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.

Immune-related encephalitis after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized cancer treatment but can trigger immune-related encephalitis. We report one of the largest case series of patients with immune-related encephalitis and review of the literature. METHODS: Retrospective series of patients with immune-related encephalitis and literature review. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with cancer treated with ICI (50% combination therapy) developed immune-related encephalitis. Diagnostic testing revealed cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) lymphocytic pleocytosis (85%) and elevated protein (69%), abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) (33%) or brain FDG-PET (25%), electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities (30%), and autoantibodies (31%). Encephalitis treatment included: corticosteroids (86%), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (36%), plasmapheresis (7%), and rituximab (29%). There were no deaths and 12 patients had significant recovery, although long-term complications were observed. All patients discontinued ICI. Longitudinal follow-up demonstrated anti-cancer response to ICI at 3 months (85%) and 6 months post-ICI initiation (77%). A literature review identified 132 patients with immune-related encephalitis. Most were treated with PD-1 inhibitors (18% combination). Common abnormalities included elevated CSF protein (84%) or pleocytosis (77%), abnormal brain MRI (65%), or autoantibodies (47%). Nearly all were treated with corticosteroids, many required additional therapy with IVIg (26%) or rituximab (12%). Most patients had clinical improvement (81%) but a minority (10%) had a clinical relapse after completing corticosteroid taper. ICIs were resumed in 7 patients (5%), with relapse in 3. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Immune-related encephalitis is treatable and improves with corticosteroids in most cases but may require additional immunosuppression. Re-emergence of encephalitis is rare and does not typically result in adverse outcomes, and this should be considered in neurological immune-related adverse event management guidelines.

Comparing anti-tumor and anti-self immunity in a patient with melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade.

BACKGROUND: Tumor regression following immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is often associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), marked by inflammation in non-cancerous tissues. This study was undertaken to investigate the functional relationship between anti-tumor and anti-self immunity, to facilitate irAE management while promoting anti-tumor immunity. METHODS: Multiple biopsies from tumor and inflamed tissues were collected from a patient with melanoma experiencing both tumor regression and irAEs on ICB, who underwent rapid autopsy. Immune cells infiltrating melanoma lesions and inflamed normal tissues were subjected to gene expression profiling with multiplex qRT-PCR for 122 candidate genes. Subsequently, immunohistochemistry was conducted to assess the expression of 14 candidate markers of immune cell subsets and checkpoints. TCR-beta sequencing was used to explore T cell clonal repertoires across specimens. RESULTS: While genes involved in MHC I/II antigen presentation, IFN signaling, innate immunity and immunosuppression were abundantly expressed across specimens, irAE tissues over-expressed certain genes associated with immunosuppression (CSF1R, IL10RA, IL27/EBI3, FOXP3, KLRG1, SOCS1, TGFB1), including those in the COX-2/PGE2 pathway (IL1B, PTGER1/EP1 and PTGER4/EP4). Immunohistochemistry revealed similar proportions of immunosuppressive cell subsets and checkpoint molecules across samples. TCRseq did not indicate common TCR repertoires across tumor and inflammation sites, arguing against shared antigen recognition between anti-tumor and anti-self immunity in this patient. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive study of a single patient with melanoma experiencing both tumor regression and irAEs on ICB explores the immune landscape across these tissues, revealing similarities between anti-tumor and anti-self immunity. Further, it highlights expression of the COX-2/PGE2 pathway, which is known to be immunosuppressive and potentially mediates ICB resistance. Ongoing clinical trials of COX-2/PGE2 pathway inhibitors targeting the major COX-2 inducer IL-1B, COX-2 itself, or the PGE2 receptors EP2 and EP4 present new opportunities to promote anti-tumor activity, but may also have the potential to enhance the severity of ICB-induced irAEs.

Nivolumab + Tacrolimus + Prednisone ± Ipilimumab for Kidney Transplant Recipients With Advanced Cutaneous Cancers.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related mortality rates among kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are high, but these patients have largely been excluded from trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors because of immunosuppression and risk of treatment-related allograft loss (TRAL). We conducted a prospective clinical trial testing nivolumab (NIVO) + tacrolimus (TACRO) + prednisone (PRED) ± ipilimumab (IPI) in KTR with advanced cutaneous cancers. METHODS: Adult KTR with advanced melanoma or basal, cutaneous squamous, or Merkel cell carcinomas were eligible. Immunosuppression was standardized to TACRO (serum trough 2-5 ng/mL) + PRED 5 mg once daily. Patients then received NIVO 480 mg IV once every 4 weeks. The primary composite end point was partial or complete (tumor) response (CR) or stable disease per RECIST v1.1 without allograft loss at 16W. Patients with progressive disease (PD) could receive IPI 1 mg/kg IV + NIVO 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO. Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) levels were measured approximately once every 2 weeks as a potential predictor of allograft rejection. RESULTS: Among eight evaluable patients, none met the trial's primary end point. All eight patients experienced PD on NIVO + TACRO + PRED; TRAL occurred in one patient. Six patients then received IPI + NIVO + TACRO + PRED. Best overall responses: two CR (one with TRAL) and four PD (one with TRAL). In total, 7 of 8 pre-NIVO tumor biopsies contained a paucity of infiltrating immune cells. In total, 2 of 5 on-NIVO biopsies demonstrated moderate immune infiltrates; both patients later experienced a CR to IPI + NIVO. In 2 of 3 patients with TRAL, dd-cfDNA elevations occurred 10 and 15 days before increases in serum creatinine. CONCLUSION: In most KTR with advanced skin cancer, TACRO + PRED provides insufficient allograft protection and compromises immune-mediated tumor regression after administration of NIVO ± IPI. Elevated dd-cfDNA levels can signal treatment-related allograft rejection earlier than rises in serum creatinine.

Immune microenvironment of basal cell carcinoma and tumor regression following combined PD-1/LAG-3 blockade.

Systemic treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) are limited, particularly when tumors are refractory to anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1). A better understanding of immune checkpoint expression within the BCC tumor microenvironment may inform combinatorial treatment strategies to optimize response rates. CD3, PD-1, programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG-3), and T-cell immunoglobulin domain and mucin domain 3 (TIM-3)+ cell densities within the tumor microenvironment of 34 archival, histologically aggressive BCCs were assessed. Tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) expression of PD-1, PD-L1, and LAG-3, and to a lesser degree TIM-3, correlated with increasing CD3+ T-cell densities (Pearson's r=0.89, 0.72, 0.87, and 0.63, respectively). 100% of BCCs (34/34) demonstrated LAG-3 and PD-1 expression in >1% TIL; and the correlation between PD-1 and LAG-3 densities was high (Pearson's r=0.89). LAG-3 was expressed at ~50% of the level of PD-1. Additionally, we present a patient with locally-advanced BCC who experienced stable disease during and after 45 weeks of first-line anti-PD-1 (nivolumab), followed by a partial response after the addition of anti-LAG-3 (relatlimab). Longitudinal biopsies throughout the treatment course showed a graduated increase in LAG-3 expression after anti-PD-1 therapy, lending support for coordinated immunosuppression and suggesting LAG-3 as a co-target for combination therapy to augment the clinical impact of anti-PD-(L)1.

Overall Survival and Response with Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2/3 trial ­ A Study of Relatlimab Plus Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab Alone in Participants With Advanced Melanoma (RELATIVITY-047) ­ evaluated nivolumab + relatlimab as a fixed-dose combination and found a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit over nivolumab monotherapy in previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. We now report updated PFS and safety data and the first results for overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nivolumab 480 mg and relatlimab 160 mg fixed-dose combination or nivolumab 480 mg alone, given intravenously every 4 weeks. PFS (primary end point) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, was assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary end points, tested hierarchically, were OS and then ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, per BICR. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 19.3 months, median PFS according to BICR was 10.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 14.8) with nivolumab + relatlimab versus 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.4) with nivolumab (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.94). Median OS was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 34.2 to NR) with nivolumab + relatlimab versus 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.2 to NR) with nivolumab (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.01; P=0.059) (prespecified value for statistical significance, P≤0.043). ORRs per BICR were 43.1% (95% CI, 37.9 to 48.4) versus 32.6% (95% CI, 27.8 to 37.7), respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 21.1% of patients treated with nivolumab + relatlimab versus 11.1% treated with nivolumab. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed-dose combination of nivolumab + relatlimab showed consistent PFS benefit versus nivolumab with approximately 6 months of additional median follow-up. The combination treatment did not reach the preplanned statistical threshold for OS, with a 10.3 percentage-point difference in ORR. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with nivolumab + relatlimab versus nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03470922.)