A decade of checkpoint blockade immunotherapy in melanoma: understanding the molecular basis for immune sensitivity and resistance.

Ten years since the immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab was approved for advanced melanoma, it is time to reflect on the lessons learned regarding modulation of the immune system to treat cancer and on novel approaches to further extend the efficacy of current and emerging immunotherapies. Here, we review the studies that led to our current understanding of the melanoma immune microenvironment in humans and the mechanistic work supporting these observations. We discuss how this information is guiding more precise analyses of the mechanisms of action of immune checkpoint blockade and novel immunotherapeutic approaches. Lastly, we review emerging evidence supporting the negative impact of melanoma metabolic adaptation on anti-tumor immunity and discuss how to counteract such mechanisms for more successful use of immunotherapy.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab in gastro-oesophageal cancer.

Standard first-line chemotherapy results in disease progression and death within one year in most patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma1-4. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated superior overall survival versus chemotherapy at 12-month follow-up in gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction or oesophageal adenocarcinoma in the randomized, global CheckMate 649 phase 3 trial5 (programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score ≥5 and all randomized patients). On the basis of these results, nivolumab plus chemotherapy is now approved as a first-line treatment for these patients in many countries6. Nivolumab and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab have distinct but complementary mechanisms of action that contribute to the restoration of anti-tumour T-cell function and induction of de novo anti-tumour T-cell responses, respectively7-11. Treatment combining 1 mg kg-1 nivolumab with 3 mg kg-1 ipilimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful anti-tumour activity with a manageable safety profile in heavily pre-treated patients with advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer12. Here we report both long-term follow-up results comparing nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone and the first results comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy alone from CheckMate 649. After the 24.0-month minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥5 (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.81) and all randomized patients (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.71, 0.88). Overall survival in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 5 for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy alone did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. No new safety signals were identified. Our results support the continued use of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as standard first-line treatment for advanced gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Locally Advanced Mismatch Repair-Deficient Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors can be found in 10 to 15% of patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. In these patients, the efficacy of chemotherapy is limited. The use of neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown promising results, but data from studies of this approach are limited. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 study in which patients with nonmetastatic, locally advanced, previously untreated dMMR colon cancer were treated with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The two primary end points were safety, defined by timely surgery (i.e., ≤2-week delay of planned surgery owing to treatment-related toxic events), and 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary end points included pathological response and results of genomic analyses. RESULTS: Of 115 enrolled patients, 113 (98%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 93 to 100) underwent timely surgery; 2 patients had surgery delayed by more than 2 weeks. Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (4%), and none of the patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Among the 111 patients included in the efficacy analysis, a pathological response was observed in 109 (98%; 95% CI, 94 to 100), including 105 (95%) with a major pathological response (defined as ≤10% residual viable tumor) and 75 (68%) with a pathological complete response (0% residual viable tumor). With a median follow-up of 26 months (range, 9 to 65), no patients have had recurrence of disease. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced dMMR colon cancer, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab had an acceptable safety profile and led to a pathological response in a high proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; NICHE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03026140.).

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

Mechanisms of response and resistance to combined decitabine and ipilimumab for advanced myeloid disease.

The challenge of eradicating leukemia in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) after initial cytoreduction has motivated modern efforts to combine synergistic active modalities including immunotherapy. Recently, the ETCTN/CTEP 10026 study tested the combination of the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor decitabine together with the immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab for AML/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) either after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) or in the HSCT-naïve setting. Integrative transcriptome-based analysis of 304 961 individual marrow-infiltrating cells for 18 of 48 subjects treated on study revealed the strong association of response with a high baseline ratio of T to AML cells. Clinical responses were predominantly driven by decitabine-induced cytoreduction. Evidence of immune activation was only apparent after ipilimumab exposure, which altered CD4+ T-cell gene expression, in line with ongoing T-cell differentiation and increased frequency of marrow-infiltrating regulatory T cells. For post-HSCT samples, relapse could be attributed to insufficient clearing of malignant clones in progenitor cell populations. In contrast to AML/MDS bone marrow, the transcriptomes of leukemia cutis samples from patients with durable remission after ipilimumab monotherapy showed evidence of increased infiltration with antigen-experienced resident memory T cells and higher expression of CTLA-4 and FOXP3. Altogether, activity of combined decitabine and ipilimumab is impacted by cellular expression states within the microenvironmental niche of leukemic cells. The inadequate elimination of leukemic progenitors mandates urgent development of novel approaches for targeting these cell populations to generate long-lasting responses. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02890329.

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.

A prediction model for response to immune checkpoint inhibition in advanced melanoma.

Predicting who will benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in patients with advanced melanoma is challenging. We developed a multivariable prediction model for response to ICI, using routinely available clinical data including primary melanoma characteristics. We used a population-based cohort of 3525 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy. Our prediction model for predicting response within 6 months after ICI initiation was internally validated with bootstrap resampling. Performance evaluation included calibration, discrimination and internal-external cross-validation. Included patients received anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 2366) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 1159) in any treatment line. The model included serum lactate dehydrogenase, World Health Organization performance score, type and line of ICI, disease stage and time to first distant recurrence-all at start of ICI-, and location and type of primary melanoma, the presence of satellites and/or in-transit metastases at primary diagnosis and sex. The over-optimism adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64-0.66). The range of predicted response probabilities was 7%-81%. Based on these probabilities, patients were categorized into quartiles. Compared to the lowest response quartile, patients in the highest quartile had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (20.0 vs 2.8 months; P < .001) and median overall survival (62.0 vs 8.0 months; P < .001). Our prediction model, based on routinely available clinical variables and primary melanoma characteristics, predicts response to ICI in patients with advanced melanoma and discriminates well between treated patients with a very good and very poor prognosis.

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.

Clinical Predictors of Survival in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma Treated With Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibitors After Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Prospective and between trial comparisons indicate that first-line treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors improves survival outcomes compared to first-line therapy with combined BRAF and MEK inhibitors in metastatic melanoma containing BRAFV600E/K mutations. Long-term outcomes for BRAF/MEK inhibition after progression on immunotherapy have not been reported. Moreover, clinical variables associated with outcome from treatment with combined BRAF/MEK inhibition were previously identified in the first-line setting but have not been investigated when targeted therapies are administered after progression on immune therapy. We performed a retrospective single institution analysis of 40 metastatic melanoma patients receiving combined BRAF/MEK inhibitors after progression on an anti-PD-1 or ipilimumab plus nivolumab to assess response rate by RECIST 1.1, progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS). Pretreatment clinical variables were analyzed for association with OS. Ipilimumab/nivolumab was the first-line immunotherapy regimen in 39 patients (97.5%), and BRAFV600E/K mutations were present in 33 (83%) and 7 (17%) patients, respectively. The median OS from start of BRAF/MEK inhibitors was 20.3 months (1.73-106.4+, 95% CI of median 13.3-30.7). Clinical characteristics associated with worse survival prior to starting BRAF/MEK inhibitors included age > 60 years (median OS 14 vs. 28 months; HR 2.5; 95% CI 0.91-6.87, P = .023), ECOG-PS > 2 (median OS 7 vs. 33 months; HR 2.89; 95% CI 0.78-10.76, P = .018), and presence of bone metastases (median OS 9 vs. 52 months; HR 3.17; 95% CI 1.33-7.54, P = .002). These associations with shorter survival maintained their significance on multivariate analysis. If confirmed in larger cohorts, the identified prognostic variables can be used for stratification of patients in future randomized trials.

The Relationship Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in CheckMate 214.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 214 (median follow-up, 25.2 months), nivolumab plus ipilimumab yielded greater overall survival (OS) benefit than sunitinib in patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) was also more favorable for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the sunitinib group. We investigated whether HRQoL scores can predict OS of patients with 5 years follow-up in CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 214 was an open-label, phase III trial in previously untreated aRCC (N = 1096). Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk disease (International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic score ≥ 1; n = 847) were randomized to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Pooled data for OS and FKSI-19 total and subscales (disease-related symptoms [DRS], DRS-physical [DRS-P], and function/well-being [FWB]) were analyzed. Relationships between HRQoL and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with baseline and longitudinal scores. Associations between HRQoL changes and OS were assessed by landmark analyses. RESULTS: Patients with higher FKSI-19 total and subscale scores at baseline had longer OS than patients with lower scores (HR ≤ 0.834; P < .0001). Longitudinal models indicated stronger associations between HRQoL and OS (HR ≤ 0.69; P < .001 for each). At 3 months after randomization, patients with stable/improved HRQoL versus baseline had longer median OS than patients with worsened/unobserved HRQoL versus baseline (55.9 and 26.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; P < .0001). Results at 6-, 9-, and 12-month landmarks were consistent with these findings. CONCLUSION: In aRCC, patient-reported outcomes are important for HRQoL and prognostic evaluation. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02231749; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749.

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.).

Nivolumab in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: 5-year follow-up from CheckMate 040.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) have a poor prognosis and high mortality. Nivolumab monotherapy demonstrated clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile in patients with aHCC in the CheckMate 040 study. Five-year follow-up of the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups of CheckMate 040 is presented here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received nivolumab monotherapy at dose levels of 0.1-10.0 mg/kg (dose-escalation phase) or 3 mg/kg (dose-expansion phase) every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability (dose escalation), and objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) and by investigator as per RECIST version 1.1 (dose expansion). RESULTS: Eighty sorafenib-naive and 154 sorafenib-experienced patients were treated. Minimum follow-up in both groups was 60 months. ORR as per BICR was 20% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 30%] and 14% (95% CI 9% to 21%) in the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups, respectively. Responses occurred regardless of HCC etiology or baseline tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Median overall survival (OS) was 26.6 months (95% CI 16.6-30.6 months) and 15.1 months (95% CI 13.0-18.2 months) in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients, respectively. The 3-year OS rates were 28% in the sorafenib-naive and 20% in the sorafenib-experienced groups; 5-year OS rates were 14% and 12%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 33% and 21% of patients in the sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced groups, respectively. Biomarker analyses showed that baseline PD-L1 expression ≥1% was associated with higher ORR and longer OS compared with PD-L1 <1%. In the sorafenib-naive group, patients with OS ≥3 years exhibited higher baseline CD8 T-cell density compared with those with OS <1 year. CONCLUSION: With 5 years of follow-up, nivolumab monotherapy continued to provide durable clinical benefit with manageable safety in sorafenib-naive and sorafenib-experienced patients with aHCC.

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.

A randomized phase II clinical trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and systemic pembrolizumab with or without intratumoral avelumab/ipilimumab plus CD1c (BDCA-1)+/CD141 (BDCA-3)+ myeloid dendritic cells in solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) synergizes with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). CD1c(BDCA-1)+/CD141(BDCA-3)+ myeloid dendritic cells (myDC) in the tumor microenvironment are indispensable at initiating effector T-cell responses and response to ICB. METHODS: In this phase II clinical trial, anti-PD-1 ICB pretreated oligometastatic patients (tumor agnostic) underwent a leukapheresis followed by isolation of CD1c(BDCA-1)+/CD141(BDCA-3)+ myDC. Following hypofractionated stereotactic body RT (3 × 8 Gy), patients were randomized (3:1). Respectively, in arm A (immediate treatment), intratumoral (IT) ipilimumab (10 mg) and avelumab (40 mg) combined with intravenous (IV) pembrolizumab (200 mg) were administered followed by IT injection of myDC; subsequently, IV pembrolizumab and IT ipilimumab/avelumab were continued (q3W). In arm B (contemporary control arm), patients received IV pembrolizumab, with possibility to cross-over at progression. Primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival rate (PFS). Secondary endpoints were safety, feasibility, objective response rate, PFS, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirteen patients (10 in arm A, eight non-small cell lung cancer, and five melanoma) were enrolled. Two patients crossed over. One-year PFS rate was 10% in arm A and 0% in arm B. Two patients in arm A obtained a partial response, and one patient obtained a stable disease as best response. In arm B, one patient obtained a SD. Median PFS and OS were 21.8 weeks (arm A) versus 24.9 (arm B), and 62.7 versus 57.9 weeks, respectively. An iatrogenic pneumothorax was the only grade 3 treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSION: SBRT and pembrolizumab with or without IT avelumab/ipilimumab and IT myDC in oligometastatic patients are safe and feasible with a clinically meaningful tumor response rate. However, the study failed to reach its primary endpoint. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04571632 (09 AUG 2020). EUDRACT: 2019-003668-32. Date of registration: 17 DEC 2019, amendment 1: 6 MAR 2021, amendment 2: 4 FEB 2022.

Small molecule. Big biology. Dual phosphatase inhibitor enters the immunotherapy fray.

The advent and clinical success of immune checkpoint inhibitors Ipilimumab, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab has had a seismic impact on our drug discovery focus and rationale. Novel extrinsic targets that enhance immune responses to cancer are actively being pursued, while tumor intrinsic targets that render cancer cells more sensitive to the immune system have joined traditional intrinsic targets (e.g. directly cytotoxic) in the drug discovery pipeline. The phosphatase PTPN2 (TC-PTP) and its paralog PTPN1 (PTP-1B) are negative regulators of several cytokine signaling pathways and T cell receptor (TCR) signaling. In a recent publication, Baumgartner et al. demonstrate the pre-clinical efficacy of a first-in-class dual PTPN1/N2 active site inhibitor (ABBV-CLS-484/AC484) in cancer models.

Single agent vs combination immunotherapy in advanced melanoma: a review of the evidence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to outline the current landscape of advanced melanoma treatment options, provide insights on selecting combination therapies within different clinical scenarios, capture clinical relevance of anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy, and explore the unmet needs with immune check-point inhibitors (ICI) in advanced melanoma. RECENT FINDINGS: ICI based treatment consisted of single agent ICI or dual combination ICI-ICI is the standard of care of front-line treatment of metastatic or unresectable melanoma. PD-1 inhibitors (Pembrolizumab and Nivolumab) improved progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to chemotherapy and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors (Ipilimumab and Tremelimumab). The dual ICI combination (Nivolumab and Ipilimumab) provided profound and durable responses better than monotherapy, and the longest overall survival ever achieved in advanced disease, including in patients with murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF)-mutated disease, but at the cost of a high risk of severe toxicity. The new dual blockage of LAG-3 and PD-1 (Nivolumab-Relatlimab) emerges as a valid option with promising efficacy outcomes and a favourable toxicity profile. Mature survival data is still needed to capture the real benefit. SUMMARY: These new plethora of options pose new challenges not only for optimal treatment sequencing strategies but especially for management of adverse effects, endorsing the need to integrate a holistic and personalized approach for patient care.

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.

Clinical Utility of Inflammatory and Nutritious Index as Therapeutic Prediction of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Biomarkers for predicting the outcome of ipilimumab plus nivolumab (Nivo-Ipi) treatment in cancer patients have not been identified. Herein, we investigated the prognostic significance of inflammatory and nutritional markers in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving Nivo-Ipi. METHODS: Our study retrospectively analyzed 101 patients with advanced NSCLC who received Nivo-Ipi at a single institution. Inflammatory and nutritional indices were correlated with patient outcomes and included the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI), and Glasgow prognostic score (GPS). RESULTS: The NLR significantly correlated with the PLR, SII, PNI, ALI, and GPS. Regarding therapeutic efficacy, the NLR, SII, and PNI predicted a partial response, and all indices predicted progressive disease. In subgroup analyses, the SII, PNI, and ALI predicted the outcome of patients with adenocarcinoma, whereas only the PNI predicted the outcome of patients with non-adenocarcinoma. The PNI and SII were the most useful indices in patients with a programmed death ligand-1 expression level of <1% and ≥1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The NLR, PLR, SII, PNI, ALI, and GPS were significantly associated with the outcome of Nivo-Ipi treatment in patients with NSCLC. The PNI was the most suitable marker regardless of histological type. The SII and PNI were the most promising markers for patients with and without PD-L1 expression, respectively.