Final Results for Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The 5-year results of this trial showed that adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in longer relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage III melanoma. Longer-term data were needed, including data regarding overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned 870 patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations to receive 12 months of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Here, we report the final results of this trial, including results for overall survival, melanoma-specific survival, relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 8.33 years for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 6.87 years for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo, although the benefit was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06 by stratified log-rank test). A consistent survival benefit was seen across several prespecified subgroups, including the 792 patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.96). Relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.63), as did distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.71). No new safety signals were reported, a finding consistent with previous trial reports. CONCLUSIONS: After nearly 10 years of follow-up, adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was associated with better relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with resected stage III melanoma. The analysis of overall survival showed that the risk of death was 20% lower with combination therapy than with placebo, but the benefit was not significant. Among patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation, the results suggest that the risk of death was 25% lower with combination therapy. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.).

Individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 (V940) plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected melanoma (KEYNOTE-942): a randomised, phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors are standard adjuvant treatment for stage IIB-IV resected melanoma, but many patients recur. Our study aimed to evaluate whether mRNA-4157 (V940), a novel mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy, combined with pembrolizumab, improved recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected high-risk melanoma. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2b, adjuvant study of mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients, enrolled from sites in the USA and Australia, with completely resected high-risk cutaneous melanoma. Patients with completely resected melanoma (stage IIIB-IV) were assigned 2:1 to receive open-label mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy. mRNA-4157 was administered intramuscularly (maximum nine doses) and pembrolizumab intravenously (maximum 18 doses) in 3-week cycles. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03897881. FINDINGS: From July 18, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 157 patients were assigned to mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab combination therapy (n=107) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=50); median follow-up was 23 months and 24 months, respectively. Recurrence-free survival was longer with combination versus monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for recurrence or death, 0·561 [95% CI 0·309-1·017]; two-sided p=0·053), with lower recurrence or death event rate (24 [22%] of 107 vs 20 [40%] of 50); 18-month recurrence-free survival was 79% (95% CI 69·0-85·6) versus 62% (46·9-74·3). Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1-2. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the combination group and 18% of patients in the monotherapy group, with no mRNA-4157-related grade 4-5 events. Immune-mediated adverse event frequency was similar for the combination (37 [36%]) and monotherapy (18 [36%]) groups. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab prolonged recurrence-free survival versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with resected high-risk melanoma and showed a manageable safety profile. These results provide evidence that an mRNA-based individualised neoantigen therapy might be beneficial in the adjuvant setting. FUNDING: Moderna in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Development and validation of a novel model to predict recurrence-free survival and melanoma-specific survival after sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with melanoma: an international, retrospective, multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment for patients with high-risk melanomas necessitates accurate staging of disease. However, inconsistencies in outcomes exist between disease stages as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (8th edition). We aimed to develop a tool to predict patient-specific outcomes in people with melanoma rather than grouping patients according to disease stage. METHODS: Patients older than 13 years with confirmed primary melanoma who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) between Oct 29, 1997, and Nov 11, 2013, at four European melanoma centres (based in Berlin, Germany; Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Warsaw, Poland) were included in the development cohort. Potential predictors of recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival assessed were sex, age, presence of ulceration, primary tumour location, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, sentinel node status, number of sentinel nodes removed, maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis, and Dewar classification. A prognostic model and nomogram were developed to predict 5-year recurrence-free survival on a continuous scale in patients with stage pT1b or higher melanomas. This model was also calibrated to predict melanoma-specific survival. Model performance was assessed by discrimination (area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC]) and calibration. External validation was done in a cohort of patients with primary melanomas who underwent SLNB between Jan 30, 1997, and Dec 12, 2013, at the Melanoma Institute Australia (Sydney, NSW, Australia). FINDINGS: The development cohort consisted of 4071 patients, of whom 2075 (51%) were female and 1996 (49%) were male. 889 (22%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3182 (78%) had sentinel node-negative disease. The validation cohort comprised 4822 patients, of whom 1965 (41%) were female and 2857 (59%) were male. 891 (18%) had sentinel node-positive disease and 3931 (82%) had sentinel node-negative disease. Median follow-up was 4·8 years (IQR 2·3-7·8) in the development cohort and 5·0 years (2·2-8·9) in the validation cohort. In the development cohort, 5-year recurrence-free survival was 73·5% (95% CI 72·0-75·1) and 5-year melanoma-specific survival was 86·5% (85·3-87·8). In the validation cohort, the corresponding estimates were 66·1% (64·6-67·7) and 83·3% (82·0-84·6), respectively. The final model contained six prognostic factors: sentinel node status, Breslow thickness, presence of ulceration, age at SLNB, primary tumour location, and maximum diameter of the largest sentinel node metastasis. In the development cohort, for the model's prediction of recurrence-free survival, the AUC was 0·80 (95% CI 0·78-0·81); for prediction of melanoma-specific survival, the AUC was 0·81 (0·79-0·84). External validation showed good calibration for both outcomes, with AUCs of 0·73 (0·71-0·75) and 0·76 (0·74-0·78), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Our prediction model and nomogram accurately predicted patient-specific risk probabilities for 5-year recurrence-free and melanoma-specific survival. These tools could have important implications for clinical decision making when considering adjuvant treatments in patients with high-risk melanomas. FUNDING: Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): long-term, health-related quality-of-life results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054 study, adjuvant pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free survival and distant-metastasis-free survival in patients with resected stage III melanoma. Earlier results showed no effect of pembrolizumab on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Little is known about HRQOL after completion of treatment with pembrolizumab, an important research area concerning patients who are likely to become long-term survivors. This study reports long-term HRQOL results. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial compared adjuvant pembrolizumab with placebo in patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC resected cutaneous melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or 0, recruited from 123 academic centres and community hospitals in 23 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation technique stratified for stage and geographical region to receive 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 18 doses. Investigators, patients, and those collecting or analysing data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint of the trial was recurrence-free survival (reported elsewhere). HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, measured with the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. All patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation available who were alive 108 weeks from randomisation were included in this analysis of long-term HRQOL. Long-term HRQOL included assessments measured every 6 months between 108 weeks and 48 months after randomisation. The threshold of clinical relevance for all HRQOL scales used was an average change of 5 points. The trial is ongoing, recruitment is completed, and HRQOL data collection is finalised. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362594, and EudraCT, 2014-004944-37. FINDINGS: Between Aug 26, 2015, and Nov 14, 2016, 1019 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=514) or placebo (n=505). Completion of the HRQOL evaluation at baseline exceeded 90% (481 [94%] patients in the pembrolizumab group and 467 [92%] in the placebo group), and ranged between 60% and 90% for post-baseline timepoints. Among patients with a baseline HRQOL evaluation, 365 (39%) were female and 583 (61%) were male. The mean change from baseline to long-term HRQOL was -0·56 (95% CI -2·33 to 1·22) in the pembrolizumab group and 1·63 (-0·12 to 3·38) in the placebo group. The difference between the two groups was -2·19 (-4·65 to 0·27, p=0·081). Differences for all other scales were smaller than 5 and not statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant pembrolizumab did not have a significant impact on long-term HRQOL compared with placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma. These findings, together with earlier results on efficacy and HRQOL, support the use of pembrolizumab in this setting. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

The Effect of Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy on Surgical Outcomes After Lymph Node Dissections for Stage III Melanoma; An Australian Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) for patients with stage III melanoma achieves high major pathologic response rates and high recurrence-free survival rates. This study aimed to determine how NAST with targeted therapies (TTs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) influences surgical outcomes after lymph node dissection in terms of complications, morbidity, and textbook outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent a lymph node dissection after either NAST in a clinical trial or upfront surgery for stage III melanoma between 2014 and 2022 were identified from an institutional research database. RESULTS: The study included 89 NAST-treated patients and 79 upfront surgery-treated patients. The rate of postoperative complications did not differ between the NAST- and upfront surgery-treated patients (55% vs. 51%; p = 0.643), and steroid treatment for drug toxicity did not influence the complication rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-3; p = 0.826). No significant differences in postoperative morbidity were observed in terms of seroma (23% vs. 11%; p = 0.570) or lymphedema (36% vs. 51%; p = 0.550). The rate of achieving a textbook outcome was comparable for the two groups (61% vs. 57%; p = 0.641). CONCLUSIONS: The surgical outcomes after lymph node dissections were comparable between the patients who received NAST and those who had upfront surgery, indicating that surgery can be safely performed after NAST with TT or ICI for stage III melanoma.

Plain language summary of the CheckMate 76K study results: nivolumab given after stage 2B/2C melanoma is removed by surgery.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 76K clinical study published online in Nature Medicine in October 2023. The study goal was to learn whether nivolumab works as an adjuvant therapy (that is, helps to keep cancer from coming back when it is given after surgery) for stage 2 melanoma (skin cancer) that has not spread to other parts of the body. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system so it can destroy cancer cells. In melanoma, staging describes the severity of the cancer. Melanoma staging ranges from 0 (very thin and confined to the upper layer of the skin) to 4 (spread to distant parts of the body), with earlier stages removed by surgery. The people in this study had stage 2 melanoma that had not spread to the lymph nodes or other organs in the body. HOW WAS THE STUDY DESIGNED?: People 12 years and older with stage 2 melanoma that had not spread and had been removed by surgery were included in CheckMate 76K. People were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (526 patients) or placebo (264 patients). A placebo resembles the test medicine but does not contain any active medicines. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab lived longer without their cancer returning and/or spreading to other parts of their bodies (compared with placebo) and if nivolumab was well tolerated. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people who received nivolumab were 58% less likely to have their cancer return and 53% less likely of having their cancer spread to distant parts of their body, compared with placebo. These reductions in risk with nivolumab were seen in different subgroups of people with a range of characteristics, and regardless of how deep the melanoma had gone into the skin. People taking nivolumab had more side effects than those taking placebo, but most were mild to moderate and manageable. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Results from CheckMate 76K support the benefit of using nivolumab as a treatment option for people with stage 2 melanoma post-surgery.

Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in melanoma.

Biomarkers help to inform the clinical management of patients with melanoma. For patients with clinically localised primary melanoma, biomarkers can help to predict post-surgical outcome (including via the use of risk prediction tools), better select patients for sentinel lymph node biopsy, and tailor catch-all follow-up protocols to the individual. Systemic drug treatments, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies and BRAF-targeted therapies, have radically improved the prognosis of metastatic (stage III and IV) cutaneous melanoma patients, and also shown benefit in the earlier setting of stage IIB/C primary melanoma. Unfortunately, a response is far from guaranteed. Here, we review clinically relevant, established, and emerging, prognostic, and predictive pathological biomarkers that refine clinical decision-making in primary and metastatic melanoma patients. Gene expression profile assays and nomograms are emerging tools for prognostication and sentinel lymph node risk prediction in primary melanoma patients. Biomarkers incorporated into clinical practice guidelines include BRAF V600 mutations for the use of targeted therapies in metastatic cutaneous melanoma, and the HLA-A∗02:01 allele for the use of a bispecific fusion protein in metastatic uveal melanoma. Several predictive biomarkers have been proposed for ICI therapies but have not been incorporated into Australian clinical practice guidelines. Further research, validation, and assessment of clinical utility is required before more prognostic and predictive biomarkers are fluidly integrated into routine care.

Exploiting temporal aspects of cancer immunotherapy.

Many mechanisms underlying an effective immunotherapy-induced antitumour response are transient and critically time dependent. This is equally true for several immunological events in the tumour microenvironment induced by other cancer treatments. Immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) has proven to be very effective in the treatment of some cancers, but unfortunately, with many cancer types, most patients do not experience a benefit. To improve outcomes, a multitude of clinical trials are testing combinations of ICT with various other treatment modalities. Ideally, those combination treatments should take time-dependent immunological events into account. Recent studies have started to map the dynamic cellular and molecular changes that occur during treatment with ICT, in the tumour and systemically. Here, we overlay the dynamic ICT response with the therapeutic response following surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and targeted therapies. We propose that by combining treatments in a time-conscious manner, we may optimally exploit the interactions between the individual therapies.

Open-label, phase II study of talimogene laherparepvec plus pembrolizumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma that progressed on prior anti-PD-1 therapy: MASTERKEY-115.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for immunotherapy-refractory melanoma are an unmet need. The MASTERKEY-115 phase II, open-label, multicenter trial evaluated talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma that progressed on prior programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors. METHODS: Cohorts 1 and 2 comprised patients (unresectable/metastatic melanoma) who had primary or acquired resistance, respectively, and disease progression within 12 weeks of their last anti-PD-1 dose. Cohorts 3 and 4 comprised patients (resectable disease) who underwent complete surgery, received adjuvant anti-PD-1, and experienced recurrence. Cohort 3 were disease-free for < 6 months and cohort 4 for ≥ 6 months after starting the adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy and before confirmed recurrence. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 and irRC-RECIST, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 72 enrolled patients, 71 were treated. The ORR (95% CI) was 0%, 6.7% (0.2-32.0), 40.0% (16.3-67.7), and 46.7% (21.3-73.4) in cohorts 1-4, respectively; iORR was 3.8% (0.1-19.6), 6.7% (0.2-32.0), 53.3% (26.6-78.7), and 46.7% (21.3-73.4). iCRR was 0%, 0%, 13.3%, and 13.3%. Median iPFS (months) was 5.5, 8.2, not estimable [NE], and NE for cohorts 1-4, respectively; iDCR was 50.0%, 40.0%, 73.3%, and 86.7%. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), grade ≥ 3 TRAEs, serious AEs, and fatal AEs occurred in 54 (76.1%), 9 (12.7%), 24 (33.8%), and 10 (14.1%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: T-VEC-pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and tolerability in PD-1-refractory melanoma, specifically in patients with disease recurrence on or after adjuvant anti-PD-1. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier - NCT04068181.

Seasonal patterns of toxicity in melanoma patients treated with combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are frequently associated with the development of immunotherapy-related adverse events (irAEs). The exact etiology, including the role of environmental factors, remains incompletely understood. METHODS: We analyzed the records of 394 melanoma patients from three centers (northern and southern hemisphere). Patients had received at least one cycle of anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. We study the distribution and time to irAEs onset throughout the calendar year. RESULTS: 764 irAEs were recorded; the most frequent were skin rash (35%), hepatitis (32%) and colitis (30%). The irAEs incidence was the highest in autumn and winter, and the ratio for the 'number of irAEs' per 'therapies commenced' was the highest in winter and lowest in summer (2.4 and 1.7, respectively). Season-specific patterns in the time of irAEs onset were observed for pneumonitis (shorter time to onset in autumn, p = 0.025), hepatitis (shorter time to onset in spring, p = 0.016) and sarcoid-like immune reaction (shorter time to onset in autumn, p = 0.041). Season-specific patterns for early-onset irAEs were observed for hepatitis (spring, p = 0.023) and nephritis (summer, p = 0.017). Early-onset pneumonitis was more frequent in autumn-winter (p = 0.008) and early-onset nephritis in spring-summer (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Environmental factors that are associated with particular seasons may contribute to the development of certain irAEs and suggest the potential effect of environmental triggers. The identification of these factors may enhance preventive and therapeutic strategies to reduce the morbidity of irAEs.

Stroma-infiltrating T cell spatiotypes define immunotherapy outcomes in adolescent and young adult patients with melanoma.

The biological underpinnings of therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in adolescent and young adult (AYA) melanoma patients are incompletely understood. Here, we characterize the immunogenomic profile and spatial architecture of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in AYA (aged ≤ 30 years) and older adult (aged 31-84 years) patients with melanoma, to determine the AYA-specific features associated with ICI treatment outcomes. We identify two ICI-resistant spatiotypes in AYA patients with melanoma showing stroma-infiltrating lymphocytes (SILs) that are distinct from the adult TME. The SILhigh subtype was enriched in regulatory T cells in the peritumoral space and showed upregulated expression of immune checkpoint molecules, while the SILlow subtype showed a lack of immune activation. We establish a young immunosuppressive melanoma score that can predict ICI responsiveness in AYA patients and propose personalized therapeutic strategies for the ICI-resistant subgroups. These findings highlight the distinct immunogenomic profile of AYA patients, and individualized TME features in ICI-resistant AYA melanoma that require patient-specific treatment strategies.

Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAFV600-mutant resectable melanoma: the randomized phase 2 NeoTrio trial.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF-targeted therapy each improve survival in melanoma. Immune changes early during targeted therapy suggest the mechanisms of each drug class could work synergistically. In the non-comparative, randomized, phase 2 NeoTrio trial, we investigated whether targeted therapy could boost the proportion of patients achieving long-term recurrence-free survival with neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable stage III BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. Sixty patients (42% females) were randomized to pembrolizumab alone (n = 20), sequential therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib followed by pembrolizumab; n = 20) or concurrent (triple) therapy (n = 20), followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy. The primary outcome was pathological response; secondary outcomes included radiographic response, recurrence-free survival, overall survival, surgical outcomes, peripheral blood and tumor analyses and safety. The pathological response rate was 55% (11/20; including six pathological complete responses (pCRs)) with pembrolizumab, 50% (10/20; three pCRs) with sequential therapy and 80% (16/20; ten pCRs) with concurrent therapy, which met the primary outcome in each arm. Treatment-related adverse events affected 75-100% of patients during neoadjuvant treatment, with seven early discontinuations (all in the concurrent arm). At 2 years, event-free survival was 60% with pembrolizumab, 80% with sequential therapy and 71% with concurrent therapy. Recurrences after major pathological response were more common in the targeted therapy arms, suggesting a reduction in response 'quality' when targeted therapy is added to neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Risking the curative potential of immunotherapy in melanoma cannot be justified. Pending longer follow-up, we suggest that immunotherapy and targeted therapy should not be combined in the neoadjuvant setting for melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02858921 .

Baseline biomarkers of efficacy and on-treatment immune-profile changes associated with bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab.

In PIVOT IO 001 (NCT03635983), the combination of the investigational interleukin-2 agonist bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG) with nivolumab (NIVO) had no added clinical benefit over NIVO monotherapy in unresectable/metastatic melanoma. Pre-defined baseline and on-treatment changes in selected biomarkers were analyzed to explore the potential mechanisms underlying the clinical observations. In each treatment arm, higher baseline tumor mutational burden or immune infiltration/inflammation was associated with improved efficacy compared with lower levels. On-treatment peripheral biomarker changes showed that BEMPEG + NIVO increased all immune cell subset counts interrogated, including regulatory T cells. This was followed by attenuation of the increase in CD8 + T cells, conventional CD4 + T cells, and systemic interferon gamma levels at later treatment cycles in the combination arm. Changes in tumor biomarkers were comparable between arms. These biomarker results help provide a better understanding of the mechanism of action of BEMPEG + NIVO and may help contextualize the clinical observations from PIVOT IO 001.

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.

Anti-PD-1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 for advanced melanoma patients with liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 has been associated with improvement in response and survival over anti-PD-1 monotherapy in unselected patients with advanced melanoma. Whether patients with liver metastases also benefit from the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 over anti-PD-1, is unclear. In this study, we sought to assess whether the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 leads to better response, progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy for patients with liver metastases. METHODS: We have conducted an international multicentre retrospective study. Patients with advanced melanoma with liver metastases treated with 1st line anti-PD1 monotherapy or with anti-CTLA-4 were included. The endpoints of this study were: objective response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: With a median follow-up from commencement of anti-PD-1 monotherapy or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 of 47 months (95% CI, 42-51), objective response rate was higher with combination therapy (47%) versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy (35%) (p = 0.0027), while progression-free survival and overall survival were not statistically different between both treatment groups. However, on multivariable analysis with multiple imputation for missing values and adjusting for predefined variables, combination of anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 was associated with higher objective response (OR 2.21, 1.46 - 3.36; p < 0.001), progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 0.57 - 0.92; p = 0.009) and overall survival (HR 0.71, 0.54 - 0.94; p = 0.018) compared to anti-PD1 monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study will help guide treatment selection for patients who present with liver metastases, suggesting that combination therapy should be considered for this group of patients.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Relatlimab Versus Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma: An Indirect Treatment Comparison Using RELATIVITY-047 and CheckMate 067 Trial Data.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab plus relatlimab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved for advanced melanoma on the basis of the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 and phase III CheckMate 067 trials, respectively. As no head-to-head trial comparing these regimens exists, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted using patient-level data from each trial. METHODS: Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for baseline characteristic differences. Minimum follow-ups (RELATIVITY-047, 33 months; CheckMate 067, 36 months) were selected to best align assessments. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) per investigator; overall survival (OS); and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A Cox regression model compared PFS, OS, and MSS. A logistic regression model compared cORRs. Subgroup analyses were exploratory. RESULTS: After IPTW, key baseline characteristics were balanced for nivolumab plus relatlimab (n = 339) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 297). Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.33]), cORR (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14]), OS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.19]), and MSS (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.12]) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Subgroup comparisons showed larger numerical differences favoring nivolumab plus ipilimumab with acral melanoma, BRAF-mutant melanoma, and lactate dehydrogenase >2 × upper limit of normal, but were limited by small samples. Nivolumab plus relatlimab was associated with fewer grade 3-4 TRAEs (23% v 61%) and any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation (17% v 41%). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus relatlimab demonstrated similar efficacy to nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the overall population, including most-but not all-subgroups, and improved safety in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Results should be interpreted with caution.

Predicting Recurrence-Free and Overall Survival for Patients With Stage II Melanoma: The MIA Calculator.

PURPOSE: Improvements in recurrence-free survival (RFS) were demonstrated in two recent randomized trials for patients with sentinel node (SN)-negative stage IIB or IIC melanoma receiving adjuvant systemic therapy (pembrolizumab/nivolumab). However, adverse events also occurred. Accurate individualized prognostic estimates of RFS and overall survival (OS) would allow patients to more accurately weigh the risks and benefits of adjuvant therapy. Since the current American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition (AJCC-8) melanoma staging system focuses on melanoma-specific survival, we developed a multivariable risk prediction calculator that provides estimates of 5- and 10-year RFS and OS for these patients. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database for patients diagnosed with stage II (clinical or pathological) melanoma (n = 3,220). Survival prediction models were developed using multivariable Cox regression analyses (MIA models) and externally validated twice using data sets from the United States and the Netherlands. Each model's performance was assessed using C-statistics and calibration plots and compared with Cox models on the basis of AJCC-8 staging (stage models). RESULTS: The 5-year and 10-year RFS C-statistics were 0.70 and 0.73 (MIA-model) versus 0.61 and 0.60 (stage-model), respectively. For OS, the 5-year and 10-year C-statistics were 0.71 and 0.75 (MIA-model) compared with 0.62 and 0.61 (stage-model), respectively. The MIA models were well calibrated and externally validated. CONCLUSION: The MIA models offer accurate and personalized estimates of both RFS and OS in patients with stage II melanoma even in the absence of pathological staging with SN biopsy. These models were robust on external validations and may be used in everyday practice both with (ideally) and without performing SN biopsy to identify high-risk patients for further management strategies. An online tool will be available at the MIA website (Risk Prediction Tools).

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) recommendations on intratumoral immunotherapy clinical trials (IICT): from premalignant to metastatic disease.

BACKGROUND: Intratumorally delivered immunotherapies have the potential to favorably alter the local tumor microenvironment and may stimulate systemic host immunity, offering an alternative or adjunct to other local and systemic treatments. Despite their potential, these therapies have had limited success in late-phase trials for advanced cancer resulting in few formal approvals. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to determine how to design clinical trials with the greatest chance of demonstrating the benefits of intratumoral immunotherapy for patients with cancers across all stages of pathogenesis. METHODS: An Intratumoral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials Expert Panel composed of international key stakeholders from academia and industry was assembled. A multiple choice/free response survey was distributed to the panel, and the results of this survey were discussed during a half-day consensus meeting. Key discussion points are summarized in the following manuscript. RESULTS: The panel determined unique clinical trial designs tailored to different stages of cancer development-from premalignant to unresectable/metastatic-that can maximize the chance of capturing the effect of intratumoral immunotherapies. Design elements discussed included study type, patient stratification and exclusion criteria, indications of randomization, study arm determination, endpoints, biological sample collection, and response assessment with biomarkers and imaging. Populations to prioritize for the study of intratumoral immunotherapy, including stage, type of cancer and line of treatment, were also discussed along with common barriers to the development of these local treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The SITC Intratumoral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials Expert Panel has identified key considerations for the design and implementation of studies that have the greatest potential to capture the effect of intratumorally delivered immunotherapies. With more effective and standardized trial designs, the potential of intratumoral immunotherapy can be realized and lead to regulatory approvals that will extend the benefit of these local treatments to the patients who need them the most.

Management of infliximab refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor gastrointestinal toxicity: a multicenter case series.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) gastrointestinal toxicity (gastritis, enteritis, colitis) is a major cause of morbidity and treatment-related death. Guidelines agree steroid-refractory cases warrant infliximab, however best management of infliximab-refractory ICI gastrointestinal toxicity (IRIGItox) is unknown. METHODS: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective case series. IRIGItox was defined as failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 1 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0) following ≥2 infliximab doses or failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 2 after one dose. Data were extracted regarding demographics, steroid use, response to treatment, and survival outcomes. Toxicity was graded at symptom onset and time of infliximab failure. Efficacy of infliximab refractory therapy was assessed by symptom resolution, time to resolution and steroid wean duration. Survival outcomes were examined based on immunosuppressive therapy received. RESULTS: 78 patients were identified: median age 60 years; 56% men; majority melanoma (N=70, 90%); 60 (77%) received anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 alone or in combination with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 and most had colitis (N=74, 95%). 106 post-infliximab treatments were given: 31 calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs); 27 antimetabolites (mycophenolate, azathioprine); 16 non-systemic immunomodulatory agents (eg, mesalazine or budesonide); 15 vedolizumab; 5 other biologics (anti-interleukin-12/23, 16, Janus kinase inhibitors) and 7 interventional procedures (including colectomy); 5 did not receive post-infliximab therapy. Symptom resolution was achieved in most (N=23/31, 74%) patients treated with CNIs; 12/27 (44%) with antimetabolites; 7/16 (44%) with non-systemic immunomodulation, 8/15 (53%) with vedolizumab and 5/7 (71%) with interventional procedures. No non-vedolizumab biologics resulted in toxicity resolution. CNIs had the shortest time to symptom resolution (12 days) and steroid wean (43 days); however, were associated with poorer event-free survival (6.3 months) and overall survival (26.8 months) than other agents. Conversely, vedolizumab had the longest time to toxicity resolution and steroid wean, 66 and 124 days, but most favorable survival data: EFS 24.5 months; median OS not reached. Six death occurred (three due to IRIGItox or management of toxicity; three with persisting IRIGItox and progressive disease). CONCLUSIONS: IRIGItox causes major morbidity and mortality. Management is heterogeneous. CNIs appear most likely to result in toxicity resolution in the shortest time period, however, are associated with poorer oncological outcomes in contrast to vedolizumab.