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.).

Overall Survival Benefit with Tebentafusp in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma is a disease that is distinct from cutaneous melanoma, with a low tumor mutational burden and a 1-year overall survival of approximately 50% in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Data showing a proven overall survival benefit with a systemic treatment are lacking. Tebentafusp is a bispecific protein consisting of an affinity-enhanced T-cell receptor fused to an anti-CD3 effector that can redirect T cells to target glycoprotein 100-positive cells. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned previously untreated HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with metastatic uveal melanoma in a 2:1 ratio to receive tebentafusp (tebentafusp group) or the investigator's choice of therapy with single-agent pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine (control group), stratified according to the lactate dehydrogenase level. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 378 patients were randomly assigned to either the tebentafusp group (252 patients) or the control group (126 patients). Overall survival at 1 year was 73% in the tebentafusp group and 59% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001) in the intention-to-treat population. Progression-free survival was also significantly higher in the tebentafusp group than in the control group (31% vs. 19% at 6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.94; P = 0.01). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the tebentafusp group were cytokine-mediated events (due to T-cell activation) and skin-related events (due to glycoprotein 100-positive melanocytes), including rash (83%), pyrexia (76%), and pruritus (69%). These adverse events decreased in incidence and severity after the first three or four doses and infrequently led to discontinuation of the trial treatment (2%). No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with tebentafusp resulted in longer overall survival than the control therapy among previously untreated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. (Funded by Immunocore; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03070392; EudraCT number, 2015-003153-18.).

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.

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.

The "Great Debate" at Immunotherapy Bridge 2021, December 1st-2nd, 2021.

As part of the 2021 Immunotherapy Bridge virtual congress (December 1-2, Naples, Italy), the Great Debate sessions featured experts who were assigned counter opposing views on four important questions in immunotherapy today. The first topic was whether oncolytic viruses or other specific immunomodulators were the more promising approach for intralesional therapy. The second was whether early surrogate endpoints, such as response rate or progression-free survival, correlate with long-term overall survival was considered. Thirdly, whether vaccines can transform cold into hot tumors was discussed and, finally, broad versus deep analytic profiling approaches to gain insights into immune-oncology development were compared. As with previous Bridge congresses, presenters were invited by the meeting Chairs and positions taken during the debates may not have reflected their respective personal view. In addition, the views summarised in this article are based on available evidence but may reflect personal interpretation of these data, clinical experience and subjective opinion of the speaker.

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 .).

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2020: December, 5th, 2020.

The Great Debate session at the 2020 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 3rd-5th, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five specific controversial issues in melanoma. The debates considered whether or not innate immunity is important in the response to cancer and immunotherapy, how useful are the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification for the staging of patients, the use of sentinel node biopsy for staging patients, the use of triplet combination of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy versus combined immunotherapy, and the respective benefits of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy. As is usual with Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their own personal opinion.

LY3022855, an anti-colony stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) monoclonal antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy: phase 1 dose-escalation trial.

Background Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) promote tumor growth, metastasis, and therapeutic resistance via colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1), acting through CSF-1 receptor (CSF-1R) signaling. This phase 1 study determined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the anti-CSF-1R antibody LY3022855 in solid tumors. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy were enrolled and treated in 2 dosing cohorts: weight-based (part A) and non-weight-based (part B). Part A patients were assigned to intravenous (IV) dose-escalation cohorts: 2.5 mg/kg once per week (QW), 0.3 mg/kg QW, 0.6 mg/kg QW, 1.25 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) and 1.25 mg/kg QW doses of LY3022855. Non-weight-based doses in part B were 100 mg and 150 mg IV QW. Results Fifty-two patients (mean age 58.6 ± 10.4 years) were treated with ≥1 dose of LY3022855 (range: 4-6). Five dose-limiting toxicities (left ventricular dysfunction, anemia, pancreatitis, rhabdomyolysis, and acute kidney injury) occurred in 4 patients. The non-weight-based 100 mg QW dose was established as the RP2D. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were increase in liver function variables, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, pyrexia, increased lipase, amylase, and lactate dehydrogenase. Clearance decreased with increasing dose and weight-based dosing had minimal effect on pharmacokinetics. Serum CSF-1, and IL-34 levels increased at higher doses and more frequent dosing, whereas TAMs and CD14dimCD16bright levels decreased. Three patients achieved stable disease. No responses were seen. Conclusions LY3022855 was well tolerated and showed dose-dependent pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics and limited clinical activity in a heterogenous solid tumor population. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01346358 (Registration Date: May 3, 2011).

Quantitative metastatic lymph node burden and survival in Merkel cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Current lymph node (LN) staging for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) does not account for the number of metastatic LNs, which is a primary driver of survival in multiple cancers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the number of metastatic LNs on survival in MCC. METHODS: Patients with MCC undergoing surgery were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The association between metastatic LN number and survival was modeled with restricted cubic splines. A novel nodal classification system was derived by using recursive partitioning analysis. MCC patients undergoing surgery in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program were used as validation cohort. RESULTS: Among 3670 patients in the NCDB, increasing metastatic LN number was associated with decreased survival (P < .001). Mortality risk increased continuously with each additional positive LN when using multivariable, nonlinear modeling. According to a novel staging system derived via recursive partitioning analysis, the hazard ratio for death in multivariable regression compared with patients without LN involvement was 1.24 (P = .049), 2.08 (P < .001), 3.24 (P < .001), and 6.13 (P < .001) for the proposed N1a (1-3 metastatic LNs with microscopic detection), N1b (1-3 metastatic LNs with macroscopic detection), N2 (4-8 metastatic LNs), and N3 (≥9 metastatic LNs), respectively. This system was validated in the SEER cohort and showed improved concordance compared with the American Joint Committee on Cancer, Eighth Edition. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Number of metastatic LNs is the dominant nodal factor driving survival in patients with MCC.

Improved survival in women versus men with merkel cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Studies have observed that women have better outcomes than men in melanoma, but less is known about the influence of sex differences on outcomes for other aggressive cutaneous malignancies. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether women and men have disparate outcomes in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). METHODS: Patients with nonmetastatic MCC undergoing surgery and lymph node evaluation were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for overall survival, and competing-risks analysis and Fine-Gray models were used for cause-specific and other-cause mortality. RESULTS: The NCDB cohort (n = 4178) included 1516 (36%) women. Women had a consistent survival advantage compared with men in propensity score-matched analysis (66.0% vs 56.8% at 5 years, P < .001) and multivariable Cox regression (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.75; P < .001). Similarly, women had a survival advantage in the SEER validation cohort (n = 1202) with 457 (38.0%) women, which was entirely due to differences in MCC-specific mortality (5-year cumulative incidence: 16.4% vs 26.7%, P = .002), with no difference in other-cause mortality (16.8% vs 17.8%, P = .43) observed in propensity score-matched patients. LIMITATIONS: Potential selection bias from a retrospective data set. CONCLUSION: In MCC, women have improved survival compared with men, driven by MCC-related mortality.

Intratumoral Immunotherapy-Update 2019.

Intratumoral immunotherapies aim to trigger local and systemic immunologic responses via direct injection of immunostimulatory agents with the goal of tumor cell lysis, followed by release of tumor-derived antigens and subsequent activation of tumor-specific effector T cells. In 2019, a multitude of intratumoral immunotherapies with varied mechanisms of action, including nononcolytic viral therapies such as PV-10 and toll-like receptor 9 agonists and oncolytic viral therapies such as CAVATAK, Pexa-Vec, and HF10, have been extensively evaluated in clinical trials and demonstrated promising antitumor activity with tolerable toxicities in melanoma and other solid tumor types. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a genetically modified herpes simplex virus type 1-based oncolytic immunotherapy, is the first oncolytic virus approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of unresectable melanoma recurrent after initial surgery. In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, T-VEC demonstrated a superior durable response rate (continuous complete response or partial response lasting ≥6 months) over subcutaneous GM-CSF (16.3% vs. 2.1%; p < .001). Responses were seen in both injected and uninjected lesions including visceral lesions, suggesting a systemic antitumor response. When combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors, T-VEC significantly improved response rates compared with single agent; similar results were seen with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and other intratumoral therapies such as CAVATAK, HF10, and TLR9 agonists. In this review, we highlight recent results from clinical trials of key intratumoral immunotherapies that are being evaluated in the clinic, with a focus on T-VEC in the treatment of advanced melanoma as a model for future solid tumor indications. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review provides oncologists with the latest information on the development of key intratumoral immunotherapies, particularly oncolytic viruses. Currently, T-VEC is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved oncolytic immunotherapy. This article highlights the efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of T-VEC both as monotherapy and in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This review summarizes current knowledge on intratumoral therapies, a novel modality with increased utility in cancer treatment, and T-VEC, the only U.S. FDA-approved oncolytic viral therapy, for medical oncologists. This review evaluates approaches to incorporate T-VEC into daily practice to offer the possibility of response in selected melanoma patients with manageable adverse events as compared with other available immunotherapies.

The Great Debate at "Melanoma Bridge", Naples, December 7th, 2019.

The Great Debate session at the 2019 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 5-7, Naples, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five topical issues in melanoma. These were whether to choose local intratumoral treatment or systemic treatment, whether patients with stage IIIA melanoma require adjuvant therapy or not, whether treatment is better changed at disease progression or during stable disease, whether adoptive cell transfer (ACT) therapy is more appropriate used before or in combination with checkpoint inhibition therapy, and whether treatment can be stopped while the patient is still on response. As was the case for previous meetings, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs. As such, positions taken by each of the melanoma experts during the debates may not have reflected their respective personal approach.

Phase I study of the anti-endothelin B receptor antibody-drug conjugate DEDN6526A in patients with metastatic or unresectable cutaneous, mucosal, or uveal melanoma.

Background Endothelin B receptor (ETBR) is involved in melanoma pathogenesis and is overexpressed in metastatic melanoma. The antibody-drug conjugate DEDN6526A targets ETBR and is comprised of the humanized anti-ETBR monoclonal antibody conjugated to the anti-mitotic agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). Methods This Phase I study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and anti-tumor activity of DEDN6526A (0.3-2.8 mg/kg) given every 3 weeks (q3w) in patients with metastatic or unresectable cutaneous, mucosal, or uveal melanoma. Results Fifty-three patients received a median of 6 doses of DEDN6526A (range 1-49). The most common drug-related adverse events (>25% across dose levels) were fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, nausea, diarrhea, alopecia, and chills. Three patients in dose-escalation experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (infusion-related reaction, increased ALT/AST, and drug-induced liver injury). Based on cumulative safety data across all dose levels, the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) for DEDN6526A was 2.4 mg/kg intravenous (IV) q3w. The pharmacokinetics of antibody-conjugated MMAE and total antibody were dose-proportional at doses ranging from 1.8-2.8 mg/kg. A trend toward faster clearance was observed at doses of 0.3-1.2 mg/kg. There were 6 partial responses (11%) in patients with metastatic cutaneous or mucosal melanoma, and 17 patients (32%) had prolonged stable disease ≥6 months. Responses were independent of BRAF mutation status but did correlate with ETBR expression. Conclusion DEDN6526A administered at the RP2D of 2.4 mg/kg q3w had an acceptable safety profile and showed evidence of anti-tumor activity in patients with cutaneous, mucosal, and uveal melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01522664.

The association between facility volume and overall survival in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma is an uncommon malignancy often requiring multidisciplinary management. The purpose of this study was to determine whether high-volume facilities have improved outcomes in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma relative to lower-volume facilities. METHODS: A total of 5304 patients from the National Cancer Database with stage I-III Merkel cell carcinoma undergoing surgery were analyzed. High-volume facilities were the top 1% by case volume. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity score-matching were performed to account for imbalances between groups. RESULTS: Treatment at high-volume facilities (hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.84, P < .001) was independently associated with improved overall survival (OS) in multivariable analyses. In propensity score-matched cohorts, 5-year OS was 62.3% at high-volume facilities vs 56.8% at lower-volume facilities (P < .001). Median OS was 111 months at high-volume facilities vs 79 months at lower-volume facilities. CONCLUSION: Treatment at high-volume facilities is associated with improved OS in Merkel cell carcinoma. Given the impracticality of referring all elderly patients with Merkel cell carcinoma to a small number of facilities, methods to mitigate this disparity should be explored.

Association between PD-L1 status and immune checkpoint inhibitor response in advanced malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of overall survival data.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway has become standard for many advanced malignancies. Whether PD-L1 expression predicts response is unclear. We assessed the association between PD-L1 expression and immunotherapy response using stratified meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials published prior to October 2018 comparing overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced solid organ malignancies treated with immunotherapy or standard treatment. Pooled hazard ratios were calculated among patients with high and low PD-L1 levels independently. Differences between the two estimates were assessed using meta-analysis of study-level differences. Our primary analysis assessed a 1% threshold while secondary analyses utilized 5, 10 and 50%. RESULTS: 14 eligible trials reporting on 8887 patients were included. While there was a significant OS benefit for immunotherapy compared with standard treatment for all patients, the magnitude of benefit was significantly larger among those with high PD-L1 expression (P = 0.006). This finding persisted regardless of threshold used and across subgroup analyses according to PD-L1 assay type, tumor histology, line of therapy, type of inhibitor and study methodology. CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 levels have important predictive value in determining the response to immunotherapy. However, patients with low PD-L1 levels also experience improved survival with immunotherapy compared with standard treatment.

Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients.

The development of human cancer is a multistep process characterized by the accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations that drive or reflect tumour progression. These changes distinguish cancer cells from their normal counterparts, allowing tumours to be recognized as foreign by the immune system. However, tumours are rarely rejected spontaneously, reflecting their ability to maintain an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1; also called B7-H1 or CD274), which is expressed on many cancer and immune cells, plays an important part in blocking the 'cancer immunity cycle' by binding programmed death-1 (PD-1) and B7.1 (CD80), both of which are negative regulators of T-lymphocyte activation. Binding of PD-L1 to its receptors suppresses T-cell migration, proliferation and secretion of cytotoxic mediators, and restricts tumour cell killing. The PD-L1-PD-1 axis protects the host from overactive T-effector cells not only in cancer but also during microbial infections. Blocking PD-L1 should therefore enhance anticancer immunity, but little is known about predictive factors of efficacy. This study was designed to evaluate the safety, activity and biomarkers of PD-L1 inhibition using the engineered humanized antibody MPDL3280A. Here we show that across multiple cancer types, responses (as evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1) were observed in patients with tumours expressing high levels of PD-L1, especially when PD-L1 was expressed by tumour-infiltrating immune cells. Furthermore, responses were associated with T-helper type 1 (TH1) gene expression, CTLA4 expression and the absence of fractalkine (CX3CL1) in baseline tumour specimens. Together, these data suggest that MPDL3280A is most effective in patients in which pre-existing immunity is suppressed by PD-L1, and is re-invigorated on antibody treatment.

Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma (ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy combination treatments can improve patient outcomes. Epacadostat, an IDO1 selective inhibitor, and pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, showed promising antitumour activity in the phase 1-2 ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study in advanced melanoma. In this trial, we aimed to compare progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. METHODS: In this international, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma previously untreated with PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and had a known BRAFV600 mutant status or consented to BRAFV600 mutation testing during screening. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression and BRAFV600 mutation status and randomly assigned (1:1) through a central interactive voice and integrated web response system to receive epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. We used block randomisation with a block size of four in each stratum. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis population included randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study was stopped after the second interim analysis; follow-up for safety is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02752074. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2016, and Aug 7, 2017, 928 patients were screened and 706 patients were randomly assigned to receive epacadostat plus pembrolizumab (n=354) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n=352). Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·3-14·5). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups for progression-free survival (median 4·7 months, 95% CI 2·9-6·8, for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs 4·9 months, 2·9-6·8, for placebo plus pembrolizumab; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·83-1·21; one-sided p=0·52) or overall survival (median not reached in either group; epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs placebo plus pembrolizumab: HR 1·13, 0·86-1·49; one-sided p=0·81). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase, which occurred in 14 (4%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11 (3%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 37 (10%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 32 (9%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in either treatment group. INTERPRETATION: Epacadostat 100 mg twice daily plus pembrolizumab did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival compared with placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The usefulness of IDO1 inhibition as a strategy to enhance anti-PD-1 therapy activity in cancer remains uncertain. FUNDING: Incyte Corporation, in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006. METHODS: KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAFV600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7-59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5-41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3-22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61-0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6-11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9-4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48-0·67, p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96 (17%) of 555 patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 50 (20%) of 256 patients in the ipilimumab group; the most common of these events were colitis (11 [2%] vs 16 [6%]), diarrhoea (ten [2%] vs seven [3%]), and fatigue (four [<1%] vs three [1%]). Any-grade serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (14%) patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 45 (18%) patients in the ipilimumab group. One patient assigned to pembrolizumab died from treatment-related sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.