First-in-human stage III/IV melanoma​ clinical trial of immune priming agent IFx-Hu2.0.

IFx-Hu2.0 was designed to encode part of the Emm55 protein contained within a plasmid in a formulation intended for transfection into mammalian cells. IFx-Hu2.0 promotes both adaptive and innate immune responses in animal studies. Furthermore, previous studies have demonstrated safety/efficacy in equine, canine, and murine species. We present the first-in-human study of IFx-Hu2.0, administered by intralesional injection into melanoma tumors of seven patients with stage III/IV unresectable melanoma. No dose-limiting toxicities attributable to IFx-Hu2.0 were observed. Grade 1/2 injection site reactions were observed in five of seven patients. IgG and IgM responses were seen in the peripheral blood to Emm55 peptides and known melanoma antigens, suggesting that IFx-Hu2.0 acts as an individualized "in-situ vaccine." Three of four patients previously refractory to anti-PD1 experienced clinical benefit upon subsequent anti-PD1-based treatment. Therefore, this approach is feasible, and clinical/correlative outcomes warrant further investigation for treating metastatic melanoma patients as an immune priming agent.

Radar-Guided Localization and Resection for Metastatic Nodal and Soft Tissue Melanoma: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Radar-guided localization (RGL) offers a wire-free, nonradioactive surgical guidance method consisting of a small percutaneously-placed radar reflector and handheld probe. This study investigates the feasibility, timing, and outcomes of RGL for melanoma metastasectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients at our cancer center who underwent RGL resection of metastatic melanoma between December 2020-June 2023. Data pertaining to patients' melanoma history, management, reflector placement and retrieval, and follow-up was extracted from patient charts and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Twenty-three RGL cases were performed in patients with stage III-IV locoregional or oligometastatic disease, 10 of whom had reflectors placed prior to neoadjuvant therapy. Procedures included soft tissue nodule removals (8), index lymph node removals (13), and therapeutic lymph node dissections (2). Reflectors were located and retrieved intraoperatively in 96% of cases from a range of 2 to 282 days after placement; the last reflector was not able to be located during surgery via probe or intraoperative ultrasound. One retrieved reflector had migrated from the index lesion, thus overall success rate of reflector and associated index lesion removal was 21 of 23 (91%). All RGL-localized and retrieved index lesions that contained viable tumor (10) had microscopically negative margins. There were no complications attributable to reflector insertion and no unexpected complications of RGL surgery. CONCLUSION: In our practice, RGL is a safe and effective surgical localization method for soft tissue and nodal melanoma metastases. The inert nature of the reflector enables implantation prior to neoadjuvant therapy with utility in index lymph node removal.

There are a variety of tools available to localize melanoma that had spread to deep layers of the skin or lymph nodes that can guide surgeons to the cancer when the tumor cannot be felt. We evaluated a marker that reflects radar signals that has been studied in breast surgery but not in melanoma. The marker was placed in the tumor before surgery and was located during surgery using a handheld probe, guiding the surgeon to the correct location. An advantage of the radar-reflecting marker we studied is that since it is safe to stay in the body, it can be placed ahead of the use of cancer medications and can keep track of the tumor as it responds to treatment. In a review of 23 surgeries in which the radar-reflecting marker was used, there was one case where the marker migrated away from the tumor and one case where the marker was not able to be located. Monitoring or alternative definitive treatment was provided in each of these cases. Overall, we found the marker to be an effective tumor localization tool for surgeons and safe for patients. Other marker options available are unable or less suitable to be placed a long time in advance of surgery due to either technical or safety reasons, so the radar-reflecting marker is especially useful when it is placed in a tumor ahead of medical treatment leading up to planned surgical treatment.

Differential histone acetylation and super-enhancer regulation underlie melanoma cell dedifferentiation.

Dedifferentiation or phenotype switching refers to the transition from a proliferative to an invasive cellular state. We previously identified a 122-gene epigenetic gene signature that classifies primary melanomas as low versus high risk (denoted as Epgn1 or Epgn3). We found that the transcriptomes of the Epgn1 low-risk and Epgn3 high-risk cells are similar to the proliferative and invasive cellular states, respectively. These signatures were further validated in melanoma tumor samples. Examination of the chromatin landscape revealed differential H3K27 acetylation in the Epgn1 low-risk versus Epgn3 high-risk cell lines that corroborated with a differential super-enhancer and enhancer landscape. Melanocytic lineage genes (MITF, its targets and regulators) were associated with super-enhancers in the Epgn1 low-risk state, whereas invasiveness genes were linked with Epgn3 high-risk status. We identified the ITGA3 gene as marked by a super-enhancer element in the Epgn3 invasive cells. Silencing of ITGA3 enhanced invasiveness in both in vitro and in vivo systems, suggesting it as a negative regulator of invasion. In conclusion, we define chromatin landscape changes associated with Epgn1/Epgn3 and phenotype switching during early steps of melanoma progression that regulate transcriptional reprogramming. This super-enhancer and enhancer-driven epigenetic regulatory mechanism resulting in major changes in the transcriptome could be important in future therapeutic targeting efforts.

Combined BRAF, MEK, and heat-shock protein 90 inhibition in advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAF V600-mutant melanoma is common. Multiple resistance mechanisms involve heat-shock protein 90 (HSP90) clients, and a phase 1 study of vemurafenib with the HSP90 inhibitor XL888 in patients with advanced melanoma showed activity equivalent to that of BRAF and MEK inhibitors. METHODS: Vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) and cobimetinib (60 mg orally once daily for 21 of 28 days) with escalating dose cohorts of XL888 (30, 45, 60, or 90 mg orally twice weekly) was investigated in a phase 1 trial of advanced melanoma, with a modified Ji dose-escalation design. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled. After two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (rash and acute kidney injury) in the first cohort, lower doses of vemurafenib (720 mg) and cobimetinib (40 mg) were investigated with the same XL888 doses. Three DLTs (rash) were observed in 12 patients in the XL888 60-mg cohort, and this was determined as the maximum tolerated dose. Objective responses were observed in 19 patients (76%), and the median progression-free survival was 7.6 months, with a 5-year progression-free survival rate of 20%. The median overall survival was 41.7 months, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 37%. Single-cell RNA sequencing was performed on baseline and on-treatment biopsies; treatment was associated with increased immune cell influx (CD4-positive and CD8-positive T cells) and decreased melanoma cells. CONCLUSIONS: Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib plus XL888 had significant toxicity, requiring frequent dose reductions, which may have contributed to the relatively low progression-free survival despite a high tumor response rate. Given overlapping toxicities, caution must be used when combining HSP90 inhibitors with BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update Q and A.

This Q&A answers questions regarding ASCO's recent Systemic Therapy for Melanoma guideline.

Melanoma and CLL co-occurrence and survival: role of KC history.

BACKGROUND: Survival following melanoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have both been individually associated with previous history of non-melanoma skin cancers (specifically keratinocyte carcinomas [KC]). Furthermore, melanoma and CLL have been reported to occur within the same patients. The survival experience of patients with both cancers is understudied, and the role of history of KC is unknown. Additional research is needed to tease apart the independent associations between KC and CLL survival, KC and melanoma survival, and the co-occurrence of all three cancers. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients who were diagnosed with melanoma and/or CLL at a comprehensive cancer center between 2008 and 2020. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to examine the association between history of KC and survival following melanoma and/or CLL with careful consideration of calendar year of diagnosis, treatment regimens and other risk factors. A nested case-control study comparing patients with both CLL and melanoma to those with only CLL or only melanoma was conducted to compare blood parameters across the three groups. RESULTS: A time-dependent association was observed between history of KC and favorable melanoma survival within 4 years following diagnosis and poorer survival post 7 years after melanoma diagnosis. History of KC was not significantly associated with survival following the diagnosis of CLL, after adjustment for clinical factors including historical/concurrent melanoma. Patients with co-occurring melanoma and CLL tended to be diagnosed with melanoma first and had elevated blood parameters including white blood cell and lymphocyte counts as compared with patients who were diagnosed with only melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: History of KC was an independent predictor of survival following melanoma but not of CLL. Additional studies are needed to determine if blood parameters obtained at the time of melanoma diagnosis could be used as a cost-effective way to identify those at high risk of asymptomatic CLL for the promotion of earlier CLL diagnosis.

Acral melanoma: clinical advances and hope for the future.

Acral melanoma is a rare subtype of melanoma with unique histologic and biologic characteristics. Given its relative rarity compared with nonacral cutaneous melanoma, acral melanoma has been understudied and underrepresented in modern-day prospective clinical trials that have shaped the contemporary management of advanced cutaneous melanoma. Therefore, treatment principles for advanced acral melanoma are mostly derived from retrospective analyses or extrapolated from data largely based on nonacral cutaneous melanoma. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy of systemic immune and targeted molecular therapies, and to identify molecular targets for patients with advanced acral melanoma.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Systemic therapy for melanoma: ASCO guideline update

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials. Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti­PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies. This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines

Granulomatous and Sarcoid-like Immune-Related Adverse Events following CTLA4 and PD1 Blockade Adjuvant Therapy of Melanoma: A Combined Analysis of ECOG-ACRIN E1609 and SWOG S1404 Phase III Trials and a Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been linked to granulomatous and sarcoid-like lesions (GSLs) affecting different organs. This study sought to evaluate GSL incidence in patients with high-risk melanoma treated with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4) or programmed cell death 1 (PD1) blockade adjuvant therapy in two clinical trials: ECOG-ACRIN E1609 and SWOG S1404. Descriptions and GSL severity ratings were recorded. METHODS: Data were collected from ECOG-ACRIN E1609 and SWOG S1404. Descriptive statistics along with GSL severity grades were reported. Additionally, a literature review for such cases was summarized. RESULTS: A total of 11 GSL cases were reported among 2878 patients treated with either ICI or with High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b (HDI) in ECOG-ACRIN E1609 and SWOG S1404 trials. Cases were numerically more commonly reported with ipi10, followed by pembrolizumab, ipi3, and HDI, respectively. Most of the cases were grade III. Further, organs involved included lung, mediastinal lymph nodes, skin and subcutaneous tissue, and eye. Furthermore, a summary of 62 reports in the literature was described. CONCLUSIONS: GSLs following anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 antibody therapy in patients with melanoma were reported unusually. Reported cases ranged in grade from I to III and appeared manageable. Careful attention to these events and their reporting will be essential to better guide practice and management guidelines.

Early Detection and Prognostic Assessment of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus on Optimal Practice and the Role of Gene Expression Profile Testing.

Importance: Therapy for advanced melanoma has transformed during the past decade, but early detection and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma (CM) remain paramount goals. Best practices for screening and use of pigmented lesion evaluation tools and gene expression profile (GEP) testing in CM remain to be defined. Objective: To provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices and prebiopsy diagnostic, postbiopsy diagnostic, and prognostic assessment of CM. Evidence Review: Case scenarios were interrogated using a modified Delphi consensus method. Melanoma panelists (n = 60) were invited to vote on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey (n = 42), which was followed by a consensus conference (n = 51) that reviewed the literature and the rationale for survey answers. Panelists participated in a follow-up survey for final recommendations on the scenarios (n = 45). Findings: The panelists reached consensus (≥70% agreement) in supporting a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events, screening personnel recommendations (self/partner, primary care provider, general dermatologist, and pigmented lesion expert), screening intervals, and acceptable appointment wait times. Participants also reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination are sufficient for evaluation and follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions deemed innocuous. The panelists reached consensus on interpreting reflectance confocal microscopy and some but not all results from epidermal tape stripping, but they did not reach consensus on use of certain pigmented lesion evaluation tools, such as electrical impedance spectroscopy. Regarding GEP scores, the panelists reached consensus that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when selecting patients to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy but did not reach consensus on imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status. Conclusions and Relevance: For this consensus statement, panelists reached consensus on aspects of a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening and follow-up as well as use of visual examination and dermoscopy. These findings support a practical approach to diagnosing and evaluating CM. Panelists did not reach consensus on a clearly defined role for GEP testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for additional studies to establish the clinical use of existing GEP assays.

Atypical Fibroxanthoma: Outcomes from a Large Single Institution Series.

BACKGROUND: Atypical fibroxanthomas (AFX) are rare malignant cutaneous neoplasms. Unfortunately, limited clinicopathologic and outcomes data on this cancer exists. OBJECTIVE: We report the clinical, pathologic, and treatment characteristics, as well as oncologic outcomes in this single-institution retrospective analysis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compiled clinical, pathologic, treatment, and outcome data for all patients with AFX on definitive excision diagnosed, evaluated, and treated primarily by surgical resection at a single institution between 2000-2020. Descriptive statistics evaluated clinical and pathologic characteristics. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards models were used to evaluate overall survival and recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: 78 patients with AFX were identified. The majority were elderly, immunocompetent, Caucasian men. 85% of tumors were located on the head and neck. 63% of patients were correctly diagnosed only after complete resection of the index lesion. The median surgical margin was 1.0 cm. Overall, only 1.3% (1/78) of patients developed a local recurrence (RFS). No patients died of disease. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that resection margins of 1 cm achieve excellent local control with close to 99% RFS and 100% disease-specific survival.

International Center-Level Variation in Utilization of Completion Lymph Node Dissection and Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma at Major Referral Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. METHODS: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Patient-reported tolerability of adjuvant ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) versus high-dose interferon alfa-2b for resected high-risk stage III-IV melanoma in phase III trial E1609.

PURPOSE: Trial E1609 demonstrated superior overall survival with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) for patients with resected high-risk melanoma. To inform treatment tolerability, we compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL), gastrointestinal (GI), and treatment-specific physical and cognitive/emotional symptoms. We also compared treatment-specific concerns between all arms. METHODS: We assessed HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, physical and cognitive/emotional concerns using the FACT-Biologic Response Modifier subscale, and GI symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Diarrhea subscale pre-treatment and every 3 months. The primary outcome was the difference in HRQoL at 3 months between ipi3/ipi10 vs. HDI. RESULTS: 549 patients (n = 158 ipi3; n = 191 ipi10; n = 200 HDI) were analyzed. 3-month completion was 58.7%. Compared to HDI, ipilimumab patients reported better HRQoL (ipi3 = 87.5 ± 14.6 vs. HDI = 74.7 ± 15.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 84.9 ± 16.5 vs. HDI, p < .001) and fewer physical (ipi3 = 22.3 ± 4.6 vs. HDI = 17.1 ± 5.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 21.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI p < .001) and cognitive/emotional (ipi3 = 18.6 ± 4.4 vs. HDI = 15.0 ± 5.3, p < .001; ipi10 = 17.7 ± 4.8 vs. HDI p < .001) concerns, but worse GI symptoms (ipi3 = 40.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI = 42.2 ± 2.9, p = .011; ipi10 = 39.5 ± 7.0 vs. HDI, p < .001). Fewer ipilimumab patients reported worsening treatment-specific concerns (e.g., 52% of ipi3 and 58% of ipi10 reported worsening fatigue vs. 82% HDI, p's < .001). CONCLUSION: PROs demonstrated less toxicity of ipi3 compared to HDI and ipi10. Priorities for symptom management among patients receiving ipilimumab include GI toxicities, fatigue, weakness, appetite loss, arthralgia, and depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01274338, January 11, 2011 (first posted date) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01274338?term=NCT01274338&draw=2&rank=1 .

History of keratinocyte carcinoma and survival after a second primary malignancy: the Moffitt Cancer Center patient experience.

PURPOSE: History of keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) has been associated with survival following the diagnosis of a second primary malignancy (SPM), with the direction of the association varying by cancer type. Research is needed to elucidate the role of other key factors in this association. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients newly diagnosed and/or treated at Moffitt Cancer Center in December 2008-April 2020 with breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (NHL/CLL) (n = 29,156). History of KC was obtained from new patient intake questionnaires. Age- and stage-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to estimate the association between history of KC and survival following each cancer, stratified by demographic/clinical characteristics. RESULTS: KC history was most prevalent in patients with melanoma (28.7%), CLL (19.8%) and lung cancer (16.1%). KC history was associated with better overall survival following prostate cancer (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.55-0.99) and poorer overall survival following CLL (HR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.10-2.71). Patients with a history of KC experienced better survival within the first four years of a melanoma diagnosis (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.67-0.92); whereas poorer survival was observed for patients who survived 7 + years after a melanoma diagnosis (HR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.17-4.05). Stratification by treatment and stage revealed directional differences in the associations between KC history and survival among patients with breast cancer and melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: KC history may be a predictor of survival following an SPM, possibly serving as a marker of immune function and/or DNA damage repair capacity.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with T1a cutaneous malignant melanoma: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is not routinely recommended for T1a cutaneous melanoma due to the overall low risk of positivity. Prognostic factors for positive sentinel lymph node (SLN+) in this population are poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with SLN+ in patients with T1a melanoma. METHODS: Patients with pathologic T1a (<0.80 mm, nonulcerated) cutaneous melanoma from 5 high-volume melanoma centers from 2001 to 2020 who underwent wide local excision with sentinel lymph node biopsy were included in the study. Patient and tumor characteristics associated with SLN+ were analyzed by univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Age was dichotomized into ≤42 (25% quartile cutoff) and >42 years. RESULTS: Of the 965 patients identified, the overall SLN+ was 4.4% (N = 43). Factors associated with SLN+ were age ≤42 years (7.5% vs 3.7%; odds ratio [OR], 2.14; P = .03), head/neck primary tumor location (9.2% vs 4%; OR, 2.75; P = .04), lymphovascular invasion (21.4% vs 4.2%; OR, 5.64; P = .01), and ≥2 mitoses/mm2 (8.2% vs 3.4%; OR, 2.31; P = .03). Patients <42 years with ≥2 mitoses/mm2 (N = 38) had a SLN+ rate of 18.4%. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION: SLN+ is low in patients with T1a melanomas, but younger age, lymphovascular invasion, mitogenicity, and head/neck primary site appear to confer a higher risk of SLN+.

Combination Nivolumab, CD137 Agonism, and Adoptive Cell Therapy with Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes for Patients with Metastatic Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Metastatic melanoma is a tumor amenable to immunotherapy in part due to the presence of antigen-specific tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL). These T cells can be activated and expanded for adoptive cell transfer (ACT), which has resulted in relatively high rates of clinical responses. Similarly, immune checkpoint inhibitors, specifically programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking antibodies, augment antitumor immunity and increase the influx of T cells into tumors. Thus, we hypothesized that addition of PD-1 inhibition may improve the outcomes for patients undergoing ACT with TILs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III/IV metastatic melanoma with unresectable disease who were anti-PD-1 treatment-naïve were enrolled. TILs were generated in the presence of anti-4-1BB antibody in vitro and expanded for ACT. Patients in cohort 1 received TIL infusion followed by nivolumab. Patients in cohort 2 also received nivolumab prior to surgical harvest and during TIL production. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients were enrolled, all of whom were evaluated for response, and nine completed ACT. Predominantly CD8+ TILs were successfully expanded from all ACT-treated patients and were tumor reactive in vitro. The trial met its safety endpoint, as there were no protocol-defined dose-limiting toxicity events. The objective response rate was 36%, and median progression-free survival was 5 months. Two nonresponders who developed new metastatic lesions were analyzed to determine potential mechanisms of therapeutic resistance, which included clonal divergence and intrinsic TIL dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with TILs and nivolumab was safe and feasible for patients with metastatic melanoma and provides important insights for future therapeutic developments in ACT with TILs.

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with or without stereotactic body radiation therapy for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma: a randomised, open label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma is among the most aggressive and lethal of primary skin cancers, with a high rate of distant metastasis. Anti-programmed death receptor 1 (anti-PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monotherapy is currently standard of care for unresectable, recurrent, or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. We assessed treatment with combined nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with or without stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma as a first-line therapy or following previous treatment with anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 monotherapy. METHODS: In this randomised, open label, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned adults from two cancer sites in the USA (one in Florida and one in Ohio) to group A (combined nivolumab and ipilimumab) or group B (combined nivolumab and ipilimumab plus SBRT) in a 1:1 ratio. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically proven advanced stage (unresectable, recurrent, or stage IV) Merkel cell carcinoma, a minimum of two tumour lesions measureable by CT, MRI or clinical exam, and tumour tissue available for exploratory biomarker analysis. Patients were stratified by previous immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) status to receive nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks (group A) or the same schedule of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with the addition of SBRT to at least one tumour site (24 Gy in three fractions at week 2; group B). Patients had to have at least two measurable sites of disease so one non-irradiated site could be followed for response. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab. ORR was defined as the proportion of patients with a complete response or partial response per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Response was assessed every 12 weeks. Safety was assessed in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03071406. FINDINGS: 50 patients (25 in both group A and group B) were enrolled between March 14, 2017, and Dec 21, 2021, including 24 ICI-naive patients (13 [52%] of 25 group A patients and 11 [44%] of 25 group B patients]) and 26 patients with previous ICI (12 [48%] of 25 group A patients and 14 [56%] of 25 group B patients]). One patient in group B did not receive SBRT due to concerns about excess toxicity. Median follow-up was 14·6 months (IQR 9·1-26·5). Two patients in group B were excluded from the analysis of the primary endpoint because the target lesions were irradiated and so the patients were deemed non-evaluable. Of the ICI-naive patients, 22 (100%) of 22 (95% CI 82-100) had an objective response, including nine (41% [95% CI 21-63]) with complete response. Of the patients who had previously had ICI exposure, eight (31%) of 26 patients (95% CI 15-52) had an objective response and four (15% [5-36]) had a complete response. No significant differences in ORR were observed between groups A (18 [72%] of 25 patients) and B (12 [52%] of 23 patients; p=0·26). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 10 (40%) of 25 patients in group A and 8 (32%) of 25 patients in group B. INTERPRETATION: First-line combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma showed a high ORR with durable responses and an expected safety profile. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab also showed clinical benefit in patients with previous anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 treatment. Addition of SBRT did not improve efficacy of combined nivolumab and ipilimumab. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab represents a new first-line and salvage therapeutic option for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb Rare Population Malignancy Program.