Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Association of Ipilimumab With Safety and Antitumor Activity in Women With Metastatic or Recurrent Human Papillomavirus-Related Cervical Carcinoma.

Importance: Based on evidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced immune evasion, immunotherapy may be an attractive strategy in cervical cancer. Ipilimumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), which acts to downregulate the T-cell immune response. Objective: To assess the safety and antitumor activity of ipilimumab in recurrent cervical cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter trial was designed for patients with metastatic cervical cancer (squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma) with measurable disease and progression after at least 1 line of platinum chemotherapy. A run-in safety cohort using ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, every 21 days for 4 cycles in 6 patients was followed by a phase II cohort of ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, every 21 days for 4 cycles and then 4 cycles of maintenance therapy every 12 weeks for patients demonstrating radiologic response or stabilization. Immune correlative studies were performed on peripheral blood before and after therapy on archival tissue and fresh tumor obtained prior to registration and 7 days after cycle 2. The study was conducted from December 3, 2012, to September 15, 2014. The data were analyzed from April 2016 to June 2016 and in July 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were safety and objective response rate. Immune analyses were performed on blood and tumor tissue. Results: A total of 42 women (median age, 49 years; range, 23-78 years) were enrolled (29 [69%] squamous cell cervical cancer and 13 [31%] adenocarcinoma; 37 [93%] of 40 patients with tissue available for analysis had HPV-positive confirmation; there was no archival tissue for 2 women). Grade 3 toxic effects included diarrhea in 4 patients, 3 of whom had colitis. Of 34 patients evaluated for best response (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), 1 patient had partial response and 10 had stable disease. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.5 months (95% CI, 2.1-3.2 months) and 8.5 months (95% CI, 3.6-not reached; 1 patient was still alive), respectively. Intratumoral pretreatment CD3, CD4, CD8, FoxP3, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was not predictive of benefit and did not significantly change with treatment. Multicolor flow cytometry on peripheral lymphocytes revealed a treatment-dependent increase of inducible T-cell costimulator, human leukocyte antigen-antigen D related, and PD-1 during initial treatment, which returned to baseline during maintenance. Conclusions and Relevance: Ipilimumab was tolerable in this population but did not show significant single-agent activity. Immune changes were induced by anti-CTLA-4 therapy but did not correlate with clinical activity. Changes in these markers may guide further treatment strategies.

Validation of biomarkers to predict response to immunotherapy in cancer: Volume I - pre-analytical and analytical validation.

Immunotherapies have emerged as one of the most promising approaches to treat patients with cancer. Recently, there have been many clinical successes using checkpoint receptor blockade, including T cell inhibitory receptors such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death-1 (PD-1). Despite demonstrated successes in a variety of malignancies, responses only typically occur in a minority of patients in any given histology. Additionally, treatment is associated with inflammatory toxicity and high cost. Therefore, determining which patients would derive clinical benefit from immunotherapy is a compelling clinical question. Although numerous candidate biomarkers have been described, there are currently three FDA-approved assays based on PD-1 ligand expression (PD-L1) that have been clinically validated to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from a single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Because of the complexity of the immune response and tumor biology, it is unlikely that a single biomarker will be sufficient to predict clinical outcomes in response to immune-targeted therapy. Rather, the integration of multiple tumor and immune response parameters, such as protein expression, genomics, and transcriptomics, may be necessary for accurate prediction of clinical benefit. Before a candidate biomarker and/or new technology can be used in a clinical setting, several steps are necessary to demonstrate its clinical validity. Although regulatory guidelines provide general roadmaps for the validation process, their applicability to biomarkers in the cancer immunotherapy field is somewhat limited. Thus, Working Group 1 (WG1) of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Immune Biomarkers Task Force convened to address this need. In this two volume series, we discuss pre-analytical and analytical (Volume I) as well as clinical and regulatory (Volume II) aspects of the validation process as applied to predictive biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy. To illustrate the requirements for validation, we discuss examples of biomarker assays that have shown preliminary evidence of an association with clinical benefit from immunotherapeutic interventions. The scope includes only those assays and technologies that have established a certain level of validation for clinical use (fit-for-purpose). Recommendations to meet challenges and strategies to guide the choice of analytical and clinical validation design for specific assays are also provided.

Validation of biomarkers to predict response to immunotherapy in cancer: Volume II - clinical validation and regulatory considerations.

There is growing recognition that immunotherapy is likely to significantly improve health outcomes for cancer patients in the coming years. Currently, while a subset of patients experience substantial clinical benefit in response to different immunotherapeutic approaches, the majority of patients do not but are still exposed to the significant drug toxicities. Therefore, a growing need for the development and clinical use of predictive biomarkers exists in the field of cancer immunotherapy. Predictive cancer biomarkers can be used to identify the patients who are or who are not likely to derive benefit from specific therapeutic approaches. In order to be applicable in a clinical setting, predictive biomarkers must be carefully shepherded through a step-wise, highly regulated developmental process. Volume I of this two-volume document focused on the pre-analytical and analytical phases of the biomarker development process, by providing background, examples and "good practice" recommendations. In the current Volume II, the focus is on the clinical validation, validation of clinical utility and regulatory considerations for biomarker development. Together, this two volume series is meant to provide guidance on the entire biomarker development process, with a particular focus on the unique aspects of developing immune-based biomarkers. Specifically, knowledge about the challenges to clinical validation of predictive biomarkers, which has been gained from numerous successes and failures in other contexts, will be reviewed together with statistical methodological issues related to bias and overfitting. The different trial designs used for the clinical validation of biomarkers will also be discussed, as the selection of clinical metrics and endpoints becomes critical to establish the clinical utility of the biomarker during the clinical validation phase of the biomarker development. Finally, the regulatory aspects of submission of biomarker assays to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as well as regulatory considerations in the European Union will be covered.

Biology of advanced uveal melanoma and next steps for clinical therapeutics.

Uveal melanoma is the most common intraocular malignancy although it is a rare subset of all melanomas. Uveal melanoma has distinct biology relative to cutaneous melanoma, with widely divergent patient outcomes. Patients diagnosed with a primary uveal melanoma can be stratified for risk of metastasis by cytogenetics or gene expression profiling, with approximately half of patients developing metastatic disease, predominately hepatic in location, over a 15-yr period. Historically, no systemic therapy has been associated with a clear clinical benefit for patients with advanced disease, and median survival remains poor. Here, as a joint effort between the Melanoma Research Foundation's ocular melanoma initiative, CURE OM and the National Cancer Institute, the current understanding of the molecular and immunobiology of uveal melanoma is reviewed, and on-going laboratory research into the disease is highlighted. Finally, recent investigations relevant to clinical management via targeted and immunotherapies are reviewed, and next steps in the development of clinical therapeutics are discussed.

Melanoma: a model for testing new agents in combination therapies.

Treatment for both early and advanced melanoma has changed little since the introduction of interferon and IL-2 in the early 1990s. Recent data from trials testing targeted agents or immune modulators suggest the promise of new strategies to treat patients with advanced melanoma. These include a new generation of B-RAF inhibitors with greater selectivity for the mutant protein, c-Kit inhibitors, anti-angiogenesis agents, the immune modulators anti-CTLA4, anti-PD-1, and anti-CD40, and adoptive cellular therapies. The high success rate of mutant B-RAF and c-Kit inhibitors relies on the selection of patients with corresponding mutations. However, although response rates with small molecule inhibitors are high, most are not durable. Moreover, for a large subset of patients, reliable predictive biomarkers especially for immunologic modulators have not yet been identified. Progress may also depend on identifying additional molecular targets, which in turn depends upon a better understanding of the mechanisms leading to response or resistance. More challenging but equally important will be understanding how to optimize the treatment of individual patients using these active agents sequentially or in combination with each other, with other experimental treatment, or with traditional anticancer modalities such as chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. Compared to the standard approach of developing new single agents for licensing in advanced disease, the identification and validation of patient specific and multi-modality treatments will require increased involvement by several stakeholders in designing trials aimed at identifying, even in early stages of drug development, the most effective way to use molecularly guided approaches to treat tumors as they evolve over time.