Adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab versus observation in completely resected Merkel cell carcinoma (ADMEC-O): disease-free survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an immunogenic but aggressive skin cancer. Even after complete resection and radiation, relapse rates are high. PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors showed clinical benefit in advanced MCC. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition in completely resected MCC (ie, a setting without an established systemic standard-of-care treatment). METHODS: In this multicentre phase 2 trial, patients (any stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1) at 20 academic medical centres in Germany and the Netherlands with completely resected MCC lesions were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for 1 year, or observation, stratified by stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer stages 1-2 vs stages 3-4), age (<65 vs ≥65 years), and sex. Landmark disease-free survival (DFS) at 12 and 24 months was the primary endpoint, assessed in the intention-to-treat populations. Overall survival and safety were secondary endpoints. This planned interim analysis was triggered when the last-patient-in was followed up for more than 1 year. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02196961) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (2013-000043-78). FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2014, and Aug 31, 2020, 179 patients were enrolled (116 [65%] stage 3-4, 122 [68%] ≥65 years, 111 [62%] male). Stratification factors (stage, age, sex) were balanced across the nivolumab (n=118) and internal control group (observation, n=61); adjuvant radiotherapy was more common in the control group. At a median follow-up of 24·3 months (IQR 19·2-33·4), median DFS was not reached (between-groups hazard ratio 0·58, 95% CI 0·30-1·12); DFS rates in the nivolumab group were 85% at 12 months and 84% at 24 months, and in the observation group were 77% at 12 months and 73% at 24 months. Overall survival results were not yet mature. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 48 [42%] of 115 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab and seven [11%] of 61 patients in the observation group. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 9% (1-year DFS) and 10% (2-year DFS). The present interim analysis of ADMEC-O might suggest clinical use of nivolumab in this area of unmet medical need. However, overall survival events rates, with ten events in the active treatment group and six events in the half-the-size observation group, are not mature enough to draw conclusions. The explorative data of our trial support the continuation of ongoing, randomised trials in this area. ADMEC-O suggests that adjuvant immunotherapy is clinically feasible in this area of unmet medical need. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus placebo in patients with resected stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (IMMUNED): final results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The IMMUNED trial previously showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival for adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab as well as for adjuvant nivolumab alone in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after resection or radiotherapy. Here, we report the final analysis, including overall survival data. METHODS: IMMUNED was an investigator-sponsored, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-arm, phase 2 trial conducted in 20 academic medical centres in Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after surgery or radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks), nivolumab monotherapy (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks), or matching placebo, for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were time-to-recurrence, overall survival, progression-free survival or recurrence-free survival 2 (in patients in the placebo group who crossed over to nivolumab monotherapy after experiencing disease recurrence), and safety endpoints. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02523313), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2, 2015, and Nov 20, 2018, 175 patients were enrolled in the study, and 167 were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=56), nivolumab plus ipilimumab-matching placebo (n=59), or double placebo control (n=52). At a median follow-up of 49·2 months (IQR 34·9-58·1), 4-year recurrence-free survival was 64·2% (95% CI 49·2-75·9) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 31·4% (19·7-43·8) in the nivolumab alone group, and 15·0% (6·7-26·6) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo was 0·25 (97·5% CI 0·13-0·48; p<0·0001), and for the nivolumab group versus placebo was 0·60 (0·36-1·00; p=0·024). Median overall survival was not reached in any treatment group. The HR for overall survival was significantly in favour of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo (HR 0·41; 95% CI 0·17-0·99; p=0·040), but not for the nivolumab group versus placebo (HR 0·75; 0·36-1·56; p=0·44). 4-year overall survival was 83·8% (95% CI 68·8-91·9) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 72·6% (57·4-83·2) in the nivolumab alone group, and 63·1% (46·9-75·6) in the placebo group. The median progression-free survival or recurrence-free survival 2 of patients in the placebo group who crossed over to nivolumab monotherapy after experiencing disease recurrence was not reached (95% CI 21·2 months to not reached). Rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events remained largely unchanged compared with our previous report, occurring in 71% (95% CI 57-82) of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, and 29% (95% CI 17-42) of patients receiving nivolumab alone. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Both active regimens continued to show significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with placebo in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease who were at high risk of recurrence. Overall survival was significantly improved for patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with placebo. Use of subsequent anti-PD-1-based therapy was high in patients in the placebo group after recurrence and most likely impacted the overall survival comparison of nivolumab alone versus placebo. The recurrence-free and overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over placebo reinforces the change of practice already initiated for the treatment of patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus placebo in patients with resected stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (IMMUNED): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and ipilimumab, alone or in combination, are widely used immunotherapeutic treatment options for patients with advanced-ie, unresectable or metastatic-melanoma. This criterion, however, excludes patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus a placebo in this patient population. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial in 20 German academic medical centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after surgery or radiotherapy. Key exclusion criteria included uveal or mucosal melanoma, previous therapy with checkpoint inhibitors, and any previous immunosuppressive therapy within the 30 days before study drug administration. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a central, interactive, online system, to the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (1 mg/kg of intravenous nivolumab every 3 weeks plus 3 mg/kg of intravenous ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks), nivolumab monotherapy group (3 mg/kg of intravenous nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab-matching placebo during weeks 1-12), or double-matching placebo group. The primary endpoint was the recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The results presented in this report reflect the prespecified interim analysis of recurrence-free survival after 90 events had been reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02523313, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2, 2015, and Nov 20, 2018, 167 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=56), nivolumab (n=59), or placebo (n=52). As of July 2, 2019, at a median follow-up of 28·4 months (IQR 17·7-36·8), median recurrence-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, whereas median recurrence-free survival was 12·4 months (95% CI 5·3-33·3) in the nivolumab group and 6·4 months (3·3-9·6) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for recurrence for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo group was 0·23 (97·5% CI 0·12-0·45; p<0·0001), and for the nivolumab group versus placebo group was 0·56 (0·33-0·94; p=0·011). In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 75% (95% CI 61·0-84·9) and at 2 years was 70% (55·1-81·0); in the nivolumab group, 1-year recurrence-free survival was 52% (38·1-63·9) and at 2 years was 42% (28·6-54·5); and in the placebo group, this rate was 32% (19·8-45·3) at 1 year and 14% (5·9-25·7) at 2 years. Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 71% (95% CI 57-82) of patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and in 27% (16-40) of those in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade led to treatment discontinuation in 34 (62%) of 55 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and seven (13%) of 56 in the nivolumab group. Three deaths from adverse events were reported but were considered unrelated to the study treatment. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab increased recurrence-free survival significantly compared with placebo in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. The rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in both active treatment groups were higher than the rates reported in previous pivotal trials done in advanced melanoma with measurable disease. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada-like uveitis under immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment for metastasized malignant melanoma]. / Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada-artige Uveitis unter Immun-Checkpoint-Inhibitor-Therapie beim metastasierten malignen Melanom.

This article presents the case of a 68-year-old female patient who reported bilateral progressive visual loss over 4 weeks. The patient had a known metastatic malignant cutaneous melanoma, which was treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab. The ophthalmological examination revealed a bilateral anterior chamber flare with endothelial precipitates as well as choroidal folds, an orange-red discoloration of the retina and a serous retinal/choroidal detachment in the left eye. In the course of time the patient developed poliosis and vitiligo. Systemic and local steroid treatment resulted in a distinct improvement of the findings. An intravitreal triamcinolone injection led to complete regression of the progressive macular edema. In rare cases immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada-like uveitis. As ocular inflammation can be well controlled by local and systemic steroids, checkpoint inhibitor treatment should be continued in cases with good treatment response whenever possible. Interdisciplinary cooperation with close controls is absolutely necessary in these cases.

Tolerability of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations: adverse event evaluation and management.

The inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinases signalling pathway through combined use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAFi+MEKi) represents an established therapeutic option in patients with BRAF-mutated, advanced melanoma. These efficient therapies are well tolerated with mostly moderate and reversible side effects and a discontinuation rate due to adverse events of 11.5%-15.7%. Median duration of therapy ranges between 8.8 and 11.7 months. Based on data from confirmatory trials, safety profiles of three BRAFi+MEKi combinations were reviewed, that is, dabrafenib plus trametinib, vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and encorafenib plus binimetinib. Many adverse events are class effects, such as cutaneous, gastrointestinal, ocular, cardiac and musculoskeletal events; some adverse events are substance associated. Fever (dabrafenib) and photosensitivity (vemurafenib) are the most common and clinically prominent examples. Other adverse events are less frequent and the association to one substance is less strong such as anaemia, facial paresis (encorafenib), neutropenia (dabrafenib), skin rash, QTc prolongation and increased liver function tests (vemurafenib). This narrative review provides recommendations for monitoring, adverse event evaluation and management focusing on the clinically relevant side effects of the three regimens.

The efficacy of re-challenge with BRAF inhibitors after previous progression to BRAF inhibitors in melanoma: A retrospective multicenter study.

BRAF and MEK inhibition is efficient in patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, but due to acquired resistance the duration of response (DoR) is often only short-lived. In this retrospective multicenter study with 60 patients suffering from inoperable or metastatic melanoma we evaluated the efficacy of re-challenge with a BRAF inhibitor (BRAF2) with or without MEK-inhibition after progressive disease upon previous treatment with a BRAF inhibitor (BRAF1) with or without MEK inhibition. Treatment with BRAF1 led to a disease control rate (DCR) of 90% with 12% complete responses (CR), 58% partial responses (PR) and 20% stable diseases (SD), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.9 and DoR 10.7 months. BRAF2 with (68%) or without (32%) additional MEK inhibition was initiated after a median interval of 3.4 months. DCR after re-challenge with BRAF2 was 57%, 8% CR, 20% PR and 28% SD, median PFS was 5.0 and DoR 14.0 months. The duration of the treatment interval or the treatment in the interval did not influence the DCR or PFS to BRAF2. The only predictive factor for response to BRAF2 was previous response to BRAF1; all patients with CR to BRAF1 achieved disease control with BRAF2, but only 60% of the patients with PR to BRAF1 (p=0.002). Addition of MEK inhibition to BRAF2 after treatment with BRAF1 as monotherapy did not significantly increase the DCR or PFS compared to patients treated solely with mono- or combination therapy. In conclusion re-challenge with a BRAF inhibitor is a meaningful therapeutic option for patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma.

Chemosensitivity-directed therapy compared to dacarbazine in chemo-naive advanced metastatic melanoma: a multicenter randomized phase-3 DeCOG trial.

Chemotherapy still plays an important role in metastatic melanoma, particularly for patients who are not suitable or have no access to highly efficacious new therapies. Pre-therapeutic chemosensitivity testing might be useful to identify optimal chemotherapy regimens for individual patients. This multicenter randomized phase-3 trial was aimed to test for superiority of chemosensitivity-directed combination chemotherapy compared to standard dacarbazine monochemotherapy, and to demonstrate the chemosensitivity test result as prognostic in metastatic melanoma. Chemo-naive patients with advanced melanoma were biopsied from metastatic lesions. Tumor cells were isolated and tested ex-vivo for sensitivity to chemotherapeutic agents using an ATP-based viability assay. Patients with evaluable test results were randomly assigned to receive either chemosensitivity-directed combination chemotherapy (paclitaxel+cisplatin, treosulfan+gemcitabine, treosulfan+cytarabine), or dacarbazine. The primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS). After inclusion of 287 patients and a median follow-up of 26 months, the per-protocol population (n=244) showed no difference in OS between chemosensitivity-directed therapy and dacarbazine (median 9.2 vs 9.0 months, HR=1.08, p=0.64). The disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) tended to be higher in patients treated with chemosensitivity-directed therapy (32.8% vs 23.0%, p=0.088); objective response rates (CR+PR) showed no difference between groups (10.7% vs 12.3%, p=0.90). Patients whose tumors were tested chemosensitive showed no better OS or response rate than patients with chemoresistant tumors. Severe toxicities (CTC grade 3-4) were significantly more frequently observed with chemosensitivity-directed combination chemotherapy than with dacarbazine (40.2% vs 12.3%, p<0.0001). These results indicate, that chemosensitivity-directed combination chemotherapy is not superior to dacarbazine, but leads to significantly more severe toxicities.

Gebrauch von Komplementärmedizin bei Patienten mit metastasierendem Melanom unter Therapie mit Ipilimumab innerhalb einer klinischen Studie.

HINTERGRUND UND ZIEL: In Deutschland wenden 40-90 % aller Krebspatienten Methoden der komplementären and alternativen Medizin (KAM) an. Bis dato gibt es kein Datenmaterial zum Einsatz der KAM bei Melanompatienten. Das Ziel unserer Studie war es, Daten über den Gebrauch, die Informationsquellen und Ziele von Patienten mit metastasierendem Melanom zu erfassen. PATIENTEN UND METHODEN: Einhundertsechsundfünfzig Patienten aus 25 Studienzentren nahmen an der DecOG-MM-PAL Multibasket Studie teil. Die beteiligten Personen wurden auch gebeten, an einer Nebenstudie teilzunehmen, die ihren Gebrauch von KAM erfassen sollte. Dazu wurde während der Behandlung ein standardisierter Fragebogen zu genau festgelegten Zeitpunkten ausgeteilt. ERGEBNISSE: Insgesamt gingen 55 Fragebögen von 32 (21 %) Melanompatienten ein. Von diesen gaben 17 (53 %) ein Interesse an KAM an, und sieben (22 %) machten von KAM Gebrauch. Die Hauptinformationsquellen (31 %) waren Familienmitglieder und Freunde, gefolgt von Ärzten (19 %). Die Hauptgründe für die Anwendung von KAM waren die Stärkung des Immunsystems (41 %) und des Körpers (34 %). Nahrungsergänzungsmittel (Vitamine und Spurenelemente) wurden am häufigsten angewendet (28 %). FAZIT: Eine relativ hohe Anzahl an Patienten mit metastasierendem Melanom machte trotz Teilnahme an einer klinischen Studie von KAM Gebrauch. Wechselwirkungen könnten durch biologisch basierte KAM auftreten, und hier besonders bei immunmodulierenden KAM- Strategien. Um Risiken zu vermeiden, sollte die Kommunikation zwischen den Ärzten und den Patienten verbessert werden.

Use of complementary medicine in metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab within a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Germany, 40-90 % of all cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). So far, no data are available on the use of CAM by melanoma patients. The objective of our study was to gather data on CAM use, sources of information, and goals of patients with metastatic melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six patients from 25 study centers participated in the DecOG-MM-PAL-Multibasket Study. These individuals were also asked to participate in a side study addressing CAM use. A standardized CAM questionnaire was distributed at defined points during the treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 55 questionnaires from 32 (21 %) melanoma patients were received. Of those, 17 (53 %) stated an interest in CAM, and seven (22 %) actually used CAM. Family and friends were the main source of information (31 %), followed by physicians (19 %). The main reasons for using CAM were boosting the immune system (41 %) and strengthening the body (34 %). Supplements (vitamins and trace elements) were most commonly used (28 %). CONCLUSIONS: A relatively high number of metastatic melanoma patients used CAM despite their participation in a clinical trial. Interactions may be due to biologically based CAM, especially immunomodulatory CAM strategies. In order to avoid risks, communication between physicians and patients should be improved.