POLARIS: A phase 2 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib evaluating high-dose and standard-dose regimens in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with brain metastasis.

Background: POLARIS (phase 2 [ph2]; NCT03911869) evaluated encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) in combination with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) in BRAF/MEK inhibitor-naïve patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with asymptomatic brain metastases. Methods: The safety lead-in (SLI) assessed tolerability for high-dose encorafenib 300 mg twice daily (BID) plus binimetinib 45 mg BID. If the high dose was tolerable in ph2, patients would be randomized to receive high or standard dose (encorafenib 450 mg once daily [QD] plus binimetinib 45 mg BID). Otherwise, standard dose was evaluated as the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D). Patients who tolerated standard dosing during Cycle 1 could be dose escalated to encorafenib 600 mg QD plus binimetinib 45 mg BID in Cycle 2. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were examined. Results: RP2D was standard encorafenib dosing, as >33% of evaluable SLI patients (3/9) had dose-limiting toxicities. Overall, of 13 safety-evaluable patients (10 SLI, 3 ph2), 9 had prior immunotherapy. There were 9 treatment-related adverse events in the SLI and 3 in ph2. Of the SLI efficacy-evaluable patients (n = 10), 1 achieved complete response and 5 achieved partial responses (PR); the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR) was 60% (95% CI: 26.2, 87.8). In ph2, 2 of 3 patients achieved PR (BMRR, 67% [95% CI: 9.4, 99.2]). Repeated encorafenib 300 mg BID dosing did not increase steady-state exposure compared with historical 450 mg QD data. Conclusions: Despite small patient numbers due to early trial termination, BMRR appeared similar between the SLI and ph2, and the ph2 safety profile appeared consistent with previous reports of standard-dose encorafenib in combination with binimetinib.

Randomized Placebo-Controlled, Biomarker-Stratified Phase Ib Microbiome Modulation in Melanoma: Impact of Antibiotic Preconditioning on Microbiome and Immunity.

Gut-microbiota modulation shows promise in improving immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) response; however, precision biomarker-driven, placebo-controlled trials are lacking. We performed a multicenter, randomized placebo-controlled, biomarker-stratified phase I trial in patients with ICB-naïve metastatic melanoma using SER-401, an orally delivered Firmicutes-enriched spore formulation. Fecal microbiota signatures were characterized at baseline; patients were stratified by high versus low Ruminococcaceae abundance prior to randomization to the SER-401 arm (oral vancomycin-preconditioning/SER-401 alone/nivolumab + SER-401), versus the placebo arm [placebo antibiotic/placebo microbiome modulation (PMM)/nivolumab + PMM (NCT03817125)]. Analysis of 14 accrued patients demonstrated that treatment with SER-401 + nivolumab was safe, with an objective response rate of 25% in the SER-401 arm and 67% in the placebo arm (though the study was under-powered related to poor accrual during the COVID-19 pandemic). Translational analyses demonstrated that vancomycin preconditioning was associated with the disruption of the gut microbiota and impaired immunity, with incomplete recovery at ICB administration (particularly in patients with high baseline Ruminococcaceae). These results have important implications for future microbiome modulation trials. SIGNIFICANCE: This first-of-its-kind, placebo-controlled, randomized biomarker-driven microbiome modulation trial demonstrated that vancomycin + SER-401 and anti-PD-1 are safe in melanoma patients. Although limited by poor accrual during the pandemic, important insights were gained via translational analyses, suggesting that antibiotic preconditioning and interventional drug dosing regimens should be carefully considered when designing such trials.

Expert consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy.

Adoptive cell therapy with autologous, ex vivo-expanded, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is being investigated for treatment of solid tumors and has shown robust responses in clinical trials. Based on the encouraging efficacy, tolerable safety profile, and advancements in a central manufacturing process, lifileucel is now the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved TIL cell therapy product. To this end, treatment management and delivery practice guidance is needed to ensure successful integration of this modality into clinical care. This review includes clinical and toxicity management guidelines pertaining to the TIL cell therapy regimen prepared by the TIL Working Group, composed of internationally recognized hematologists and oncologists with expertize in TIL cell therapy, and relates to patient care and operational aspects. Expert consensus recommendations for patient management, including patient eligibility, screening tests, and clinical and toxicity management with TIL cell therapy, including tumor tissue procurement surgery, non-myeloablative lymphodepletion, TIL infusion, and IL-2 administration, are discussed in the context of potential standard of care TIL use. These recommendations provide practical guidelines for optimal clinical management during administration of the TIL cell therapy regimen, and recognition of subsequent management of toxicities. These guidelines are focused on multidisciplinary teams of physicians, nurses, and stakeholders involved in the care of these patients.

Sunitinib in Patients With Breast Cancer With FGFR1 or FGFR2 Amplifications or Mutations: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study.

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results from cohorts of patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) with FGFR1 and FGFR2 alterations treated with sunitinib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Forty patients with BC with FGFR1 (N = 30; amplification only n = 26, mutation only n = 1, both n = 3) or FGFR2 (N = 10; amplification only n = 2, mutation only n = 6, both n = 2) alterations were enrolled. Three patients in the FGFR1 cohort were not evaluable for efficacy; all patients in the FGFR2 cohort were evaluable. For the FGFR1 cohort, two patients with partial response and four with SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 27% (90% CI, 13 to 100) and 7% (95% CI, 1 to 24), respectively. The null hypothesis of 15% DC rate was not rejected (P = .169). No patients achieved DC in the FGFR2 cohort (P = 1.00). Thirteen of the 40 total patients across both cohorts had at least one grade 3-4 adverse event or serious adverse event at least possibly related to sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib did not meet prespecified criteria to declare a signal of antitumor activity in patients with BC with either FGFR1 or FGFR2 alterations. Other treatments and clinical trials should be considered for these patient populations.

Safety profile of pembrolizumab monotherapy based on an aggregate safety evaluation of 8937 patients.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab has a manageable safety profile as described in its label, which was primarily based on 2799 patients who participated in clinical trials for melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we evaluated the safety of pembrolizumab in a broader population of patients from 31 advanced cancer clinical trials across 19 cancer types. METHODS: Safety was analyzed in patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks [Q3W], 10 mg/kg Q2W or Q3W, or 2 mg/kg Q3W). Adverse events (AEs) and immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions were evaluated. RESULTS: Safety data from 8937 patients in 31 trials of pembrolizumab monotherapy were pooled (median, seven administrations; range, 1-59). Median duration on treatment was 4.1 months (range, 0.03-40.1). AEs occurred in 96.6% of patients. Grade 3-5 AEs occurred in 50.6% of patients. AEs led to pembrolizumab discontinuation in 12.7% of patients and death in 5.9%. Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 23.7% of patients (4.6% experienced multiple immune-mediated AEs/infusion reactions) and led to pembrolizumab discontinuation in 3.6% and death in 0.2%. Grade 3-5 immune-mediated AEs occurred in 6.3% of patients. Serious immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 6.0% of patients. Median time to immune-mediated AE onset was 85 days (range, 13-163). Of 2657 immune-mediated AEs, 22.3% were initially treated with prednisone ≥ 40 mg/day or equivalent, and 8.3% were initially treated with lower steroid doses. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis of 31 clinical trials showed that pembrolizumab has a consistent safety profile across indications.

Outcomes of patients with resected stage III/IV acral or mucosal melanoma, treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 based therapy.

IMPORTANCE: Acral (AM) and mucosal melanomas (MM) are rare subtypes with a poor prognosis. In those with advanced disease, anti-PD-1 (PD1) therapy has reduced activity compared to that seen in non-acral cutaneous melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 in resected AM or MM. DESIGN: An international, retrospective cohort study SETTING: Data up to November 2021 collected from 20 centres across 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety four patients with resected stage III or IV1 AM or MM who received adjuvant PD1 were included and compared to matched patients from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database using a propensity score matching analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated. RESULTS: Forty five of 139 (32%) AM and 9 of 55 (16%) MM patients completed adjuvant therapy. The main reason for early treatment cessation in both groups was disease recurrence: 51 (37%) and 30 (55%) in the AM and MM groups, respectively. In the AM group adjuvant PD1 was associated with a longer RFS [HR-0.69 (0.52-0.92, p = 0.0127)], DMFS [HR0.58 (0.38-0.89, p = 0.0134)] and OS [HR of 0.59 (0.38-0.92, p-value 0.0196)] when compared to the historical cohort. In the MM group there was no statistical difference in RFS [HR1.36 (0.69-2.68,p-value 0.3799], DMFS or OS. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: After adjuvant PD1, both AM and MM have a high risk of recurrence. Our data suggests a benefit to using adjuvant PD1 therapy in resected AM but not in resected MM. Additional studies to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 for MM are needed.

Low booster uptake in cancer patients despite health benefits.

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of death from COVID-19 and have reduced immune responses to SARS-CoV2 vaccines, necessitating regular boosters. We performed comprehensive chart reviews, surveys of patients attitudes, serology for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and T-cell receptor (TCR) ß sequencing for cellular responses on a cohort of 982 cancer patients receiving active cancer therapy accrued between November-3-2020 and Mar-31-2023. We found that 92·3% of patients received the primer vaccine, 70·8% received one monovalent booster, but only 30·1% received a bivalent booster. Booster uptake was lower under age 50, and among African American or Hispanic patients. Nearly all patients seroconverted after 2+ booster vaccinations (>99%) and improved cellular responses, demonstrating that repeated boosters could overcome poor response to vaccination. Receipt of booster vaccinations was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR=0·61, P=0·024). Booster uptake in high-risk cancer patients remains low and strategies to encourage booster uptake are needed. Highlights: COVID-19 booster vaccinations increase antibody levels and maintain T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 in patients receiving various anti-cancer therapiesBooster vaccinations reduced all-cause mortality in patientsA significant proportion of patients remain unboosted and strategies are needed to encourage patients to be up-to-date with vaccinations.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0.

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.

Three-Year Overall Survival with Tebentafusp in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Tebentafusp, a T-cell receptor-bispecific molecule that targets glycoprotein 100 and CD3, is approved for adult patients who are positive for HLA-A*02:01 and have unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma. The primary analysis in the present phase 3 trial supported a long-term survival benefit associated with the drug. METHODS: We report the 3-year efficacy and safety results from our open-label, phase 3 trial in which HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive tebentafusp (tebentafusp group) or the investigator's choice of therapy with pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine (control group), with randomization stratified according to the lactate dehydrogenase level. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, median overall survival was 21.6 months in the tebentafusp group and 16.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.87). The estimated percentage of patients surviving at 3 years was 27% in the tebentafusp group and 18% in the control group. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade in the tebentafusp group were rash (83%), pyrexia (76%), pruritus (70%), and hypotension (38%). Most tebentafusp-related adverse events occurred early during treatment, and no new adverse events were observed with long-term administration. The percentage of patients who discontinued treatment because of adverse events continued to be low in both treatment groups (2% in the tebentafusp group and 5% in the control group). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-year analysis supported a continued long-term benefit of tebentafusp for overall survival among adult HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma. (Funded by Immunocore; IMCgp100-202 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03070392; EudraCT number, 2015-003153-18.).

Perspectives in Immunotherapy: meeting report from Immunotherapy Bridge (Naples, November 30th-December 1st, 2022).

The discovery and development of novel treatments that harness the patient's immune system and prevent immune escape has dramatically improved outcomes for patients across cancer types. However, not all patients respond to immunotherapy, acquired resistance remains a challenge, and responses are poor in certain tumors which are considered to be immunologically cold. This has led to the need for new immunotherapy-based approaches, including adoptive cell transfer (ACT), therapeutic vaccines, and novel immune checkpoint inhibitors. These new approaches are focused on patients with an inadequate response to current treatments, with emerging evidence of improved responses in various cancers with new immunotherapy agents, often in combinations with existing agents. The use of cell therapies, drivers of immune response, and trends in immunotherapy were the focus of the Immunotherapy Bridge (November 30th-December 1st, 2022), organized by the Fondazione Melanoma Onlus, Naples, Italy, in collaboration with the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

Tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab and/or tremelimumab in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma: a phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in first line cutaneous melanoma. However, there is a high unmet need for patients who progress on these therapies and combination therapies are being explored to improve outcomes. Tebentafusp is a first-in-class gp100×CD3 ImmTAC bispecific that demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit (HR 0.51) in metastatic uveal melanoma despite a modest overall response rate of 9%. This phase 1b trial evaluated the safety and initial efficacy of tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab (anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)) and/or tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4) in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (mCM), the majority of whom progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase 1b, dose-escalation trial, HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with mCM received weekly intravenous tebentafusp with increasing monthly doses of durvalumab and/or tremelimumab starting day 15 of each cycle. The primary objective was to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose for each combination. Efficacy analyses were performed in all tebentafusp with durvalumab±tremelimumab treated patients with a sensitivity analysis in those who progressed on prior anti-PD(L)1 therapy. RESULTS: 85 patients were assigned to receive tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab (n=43), tremelimumab (n=13), or durvalumab and tremelimumab (n=29). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, including 76 (89%) who received prior anti-PD(L)1. Maximum target doses of tebentafusp (68 mcg) alone or in combination with durvalumab (20 mg/kg) and tremelimumab (1 mg/kg) were tolerated; MTD was not formally identified for any arm. Adverse event profile was consistent with each individual therapy and there were no new safety signals nor treatment-related deaths. In the efficacy subset (n=72), the response rate was 14%, tumor shrinkage rate was 41% and 1-year OS rate was 76% (95% CI: 70% to 81%). The 1-year OS for triplet combination (79%; 95% CI: 71% to 86%) was similar to tebentafusp plus durvalumab (74%; 95% CI: 67% to 80%). CONCLUSION: At maximum target doses, the safety of tebentafusp with checkpoint inhibitors was consistent with safety of each individual therapy. Tebentafusp with durvalumab demonstrated promising efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with mCM, including those who progressed on prior anti-PD(L)1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02535078.

Seven-Year Follow-Up of the Phase III KEYNOTE-006 Study: Pembrolizumab Versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Immune checkpoint inhibitors have led to unprecedented prolongation of overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced melanoma. Five-year follow-up of KEYNOTE-006 showed pembrolizumab prolonged survival versus ipilimumab. Efficacy results with 7-year follow-up are presented. At data cutoff (April 19, 2021), median follow-up was 85.3 months (range, 0.03-90.8 months). Median OS was 32.7 months for pembrolizumab versus 15.9 months for ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.83); 7-year OS was 37.8% and 25.3%, respectively. OS HRs favored pembrolizumab regardless of BRAF status or prior BRAF/MEK-inhibitor treatment and prognostic characteristics (elevated lactate dehydrogenase, large tumor size, and brain metastasis). Median modified progression-free survival (mPFS) was 9.4 months for pembrolizumab versus 3.8 months for ipilimumab; 7-year mPFS was 23.8% and 13.3%, respectively. In patients who completed ≥94 weeks of pembrolizumab, the 5-year OS was 92.9% and the 5-year mPFS was 70.1%. The objective response rate with second-course pembrolizumab (n = 16) was 56% (95% CI, 30 to 80) and the 2-year mPFS was 62.5%. These findings confirm that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefit in advanced melanoma.

Talimogene laherparepvec in combination with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone for advanced melanoma: 5-year final analysis of a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial.

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus ipilimumab has demonstrated greater antitumor activity versus ipilimumab alone, without additional toxicity, in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year outcomes from a randomized phase II study. These data provide the longest efficacy and safety follow-up for patients with melanoma treated with a combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor.Eligible patients with unresectable stage IIIB‒IV melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. T-VEC was administered intralesionally at 106 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL in week 1, followed by 108 PFU/mL in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter. Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; ≤4 doses) was administered intravenously starting at week 1 in the ipilimumab arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per immune-related response criteria; key secondary end points included durable response rate (DRR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.Overall, 198 patients were randomized to receive the combination (n=98) or ipilimumab (n=100). The combination improved the ORR versus ipilimumab (35.7% vs 16.0%; OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.7; p=0.003). DRR was 33.7% and 13.0% (unadjusted OR 3.4; 95% CI 1.7 to 7.0; descriptive p=0.001), respectively. Among the objective responders, the median DOR was 69.2 months (95% CI 38.5 to not estimable) with the combination and was not reached with ipilimumab. Median PFS was 13.5 months with the combination and 6.4 months with ipilimumab (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09; descriptive p=0.14). Estimated 5-year OS was 54.7% (95% CI 43.9 to 64.2) in the combination arm and 48.4% (95% CI 37.9 to 58.1) in the ipilimumab arm. Forty-seven (48.0%) and 65 (65.0%) patients in the combination and ipilimumab arms, respectively, received subsequent therapies. No new safety signals were reported.At the 5-year follow-up, the improved response rates observed with T-VEC plus ipilimumab were durable. This is the first randomized controlled study of the combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor that meets its primary end point.Trial registration number: NCT01740297.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2022, Naples, December 1st-3rd, 2022.

The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1-3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) consensus definitions for resistance to combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Immunotherapy is the standard of care for several cancers and the field continues to advance at a rapid pace, with novel combinations leading to indications in an increasing number of disease settings. Durable responses and long-term survival with immunotherapy have been demonstrated in some patients, though lack of initial benefit and recurrence after extended disease control remain major hurdles for the field. Many new combination regimens are in development for patients whose disease progressed on initial immunotherapy. To guide clinical trial design and support analyses of emerging molecular and cellular data surrounding mechanisms of resistance, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) previously generated consensus clinical definitions for resistance to single-agent anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in three distinct scenarios: primary resistance, secondary resistance, and progression after treatment discontinuation. An unmet need still exists, however, for definitions of resistance to ICI-based combinations, which represent an expanding frontier in the immunotherapy treatment landscape. In 2021, SITC convened a workshop including stakeholders from academia, industry, and government to develop consensus definitions for resistance to ICI-based combination regimens for improved outcome assessment, trial design and drug development. This manuscript reports the minimum drug exposure requirements and time frame for progression that define resistance in both the metastatic setting and the perioperative setting, as well as key caveats and areas for future research with ICI/ICI combinations. Definitions for resistance to ICIs in combination with chemotherapy and targeted therapy will be published in companion volumes to this paper.

Combination of the STING Agonist MIW815 (ADU-S100) and PD-1 Inhibitor Spartalizumab in Advanced/Metastatic Solid Tumors or Lymphomas: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase Ib Study.

PURPOSE: The stimulator of IFN genes (STING) is a transmembrane protein that plays a role in the immune response to tumors. Single-agent STING agonist MIW815 (ADU-S100) has demonstrated immune activation but limited antitumor activity. This phase Ib, multicenter, dose-escalation study assessed the safety and tolerability of MIW815 plus spartalizumab (PDR001), a humanized IgG4 antibody against PD-1, in 106 patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with weekly intratumoral injections of MIW815 (50-3,200 µg) on a 3-weeks-on/1-week-off schedule or once every 4 weeks, plus a fixed dose of spartalizumab (400 mg) intravenously every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Common adverse events were pyrexia (n = 23; 22%), injection site pain (n = 21; 20%), and diarrhea (n = 12; 11%). Overall response rate was 10.4%. The MTD was not reached. Pharmacodynamic biomarker analysis demonstrated on-target activity. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MIW815 and spartalizumab was well tolerated in patients with advanced/metastatic cancers, including in patients with anti-PD-1 refractory disease. Minimal antitumor responses were seen.

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Therapy in Melanoma: Facts to the Future.

Adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) is gaining momentum and demonstrating durable responses in patients with advanced melanoma. Although increasingly considered as a treatment option for select patients with melanoma, TIL therapy is not yet approved by any regulatory agency. Pioneering studies with first-generation TIL therapy, undertaken before the advent of modern melanoma therapeutics, demonstrated clinical efficacy and remarkable long-term overall survival, reaching beyond 20 months for responding patients. TIL therapy is a multistep process of harvesting patient-specific tumor-resident T cells from tumors, ex vivo T-cell expansion, and re-infusion into the same patient after a lymphodepleting preparative regimen, with subsequent supportive IL2 administration. Objective response rates between 30% and 50% have consistently been observed in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic melanoma, including those who have progressed after modern immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF targeted agents, a population with high unmet medical need. Although significant strides have been made in modern TIL therapeutics, refinement strategies to optimize patient selection, enhance TIL production, and improve efficacy are being explored. Here, we review past and present experience, current challenges, practical considerations, and future aspirations in the evolution of TIL therapy for the treatment of melanoma as well as other solid tumors.

Case report: Later onset of NRAS-mutant metastatic melanoma in a patient with a partially-excised giant congenital melanocytic nevus.

Despite recent advances in treatment and surveillance, metastatic melanoma still carries a poor prognosis. Large/giant congenital melanocytic nevi (CMNs) constitute a known risk factor for the condition, with the greatest risk for malignant transformation thought to be during childhood (median age at diagnosis of 3 years in a previous cohort). Herein, we present the case of a 30-year-old male who, after undergoing multiple excision/grafting procedures for a giant CMN as a child, was diagnosed with an NRAS-mutant, MDM2-amplified metastatic melanoma more than 20 years later. Response to ipilimumab/nivolumab immunotherapy, cisplatin/vinblastine/temozolomide chemotherapy, and nivolumab/relatlimab immunotherapy was poor. This case highlights the importance of lifetime monitoring with once-yearly dermatological examination (including lymph node palpation) in large/giant CMN patients, as well as the need for further clinical trials evaluating novel therapies for NRAS-mutant melanoma.

Clinical and molecular response to tebentafusp in previously treated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma: a phase 2 trial.

In patients with previously treated metastatic uveal melanoma, the historical 1 year overall survival rate is 37% with a median overall survival of 7.8 months. We conducted a multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase 2 study of tebentafusp, a soluble T cell receptor bispecific (gp100×CD3), in 127 patients with treatment-refractory metastatic uveal melanoma (NCT02570308). The primary endpoint was the estimation of objective response rate based on RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) v1.1. Secondary objectives included safety, overall survival, progression-free survival and disease control rate. All patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event, with rash (87%), pyrexia (80%) and pruritus (67%) being the most common. Toxicity was mostly mild to moderate in severity but was greatly reduced in incidence and intensity after the initial three doses. Despite a low overall response rate of 5% (95% CI: 2-10%), the 1 year overall survival rate was 62% (95% CI: 53-70%) with a median overall survival of 16.8 months (95% CI: 12.9-21.3), suggesting benefit beyond traditional radiographic-based response criteria. In an exploratory analysis, early on-treatment reduction in circulating tumour DNA was strongly associated with overall survival, even in patients with radiographic progression. Our findings indicate that tebentafusp has promising clinical activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with previously treated metastatic uveal melanoma, and data suggesting ctDNA as an early indicator of clinical benefit from tebentafusp need confirmation in a randomized trial.

First-in-human study of an OX40 (ivuxolimab) and 4-1BB (utomilumab) agonistic antibody combination in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Ivuxolimab (PF-04518600) and utomilumab (PF-05082566) are humanized agonistic IgG2 monoclonal antibodies against OX40 and 4-1BB, respectively. This first-in-human, multicenter, open-label, phase I, dose-escalation/dose-expansion study explored safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of ivuxolimab+utomilumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Dose-escalation: patients with advanced bladder, gastric, or cervical cancer, melanoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were unresponsive to available therapies, had no standard therapy available or declined standard therapy were enrolled into five dose cohorts: ivuxolimab (0.1-3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W)) intravenously plus utomilumab (20 or 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W)) intravenously. Dose-expansion: patients with melanoma (n=10) and NSCLC (n=20) who progressed on prior anti-programmed death receptor 1/programmed death ligand-1 and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (melanoma) received ivuxolimab 30 mg Q2W intravenously plus utomilumab 20 mg Q4W intravenously. Adverse events (AEs) were graded per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.4.03 and efficacy was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1 and immune-related RECIST (irRECIST). Paired tumor biopsies and whole blood were collected to assess pharmacodynamic effects and immunophenotyping. Whole blood samples were collected longitudinally for immunophenotyping. RESULTS: Dose-escalation: 57 patients were enrolled; 2 (3.5%) patients with melanoma (0.3 mg/kg+20 mg and 0.3 mg/kg+100 mg) achieved partial response (PR), 18 (31.6%) patients achieved stable disease (SD); the disease control rate (DCR) was 35.1% across all dose levels. Dose-expansion: 30 patients were enrolled; 1 patient with NSCLC achieved PR lasting >77 weeks. Seven of 10 patients with melanoma (70%) and 7 of 20 patients with NSCLC (35%) achieved SD: median (range) duration of SD was 18.9 (13.9-49.0) weeks for the melanoma cohort versus 24.1 (14.3-77.9+) weeks for the NSCLC cohort; DCR (NSCLC) was 40%. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 28 (49.1%) patients versus 11 (36.7%) patients in dose-escalation and dose-expansion, respectively. There were no grade 5 AEs deemed attributable to treatment. Ivuxolimab area under the concentration-time curve increased in a dose-dependent manner at 0.3-3 mg/kg doses. CONCLUSIONS: Ivuxolimab+utomilumab was found to be well tolerated and demonstrated preliminary antitumor activity in selected groups of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02315066.