Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial: early discontinuation of nivolumab upon achieving a complete or partial response in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab - study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma presenting with poor prognostic factors are usually treated with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), consisting of ipilimumab and nivolumab. This combination therapy is associated with severe immune related adverse events (irAEs) in about 60% of patients. In current clinical practice, patients are usually treated with ICIs for up to two years or until disease progression or the occurrence of unacceptable AEs. The incidence of irAEs gradually increases with duration of treatment. While durable tumour responses have been observed after early discontinuation of treatment, no consensus has been reached on optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of ICIs is safe in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy. METHODS: The Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 80 patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy of ipilimumab-nivolumab and have a complete or partial response (CR/PR) according to RECIST v1.1 will be included to early discontinue maintenance therapy with anti-PD-1. The primary endpoint is the rate of ongoing response at 12 months after start of ICI. Secondary endpoints include ongoing response at 24 months, disease control at different time points, melanoma specific and overall survival, the incidence of irAEs and health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: From a medical, healthcare and economic perspective, overtreatment should be prevented and shorter treatment duration of ICIs is preferred. If early discontinuation of ICIs is safe for patients who are treated with the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab, the treatment duration of nivolumab could be shortened in patients with a favourable tumour response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05652673, registration date: 08-12-2022.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Case report: Durable complete response of a mucosal melanoma of the rectum after neoadjuvant immunotherapy with ipilimumab plus nivolumab.

Melanoma causes the majority of skin cancer-related deaths. Despite novel therapy options, metastatic melanoma still has a poor prognosis. Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy has been shown to prolong overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma, but mucosal melanomas respond less favorably compared to melanomas of cutaneous origin. We report on a patient with a mucosal melanoma of the rectum diagnosed in June 2020. Since a surgical intervention in order to achieve a tumor-free situation would have required an amputation of the rectum, a neo-adjuvant systemic immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab was initiated. As restaging and colonoscopy after four doses of this combination immunotherapy showed a partial response, the patient decided against the pre-planned surgery and a maintenance therapy with nivolumab was started. Repeated colonoscopy showed a complete response after four doses of nivolumab. After ongoing ICI therapy with nivolumab and no evidence of tumor relapse, immunotherapy was stopped in July 2022 after nearly 2 years of continuous treatment. The patient remained tumor-free during further follow-up. Neo-adjuvant immunotherapy is getting more explored in advanced melanoma. By administering ICI therapy before surgical resection of an essentially operable tumor, a stronger and more diverse immunological response is supposed to be achieved. Our reported case demonstrates that this approach could also be effective in mucosal melanoma despite of its generally lower response to immunotherapy.

Efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors in a patient with a mixed hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma.

A woman in her 60s was diagnosed with a metastatic, unresectable rare histological type of liver cancer; combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma. She had palliative chemotherapy, initially with gemcitabine and cisplatin, and then with oxaliplatin, L-folinic acid and fluorouracil. Both treatment strategies demonstrated disease progression, and somatic mutation profiling revealed no actionable mutations. The patient was started on immuno-oncology (IO) with nivolumab and ipilimumab, followed by maintenance nivolumab. She has achieved a sustained ongoing partial response since the start of this therapy for at least 12 months. The outcome in this patient is in keeping with the growing evidence of the role that IO agents have in metastatic biliary tract cancer and also serves to highlight their importance in mixed histology liver tumours.

Prognostic impact of FAN score in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

FAN score is reportedly associated with prognostic outcomes in patients with urothelial carcinoma being treated with immune check point inhibitors. However, the prognostic impact of pre-treatment FAN score in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab remains unclear. We retrospectively evaluated the association between pre-treatment FAN score and prognostic outcomes in 154 patients with metastatic RCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The pre-treatment FAN score was '0' in 56 patients (36%), '1' in 60 patients (40%), '2' in 37 patients (24%) and '3' in one patient (1%). Progression-free survival was not significantly different between patients with different FAN scores, but second progression-free survival (PFS2), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly different. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, FAN score ≥ 2 was a significant predictor of poor PFS2 (vs. FAN score 0, HR: 2.43, 95% CI 1.21-4.87, P = 0.01), poor CSS (vs. FAN score 0, HR: 2.71, 95% CI 1.13-6.47, P = 0.02) and poor OS (vs. FAN score 0, HR: 2.42, 95% CI 1.11-5.25, P = 0.02). High pre-treatment FAN score could be a significant independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic RCC.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in advanced cancers (excluding melanoma): a systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I2). RESULTS: Nine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi. CONCLUSIONS: Combining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers.

Facial palsy after administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors: case report, literature review and clinical care management.

Neurological immune-related adverse events (irAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are rare complications of immunotherapy, particularly dreadful for patients and clinical teams. Indeed, neurological irAEs are potentially severe and their diagnosis require prompt recognition and treatment. Additionally, the spectrum of neurological irAEs is broad, affecting either neuromuscular junction, peripheral or central nervous system. Here, we described the case of a 55-year man with metastatic melanoma, facing a brutal right peripheral cerebral palsy after his third ipilimumab/nivolumab infusion. After the case presentation, we reviewed the literature about this rare complication of immunotherapy, and described its diagnosis work-up and clinical management.

Real-world evidence of efficacy of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus chemotherapy as initial treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: For advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), combination therapies including a PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy or a PD-1 inhibitor, CTLA-4 inhibitor, and chemotherapy are standard first-line options. However, data directly comparing these regimens are lacking. This study compared the efficacy of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (CP) against nivolumab plus ipilimumab and chemotherapy (CNI) in a real-world setting. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study, we compared the efficacy and safety of CP and CNI as first-line therapies in 182 patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary outcomes included the response rate (RR) and safety profiles. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models were utilized for data analysis, adjusting for confounding factors such as age, gender, and PD-L1 expression. RESULTS: In this study, 160 patients received CP, while 22 received CNI. The CP group was associated with significantly better PFS than the CNI group (median 11.7 vs. 6.6 months, HR 0.56, p = 0.03). This PFS advantage persisted after propensity score matching to adjust for imbalances. No significant OS differences were observed. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred comparably, but immune-related adverse events were numerically more frequent in the CNI group. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, CP demonstrated superior PFS compared with CNI. These findings can inform treatment selection in advanced NSCLC.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.

BACKGROUND: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort. METHODS: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Neoadjuvant in Situ and Systemic Immunotherapy with Lymph Node Cryoablation in Resectable Stage III Melanoma Metastasis: a Proof-of-Concept Study.

PURPOSE: Complete lymph node dissection is the recommended treatment for clinically detectable lymph nodes in stage III melanoma. This surgery is associated with substantial morbidity. We hypothesize that combining percutaneous imaging-guided cryoablation of locoregional lymph nodes metastases with neoadjuvant in situ and systemic immunotherapy could allow disease control and evaluate the feasibility of this combination in this proof-of-concept study. METHODS: We enrolled 15 patients with stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma. Patients were treated as follows: a single 240 mg flat dose infusion of nivolumab on day 1, cryoablation under local anesthesia using CT on day 2, and a single intralesional injection of 10-20 mg of ipilimumab into the lymphadenopathy treated by cryotherapy on day 3. Five-eight weeks after this procedure, complete lymph node dissection was performed according to routine care. The primary outcome measure of this study was feasibility, measured as the number of failures (i.e., inability to complete the entire procedure). RESULTS: The procedure was carried out successfully in 15 out of 15 patients with an observed number of failures of 0. The Bayesian analysis showed an estimated failure rate of 4.2% [0.2-20.6]. Eight patients (53%) had adverse events secondary to either immunotherapy or cryotherapy. Grade 3/4 events occurred in three patients, but all resolved quickly and patients could proceed to surgery as scheduled. Eight patients (53%) had a pathological complete or near complete response. CONCLUSION: Combining percutaneous cryotherapy with in situ ipilimumab and systemic nivolumab for stage III resectable melanoma is feasible with tolerable toxicity.

Selective activation of IFNγ-ipilimumab enhances the therapeutic effect and safety of ipilimumab.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is a highly promising strategy for clinical treatment of cancer. Among these inhibitors, ipilimumab stands out for its ability to induce cytotoxic T cell proliferation and activation by binding to CTLA-4. However, ipilimumab also gives rise to systemic immune-related adverse effects and tumor immune evasion, limiting its effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: We developed IFNγ-ipilimumab and confirmed that the addition of INF-γ does not alter the fundamental properties of ipilimumab. RESULTS: IFNγ-ipilimumab can be activated by matrix metalloproteinases, thereby promoting the IFNγ signaling pathway and enhancing the cytotoxicity of T cells. In vivo studies demonstrated that IFNγ-ipilimumab enhances the therapeutic effect of ipilimumab against colorectal cancer by increasing CD8+ and CD4+ lymphocyte infiltration into the tumor area and inducing MHC-I expression in tumor cells. Mice treated with IFNγ-ipilimumab showed higher survival rates and body weight, as well as lower CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocyte activation rates in the blood and reduced organ damage. CONCLUSION: IFNγ-ipilimumab improved the effectiveness of ipilimumab while reducing its side effects. It is likely that future immunotherapies would rely on such antibodies to activate local cancer cells or immune cells, thereby increasing the therapeutic effectiveness of cancer treatments and ensuring their safety.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus the EXTREME regimen in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

In the CheckMate 651 study, nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cisplatin/carboplatin + cetuximab + fluorouracil) regimen was compared for effectiveness. It is not known whether these immunotherapy agents are cost-effective for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with EXTREME in the first-line setting from the standpoint of third-party payers in the United States. The projecting of costs and outcomes over 15 years was done using a three-state partitioned survival model discounted by 3% per year. Long-term extrapolation of CheckMate 651 was used to model progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The incremental net health benefit (INHB), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The uncertainty and stability of the model were accounted for via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. As compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, EXTREME was associated with an increase of 0.154 life-years and 0.076 QALYs, as well as a cost increase of $572 per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $7545/QALY along with the values of INMB and INHB were $113,267 and 0.076 QALYs, respectively, at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effective was > 99% in patients with combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1, CPS 1-19, or CPS ≥ 20. Moreover, hazard ratio for OS and body weight were the most sensitive parameters for the model. According to sensitivity analyses, these results were generally robust. In overall populations with R/M SCCHN, the EXTREME regimen is cost-effective compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Given a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the probability of the EXTREME regiment being cost-effective compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab, was 64%. Importantly, there was heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness probabilities, based on primary sites and expression levels of PD-L1. Therefore, tailored treatment based on individual patient and clinical characteristics, remains important, and may impact the cost-effectiveness of the regimens under study.

Cost-effectiveness of treating advanced melanoma with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes based on an international randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: In a multicenter, open-label randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted in the Netherlands and Denmark, treatment with ex vivo-expanded tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL-NKI/CCIT) from autologous melanoma tumor compared with ipilimumab improved progression-free survival in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma after failure of first-line or second-line treatment. Based on this trial, we conducted a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: A Markov decision model was constructed to estimate expected costs (expressed in 2021€) and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of TIL-NKI/CCIT versus ipilimumab in the Netherlands. The Danish setting was assessed in a scenario analysis. A modified societal perspective was applied over a lifetime horizon. TIL-NKI/CCIT production costs were estimated via activity-based costing. Through sensitivity analyses, uncertainties and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean total undiscounted lifetime benefits were 4.47 life years (LYs) and 3.52 QALYs for TIL-NKI/CCIT and 3.33 LYs and 2.46 QALYs for ipilimumab. Total lifetime undiscounted costs in the Netherlands were €347,168 for TIL-NKI/CCIT (including €67,547 for production costs) compared with €433,634 for ipilimumab. Undiscounted lifetime cost in the Danish scenario were €337,309 and €436,135, respectively. This resulted in a dominant situation for TIL-NKI/CCIT compared with ipilimumab in both countries, meaning incremental QALYs were gained at lower costs. Survival probabilities, and utility in progressive disease affected the ICER most. CONCLUSION: Based on the data of a randomized phase 3 trial, treatment with TIL-NKI/CCIT in patients with unresectable stage IIIC-IV melanoma is cost-effective and cost-saving, both in the current Dutch and Danish setting. These findings led to inclusion of TIL-NKI/CCIT as insured care and treatment guidelines. Publicly funded development of the TIL-NKI/CCIT cell therapy shows realistic promise to further explore development of effective personalized treatment while warranting economic sustainability of healthcare systems.

Inhibition of IL-25/IL-17RA improves immune-related adverse events of checkpoint inhibitors and reveals antitumor activity.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved outcomes and extended patient survival in several tumor types. However, ICIs often induce immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that warrant therapy cessation, thereby limiting the overall effectiveness of this class of therapeutic agents. Currently, available therapies used to treat irAEs might also blunt the antitumor activity of the ICI themselves. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify treatments that have the potential to be administered alongside ICI to optimize their use. METHODS: Using a translationally relevant murine model of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies-induced irAEs, we compared the safety and efficacy of prednisolone, anti-IL-6, anti-TNFɑ, anti-IL-25 (IL-17E), and anti-IL-17RA (the receptor for IL-25) administration to prevent irAEs and to reduce tumor size. RESULTS: While all interventions were adequate to inhibit the onset of irAEs pneumonitis and hepatitis, treatment with anti-IL-25 or anti-IL-17RA antibodies also exerted additional antitumor activity. Mechanistically, IL-25/IL-17RA blockade reduced the number of organ-infiltrating lymphocytes. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that IL-25/IL-17RA may serve as an additional target when treating ICI-responsive tumors, allowing for better tumor control while suppressing immune-related toxicities.

Melanoma-Modern Treatment for Metastatic Melanoma.

ABSTRACT: Traditional chemotherapy has been ineffective in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Until the use of checkpoint inhibitors, patients had very limited survival. Since the original US Food and Drug Administration approval of ipilimumab over a decade ago, the armamentarium of immunotherapeutic agents has expanded to include programmed cell death protein 1 and lymphocyte activation gene 3 antibodies, requiring a nuanced approach to the selection of frontline treatments, managing patients through recurrence and progression, and determining length of therapy. Herein, we review the existing evidence supporting current standard immunotherapy regimens and discuss the clinical decision-making involved in treating patients with metastatic melanoma with checkpoint inhibitors.

Treatment of Stage III Resectable Melanoma-Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Approaches.

ABSTRACT: Patients with stage III resectable melanoma carry a high risk of melanoma recurrence that ranges from approximately 40% to 90% at 5 years following surgical management alone. Postoperative systemic adjuvant therapy targets residual micrometastatic disease that could be the source of future recurrence and death from melanoma. Randomized phase III adjuvant trials reported significant improvements in overall survival with high-dose interferon α in 2 of 3 studies (compared with observation and GMK ganglioside vaccine) and with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg compared with placebo and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg compared with high-dose interferon α. In the modern era, more recent phase III trials demonstrated significant recurrence-free survival improvements with anti-programmed cell death protein 1, pembrolizumab, and BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination dabrafenib-trametinib (for BRAF mutant melanoma) versus placebo. Furthermore, anti-programmed cell death protein 1, nivolumab and pembrolizumab have both been shown to significantly improve recurrence-free survival as compared with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg. For melanoma patients with clinically or radiologically detectable locoregionally advanced disease, emerging data support an important role for preoperative systemic neoadjuvant therapy. Importantly, a recent cooperative group trial (S1801) reported superior event-free survival rates with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy. Collectively, current data from neoadjuvant immunotherapy and targeted therapy trials support a future change in clinical practice in favor of neoadjuvant therapy for eligible melanoma patients.

Neoadjuvant Dual Checkpoint Inhibitors vs Anti-PD1 Therapy in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM. Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered. Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Association of lung immune prognostic index with survival outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

OBJECTIVE: Lung immune prognostic index is based on derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and lactate dehydrogenase level. Lung immune prognostic index has reported association with survival outcomes in patients with various malignancies undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the prognostic impact of pre-treatment lung immune prognostic index in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment remains unclear. This study examines the association between lung immune prognostic index and outcomes in this setting. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 156 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab at eight institutions. We assessed the associations between pre-treatment lung immune prognostic index and survival outcomes including progression-free survival, second progression-free survival (PFS2), cancer-specific survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Patients were classified into good (n = 84, 54%), intermediate (n = 52, 33%) and poor (n = 20, 13%) lung immune prognostic index groups. Progression-free survival did not significantly differ between lung immune prognostic index groups, but there was significant difference in PFS2, cancer-specific survival and overall survival. In multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses, high pre-treatment lung immune prognostic index was a significant predictor of poor PFS2 (vs. good group, intermediate group: P = 0.01 and poor group: P = 0.04) and poor overall survival (vs. good group, intermediate group: P = 0.01 and poor group: P < 0.01). Moreover, the patients with poor lung immune prognostic index had significantly poorer cancer-specific survival than those with good LIPI (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: High pre-treatment LIPI is suggested by our results to be a significant independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Efficacy and toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a significant overall survival advantage over standard advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) therapies, tumor response to these agents remains poor. Some studies have shown that combination therapy including an ICI appears to be the best treatment; however, the overall benefit in terms of efficacy and toxicity still needs to be assessed. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate the differences in the efficacy of several combinations that include an ICI to provide a basis for clinical treatment selection. Methods: We conducted a thorough search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles from January 2010 to June 2023. R 4.4.2 and STATA 16.0 were used to analyze data; hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results. Results: An indirect comparison showed that nivolumab plus cabozantinib and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib were the most effective treatments for progression-free survival (PFS), with no significant differences between the two interventions (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.96-1.78; P=0.08); rank probability showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib had a 57.1% chance of being the preferred treatment. In the absence of indirect comparisons between pembrolizumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (40.2%) was the best treatment option for overall survival (OS). Compared to pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.65; P=0.02) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78; P<0.001) had a lower incidence of overall adverse events (AEs). Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in the highest PFS and OS rates, respectively. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib may be the best option when AEs are a concern. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202410078.

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy With Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab in Mismatch Repair Deficient/Microsatellite Instability-High Colorectal Cancer: A Preliminary Report of Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Although ipilimumab plus nivolumab have significantly improved the survival of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) /microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), the data on neoadjuvant setting is limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 11 patients with advanced dMMR/MSI-H CRC. 10 patients were locally advanced and 1 was metastatic. Ten patients were treated with 1 dose of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) and 2 doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg), and 1 patient was treated with 1 dose of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) and 2 doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg) with 2 cycles. All the patients underwent surgery after immunotherapy. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and short-term efficacy of this strategy. RESULTS: Pathologic responses were observed in 11/11 (100%) dMMR/MSI-H tumors, with 9/11 (81.8%) achieving complete responses. Among these 9 cases with complete responses, 1 achieved a radiological noncomplete response after treatment with 1 dose of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) and 2 doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg), so another cycle of treatment with 1 dose of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) and 2 doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg) was administered, followed by surgery. The postoperative pathological evaluation was a complete response. Seven patients (63.6%) developed grade I/II adverse events. No patients developed grade III/IV adverse events or postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant immunotherapy with ipilimumab plus nivolumab induced tumor regression with a major clinical and pathological response in advanced dMMR/MSI-H CRC. Notably, patients do not achieve a complete response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy, additional neoadjuvant immunotherapy may offer benefits. Further research is needed to assess the long-term efficacy of this strategy.