of California, San Diego; and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. METHODS: Patients' demographic and clinical data and tumor characteristics were collected. Univariate and multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis were used to assess the association between tumor characteristics and GEP classification with metastasis as an outcome. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Metastasis-free survival (MFS). RESULTS: Of the 337 individuals included in the study, 87 demonstrated metastases. The mean follow-up time was 37.2 (standard deviation [SD], 40.2) months for patients with metastases and 55.0 (SD, 49.3) months for those without metastases. Tumors of larger thickness and GEP class 2 (vs. class 1) were associated significantly with increased risk of metastasis. Tumor thickness showed better prognostic usefulness than GEP classification (Wald statistic, 40.7 and 24.2, respectively). Class 2 tumors with a thickness of 7.0 mm or more were associated with increased risk of metastasis than tumors with a thickness of < 7.0 mm (hazard ratio [HR], 3.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-6.51), whereas class 1 tumors with a thickness of 9.0 mm or more were associated with increased risk of metastasis than tumors with a thickness of < 9.0 mm (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.86-4.99). No difference in MFS was found between patients with class 1A tumors compared with those with class 1B tumors (P = 0.8). Patients with class 2 tumors showed an observed 5-year MFS of 47.5% (95% CI, 36.0%-62.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor size was the most significant predictor of metastasis and provided additional prognostic value independent of GEP classification. In addition, rates of metastasis for class 2 tumors were lower than estimates reported by Castle Bioscience, and no difference in rates of metastasis were found between class 1A and 1B tumors. This indicates that tumor size should be accounted for when relying on GEP for prognostication and that patients with GEP class 1A or 1B tumors may benefit from the same metastatic surveillance protocols. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Coupled fibromodulin and SOX2 signaling as a critical regulator of metastatic outgrowth in melanoma.

We aimed to study mechanisms controlling metastatic outgrowth of melanoma into clinically relevant lesions, a critical process responsible for the majority of melanoma deaths. To this end, we developed novel in vivo models and identified molecular events that can be ascribed to their distinct phenotypes, indolent or highly metastatic. Induction of a proliferative state at distant sites was associated with high levels of the stem-like/progenitor marker, SOX2, and required the upregulation of FMOD, an extracellular matrix component, which modulates tumor-stroma interactions. Functional studies revealed a possible link between FMOD and SOX2; dual FMOD and SOX2 silencing nearly abolished brain metastasis and had a similar effect on distant metastasis to other sites. Our in vitro data suggests that FMOD and SOX2 cooperation plays an important role in tumor vasculogenic mimicry. Furthermore, we found that FMOD and SOX2 functional roles might converge at the activation of transcriptional co-factors YAP and TAZ, possibly via crosstalk with the tumor suppressor Hippo pathway. Finally, high expression of both genes in patient specimens predicted early development of brain metastasis. Thus, our study identifies FMOD and SOX2 cooperation as a novel regulatory mechanism that might be linked functionally to melanoma metastatic competence.

Bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Phase III PIVOT IO 001 study design.

Nivolumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, has demonstrated prolonged survival benefit in patients with advanced melanoma. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214), a first-in-class CD122-preferential IL-2 pathway agonist, provides sustained signaling through the IL-2ßγ receptor, which activates effector T and natural killer cells. In the Phase I/II PIVOT-02 trial, the combination of bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. Here, we describe the design of and rationale for the Phase III, global, randomized, open-label PIVOT IO 001 trial comparing bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab with nivolumab alone in patients with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Primary end points include objective response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Key secondary end points include further investigation of safety/tolerability, previously assessed in the PIVOT-02 trial. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03635983 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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.).

Bullous disorders associated with anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapy: A retrospective analysis evaluating the clinical and histopathologic features, frequency, and impact on cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Bullous disorders associated with anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy are increasingly reported and may pose distinct therapeutic challenges. Their frequency and impact on cancer therapy are not well established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and histopathologic findings, frequency, and impact on cancer therapy of bullous eruptions due to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients evaluated by the oncodermatology clinic and consultative service of Yale New Haven Hospital from 2016 to 2018. RESULTS: We identified 9 of 853 patients who developed bullous eruptions (∼1%) that were treated with an-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy at our institution during the study period: 7 presented with bullous pemphigoid, 1 presented with bullous lichenoid dermatitis, and 1 presented with linear IgA bullous dermatosis in the context of vancomycin therapy. In all, 8 patients required systemic steroids, 5 required maintenance therapy, and 8 required interruption of immunotherapy. All 9 patients had an initial positive tumor response or stable disease, but 4 went on to develop disease progression. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study from a single tertiary care center. CONCLUSIONS: Bullous disorders developed in approximately 1% of patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy at our institution and frequently resulted in interruption of immune therapy and management with systemic corticosteroids and occasionally steroid-sparing agents.

Combination therapy with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 leads to distinct immunologic changes in vivo.

Combination therapy concurrently targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4 immune checkpoints leads to remarkable antitumor effects. Although both PD-1 and CTLA-4 dampen the T cell activation, the in vivo effects of these drugs in humans remain to be clearly defined. To better understand biologic effects of therapy, we analyzed blood/tumor tissue from 45 patients undergoing single or combination immune checkpoint blockade. We show that blockade of CTLA-4, PD-1, or combination of the two leads to distinct genomic and functional signatures in vivo in purified human T cells and monocytes. Therapy-induced changes are more prominent in T cells than in monocytes and involve largely nonoverlapping changes in coding genes, including alternatively spliced transcripts and noncoding RNAs. Pathway analysis revealed that CTLA-4 blockade induces a proliferative signature predominantly in a subset of transitional memory T cells, whereas PD-1 blockade instead leads to changes in genes implicated in cytolysis and NK cell function. Combination blockade leads to nonoverlapping changes in gene expression, including proliferation-associated and chemokine genes. These therapies also have differential effects on plasma levels of CXCL10, soluble IL-2R, and IL-1α. Importantly, PD-1 receptor occupancy following anti-PD-1 therapy may be incomplete in the tumor T cells even in the setting of complete receptor occupancy in circulating T cells. These data demonstrate that, despite shared property of checkpoint blockade, Abs against PD-1, CTLA-4 alone, or in combination have distinct immunologic effects in vivo. Improved understanding of pharmacodynamic effects of these agents in patients will support rational development of immune-based combinations against cancer.

Pembrolizumab for patients with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer and untreated brain metastases: early analysis of a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy targeting the PD-1 axis has activity in several tumour types. We aimed to establish the activity and safety of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in patients with untreated brain metastases from melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with melanoma or NSCLC with untreated brain metastases from the Yale Cancer Center. Patients had at least one untreated or progressive brain metastasis between 5 and 20 mm in diameter without associated neurological symptoms or the need for corticosteroids. Patients with NSCLC had tumour tissue positive for PD-L1 expression; this was not required for patients with melanoma. Patients were given 10 mg/kg pembrolizumab every 2 weeks until progression. The primary endpoint was brain metastasis response assessed in all treated patients. The trial is ongoing and here we present an early analysis. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02085070. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and May 31, 2015, we screened 52 patients with untreated or progressive brain metastases (18 with melanoma, 34 with NSCLC), and enrolled 36 (18 with melanoma, 18 with NSCLC). A brain metastasis response was achieved in four (22%; 95% CI 7-48) of 18 patients with melanoma and six (33%; 14-59) of 18 patients with NSCLC. Responses were durable, with all but one patient with NSCLC who responded showing an ongoing response at the time of data analysis on June 30, 2015. Treatment-related serious and grade 3-4 adverse events were grade 3 elevated aminotransferases (n=1 [6%]) in the melanoma cohort, and grade 3 colitis (n=1 [6%]), grade 3 pneumonitis (n=1 [6%]), grade 3 fatigue (n=1 [6%]), grade 4 hyperkalemia (n=1 [6%]), and grade 2 acute kidney injury (n=1 [6%]) in the NSCLC cohort. Clinically significant neurological adverse events included transient grade 3 cognitive dysfunction and grade 1-2 seizures (n=3 [17%]) in the melanoma cohort. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab shows activity in brain metastases in patients with melanoma or NSCLC with an acceptable safety profile, which suggests that there might be a role for systemic immunotherapy in patients with untreated or progressive brain metastases. FUNDING: Merck and the Yale Cancer Center.

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.

Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer.

BACKGROUND: Blockade of programmed death 1 (PD-1), an inhibitory receptor expressed by T cells, can overcome immune resistance. We assessed the antitumor activity and safety of BMS-936558, an antibody that specifically blocks PD-1. METHODS: We enrolled patients with advanced melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, castration-resistant prostate cancer, or renal-cell or colorectal cancer to receive anti-PD-1 antibody at a dose of 0.1 to 10.0 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks. Response was assessed after each 8-week treatment cycle. Patients received up to 12 cycles until disease progression or a complete response occurred. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients received treatment through February 24, 2012. Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events occurred in 14% of patients; there were three deaths from pulmonary toxicity. No maximum tolerated dose was defined. Adverse events consistent with immune-related causes were observed. Among 236 patients in whom response could be evaluated, objective responses (complete or partial responses) were observed in those with non-small-cell lung cancer, melanoma, or renal-cell cancer. Cumulative response rates (all doses) were 18% among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (14 of 76 patients), 28% among patients with melanoma (26 of 94 patients), and 27% among patients with renal-cell cancer (9 of 33 patients). Responses were durable; 20 of 31 responses lasted 1 year or more in patients with 1 year or more of follow-up. To assess the role of intratumoral PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) expression in the modulation of the PD-1-PD-L1 pathway, immunohistochemical analysis was performed on pretreatment tumor specimens obtained from 42 patients. Of 17 patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, none had an objective response; 9 of 25 patients (36%) with PD-L1-positive tumors had an objective response (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-PD-1 antibody produced objective responses in approximately one in four to one in five patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, melanoma, or renal-cell cancer; the adverse-event profile does not appear to preclude its use. Preliminary data suggest a relationship between PD-L1 expression on tumor cells and objective response. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00730639.).

Programmed death ligand-1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer.

Recent strategies targeting the interaction of the programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1, B7-H1, CD274) with its receptor, PD-1, resulted in promising activity in early phase clinical trials. In this study, we used various antibodies and in situ mRNA hybridization to measure PD-L1 in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using a quantitative fluorescence (QIF) approach to determine the frequency of expression and prognostic value in two independent populations. A control tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using PD-L1-transfected cells, normal human placenta and known PD-L1-positive NSCLC cases. Only one of four antibodies against PD-L1 (5H1) validated for specificity on this TMA. In situ PD-L1 mRNA using the RNAscope method was similarly validated. Two cohorts of NSCLC cases in TMAs including 340 cases from hospitals in Greece and 204 cases from Yale University were assessed. Tumors showed PD-L1 protein expression in 36% (Greek) and 25% (Yale) of the cases. PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in both cohorts. Patients with PD-L1 (both protein and mRNA) expression above the detection threshold showed statistically significant better outcome in both series (log-rank P=0.036 and P=0.027). Multivariate analysis showed that PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with better outcome independent of histology. Measurement of PD-L1 requires specific conditions and some commercial antibodies show lack of specificity. Expression of PD-L1 protein or mRNA is associated with better outcome. Further studies are required to determine the value of this marker in prognosis and prediction of response to treatments targeting this pathway.

Integrated NY-ESO-1 antibody and CD8+ T-cell responses correlate with clinical benefit in advanced melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab.

Ipilimumab, a monoclonal antibody against cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), has been shown to improve survival in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma. It also enhances immunity to NY-ESO-1, a cancer/testis antigen expressed in a subset of patients with melanoma. To characterize the association between immune response and clinical outcome, we first analyzed NY-ESO-1 serum antibody by ELISA in 144 ipilimumab-treated patients with melanoma and found 22 of 140 (16%) seropositive at baseline and 31 of 144 (22%) seropositive following treatment. These NY-ESO-1-seropositive patients had a greater likelihood of experiencing clinical benefit 24 wk after ipilimumab treatment than NY-ESO-1-seronegative patients (P = 0.02, relative risk = 1.8, two-tailed Fisher test). To understand why some patients with NY-ESO-1 antibody failed to experience clinical benefit, we analyzed NY-ESO-1-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell responses by intracellular multicytokine staining in 20 NY-ESO-1-seropositive patients and found a surprising dissociation between NY-ESO-1 antibody and CD8 responses in some patients. NY-ESO-1-seropositive patients with associated CD8(+) T cells experienced more frequent clinical benefit (10 of 13; 77%) than those with undetectable CD8(+) T-cell response (one of seven; 14%; P = 0.02; relative risk = 5.4, two-tailed Fisher test), as well as a significant survival advantage (P = 0.01; hazard ratio = 0.2, time-dependent Cox model). Together, our data suggest that integrated NY-ESO-1 immune responses may have predictive value for ipilimumab treatment and argue for prospective studies in patients with established NY-ESO-1 immunity. The current findings provide a strong rationale for the clinical use of modulators of immunosuppression with concurrent approaches to favor tumor antigen-specific immune responses, such as vaccines or adoptive transfer, in patients with cancer.