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.

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.

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.

Distinct autoantibody profiles across checkpoint inhibitor types and toxicities.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in combination. To understand the effects of different ICI categories, we characterized changes in circulating autoantibodies in patients enrolled in the E4412 trial (NCT01896999) of brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus ipilimumab, BV plus nivolumab, or BV plus ipilimumab-nivolumab for Hodgkin Lymphoma. Cycle 2 Day 1 (C2D1) autoantibody levels were compared to pre-treatment baseline. Across 112 autoantibodies tested, we generally observed increases in ipilimumab-containing regimens, with decreases noted in the nivolumab arm. Among 15 autoantibodies with significant changes at C2D1, all nivolumab cases exhibited decreases, with more than 90% of ipilimumab-exposed cases showing increases. Autoantibody profiles also showed differences according to immune-related adverse event (irAE) type, with rash generally featuring increases and liver toxicity demonstrating decreases. We conclude that dynamic autoantibody profiles may differ according to ICI category and irAE type. These findings may have relevance to clinical monitoring and irAE treatment.

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.

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.

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.

Successful treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related periaortitis.

We report a 64-year-old patient with melanoma receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab therapy who presented with a periaortic soft tissue mass around the abdominal aorta on restaging fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings resulted in a diagnosis of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related periaortitis. Periaortitis is a rare disease presenting with fibro-inflammatory tissue around the aorta and may lead to serious complications. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were discontinued, and the patient was treated with glucocorticoids, leading to a complete resolution of the periaortitis. To our knowledge, this is only the third reported case of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related periaortitis.

Treatment-free survival outcomes from the phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A).

BACKGROUND: As part of a partitioned survival analysis, treatment-free survival (TFS) can characterize the overall survival time patients spend between the cessation of immunotherapy and the start of subsequent therapy; both with and without toxicity. Significant TFS was reported for the nivolumab/ipilimumab arms of the CheckMate 067 and 214 trials for patients with advanced melanoma or renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), respectively, where immunotherapy was often halted for toxicity rather than a predefined treatment endpoint. We therefore sought to assess TFS in the HCRN GU16-260 trial, which was designed to reduce toxicity and cap immunotherapy duration. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 128 patients with clear-cell aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab monotherapy for up to 2 years. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab for up to 1 year was provided to eligible patients with disease progression at any point or stable disease at 48 weeks (29% of patients). TFS was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for a time from registration to protocol therapy cessation and for a time from registration to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated from 36-month mean times. The time on or off protocol treatment with grade 3+treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was also captured. RESULTS: At 36 months from enrollment, 68.3% of patients were alive: 96.8% of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable-risk patients and 56.6% of those with intermediate/poor-risk, respectively. The 36-month mean time on protocol therapy was 11.5 months including 0.6 months with grade 3+TRAEs (16.0 months for favorable-risk patients and 9.6 months for intermediated/poor-risk patients). The 36-month mean TFS for the whole population was 9.4 months (12.9 months including 1.5 months with grade 3+TRAEs for favorable-risk and 8.0 months including 1.0 months with grade 3+TRAEs for intermediate/poor-risk). At 36 months, 65.6% of favorable-risk patients and 27.1% of intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive and subsequent systemic treatment-free. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy with salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in non-responders is an active treatment approach in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC and, similar to nivolumab/ipilimumab in CheckMate 214, results in substantial TFS and toxicity-free TFS. TFS was greatest in patients with favorable-risk disease, supporting the use of an immunotherapy-only regimen in this population.

Binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously treated microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS mutations in an open-label phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with previously treated RAS-mutated microsatellite-stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), a multicenter open-label phase 1b/2 trial was conducted to define the safety and efficacy of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor binimetinib in combination with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) nivolumab (anti-PD-1) or nivolumab and another ICI, ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4). METHODS: In phase 1b, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 1A (binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [BID] plus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks [Q4W]) or Arm 1B (binimetinib 45 mg BID plus nivolumab 480 mg Q4W and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 8 weeks [Q8W]) to determine the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of binimetinib. The MTD/RP2D was defined as the highest dosage combination that did not cause medically unacceptable dose-limiting toxicities in more than 35% of treated participants in Cycle 1. During phase 2, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 2A (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab) or Arm 2B (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab and ipilimumab) to assess the safety and clinical activity of these combinations. RESULTS: In phase 1b, 21 participants were randomized to Arm 1A or Arm 1B; during phase 2, 54 participants were randomized to Arm 2A or Arm 2B. The binimetinib MTD/RP2D was determined to be 45 mg BID. In phase 2, no participants receiving binimetinib plus nivolumab achieved a response. Of the 27 participants receiving binimetinib, nivolumab, and ipilimumab, the overall response rate was 7.4% (90% CI: 1.3, 21.5). Out of 75 participants overall, 74 (98.7%) reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), of whom 17 (22.7%) reported treatment-related serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D binimetinib regimen had a safety profile similar to previous binimetinib studies or nivolumab and ipilimumab combination studies. There was a lack of clinical benefit with either drug combination. Therefore, these data do not support further development of binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in RAS-mutated MSS mCRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03271047 (09/01/2017).

Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy induced inflammatory arthritis secondary to Nivolumab and Ipilimumab: a pediatric first.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have expanded the arsenal of cancer therapeutics over the last decade but are associated with a spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including inflammatory arthritis. While these complications are increasingly recognized in the adult population, no cases of inflammatory arthritis irAEs have been reported in the pediatric literature. CASE PRESENTATION: A 14-year-old female with metastatic epithelioid mesothelioma was referred to the pediatric rheumatology clinic after developing progressive inflammatory joint pain in her bilateral shoulders, hips, and small joints of hands following the second cycle of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab. Initial examinations showed bilateral shoulder joint line tenderness, positive FABERs test bilaterally, tenderness over bilateral greater trochanters, and bilateral second PIP effusions. Her serological profile was notable for positive HLA-B27, positive anti-CCP, negative Rheumatoid Factor, and negative ANA. PET-CT scan performed for disease response following immunotherapy showed symmetric increased metabolic activity primarily involving the supraspinatus, gluteus medius and minimus, and semimembranosus tendon insertions. Her presentation was consistent with a grade 1 irAE that worsened to a grade 2 irAE despite NSAID therapy, prompting a short course of oral prednisolone. She achieved clinical remission of her mesothelioma following six cycles of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab and her inflammatory arthritis was controlled on Celebrex monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first pediatric case of ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis and enthesitis. This case highlights the importance of increasing awareness of diagnosis and management of irAEs in children.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Annual melanoma incidence in the US is escalating. OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive evaluation of nivolumab alone or with ipilimumab for advanced melanoma treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, extending until August 2023. A range of outcomes were evaluated, encompassing overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), adverse events (both any and serious), complete response rate, mortality rate, and recurrence rate in patients with advanced melanoma. RESULTS: This analysis was conducted on seven relevant studies, involving 2,885 patients. The baseline characteristics of both groups were found to be comparable across all outcomes, with the exception of tumor size. The pooled analysis did not reveal any significant disparities, except for PFS, where the nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment group demonstrated a significantly longer PFS compared to the nivolumab group. However, there was a notable discrepancy in any adverse events (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.96, 3.69; p < 0.00001) and serious adverse events (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.88, 4.49, p < 0.00001) between the two groups, suggesting that the safety profile of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was inferior. CONCLUSIONS: Given diversity and potential biases, oncologists should base immunotherapy decisions on professional expertise and patient characteristics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023453484.

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.

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.

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.

UV1 telomerase vaccine with ipilimumab and nivolumab as second line treatment for pleural mesothelioma - A phase II randomised trial.

PURPOSE: The NIPU-trial investigates the effect of adding the telomerase vaccine UV1 to treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab for patients with pleural mesothelioma (PM). METHODS: In this phase 2 open-label trial, patients with PM progressing after first-line chemotherapy were randomised to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab alone (arm B) or combined with UV1 (arm A). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as determined by BICR. It was estimated that 69 PFS events were needed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.60 with 80% power and a one-sided alpha level of 0.10. RESULTS: 118 patients were randomised. The median PFS determined by blinded independent central review (BICR) was 4.2 months (95%CI 2.9-9.8) in arm A and 4.7 months (95%CI 3.9-7.0) in arm B (HR 1.01, 80%CI 0.75-1.36 P = 0.979), after a median follow-up of 12.5 months (95%CI 9.7-15.6). The investigator-determined median PFS was 4.3 months (95%CI 3.0-6.8) in arm A and 2.9 months (95%CI 2.4-5.5) in arm B (HR 0.60, 80%CI 0.45-0.81 P = 0.025). Confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by BICR was 31% in arm A and 16% in arm B (odds ratio 2.44 80%CI 1.35-4.49 P = 0.056). After a median follow-up time of 17.3 months (95%CI 15.8-22.9), the OS was 15.4 months (95%CI 11.1-22.6) in arm A and 11.1 months (95%CI 8.8-18.1) in arm B, (HR 0.73, 80%CI 0.53-1.0, P = 0.197). CONCLUSION: The primary endpoint was not met. Predefined analyses of response rates are in favour of adding the vaccine.

Outcome of adjuvant immunotherapy in a real-world nation-wide cohort of patients with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated promising outcomes for adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resected melanoma. Real-life data provide valuable insights to support patient guidance and treatment decisions. METHODS: Observational population-based study examining a national cohort of patients with resected stage III-IV melanoma referred for adjuvant therapy. Data were extracted from the Danish Metastatic Melanoma Database (DAMMED). RESULTS: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 785 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1. The majority had stage III resected melanoma (87%), normal LDH levels (80%), and performance score 0 (87%). Patients were followed for a median of 25.6 months (95%CI 24-28). The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were not reached. The RFS was 78% (95%CI 75-81), 66% (63-70), and 59% (55-63); MSS was 97% (95-98), 93% (91-95), and 87% (84-90) at 1-, 2-, and 3-year; respectively. Less than half (42%) of the patients finalized planned therapy, 32% discontinued due to toxicity, and 19% due to melanoma recurrence. Patients discontinuing adjuvant treatment prematurely, without recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing therapy. In a multivariable analysis, ipilimumab plus nivolumab did not improve outcomes compared to ipilimumab monotherapy as a first-line metastatic treatment after adjuvant anti-PD-1. CONCLUSION: Survival outcomes in real-world patients with melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 align with results from the randomized controlled trials. Patients discontinuing therapy prematurely, for other reasons than recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing planned treatment. First-line metastatic treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab post-adjuvant anti-PD-1 did not show improved outcomes compared to ipilimumab/anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

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.