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.).

Association between pretreatment emotional distress and neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade response in melanoma.

Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) outperforms adjuvant ICB for treatment of stage IIIB-D melanoma, but potential biomarkers of response, such as interferon-gamma (IFNγ) signature and tumor mutational burden (TMB), are insufficient. Preclinical studies suggest that emotional distress (ED) can negatively affect antitumor immune responses via ß-adrenergic or glucocorticoid signaling. We performed a post hoc analysis evaluating the association between pretreatment ED and clinical responses after neoadjuvant ICB treatment in patients with stage IIIB-D melanoma in the phase 2 PRADO trial ( NCT02977052 ). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer scale for emotional functioning was used to identify patients with ED (n = 28) versus those without (n = 60). Pretreatment ED was significantly associated with reduced major pathologic responses (46% versus 65%, adjusted odds ratio 0.20, P = 0.038) after adjusting for IFNγ signature and TMB, reduced 2-year relapse-free survival (74% versus 91%, adjusted hazard ratio 3.81, P = 0.034) and reduced 2-year distant metastasis-free survival (78% versus 95%, adjusted hazard ratio 4.33, P = 0.040) after adjusting for IFNγ signature. RNA sequencing analyses of baseline patient samples could not identify clear ß-adrenergic- or glucocorticoid-driven mechanisms associated with these reduced outcomes. Pretreatment ED may be a marker associated with clinical responses after neoadjuvant ICB in melanoma and warrants further investigation. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02977052 .

Biomarker-Driven Personalization of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Melanoma.

The introduction of immunotherapy has ushered in a new era of anticancer therapy for many cancer types including melanoma. Given the increasing development of novel compounds and combinations and the investigation in earlier disease stages, the need grows for biomarker-based treatment personalization. Stage III melanoma is one of the front-runners in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy field, facilitating quick biomarker identification by its immunogenic capacity, homogeneous patient population, and reliable efficacy readout. In this review, we discuss potential biomarkers for response prediction to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and how the neoadjuvant melanoma platform could pave the way for biomarker identification in other tumor types. SIGNIFICANCE: In accordance with the increasing rate of therapy development, the need for biomarker-driven personalized treatments grows. The current landscape of neoadjuvant treatment and biomarker development in stage III melanoma can function as a poster child for these personalized treatments in other tumors, assisting in the development of new biomarker-based neoadjuvant trials. This will contribute to personalized benefit-risk predictions to identify the most beneficial treatment for each patient.

Systemic LRG1 Expression in Melanoma is Associated with Disease Progression and Recurrence.

The response rates upon neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in stage III melanoma are higher as compared with stage IV disease. Given that successful ICB depends on systemic immune response, we hypothesized that systemic immune suppression might be a mechanism responsible for lower response rates in late-stage disease, and also potentially with disease recurrence in early-stage disease. Plasma and serum samples of cohorts of patients with melanoma were analyzed for circulating proteins using mass spectrometry proteomic profiling and Olink proteomic assay. A cohort of paired samples of patients with stage III that progressed to stage IV disease (n = 64) was used to identify markers associated with higher tumor burden. Baseline patient samples from the OpACIN-neo study (n = 83) and PRADO study (n = 49; NCT02977052) were used as two independent cohorts to analyze whether the potential identified markers are also associated with disease recurrence after neoadjuvant ICB therapy. When comparing baseline proteins overlapping between patients with progressive disease and patients with recurrent disease, we found leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein 1 (LRG1) to be associated with worse prognosis. Especially nonresponder patients to neoadjuvant ICB (OpACIN-neo) with high LRG1 expression had a poor outcome with an estimated 36-month event-free survival of 14% as compared with 83% for nonresponders with a low LRG1 expression (P = 0.014). This finding was validated in an independent cohort (P = 0.0021). LRG1 can be used as a biomarker to identify patients with high risk for disease progression and recurrence, and might be a target to be combined with neoadjuvant ICB. Significance: LRG1 could serve as a potential target and as a biomarker to identify patients with high risk for disease recurrence, and consequently benefit from additional therapies and intensive follow-up.

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.

Inhibitor of Apoptosis Proteins Antagonist Induces T-cell Proliferation after Cross-Presentation by Dendritic Cells.

Cross-presentation of tumor antigens by dendritic cells (DC) is crucial to prime, stimulate and restimulate CD8+ T cells. This process is important in initiating and maintaining an antitumor response. Here, we show that the presence of conventional type 1 DCs (cDC1), a DC subtype that excels in cross-presentation, in the tumor correlated with response to neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in melanoma. This led us to hypothesize that patients failing to respond to ICB could benefit from enhanced cross-presentation of tumor antigens. We therefore established a cross-presentation assay to screen over 5,500 compounds for enhancers of DC cross-presentation using induced T-cell proliferation as the readout. We identified 145 enhancers, including AZD5582, an antagonist of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAP) cIAP1, cIAP2, and XIAP. AZD5582 treatment led to DC activation of the noncanonical NF-kB pathway, enhanced antigen import from endolysosomes into the cytosol, and increased expression of genes involved in cross-presentation. Furthermore, it upregulated expression of CD80, CD86, MHC class II, CD70 and secretion of TNF by DCs. This enhanced DC activation and maturation program was observed also in tumor-bearing mice upon AZD5582 treatment, culminating in an increased frequency of systemic tumor antigen-specific CD8+ T cells. Our results merit further exploration of AZD5582 to increase antigen cross-presentation for improving the clinical benefit of ICB in patients who are unlikely to respond to ICB.

Diet-driven microbial ecology underpins associations between cancer immunotherapy outcomes and the gut microbiome.

The gut microbiota shapes the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer, however dietary and geographic influences have not been well-studied in prospective trials. To address this, we prospectively profiled baseline gut (fecal) microbiota signatures and dietary patterns of 103 trial patients from Australia and the Netherlands treated with neoadjuvant ICIs for high risk resectable metastatic melanoma and performed an integrated analysis with data from 115 patients with melanoma treated with ICIs in the United States. We observed geographically distinct microbial signatures of response and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Overall, response rates were higher in Ruminococcaceae-dominated microbiomes than in Bacteroidaceae-dominated microbiomes. Poor response was associated with lower fiber and omega 3 fatty acid consumption and elevated levels of C-reactive protein in the peripheral circulation at baseline. Together, these data provide insight into the relevance of native gut microbiota signatures, dietary intake and systemic inflammation in shaping the response to and toxicity from ICIs, prompting the need for further studies in this area.

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.

Representativeness of the Index Lymph Node for Total Nodal Basin in Pathologic Response Assessment After Neoadjuvant Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Stage III Melanoma.

IMPORTANCE: Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition in patients with high-risk stage III melanoma shows high pathologic response rates associated with a durable relapse-free survival. Whether a therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) can be safely omitted when a major pathologic response in the largest lymph node metastasis at baseline (index lymph node; ILN) is obtained is currently being investigated. A previous small pilot study (n = 12) showed that the response in the ILN may be representative of the pathologic response in the entire TLND specimen. OBJECTIVE: To assess the concordance of response between the ILN and the total lymph node bed in a larger clinical trial population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective pathologic response analysis of a multicenter clinical trial population of patients from the randomized Study to Identify the Optimal Adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Melanoma Patients (OpACIN) and Optimal Neo-Adjuvant Combination Scheme of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab (OpACIN-neo) trials. Included patients were treated with 6 weeks neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Patient inclusion into the trials was conducted from August 12, 2015, to October 24, 2016 (OpACIN), and November 24, 2016, and June 28, 2018 (OpACIN-neo). Data were analyzed from April 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Concordance of the pathologic response between the ILN and the TLND tumor bed. The pathologic response of the ILN was retrospectively assessed according to the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium criteria and compared with the pathologic response of the entire TLND specimen. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients treated with neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab followed by TLND (48 [59%] were male; median age, 58.5 [range, 18-80] years) were included. The pathologic response in the ILN was concordant with the entire TLND specimen response in 81 of 82 patients (99%) and in 79 of 82 patients (96%) concordant when comparing the ILN response with the response in every individual lymph node. In the single patient with a discordant response, the ILN response (20% viable tumor, partial pathologic response) underestimated the entire TLND specimen response (5% viable, near-complete pathologic response). Two other patients each had 1 small nonindex node that contained 80% viable tumor (pathologic nonresponse) whereas all other lymph nodes (including the ILN) showed a partial pathologic response. In these 2 patients, the risk of regional relapse might potentially have been increased if TLND had been omitted. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this study suggest that the pathologic response of the ILN may be considered a reliable indicator of the entire TLND specimen response and may support the ILN response-directed omission of TLND in a prospective trial.

Ipilimumab alone or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-1) induces long-term disease control in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic melanoma; however, two-thirds of patients are resistant and will require further treatment. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) compared with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-[L]1). METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, was done at 15 melanoma centres in Australia, Europe, and the USA. We included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic melanoma (unresectable stage III and IV), who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (innate or acquired resistance) and who then received either ipilimumab monotherapy or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab), based on availability of therapies or clinical factors determined by the physician, or both. Tumour response was assessed as per standard of care (CT or PET-CT scans every 3 months). The study endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1. FINDINGS: We included 355 patients with metastatic melanoma, resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), who had been treated with ipilimumab monotherapy (n=162 [46%]) or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (n=193 [54%]) between Feb 1, 2011, and Feb 6, 2020. At a median follow-up of 22·1 months (IQR 9·5-30·9), the objective response rate was higher with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (60 [31%] of 193 patients) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (21 [13%] of 162 patients; p<0·0001). Overall survival was longer in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group (median overall survival 20·4 months [95% CI 12·7-34·8]) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (8·8 months [6·1-11·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival was also longer with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (median 3·0 months [95% CI 2·6-3·6]) than with ipilimumab (2·6 months [2·4-2·9]; HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·87; p=0·0019). Similar proportions of patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events in both groups (59 [31%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 54 [33%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were diarrhoea or colitis (23 [12%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 33 [20%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group) and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (24 [12%] vs 15 [9%]). One death occurred with ipilimumab 26 days after the last treatment: a colon perforation due to immune-related pancolitis. INTERPRETATION: In patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1, ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 seemed to yield higher efficacy than ipilimumab with a higher objective response rate, longer progression-free, and longer overall survival, with a similar rate of grade 3-5 toxicity. Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 should be favoured over ipilimumab alone as a second-line immunotherapy for these patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: None.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in synchronous clinical stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma can present with primary melanoma lesions, locally recurrent melanoma or in-transit metastases. Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates and an impressive relapse-free survival in patients with nodal macroscopic stage III melanoma. Whether primary site melanoma and in-transit metastases respond similarly to lymph node metastases with neoadjuvant immunotherapy is largely unknown. Such data would clarify whether surgical excision of these melanoma lesions should be performed before neoadjuvant therapy or whether it could be deferred and performed in conjunction with lymphadenectomy following neoadjuvant immunotherapy. PATIENTS: Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma were identified from the OpACIN, OpACIN-neo and PRADO neoadjuvant trials, where all patients were treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. An additional case treated outside those clinical trials was included. RESULTS: Seven patients were identified; six patients had a concordant response in primary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis and the lymph node metastases. One patient had concordant progression in both the primary and nodal tumour lesions and developed stage IV disease during neoadjuvant treatment, and thus, no resection was performed. CONCLUSION: Pathologic response following neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in primary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis is concordant with a response in the lymph node metastases, indicating that there may be no need to perform upfront surgery to these melanoma lesions prior to neoadjuvant treatment.

Switch to checkpoint inhibition after targeted therapy at time of progression or during ongoing response: A retrospective single-centre experience in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma.

BRAF + MEK inhibition is preferentially applied as first-line therapy in BRAF V600-mutated melanoma patients with unfavourable prognostic features, due to the ability of targeted therapy (TT) to induce rapid symptom control, decrease tumour burden and normalize lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. In addition, short-term TT transiently increases tumour antigen presentation and tumour influx of T cells. Therefore, it might be favourable to switch TT to checkpoint inhibition (CPI) before progression (PD). We retrospectively analysed melanoma patients treated first line with TT (TT1) and who subsequently switched to CPI during response to TT (sDR group) or at progression upon TT (sPD group). We identified 74 patients (n = 37 sDR group and n = 37 sPD group). ORR to CPI was 27.0% in the sDR group versus 24.3% in the sPD group (p = .790). Median was PFS 2.5 months versus 1.2 months (p = .145), and median OS was 30.6 versus 14.1 months (p = .007). After adjusting for baseline differences and known prognostic factors, hazard ratios (HRs) favouring sDR were 0.89 for PFS upon CPI (p = .956) and 0.48 for OS (p = .055). Thus, patients switching to CPI during ongoing clinical benefit from TT do not have an inferior outcome. Due to baseline imbalances and small patient population, a favourable trend for the sDR group can be hypothesized only.