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

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

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

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

Long-term survival follow-up for tebentafusp in previously treated metastatic uveal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Tebentafusp, a bispecific (gp100×CD3) ImmTAC, significantly improved overall survival (OS) outcomes for HLA-A*02:01+ adult patients with untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) and showed promising survival in previously treated mUM with 1-year OS of 62% in the primary analysis of study IMCgp100-102. Here we report long-term outcomes from this phase 1/2 study in pretreated mUM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously treated mUM received tebentafusp weekly intravenous at 20 µg dose 1, 30 µg dose 2 and either 54, 64, 68, or 73 µg (phase 1) or 68 µg (phase 2) dose 3+. The primary objective was overall response rate. Secondary objectives included OS and safety. OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Association between OS and baseline covariates, on-treatment Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) response, baseline tumor biopsy and circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA) changes were assessed. RESULTS: 146 patients were treated with tebentafusp: 19 in phase 1 and 127 in phase 2. With a median follow-up duration of 48.5 months, the median OS was 17.4 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 22.8), and the 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 4-year OS rates were 62%, 40%, 23% and 14%, respectively. Improved survival was associated with lower ctDNA baseline levels and greater ctDNA reductions by week 9 on-treatment, with 100% 1-year, 73% 2-year and 45% 3-year OS rates for patients with ctDNA clearance. Baseline gp100 expression was not associated with survival, despite more RECIST responses among patients with higher expression. No new safety signals were reported with long-term dosing. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the longest follow-up of a Tcell receptor bispecific to date and confirms the durable survival benefits achieved with tebentafusp in previously treated mUM with good tolerability long-term. A role for ctDNA reduction as an early indicator of clinical benefit was again suggested for patients treated with tebentafusp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phase I Study of Fianlimab, a Human Lymphocyte Activation Gene-3 (LAG-3) Monoclonal Antibody, in Combination With Cemiplimab in Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Coblockade of lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3) and PD-1 receptors could provide significant clinical benefit for patients with advanced melanoma. Fianlimab and cemiplimab are high-affinity, human, hinge-stabilized IgG4 monoclonal antibodies, targeting LAG-3 and PD-1, respectively. We report results from a first-in-human phase-I study of fianlimab and cemiplimab safety and efficacy in various malignancies including advanced melanoma. METHODS: Patients with advanced melanoma were eligible for enrollment into four cohorts: three for patients without and one for patients with previous anti-PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting. Patients were treated with fianlimab 1,600 mg and cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 51 weeks, with an optional additional 51 weeks if clinically indicated. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 criteria. RESULTS: ORRs were 63% for patients with anti-PD-1-naïve melanoma (cohort-6; n = 40; median follow-up 20.8 months), 63% for patients with systemic treatment-naïve melanoma (cohort-15; n = 40; 11.5 months), and 56% for patients with previous neo/adjuvant treatment melanoma (cohort-16; n = 18, 9.7 months). At a median follow-up of 12.6 months for the combined cohorts (6 + 15 + 16), the ORR was 61.2% and the median progression-free survival (mPFS) 13.3 months (95% CI, 7.5 to not estimated [NE]). In patients (n = 13) with previous anti-PD-1 adjuvant therapy, ORR was 61.5% and mPFS 12 months (95% CI, 1.4 to NE). ORR in patients with previous anti-PD-1 therapy for advanced disease (n = 15) was 13.3% and mPFS 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.3 to 7.7). Treatment-emergent and treatment-related adverse events ≥grade 3 (G3) were observed in 44% and 22% of patients, respectively. Except for increased incidence of adrenal insufficiency (12%-G1-4, 4%-G3-4), no new safety signals were recorded. CONCLUSION: The current results show a promising benefit-risk profile of fianlimab/cemiplimab combination for patients with advanced melanoma, including those with previous anti-PD-1 therapy in the adjuvant, but not advanced, setting.

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

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

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

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