Perspectives in Melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (December 1st-3rd, 2022-Naples, Italy).

Outcomes for patients with melanoma have improved over the past decade with the clinical development and approval of immunotherapies targeting immune checkpoint receptors such as programmed death-1 (PD-1), programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) or cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4). Combinations of these checkpoint therapies with other agents are now being explored to improve outcomes and enhance benefit-risk profiles of treatment. Alternative inhibitory receptors have been identified that may be targeted for anti-tumor immune therapy, such as lymphocyte-activation gene-3 (LAG-3), as have several potential target oncogenes for molecularly targeted therapy, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Unfortunately, many patients still progress and acquire resistance to immunotherapy and molecularly targeted therapies. To bypass resistance, combination treatment with immunotherapies and single or multiple TKIs have been shown to improve prognosis compared to monotherapy. The number of new combinations treatment under development for melanoma provides options for the number of patients to achieve a therapeutic benefit. Many diagnostic and prognostic assays have begun to show clinical applicability providing additional tools to optimize and individualize treatments. However, the question on the optimal algorithm of first- and later-line therapies and the search for biomarkers to guide these decisions are still under investigation. This year, the Melanoma Bridge Congress (Dec 1st-3rd, 2022, Naples, Italy) addressed the latest advances in melanoma research, focusing on themes of paramount importance for melanoma prevention, diagnosis and treatment. This included sessions dedicated to systems biology on immunotherapy, immunogenicity and gene expression profiling, biomarkers, and combination treatment strategies.

Perspectives in Melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (December 2nd - 4th, 2021, Italy).

Advances in immune checkpoint and combination therapy have led to improvement in overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor, tumor microenvironment and tumor immune-evasion mechanisms has resulted in new approaches to targeting and harnessing the host immune response. Combination modalities with other immunotherapy agents, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, electrochemotherapy are also being explored to overcome resistance and to potentiate the immune response. In addition, novel approaches such as adoptive cell therapy, oncogenic viruses, vaccines and different strategies of drug administration including sequential, or combination treatment are being tested. Despite the progress in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct classification of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic theràapies, and prediction of response to therapy remain real challenges in melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers, but they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. Overall, the future research efforts in melanoma therapeutics and translational research should focus on several aspects including: (a) developing robust biomarkers to predict efficacy of therapeutic modalities to guide clinical decision-making and optimize treatment regimens, (b) identifying mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors that are potentially actionable, (c) identifying biomarkers to predict therapy-induced adverse events, and (d) studying mechanism of actions of therapeutic agents and developing algorithms to optimize combination treatments. During the Melanoma Bridge meeting (December 2nd-4th, 2021, Naples, Italy) discussions focused on the currently approved systemic and local therapies for advanced melanoma and discussed novel biomarker strategies and advances in precision medicine as well as the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on management of melanoma patients.

Long-term outcomes of patients with active melanoma brain metastases treated with combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 204): final results of an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab was efficacious in patients with asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in CheckMate 204, but showed low efficacy in patients with symptomatic MBM. Here, we provide final 3-year follow-up data from the trial. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study (CheckMate 204) included adults (aged ≥18 years) with measurable MBM (0·5-3·0 cm in diameter). Asymptomatic patients (cohort A) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and no neurological symptoms or baseline corticosteroid use; symptomatic patients (cohort B) had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 with stable neurological symptoms and could be receiving low-dose dexamethasone. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was given intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease lasting ≥6 months) assessed in all treated patients. Intracranial progression-free survival and overall survival were key secondary endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2015, and Nov 1, 2017, 119 (72%) of 165 screened patients were enrolled and treated: 101 patients were asymptomatic (cohort A; median follow-up 34·3 months [IQR 14·7-36·4]) and 18 were symptomatic (cohort B; median follow-up 7·5 months [1·2-35·2]). Investigator-assessed intracranial clinical benefit was observed in 58 (57·4% [95% CI 47·2-67·2]) of 101 patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) of 18 patients in cohort B; investigator-assessed objective response was observed in 54 (53·5% [43·3-63·5]) patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) patients in cohort B. 33 (33%) patients in cohort A and three (17%) patients in cohort B had an investigator-assessed intracranial complete response. For patients in cohort A, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 54·1% (95% CI 42·7-64·1) and overall survival was 71·9% (61·8-79·8). For patients in cohort B, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 18·9% (95% CI 4·6-40·5) and overall survival was 36·6% (14·0-59·8). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (15 [15%] of 101 patients each) in cohort A; no grade 3 TRAEs occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B, and no grade 4 events occurred. The most common serious TRAEs were colitis, diarrhoea, hypophysitis, and increased alanine aminotransferase (five [5%] of each among the 101 patients in cohort A); no serious TRAE occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B. There was one treatment-related death (myocarditis in cohort A). INTERPRETATION: The durable 3-year response, overall survival, and progression-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients support first-line use of nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Symptomatic disease in patients with MBM remains difficult to treat, but some patients achieve a long-term response with the combination. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma have excluded patients with untreated brain metastases. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma and at least one measurable, nonirradiated brain metastasis (tumor diameter, 0.5 to 3 cm) and no neurologic symptoms received nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of intracranial clinical benefit, defined as the percentage of patients who had stable disease for at least 6 months, complete response, or partial response. RESULTS: Among 94 patients with a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of intracranial clinical benefit was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47 to 68); the rate of complete response was 26%, the rate of partial response was 30%, and the rate of stable disease for at least 6 months was 2%. The rate of extracranial clinical benefit was 56% (95% CI, 46 to 67). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 55% of patients, including events involving the central nervous system in 7%. One patient died from immune-related myocarditis. The safety profile of the regimen was similar to that reported in patients with melanoma who do not have brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the National Cancer Institute; CheckMate 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320058 .).

Perspectives in Melanoma: meeting report from the Melanoma Bridge (December 3rd-5th, 2020, Italy).

Advances in immune checkpoint therapy and targeted therapy have led to improvement in overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. Single agent checkpoint PD-1 blockade and combination with BRAF/MEK targeted therapy demonstrated benefit in overall survival (OS). Superior response rates have been demonstrated with combined PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade, with a significant OS benefit compared with single-agent PD-1 blockade. Despite the progress in diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, correct classification of patients, selection of appropriate adjuvant and systemic therapies, and prediction of response to therapy remain real challenges in melanoma. Improved understanding of the tumor microenvironment, tumor immunity and response to therapy has prompted extensive translational and clinical research in melanoma. Development of novel biomarker platforms may help to improve diagnostics and predictive accuracy for selection of patients for specific treatment. There is a growing evidence that genomic and immune features of pre-treatment tumor biopsies may correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers but they have yet to be fully characterized and implemented clinically. Overall, the progress in melanoma therapeutics and translational research will help to optimize treatment regimens to overcome resistance and develop robust biomarkers to guide clinical decision-making. During the Melanoma Bridge meeting (December 3rd-5th, 2020, Italy) we reviewed the currently approved systemic and local therapies for advanced melanoma and discussed novel biomarker strategies and advances in precision medicine.

Systemic coagulation is activated in patients with meningioma and glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: Up to 30% of patients with glioblastoma (GBM) develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) over the course of the disease. Although not as high, the risk for VTE is also increased in patients with meningioma. Direct measurement of peak thrombin generation (TG) allows quantitative assessment of systemic coagulation activation in patients with GBM and meningioma. Our aim was to determine the extent of systemic coagulation activation induced by brain tumors, to measure the shift between pre- and post-operative peak TG in patients with GBM, and to assess the relationship between pre-surgical peak TG and pre-operative brain tumor volume on imaging. METHODS: Pre- and post-surgical plasma samples were obtained from successive patients with GBM and once from patients with meningioma and healthy age- and sex-matched blood donor controls. TG was measured using the calibrated automated thrombogram (CAT) assay, and tumor volumes were measured in pre-surgical MRI scans. RESULTS: Pre-surgical peak TG was higher in patients with GBM than in controls (288.6 ± 54.1 nM vs 187.1 ± 41.7 nM, respectively, P < 0.001), and, in the nine patients with GBM and paired data available, peak TG was significantly reduced after surgery (323 ± 38 nM vs 265 ± 52 nM, respectively, P = 0.007). Similarly, subjects with meningioma demonstrated higher peak TG compared to controls (242.2 ± 54.9 nM vs 177.7 ± 57.0 nM, respectively, P < 0.001). There was no association between peak TG and pre-operative tumor volume or overall survival. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that systemic coagulation activation occurs with both meningioma and GBM, but to a greater degree in the latter. Preoperative peak TG did not correlate with tumor volume, but removal of GBM caused a significant decrease in coagulation activation.

Human genes differ by their UV sensitivity estimated through analysis of UV-induced silent mutations in melanoma.

We hypothesized that human genes differ by their sensitivity to ultraviolet (UV) exposure. We used somatic mutations detected by genome-wide screens in melanoma and reported in the Catalog Of Somatic Mutations In Cancer. As a measure of UV sensitivity, we used the number of silent mutations generated by C>T transitions in pyrimidine dimers of a given transcript divided by the number of potential sites for this type of mutations in the transcript. We found that human genes varied by UV sensitivity by two orders of magnitude. We noted that the melanoma-associated tumor suppressor gene CDKN2A was among the top five most UV-sensitive genes in the human genome. Melanoma driver genes have a higher UV-sensitivity compared with other genes in the human genome. The difference was more prominent for tumor suppressors compared with oncogene. The results of this study suggest that differential sensitivity of human transcripts to UV light may explain melanoma specificity of some driver genes. Practical significance of the study relates to the fact that differences in UV sensitivity among human genes need to be taken into consideration whereas predicting melanoma-associated genes by the number of somatic mutations detected in a given gene.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities, Version 1.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities provide interdisciplinary guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) resulting from cancer immunotherapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe symptoms that may be caused by an irAE and should trigger further investigation, and summarize the NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding immune checkpoint inhibitor-related diarrhea/colitis and cardiovascular irAEs.

Mechanism-based treatment of cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies.

Immune checkpoints are cell surface molecules that initiate regulatory pathways which have powerful control of CD8+ cytolytic T cell activity. Antagonistic and agonistic antibodies engaging these molecules have demonstrated profound impact on immune activation and have entered clinical use for the treatment of a variety of diseases. Over the past decade, antagonistic antibodies known as immune checkpoint inhibitors have become a new pillar of cancer treatment and have reshaped the therapeutic landscape in oncology. These agents differ in their mechanism of action and toxicity profiles compared to more traditional systemic cancer treatments such as chemo- and targeted therapies. This article reviews the pharmacology of this new class of agents.

An Immunosuppressive Effect of Melanoma-derived Exosomes on NY-ESO-1 Antigen-specific Human CD8+ T Cells is Dependent on IL-10 and Independent of BRAFV600E Mutation in Melanoma Cell Lines.

Exosomes, including human melanoma-derived exosomes (HMEX), are known to suppress the function of immune effector cells, which for HMEX has been associated with the surface presence of the immune checkpoint ligand PD-L1. This study investigated the relationship between the BRAF mutational status of melanoma cells and the inhibition of secreted HMEX exosomes on antigen-specific human T cells. Exosomes were isolated from two melanoma cell lines, 2183-Her4 and 888-mel, which are genetically wild-type BRAFWT and BRAFV600E, respectively. HMEX were isolated using a modified, size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) method shown to reduce co-isolation of non-exosome-associated cytokines compared to ultracentrifugation isolation. The immunoinhibitory effect of the exosomes was tested in vitro on patient-derived NY-ESO-1-specific CD8+ T cells challenged with NY-ESO-1 antigen. HMEX from both cell lines inhibited the immune response of antigen-specific T cells comparably, as evidenced by the reduction of IFN-γ and TNF-α in NY-ESO-1 tetramer-positive cells. This inhibition could be partially reversed by the presence of anti-PD-L1 and anti-IL-10 antibodies. IL-10 has been demonstrated to be a critical pathway for sustaining enhanced tumorigenesis in BRAFV600E mutant cells compared to BRAFWT melanoma cells. Thus, we demonstrate that HMEX inhibit antigen-specific T cell responses independent of the BRAF mutational status of the parent cells. In addition, PD-L1 and IL-10 contribute to the HMEX-mediated immunosuppression of antigen-specific human T cells. The inhibitory capacity of exosomes should be taken into consideration when developing therapies that are reliant upon the potency of customized, antigen-specific effector T cells.

COVID-19 and Cancer: a Comprehensive Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged to be the biggest global health threat worldwide, which has now infected over 1.7 million people and claimed more than 100,000 lives around the world. Under these unprecedented circumstances, there are no well-established guidelines for cancer patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The risk for serious disease and death in COVID-19 cases increases with advancing age and presence of comorbid health conditions. Since the emergence of the first case in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, tremendous research efforts have been underway to understand the mechanisms of infectivity and transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a fatal virus responsible for abysmal survival outcomes. To minimize the mortality rate, it becomes prudent to identify symptoms promptly and employ treatments appropriately. Even though no cure has been established, multiple clinical trials are underway to determine the most optimal strategy. Managing cancer patients under these circumstances is rather challenging, given their vulnerable status and the aggressive nature of their underlying disease. In this comprehensive review, we discuss the impact of COVID-19 on health and the immune system of those affected, reviewing the latest treatment approaches and ongoing clinical trials. Additionally, we discuss challenges faced while treating cancer patients and propose potential approaches to manage this vulnerable population during this pandemic.

Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities, Version 1.2019.

The aim of the NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities is to provide guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events resulting from cancer immunotherapy. The NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions and ASCO, consisting of medical and hematologic oncologists with expertise in a wide array of disease sites, and experts from the fields of dermatology, gastroenterology, neuro-oncology, nephrology, emergency medicine, cardiology, oncology nursing, and patient advocacy. Several panel representatives are members of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC). The initial version of the NCCN Guidelines was designed in general alignment with recommendations published by ASCO and SITC. The content featured in this issue is an excerpt of the recommendations for managing toxicity related to immune checkpoint blockade and a review of existing evidence. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines, including recommendations for managing toxicities related to chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, visit NCCN.org.

Treatment recommendations to cancer patients in the context of FDA guidance for next generation sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of next generation sequencing (NGS) by the FDA is advancing the use of genomic-based precision medicine for the therapeutic management of cancer as standard care. Recent FDA guidance for the classification of genomic variants based on clinical evidence to aid clinicians in understanding the actionability of identified variants provided by comprehensive NGS panels has also been set forth. In this retrospective analysis, we interpreted and applied the FDA variant classification guidance to comprehensive NGS testing performed for advanced cancer patients and assessed oncologist agreement with NGS test treatment recommendations. METHODS: NGS comprehensive genomic profiling was performed in a CLIA certified lab (657 completed tests for 646 patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center) between June 2016 and June 2017. Physician treatment recommendations made within 120 days post-test were gathered from tested patients' medical records and classified as targeted therapy, precision medicine clinical trial, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy, chemotherapy/radiation, surgery, transplant, or non-therapeutic (hospice, surveillance, or palliative care). Agreement between NGS test report targeted therapy recommendations based on the FDA variant classification and physician targeted therapy treatment recommendations were evaluated. RESULTS: Excluding variants contraindicating targeted therapy (i.e., KRAS or NRAS mutations), at least one variant with FDA level 1 companion diagnostic supporting evidence as the most actionable was identified in 14% of tests, with physicians most frequently recommending targeted therapy (48%) for patients with these results. This stands in contrast to physicians recommending targeted therapy based on test results with FDA level 2 (practice guideline) or FDA level 3 (clinical trial or off label) evidence as the most actionable result (11 and 4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found an appropriate "dose-response" relationship between the strength of clinical evidence supporting biomarker-directed targeted therapy based on application of FDA guidance for NGS test variant classification, and subsequent treatment recommendations made by treating physicians. In view of recent changes at FDA, it is paramount to define regulatory grounds and medical policy coverage for NGS testing based on this guidance.

NCI 8628: A randomized phase 2 study of ziv-aflibercept and high-dose interleukin 2 or high-dose interleukin 2 alone for inoperable stage III or IV melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 2 (IL-2) is a growth factor for T and natural killer cells, promotes proinflammatory cytokines, and can lead to durable responses in patients with melanoma. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) promotes angiogenesis and modulates host innate and adaptive immunity. High VEGF levels were found to be associated with nonresponse to IL-2. Ziv-aflibercept may deplete VEGF and thereby enhance antitumor T-cell responses, thus supporting a combination immunotherapeutic strategy with IL-2. METHODS: NCI 8628 was a phase 2 trial of ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 (arm A) versus IL-2 alone (arm B) randomized at 2:1, respectively. Eligible patients had inoperable American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III or stage IV melanoma. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were enrolled and 84 patients were treated. The median follow-up was 41.4 months. Among treated patients (55 patients in arm A and 29 patients in arm B), PFS was significantly improved in favor of arm A, with a median of 6.9 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.1-8.7 months) versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.5 months) (P<.001). No significant difference was noted with regard to overall survival, with a median of 26.9 months (95% CI, 14.4-63.6 months) for arm A and 24.2 months (95% CI, 11.3-36.4 months) for arm B. The response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST]) was 22% in arm A (4 complete responses [CRs] and 8 partial responses [PRs]) and 17% in arm B (1 CR and 4 PRs). Stable disease or PR or CR was noted in 65% of patients in arm A and 48% of patients in arm B. The combination was found to be superior to monotherapy in patients with high and low levels of serum VEGF and VEGF receptor 2. Adverse events were consistent with the expected profiles of monotherapy with IL-2 and ziv-aflibercept. CONCLUSIONS: Ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 were found to significantly improve PFS compared with IL-2 alone, thereby meeting the primary endpoint of the current study. These findings support further study of immunotherapeutic combination strategies involving VEGF inhibitors.

Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS: Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS: The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

VISTA expression on tumor-infiltrating inflammatory cells in primary cutaneous melanoma correlates with poor disease-specific survival.

Adaptive immune responses contribute to the pathogenesis of melanoma by facilitating immune evasion. V-domain Ig suppressor of T-cell activation (VISTA) is a potent negative regulator of T-cell function and is expressed at high levels on monocytes, granulocytes, and macrophages, and at lower densities on T-cell populations within the tumor microenvironment. In this study, 85 primary melanoma specimens were selected from pathology tissue archives and immunohistochemically stained for CD3, PD-1, PD-L1, and VISTA. Pearson's correlation coefficients identified associations in expression between VISTA and myeloid infiltrate (r = 0.28, p = 0.009) and the density of PD-1+ inflammatory cells (r = 0.31, p = 0.005). The presence of VISTA was associated with a significantly worse disease-specific survival in univariate analysis (hazard ratio = 3.57, p = 0.005) and multivariate analysis (hazard ratio = 3.02, p = 0.02). Our findings show that VISTA expression is an independent negative prognostic factor in primary cutaneous melanoma and suggests its potential as an adjuvant immunotherapeutic intervention in the future.

Immune modulation associated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) blockade in patients with glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), in addition to being pro-angiogenic, is an immunomodulatory cytokine systemically and in the tumor microenvironment. We previously reported the immunomodulatory effects of radiation and temozolomide (TMZ) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. This study aimed to assess changes in peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) populations, plasma cytokines, and growth factor concentrations following treatment with radiation, TMZ, and bevacizumab (BEV). METHODS: Eleven patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were treated with radiation, TMZ, and BEV, following surgery. We measured immune-related PBMC subsets using multi-parameter flow cytometry and plasma cytokine and growth factor concentrations using electrochemiluminescence-based multiplex analysis at baseline and after 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The absolute number of peripheral blood regulatory T cells (Tregs) decreased significantly following treatment. The lower number of peripheral Tregs was associated with a CD4+ lymphopenia, and thus, the ratio of Tregs to PBMCs was unchanged. The addition of bevacizumab to standard radiation and temozolomide led to the decrease in the number of circulating Tregs when compared with our prior study. There was a significant decrease in CD8+ cytotoxic and CD4+ recent thymic emigrant T cells, but no change in the number of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Significant increases in plasma VEGF and placental growth factor (PlGF) concentrations were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with radiation, TMZ, and BEV decreased the number but not the proportion of peripheral Tregs and increased the concentration of circulating VEGF. This shift in the peripheral immune cell profile may modulate the tumor environment and have implications for combining immunotherapy with anti-angiogenic therapy.

Challenges faced when identifying patients for combination immunotherapy.

In 1996, Jim Allison demonstrated that blocking the immune regulatory molecule CTLA-4 with anit-CTLA4 antibody led to enhance tumor responses in mice. It would take an additional 15 years for human studies to confirm the potency and clinical efficacy of anti-CTLA4, ultimately leading to US FDA approval of the first checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab. Now with a plethora of immune-modulating agents demonstrating single agent safety and benefit across many tumor types, investigation on the optimal combination of immune-based therapies has begun in earnest. While there are many challenges, a central one is how to select which combination for which patient is the best. Here we review the current approaches that a practitioner can use to achieve this therapeutic goal.

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069) we recruited patients from 19 specialist cancer centres in two countries (France and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for four doses. Subsequently, patients assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipilimumab alone received placebo every 2 weeks during this phase. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The study funder, patients, investigators, and study site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, which has been reported previously, was the proportion of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma achieving an investigator-assessed objective response. Overall survival was an exploratory endpoint and is reported in this Article. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01927419, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2013, and Feb 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients and enrolled 142, randomly assigning 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab alone. In each treatment group, one patient no longer met the study criteria following randomisation and thus did not receive study drug. At a median follow-up of 24·5 months (IQR 9·1-25·7), 2-year overall survival was 63·8% (95% CI 53·3-72·6) for those assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 53·6% (95% CI 38·1-66·8) for those assigned to ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43-1·26; p=0·26). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 51 (54%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nine (20%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were colitis (12 [13%] of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [11%]) in the combination group and diarrhoea (five [11%] of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two [4%]) in the ipilimumab alone group. Serious grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 (36%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (including colitis in ten [11%] of 94 patients, and diarrhoea in five [5%]) compared with four (9%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone (including diarrhoea in two [4%] of 46 patients, colitis in one [2%], and hypophysitis in one [2%]). No new types of treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this updated analysis. INTERPRETATION: Although follow-up of the patients in this study is ongoing, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab might lead to improved outcomes compared with first-line ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this population of patients. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Histological pattern of Merkel cell carcinoma sentinel lymph node metastasis improves stratification of Stage III patients.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is used to stage Merkel cell carcinoma, but its prognostic value has been questioned. Furthermore, predictors of outcome in sentinel lymph node positive Merkel cell carcinoma patients are poorly defined. In breast carcinoma, isolated immunohistochemically positive tumor cells have no impact, but in melanoma they are considered significant. The significance of sentinel lymph node metastasis tumor burden (including isolated tumor cells) and pattern of involvement in Merkel cell carcinoma are unknown. In this study, 64 Merkel cell carcinomas involving sentinel lymph nodes and corresponding immunohistochemical stains were reviewed and clinicopathological predictors of outcome were sought. Five metastatic patterns were identified: (1) sheet-like (n=38, 59%); (2) non-solid parafollicular (n=4, 6%); (3) sinusoidal, (n=11, 17%); (4) perivascular hilar (n=1, 2%); and (5) rare scattered parenchymal cells (n=10, 16%). At the time of follow-up, 30/63 (48%) patients had died with 21 (33%) attributable to Merkel cell carcinoma. Patients with pattern 1 metastases had poorer overall survival compared with patients with patterns 2-5 metastases (P=0.03), with 22/30 (73%) deaths occurring in pattern 1 patients. Three (10%) deaths occurred in patients showing pattern 5, all of whom were immunosuppressed. Four (13%) deaths occurred in pattern 3 patients and 1 (3%) death occurred in a pattern 2 patient. In multivariable analysis, the number of positive sentinel lymph nodes (1 or 2 versus >2, P<0.0001), age (<70 versus ≥70, P=0.01), sentinel lymph node metastasis pattern (patterns 2-5 versus 1, P=0.02), and immune status (immunocompetent versus suppressed, P=0.03) were independent predictors of outcome, and could be used to stratify Stage III patients into three groups with markedly different outcomes. In Merkel cell carcinoma, the pattern of sentinel lymph node involvement provides important prognostic information and utilizing this data with other clinicopathological features facilitates risk stratification of Merkel cell carcinoma patients who may have management implications.