Efficacy and Safety of the Melphalan/Hepatic Delivery System in Patients with Unresectable Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: Results from an Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter Phase 3 Study.

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma (UM) has a poor prognosis once liver metastases occur. The melphalan/Hepatic Delivery System (melphalan/HDS) is a drug/device combination used for liver-directed treatment of metastatic UM (mUM) patients. The purpose of the FOCUS study was to assess the efficacy and safety of melphalan/HDS in patients with unresectable mUM. METHODS: Eligible patients with mUM received treatment with melphalan (3.0 mg/kg ideal body weight) once every 6 to 8 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The study enrolled 102 patients with mUM. Treatment was attempted in 95 patients, and 91 patients received treatment. In the treated population (n = 91), the ORR was 36.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 26.44-47.01), including 7.7 % of patients with a complete response. Thus, the study met its primary end point because the lower bound of the 95 % CI for ORR exceeded the upper bound (8.3 %) from the benchmark meta-analysis. The median DOR was 14 months, and the median OS was 20.5 months, with an OS of 80 % at 1 year. The median PFS was 9 months, with a PFS of 65 % at 6 months. The most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (15.8 %) and neutropenia (10.5 %), treated mostly on an outpatient basis with observation. No treatment-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with melphalan/HDS provides a clinically meaningful response rate and demonstrates a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with unresectable mUM (study funded by Delcath; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02678572; EudraCT no. 2015-000417-44).

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma: 4-year survival and biomarkers evaluation from the phase II SECOMBIT trial.

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases: 7-year outcomes and quality of life from the multicenter phase III NIBIT-M2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the phase III NIBIT-M2 study showed a 41% 4-year overall survival (OS) of melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. METHODS: Here, we report the 7-year efficacy outcomes and the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) analyses of the NIBIT-M2 study. RESULTS: As of May 1, 2023, at a median follow-up of 67 months (mo), the median OS was 8.5 (95% CI: 6.6-10.3), 8.2 (95% CI: 2.1-14.3) and 29.2 (95% CI: 0-69.9) mo for the fotemustine (F) Arm A, ipilimumab plus fotemustine Arm B, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab Arm C, respectively. The 7-year OS rate was 10.0% (95% CI: 0-22.5) in Arm A, 10.3% (95% CI: 0-22.6) in Arm B, and 42.8% (95% CI: 23.4-62.2) in Arm C. HRQoL was preserved in all treatment arms. Most functional scales evaluated from baseline to W12 were preserved, with a lower mean score decrease for EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and an increase for EORTC QLQ-Brain neoplasm (BN20) in patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab. CONCLUSIONS: With the longest follow-up available to date in melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, the NIBIT-M2 study continues to show persistent therapeutic efficacy of I ipilimumab plus nivolumab while preserving HRQoL.

First-Line, Fixed-Duration Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Followed by Nivolumab in Clinically Diverse Patient Populations With Unresectable Stage III or IV Melanoma: CheckMate 401.

PURPOSE: To address the paucity of data in patients with historically poor outcomes, we conducted the single-arm phase IIIb CheckMate 401 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy in clinically diverse patient populations with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg (240 mg following a protocol amendment) once every 2 weeks for ≤24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3-5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), brain metastasis status, and melanoma subtype. RESULTS: In total, 533 patients received at least one dose of study drug. Grade 3-5 select TRAEs affecting the GI (16%), hepatic (15%), endocrine (11%), skin (7%), renal (2%), and pulmonary (1%) systems occurred in the all-treated population; similar incidence rates were observed across all subgroups. At 21.6 months' median follow-up, 24-month OS rates were 63% in the all-treated population, 44% in the ECOG PS 2 subgroup (including patients with cutaneous melanoma only), 71% in the brain metastasis subgroup, 36% in the ocular/uveal melanoma subgroup, and 38% in the mucosal melanoma subgroup. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy was tolerable in patients with advanced melanoma and poor prognostic characteristics. Efficacy was similar between the all-treated population and patients with brain metastases. Reduced efficacy was observed in patients with ECOG PS 2, ocular/uveal melanoma, and/or mucosal melanoma, highlighting the continued need for novel treatment options for these difficult-to-treat patients.

Actionable Genetic Screens Unveil Targeting of AURKA, MEK, and Fatty Acid Metabolism as an Alternative Therapeutic Approach for Advanced Melanoma.

Despite the remarkable improvements achieved in the management of metastatic melanoma, there are still unmet clinical needs. A considerable fraction of patients does not respond to immune and/or targeted therapies owing to primary and acquired resistance, high-grade immune-related adverse events, and a lack of alternative treatment options. To design effective combination therapies, we set up a functional ex vivo preclinical assay on the basis of a drop-out genetic screen in metastatic melanoma patient-derived xenografts. We showed that this approach can be used to isolate actionable vulnerabilities predictive of drug efficacy. In particular, we highlighted that the dual targeting of AURKA and MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase employing the combination of alisertib and trametinib is highly effective in a cohort of metastatic melanoma patient-derived xenografts, both ex vivo and in vivo. Alisertib and trametinib combination therapy outperforms standard-of-care therapy in both BRAF-mutant patient-derived xenografts and targeted therapy-resistant models. Furthermore, alisertib and trametinib treatment modulates several critical cancer pathways, including an early metabolic reprogramming that leads to the transcriptional upregulation of the fatty acid oxidation pathway. This acquired trait unveiled an additional point of intervention for pharmacological targeting, and indeed, the triple combination of alisertib and trametinib with the fatty acid oxidation inhibitor etomoxir proved to be further beneficial, inducing tumor regression and remarkably prolonging the overall survival of the mice.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Global Phase III Trial of Talimogene Laherparepvec Combined With Pembrolizumab for Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: The combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and an encouraging complete response rate (CRR) in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase Ib study. We report the efficacy and safety from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, international study of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab (T-VEC-pembrolizumab) versus placebo plus pembrolizumab (placebo-pembrolizumab) in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB-IVM1c unresectable melanoma, naïve to antiprogrammed cell death protein-1, were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-VEC-pembrolizumab or placebo-pembrolizumab. T-VEC was administered at ≤ 4 × 106 plaque-forming unit (PFU) followed by ≤ 4 × 108 PFU 3 weeks later and once every 2 weeks until dose 5 and once every 3 weeks thereafter. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously 200 mg once every 3 weeks. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate per mRECIST, CRR, and safety. Here, we report the primary analysis for PFS, the second preplanned interim analysis for OS, and the final analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 692 patients were randomly assigned (346 T-VEC-pembrolizumab and 346 placebo-pembrolizumab). T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.04; P = .13) or OS (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.22; P = .74) compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was 48.6% for T-VEC-pembrolizumab (CRR 17.9%) and 41.3% for placebo-pembrolizumab (CRR 11.6%); the durable response rate was 42.2% and 34.1% for the arms, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of patients in the T-VEC-pembrolizumab arm and in 19.5% of patients in the placebo-pembrolizumab arm. CONCLUSION: T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS or OS compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. Safety results of the T-VEC-pembrolizumab combination were consistent with the safety profiles of each agent alone.

KEYNOTE - D36: personalized immunotherapy with a neoepitope vaccine, EVX-01 and pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma.

Despite improvements made with checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy, a need for new approaches to improve outcomes for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma remains. EVX-01, a personalized neoepitope vaccine, combined with pembrolizumab treatment, holds the potential to fulfill this need. Here we present the rationale and novel design behind the KEYNOTE - D36 trial: an open label, single arm, phase II trial aiming to establish the clinical proof of concept and evaluate the safety of EVX-01 in combination with pembrolizumab in CPI naive patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The primary objective is to evaluate if EVX-01 improves best overall response after initial stable disease or partial response to pembrolizumab treatment, in patients with advanced melanoma. The novel end points ensure a decisive readout which may prove helpful before making major investments in phase III trials with limited phase I data. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05309421 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Drugs targeting the immune system have improved the outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma. However, a significant proportion of patients do not benefit and there is a need for better therapeutic agents to be used alone or in combination with immune modulating agents. This article summarizes the rationale and design of a new trial with a personalized vaccine (EVX-01) that may improve outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma (unresectable stage III or IV melanoma). The EVX-01 vaccine aims to stimulate the patient's immune system to generate T cells that target specific molecules that can only be found on the surface of the individual patients' cancer cells (i.e. neoepitopes), resulting in cancer cell death. The trial will investigate if the personalized EVX-01 vaccine together with checkpoint inhibitor therapy works better for patients with advanced melanoma, than checkpoint inhibitor therapy alone.

Differential activity of avapritinib in patients with metastases from mucosal melanoma and thymic carcinoma harbouring KIT exon 17 mutations: Initial experience from a Compassionate Use Program in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Proto-oncogene KIT is the gene encoding the receptor tyrosine kinase protein KIT. Activating mutations are found in 2.9% of neoplasms, with the highest prevalence in gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Exon 17 mutations typically alter the kinase activation loop and are relatively rare, representing 11.7% of all activating KIT mutations. Recently, KIT exon 17 mutants turned out to be a potential molecular target for the type 1 kinase inhibitor avapritinib (BLU-285). OBJECTIVE: In this framework, we aimed at investigating the potential activity of avapritinib in mucosal melanoma and thymic carcinoma, two disease histologies with dismal prognosis, currently lacking evidence-based second line treatment options and in which KIT exon 17 activating mutations could represent a relevant therapeutic target. RESULTS: In this series, we report the only four cases of patients affected by exon 17 mutant mucosal melanoma and thymic carcinoma that have been treated in Italy with avapritinib within a Compassionate Use Program. Two patients harboured mucosal melanoma and the other two were diagnosed with thymic carcinoma. We describe a differential activity of avapritinib (3/4 patients responded, 1/4 did not respond), along with possible hypotheses to justify such differences and potential implications for precision oncology. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, the inactivity of imatinib on KIT exon 17 mutations, the general low clinical efficacy of immunotherapy, as well as the consequent formal lack of standard available and active second line systemic treatments in both mucosal melanoma and thymic carcinoma, support the implementation of avapritinib in the therapeutic armamentarium, even though further prospective evidence is warranted.

Randomized Phase III Trial Evaluating Spartalizumab Plus Dabrafenib and Trametinib for BRAF V600-Mutant Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data suggest the combination of an anti-programmed death receptor 1 antibody plus dabrafenib and trametinib to have superior antitumor activity compared with dabrafenib plus trametinib alone. These observations are supported by translational evidence suggesting that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus targeted therapy may improve treatment outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-i is a phase III trial evaluating spartalizumab, an anti-programmed death receptor 1 antibody, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram), versus placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. METHODS: Patients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally twice daily and trametinib 2 mg orally once daily or placebo-DabTram. Participants were age ≥ 18 years with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary end point (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02967692). RESULTS: At data cutoff (July 1, 2020), the median progression-free survival was 16.2 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 23.9 months) in the sparta-DabTram arm versus 12.0 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 15.4 months) in the placebo-DabTram arm (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.03]; P = .042 [one-sided; nonsignificant]). The objective response rates were 69% (183 of 267 patients) versus 64% (170 of 265 patients), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 55% (146 of 267) of patients in the sparta-DabTram arm and 33% (88 of 264) in the placebo-DabTram arm. CONCLUSION: The study did not meet its primary end point; broad first-line use of sparta-DabTram is not supported by these results. Further biomarker-driven investigation may identify patient subpopulations who could benefit from checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combinations.

Long-Term Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab or Nivolumab Alone Versus Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated. RESULTS: Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF-wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.

KEYNOTE-022: Pembrolizumab with trametinib in patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma or advanced solid tumours irrespective of BRAF mutation.

OBJECTIVES: Parts 4 and 5 of the phase 1/2 KEYNOTE-022 study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and efficacy of pembrolizumab plus trametinib in solid tumours and BRAF wild-type melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received intermittent or concurrent dosing of pembrolizumab plus trametinib. Concurrent dosing was 2 or 4 weeks of trametinib run-in followed by concurrent pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (Q3W) plus trametinib once daily (QD). Intermittent dosing was 2 weeks of trametinib run-in followed by pembrolizumab plus intermittent trametinib (1 week off/2 weeks on). A 3 + 3 dose escalation was used, followed by dose confirmation. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred at initial dose levels (DL). At subsequent DLs, 10 of 38 evaluable patients had DLTs. For concurrent dosing, MTD was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 1.5 mg QD, with a 2-week trametinib 1.5 mg QD run-in (concurrent DL2a); in concurrent DL2a group, five (31%) patients had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); the objective response rate (ORR) was 0%. ORR was 40% in concurrent DL1 and 0% in concurrent DL2b. For intermittent dosing, MTD was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 2 mg QD with a 2-week trametinib 2 mg QD run-in (intermittent DL2); in the intermittent DL2 group, seven (47%) patients had grade 3/4 TRAEs; ORR was 27%. ORR in intermittent DL1 was 33%. CONCLUSIONS: MTDs for concurrent and intermittent dosing of pembrolizumab with trametinib were identified. The combination had limited antitumour activity, numerically higher ORR with intermittent versus concurrent dosing, and manageable safety. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02130466.

Combined BRAF-Targeted Therapy with Immunotherapy in BRAF-Mutated Advanced Melanoma Patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review evidence on the efficacy and safety of combined BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. RECENT FINDINGS: Programmed death-1 pathway inhibitors administered with BRAF/MEK inhibitors showed promising anti-tumour activity in BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma and were investigated for safety and efficacy in three large international clinical trials. Although, in two out of those three randomized phase III studies, progression-free survival (PFS) did not reach statistical significance, results showed that duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS) were improved using combined therapy, sustaining the scientific rationale for its use at least in a subset of metastatic melanomas. However, the frequent occurrence of autoimmunity-induced toxicities should be considered since it is limiting the continuity and the wide application of these regimens. Novel treatment modalities combining targeted therapy with checkpoint inhibitors require further clinical investigation and elucidation of their effect on the immune system and cancer cell modulation.

Vitamin D Supplementation and Disease-Free Survival in Stage II Melanoma: A Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial.

Patients with newly resected stage II melanoma (n = 104) were randomized to receive adjuvant vitamin D3 (100,000 IU every 50 days) or placebo for 3 years to investigate vitamin D3 protective effects on developing a recurrent disease. Median age at diagnosis was 50 years, and 43% of the patients were female. Median serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25OHD) level at baseline was 18 ng/mL, interquartile range (IQ) was 13-24 ng/mL, and 80% of the patients had insufficient vitamin D levels. We observed pronounced increases in 25OHD levels after 4 months in the active arm (median 32.9 ng/mL; IQ range 25.9-38.4) against placebo (median 19.05 ng/mL; IQ range 13.0-25.9), constantly rising during treatment. Remarkably, patients with low Breslow score (<3 mm) had a double increase in 25OHD levels from baseline, whereas patients with Breslow score ≥3 mm had a significantly lower increase over time. After 12 months, subjects with low 25OHD levels and Breslow score ≥3 mm had shorter disease-free survival (p = 0.02) compared to those with Breslow score <3 mm and/or high levels of 25OHD. Adjusting for age and treatment arm, the hazard ratio for relapse was 4.81 (95% CI: 1.44-16.09, p = 0.011). Despite the evidence of a role of 25OHD in melanoma prognosis, larger trials with vitamin D supplementation involving subjects with melanoma are needed.