Cancer-Germline Antigen Expression Discriminates Clinical Outcome to CTLA-4 Blockade.

CTLA-4 immune checkpoint blockade is clinically effective in a subset of patients with metastatic melanoma. We identify a subcluster of MAGE-A cancer-germline antigens, located within a narrow 75 kb region of chromosome Xq28, that predicts resistance uniquely to blockade of CTLA-4, but not PD-1. We validate this gene expression signature in an independent anti-CTLA-4-treated cohort and show its specificity to the CTLA-4 pathway with two independent anti-PD-1-treated cohorts. Autophagy, a process critical for optimal anti-cancer immunity, has previously been shown to be suppressed by the MAGE-TRIM28 ubiquitin ligase in vitro. We now show that the expression of the key autophagosome component LC3B and other activators of autophagy are negatively associated with MAGE-A protein levels in human melanomas, including samples from patients with resistance to CTLA-4 blockade. Our findings implicate autophagy suppression in resistance to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma, suggesting exploitation of autophagy induction for potential therapeutic synergy with CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Tumor and Microenvironment Evolution during Immunotherapy with Nivolumab.

The mechanisms by which immune checkpoint blockade modulates tumor evolution during therapy are unclear. We assessed genomic changes in tumors from 68 patients with advanced melanoma, who progressed on ipilimumab or were ipilimumab-naive, before and after nivolumab initiation (CA209-038 study). Tumors were analyzed by whole-exome, transcriptome, and/or T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing. In responding patients, mutation and neoantigen load were reduced from baseline, and analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity during therapy demonstrated differential clonal evolution within tumors and putative selection against neoantigenic mutations on-therapy. Transcriptome analyses before and during nivolumab therapy revealed increases in distinct immune cell subsets, activation of specific transcriptional networks, and upregulation of immune checkpoint genes that were more pronounced in patients with response. Temporal changes in intratumoral TCR repertoire revealed expansion of T cell clones in the setting of neoantigen loss. Comprehensive genomic profiling data in this study provide insight into nivolumab's mechanism of action.

Loss of IFN-γ Pathway Genes in Tumor Cells as a Mechanism of Resistance to Anti-CTLA-4 Therapy.

Antibody blockade of the inhibitory CTLA-4 pathway has led to clinical benefit in a subset of patients with metastatic melanoma. Anti-CTLA-4 enhances T cell responses, including production of IFN-γ, which is a critical cytokine for host immune responses. However, the role of IFN-γ signaling in tumor cells in the setting of anti-CTLA-4 therapy remains unknown. Here, we demonstrate that patients identified as non-responders to anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) have tumors with genomic defects in IFN-γ pathway genes. Furthermore, mice bearing melanoma tumors with knockdown of IFN-γ receptor 1 (IFNGR1) have impaired tumor rejection upon anti-CTLA-4 therapy. These data highlight that loss of the IFN-γ signaling pathway is associated with primary resistance to anti-CTLA-4 therapy. Our findings demonstrate the importance of tumor genomic data, especially IFN-γ related genes, as prognostic information for patients selected to receive treatment with immune checkpoint therapy.

Resistance Mechanisms to Immune-Checkpoint Blockade in Cancer: Tumor-Intrinsic and -Extrinsic Factors.

Inhibition of immune regulatory checkpoints, such as CTLA-4 and the PD-1-PD-L1 axis, is at the forefront of immunotherapy for cancers of various histological types. However, such immunotherapies fail to control neoplasia in a significant proportion of patients. Here, we review how a range of cancer-cell-autonomous cues, tumor-microenvironmental factors, and host-related influences might account for the heterogeneous responses and failures often encountered during therapies using immune-checkpoint blockade. Furthermore, we describe the emerging evidence of how the strong interrelationship between the immune system and the host microbiota can determine responses to cancer therapies, and we introduce a concept by which prior or concomitant modulation of the gut microbiome could optimize therapeutic outcomes upon immune-checkpoint blockade.

Response and outcome of patients with melanoma skin metastases and immune checkpoint inhibition.

It is known, that different metastatic organ systems respond differently to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In this study, we aimed to investigate the extent to which skin/subcutaneous metastases respond to ICI or targeted therapies (TTs) and whether the response rate differs from that of distant metastases in the same patient. Patients with melanoma diagnosed between January 2021 and September 2023 with at least one skin/subcutaneous metastasis who had received therapy with ICI or TT in an advanced setting were included in the analysis. Best overall response (BOR) was classified according to the revised response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). The BOR of skin metastases and visceral metastases to ICI and TT was compared using the chi-square test. Skin metastases treated with ICI a first-line setting showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 44.1%. In contrast, visceral metastases had a higher ORR of 51.1%. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = .77). Regarding TT, the ORR for skin metastases was 57.1%, compared to 38.5% for visceral metastases (p = .59). Interestingly, the ORR for skin/subcutaneous metastases was notably lower with ICI compared to visceral metastases, in contrast to patients who underwent TT. Skin metastases showed a poorer response to ICI than visceral metastases. Therefore, careful monitoring is recommended to detect non-response early in patients with skin metastases as skin metastases may have a worse response than TT. A larger cohort is needed for a comprehensive analysis and confirmation of our results.

SWOG 1609 cohort 48: anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 for advanced gallbladder cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with advanced gallbladder cancer are treated with multiagent chemotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors offer the possibility of a durable response with less toxicity. This prospective, multicenter, open-label study was designed to evaluate the anticancer activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced gallbladder cancer. METHODS: Nineteen patients with advanced gallbladder cancer refractory to ≥1 previous therapy received nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was confirmed radiographic overall response rate (ORR) (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] confirmed on subsequent scan); secondary end points included unconfirmed overall response, clinical benefit rate (confirmed and unconfirmed responses + stable disease >6 months), progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. RESULTS: The confirmed ORR was 16% (CR, n = 1 [5%]; PR, n = 2 [11%]); all were microsatellite stable, and the confirmed CR had undetectable programmed death-ligand 1 by immunohistochemistry. The unconfirmed ORR and clinical benefit rates were both 32%. The median duration of response was 14.8 months (range, 4-35.1+ months). The 6-month progression-free survival was 26% (95% CI, 12-55). The median overall survival was 7.0 months (95% CI, 3.9-19.1). The most common toxicities were fatigue (32%), anemia (26%), and anorexia (26%). Aspartate aminotransferase elevation was the most common grade 3/4 toxicity (11%). There was 1 possibly related death (sepsis with attendant hepatic failure). CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab was well tolerated and showed modest efficacy with durable responses in previously treated patients with advanced gallbladder cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02834013 (ClincialTrials.gov). PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This prospective study assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 19 patients with advanced gallbladder cancer refractory to previous therapy. The combination demonstrated modest efficacy with a 16% confirmed overall response rate, durable responses, and manageable toxicities, suggesting potential benefits for this challenging patient population.

A Pooled Analysis of 3 Phase II Trials of Salvage Nivolumab/Ipilimumab After Nivolumab in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has demonstrated improved survival for treatment-naïve advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A series of clinical trials evaluated the effect of salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients without an objective response to nivolumab. Given the size and heterogeneity of these studies, we performed a pooled analysis to better inform the activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab after nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients included those with advanced clear cell RCC having received no prior immunotherapy. The primary objective was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator-assessment. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The analysis included 410 patients with clear cell RCC, of whom 340 (82.9%) had IMDC intermediate/poor risk disease, and 137 (33.4%) had prior treatment. The 16-18-week ORR to nivolumab prior to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 22.7% (n = 93), and best ORR to nivolumab was 25.1% (n = 103). Two hundred and thirty (56.1%) patients treated with nivolumab received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 9-19) after initiation of nivolumab [27.0% (n = 62) with stable disease and 73.0% (n = 168) with progressive disease to nivolumab]. The ORR to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 12.6% (n = 29). Six-month PFS on nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 37% (95% CI, 27-47). Median follow-up was 34.3 months and 3-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 53-64) from nivolumab start. CONCLUSION: A small subset of patients lacking a response to nivolumab derive benefit from salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab. When possible, both drugs should be given in concomitantly, rather in an adaptive fashion.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib: 5-year results from CheckMate 040.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated promising clinical activity and durable responses in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the CheckMate 040 study at 30.7-month median follow-up. Here, we present 5-year results from this cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to arm A [nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)] or arm B [nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)], each followed by nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, or arm C (nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q6W). The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) per RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were randomized across treatment arms. At 60-month minimum follow-up (62.6-month median follow-up), the ORR was 34% (n = 17), 27% (n = 13), and 29% (n = 14) in arms A, B, and C, respectively. The median DOR was 51.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.6 months-not estimable (NE)], 15.2 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE), and 21.7 months (95% CI 4.2 months-NE), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was 22.2 months (34/50; 95% CI 9.4-54.8 months) in arm A, 12.5 months (38/49; 95% CI 7.6-16.4 months) in arm B, and 12.7 months (40/49; 95% CI 7.4-30.5 months) in arm C; 60-month OS rates were 29%, 19%, and 21%, respectively. In an exploratory analysis of OS by response (6-month landmark), the median OS was meaningfully longer for responders versus nonresponders for all arms. No new safety signals were identified with longer follow-up. There were no new discontinuations due to immune-mediated adverse events since the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the primary analysis, the arm A regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful responses and long-term survival benefit, with no new safety signals in patients with advanced HCC following sorafenib treatment, further supporting its use as a second-line treatment in these patients.

Overall survival from tebentafusp versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab in first-line metastatic uveal melanoma: a propensity score-weighted analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tebentafusp demonstrated a superior overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51] compared to investigator's choice (82% pembrolizumab) in a randomized, phase III trial (IMCgp100-202; N = 378) in untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). The 1-year OS rates for tebentafusp and pembrolizumab were 73% and 59%, respectively. In the single-arm GEM1402 (N = 52), the 1-year OS rate for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) in mUM was 52%. Due to limitations in conducting randomized trials in mUM, we compared OS on tebentafusp or pembrolizumab (IMCgp100-202) to N+I (GEM1402) in untreated mUM using propensity scoring methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analyses were adjusted using propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), balancing age, sex, baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), baseline alkaline phosphatase, disease location, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and time from primary diagnosis to metastasis. OS was assessed using IPT-weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. Sensitivity analyses using alternative missing data and weights methods were conducted. RESULTS: The primary IPTW analysis included 240 of 252 patients randomized to tebentafusp from IMCgp100-202 and 45 of 52 N+I-treated patients from GEM-1402. Key baseline covariates, including LDH, were generally well balanced before weighting. The IPTW-adjusted OS favored tebentafusp, HR 0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.78]; 1-year OS was 73% for tebentafusp versus 50% for N+I. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent superior OS for tebentafusp with all IPTW HRs ≤0.61. IPTW analysis of pembrolizumab versus N+I showed no significant difference in OS (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Tebentafusp was previously shown to provide an OS benefit compared to checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy in untreated mUM. Propensity score analysis demonstrated a similar OS benefit for tebentafusp compared with N+I. These data further support tebentafusp as the standard of care in previously untreated human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A∗02:01+ adult patients with mUM.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 8-year follow-up results of efficacy and safety from the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years of median follow-up from CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aRCC (N = 1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and IRRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients. RESULTS: With 8 years (99.1 months) of median follow-up, the hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). The median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1 months-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2 months] in ITT patients, 82.8 versus 19.8 months (54.1 months-NE versus 16.4-26.4 months) in I/P patients, and 61.5 versus 33.2 months (27.8 months-NE versus 24.8-51.4 months) in FAV patients. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time. CONCLUSIONS: Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC.

Real-world outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab with platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter retrospective comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (NICT) and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy (PCT) are commonly used in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Compared with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy, ICI combination therapy can increase immune-related toxicity instead of prolonging survival. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NICT and PCT to decide on the favorable treatment. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study on patients who underwent NICT or PCT between December 2018 and May 2022. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with the variables age, sex, smoking status, performance status, stage, histology, and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare survival for the matched patients. RESULTS: Six hundred consecutive patients were included. After PSM, 81 and 162 patients were enrolled in the NICT and PCT groups, respectively. The baseline characteristics were well-balanced. The median progression-free survival was equivalent (11.6 vs. 7.4 months; P = 0.582); however, the median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the NICT group than in the PCT group (26.0 vs. 16.8 months; P = 0.005). Furthermore, OS was better in PD-L1-negative patients who underwent NICT than in those who underwent PCT (26.0 vs. 16.8 months; P = 0.045). Safety profiles did not differ significantly in terms of severe adverse event and treatment-related death rates (P = 0.560, and 0.722, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data suggests that NICT could be a favorable treatment option compared with PCT for patients with advanced NSCLC. Further follow-up is needed to determine the long-term prognostic benefit.

Educational Review: Clinical Application of Immune Checkpoint Blockade for the Treatment of Melanoma.

In the last decade, immunotherapy has become the cornerstone in the management of patients with melanoma, the foremost cause of skin-cancer-related death in the USA. The emergence of immune checkpoint blockade as a crucial element in current immunotherapy and combination strategies has significantly transformed the treatments of resectable and advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma. This paper reviews the landmark clinical trials that formed the basis of management of melanoma in the perioperative and metastatic setting. Furthermore, we discuss the rationale for the applications of PD-1 blockade and its combination with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-LAG-3. The review also explores new experimental combinations of PD-1 blockade with other immunomodulatory agents, including targeted therapies, anti-TIGIT antibodies, TLR-9 agonists, antiangiogenic agents, and mRNA vaccines.

Correlation of Baseline Tumor Burden with Clinical Outcome in Melanoma Patients Treated with Ipilimumab.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor burden is a frequently mentioned parameter; however, a commonly accepted definition is still lacking. METHODS: In this double-center prospective and retrospective study, 76 patients with unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma treated with ipilimumab were included. We defined the baseline tumor burden (BTB) as the global sum of all metastases' longest diameters before treatment started and correlated the calculated BTB with disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and with the baseline levels of LDH, S100B, and sULPB2. RESULTS: BTB correlated significantly with DCR (p = 0.009), PFS (p = 0.002), OS (p = 0.032), and the occurrence of NRAS mutation (p = 0.006). BTB was also correlated to baseline serum levels of LDH (p = 0.011), S100B (p = 0.027), and SULBP (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that BPB and LDH were independently correlated with PFS and OS. With increasing BTB, disease control was less likely; no patient with a BTB >200 mm achieved disease control. For patients with brain metastasis, no correlation of BTB with DCR (p = 0.251), PFS (p = 0.059), or OS (p = 0.981) was observed. CONCLUSION: Calculated BTB is an independent prognostic factor for patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab. Using calculated BTB as a definition of tumor burden may help increase comparability of outcome of therapies in future studies.

Utility of Assessing Early Tumor Shrinkage as an Efficacy Predictor in Patients with Non-Surgically Indicated or Recurrent Esophageal Cancer Treated with Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy has been administered as a first-line treatment in Japan since 2022 for patients with unresectable progressive or recurrent esophageal cancer. The efficacy and safety of this immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) doublet therapy are now being evaluated, and it is necessary to identify populations that benefit from this treatment at an early phase after initiation. For patients not showing early benefit, changing as soon as possible to other therapeutic strategies could improve their survival outcomes. Therefore, we attempted to identify decision-making factors such as early tumor shrinkage (ETS) based on treatment experience with ICI doublet therapy. METHODS: The study included 19 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab for non-surgically indicated or recurrent esophageal cancer between July 2022 and November 2023. Tumors were assessed approximately every 2 months after treatment initiation. The effects of ETS, depth of response (DpR), and clinicopathologic features, including immune-related adverse events (irAEs), on progression-free and overall survival were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The mean duration of ICI doublet administration was 5.89 months (range, 1-16 months). At first evaluation, patients who exhibited no tumor progression >20% indicated possible response to ICI doublet therapy, and patients whose tumors shrank even minimally exhibited favorable progression-free survival. Higher DpR at any cut-off line exhibited better progression-free survival than those with lower DpR. Fifteen patients experienced irAEs, with 13 of these patients experiencing irAEs within 3 months of treatment initiation. irAEs were associated with the efficacy of ICI doublet therapy, but efficacy could not be predicted based on early irAE experience. CONCLUSION: ETS-high, DpR-high, and irAEs might be associated with favorable responses to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. As a predictor of efficacy at an early phase, ETS >0% could be a deciding factor for continuing ICI doublet therapy.

Treatment of malignant melanoma with coxsackievirus A21 (V937): An emerging oncolytic virotherapy.

Despite rising melanoma incidence in recent decades, there is a trend towards overall decreased mortality, reflecting multiple factors including improved treatment options for metastatic disease. While local treatments are the mainstay for early-stage melanoma, metastatic disease necessitates systemic treatment, with oncolytic virotherapy emerging as a promising option. For this review, articles were retrieved from PubMed from 1964 through 2024. We conducted title, abstract and full-text screening in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify articles describing the use of coxsackievirus A21 (V937), either as monotherapy or as part of combination therapy for malignant melanoma. Fifteen articles met inclusion criteria, offering preclinical and clinical data on V937's efficacy in reducing tumour burden. In addition to reporting manageable safety profiles, clinical trial data examining intratumoral V937 combination therapy with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab also endorsed favourable objective response rates compared to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy (47% vs. 38% and 21% vs. 10%, respectively). In contrast, intravenous V937 monotherapy failed to yield additional benefit in a cohort of patients with Stage IIIC/IV melanoma (n = 3) despite achieving detectable levels in tumour tissue (1 × 109 TCID50). Although small subsets of patients experienced severe adverse effects and study design limitations imposed constraints on collected data, evidence for the efficacy of V937 remains encouraging. With few clinical trials evaluating V937 in melanoma, additional data is required before routine usage in standard treatment for metastatic lesions.

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).

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

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

First-line immunotherapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an updated network meta-analysis including triplet therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the differential efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combined therapies among patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as recently, the efficacy of triplet therapy comprising nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cabozantinib has been published. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three databases were searched in December 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysing oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC treated with first-line ICI-based combined therapies. We performed network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs), in patients with intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC; we also assessed treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, seven RCTs were included in the meta-analyses and NMAs. Treatment ranking analysis revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib (99%) had the highest likelihood of improved PFS, followed by nivolumab + cabozantinib (79%), and nivolumab + ipilimumab + cabozantinib (77%). Notably, compared to nivolumab + cabozantinib, adding ipilimumab to nivolumab + cabozantinib did not improve PFS (hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.43). Regarding ORRs, treatment ranking analysis also revealed that pembrolizumab + lenvatinib had the highest likelihood of providing better ORRs (99.7%). The likelihoods of improved PFS and ORRs of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were true in both International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses confirmed the robust efficacy of pembrolizumab + lenvatinib as first-line treatment for patients with intermediate or poor IMDC risk mRCC. Triplet therapy did not result in superior efficacy. Considering both toxicity and the lack of mature overall survival data, triplet therapy should only be considered in selected patients.

Combination immune checkpoint and targeted protein kinase inhibitors for the treatment of renal cell carcinomas.

Kidney cancers comprise about 3% of all new malignancies in the United States. Renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) are the most common type of renal malignancy making up about 85% of kidney cancer cases. Signs and symptoms of renal cell carcinomas can result from local tumor growth, paraneoplastic syndromes, or distant metastases. The classic triad of presentation with flank pain, hematuria, and a palpable abdominal mass occurs in fewer than 10% of patients. Most diagnoses result from incidental imaging findings (ultrasonography or abdominal CT imaging) performed for another reason. Localized disease is treated by partial nephrectomy, total nephrectomy, or ablation (tumor destruction with heat or cold). When the tumors have metastasized, systemic therapy with protein-tyrosine kinase antagonists including sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, and tivozanib that target vascular endothelial, platelet-derived, fibroblast, hepatocyte, and stem cell factor growth factor receptors (VEGFR, PDGFR, FGFR, MET, and Kit) were prescribed after 2005. The monoclonal antibody immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (targeting programed cell death protein 1, PD1) was approved for the treatment of RCCs in 2015. It is usually used now in combination with ipilimumab (targeting CTLA-4) or cabozantinib (a multikinase blocker). Other combination therapies include pembrolizumab (targeting PD1) and axitinib (a VEGFR and PDGFR blocker) or lenvatinib (a multikinase inhibitor). Since the KEYNOTE-426 clinical trial, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with protein-tyrosine kinase inhibitors is now the standard of care for most patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomas and monotherapies are used only in those individuals who cannot receive or tolerate immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The efficacy of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma following first-line immune-oncology combination therapy.

PURPOSE: Metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) is a heterogeneous disease with a poor prognosis and is treated with immunotherapy (IO)-based combinations according to the clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as cabozantinib and axitinib, are commonly used as the 2nd line therapy after 1st line IO combination therapy, but their efficacy as 2nd line TKI therapy for nccRCC is unknown. In this study, we performed a retrospective multicenter analysis of nccRCC patients who were previously treated with IO combination therapy and received 2nd line TKIs. METHODS: Among 254 patients enrolled in the Japanese multicenter retrospective study, 52 patients with nccRCC histology who received second-line TKIs were included in this study. Progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) from 2nd line TKIs were analyzed by log-rank test and Cox-proportional hazard model. Objective response rate (ORR) of 2nd line TKIs were analyzed. RESULTS: The 1-year PFS and OS rates were 25.0% (95% CI = 13.1-36.8) and 63.8% (95% CI, 48.0-75.9), respectively. No patients had a complete response, 11 had a partial response, and 18 had stable disease. ORR was 21.1%. IMDC poor risk and sunitinib as the 2nd line therapy were significantly associated with poor PFS. CONCLUSION: The 2nd-line TKI was effective for a small group of nccRCC patients previously treated with IO combination therapy, although this study was retrospectively analyzed with a small number of cases.