CD8+ T cells sustain antitumor response by mediating crosstalk between adenosine A2A receptor and glutathione/GPX4.

Antitumor responses of CD8+ T cells are tightly regulated by distinct metabolic fitness. High levels of glutathione (GSH) are observed in the majority of tumors, contributing to cancer progression and treatment resistance in part by preventing glutathione peroxidase 4-dependent (GPX4-dependent) ferroptosis. Here, we show the necessity of adenosine A2A receptor (A2AR) signaling and the GSH/GPX4 axis in orchestrating metabolic fitness and survival of functionally competent CD8+ T cells. Activated CD8+ T cells treated ex vivo with simultaneous inhibition of A2AR and lipid peroxidation acquire a superior capacity to proliferate and persist in vivo, demonstrating a translatable means to prevent ferroptosis in adoptive cell therapy. Additionally, we identify a particular cluster of intratumoral CD8+ T cells expressing a putative gene signature of GSH metabolism (GMGS) in association with clinical response and survival across several human cancers. Our study addresses a key role of GSH/GPX4 and adenosinergic pathways in fine-tuning the metabolic fitness of antitumor CD8+ T cells.

Immune Assessment Today: Optimizing and Standardizing Efforts to Monitor Immune Responses in Cancer and Beyond.

As part of a symposium, current and former directors of Immune Monitoring cores and investigative oncologists presented insights into the past, present and future of immune assessment. Dr. Gnjatic presented a classification of immune monitoring technologies ranging from universally applicable to experimental protocols, while emphasizing the need for assay harmonization. Dr. Obeng discussed physiologic differences among CD8 T cells that align with anti-tumor responses. Dr. Lyerly presented the Soldano Ferrone lecture, commemorating the passionate tumor immunologist who inspired many, and covered a timeline of monitoring technology development and its importance to immuno-oncology. Dr. Sonabend presented recent achievements in glioblastoma treatment, accentuating the range of monitoring techniques that allowed him to refine patient selection for clinical trials. Dr. Guevara-Patiño focused on hypoxia within the tumor environment and stressed that T cell viability is not to be confused with functionality. Dr. Butterfield accentuated monitoring of dendritic cell metabolic (dys)function as a determinant for tumor vaccine success. Lectures were interspersed with select abstract presentations. To summarize the concepts, Dr. Maecker from Stanford led an informative forum discussion, pointing towards the future of immune monitoring. Immune monitoring continues to be a guiding light towards effective immunotherapeutic strategies.

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.

Ipilimumab with or without nivolumab in PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade refractory metastatic melanoma: a randomized phase 2 trial.

In this randomized phase 2 trial, blockade of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) with continuation of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma who had received front-line anti-PD-1 or therapy against programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and whose tumors progressed was tested in comparison with CTLA-4 blockade alone. Ninety-two eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, or ipilimumab alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included the difference in CD8 T cell infiltrate among responding and nonresponding tumors, objective response rate, overall survival and toxicity. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival over ipilimumab (hazard ratio = 0.63, 90% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41-0.97, one-sided P = 0.04). Objective response rates were 28% (90% CI = 19-38%) and 9% (90% CI = 2-25%), respectively (one-sided P = 0.05). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% and 35% of patients, respectively, which is consistent with the known toxicity profile of these regimens. The change in intratumoral CD8 T cell density observed in the present analysis did not reach statistical significance to support the formal hypothesis tested as a secondary endpoint. In conclusion, primary resistance to PD-1 blockade therapy can be reversed in some patients with the combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03033576 .

Endocrine side effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have increasingly been the mainstay of treatment for numerous malignancies. However, due to their association with autoimmunity, ICIs have resulted in a variety of side effects that involve multiple organs including the endocrine system. In this review article, we describe our current understanding of the autoimmune endocrinopathies as a result of the use of ICIs. We will review the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of the most commonly encountered endocrinopathies, including thyroiditis, hypophysitis, Type 1 diabetes, adrenalitis, and central diabetes insipidus.

Overall Survival and Updated Results for Sunitinib Compared With Interferon Alfa in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A randomized, phase III trial demonstrated superiority of sunitinib over interferon alfa (IFN-α) in progression-free survival (primary end point) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Final survival analyses and updated results are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred fifty treatment-naïve patients with metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off dosing schedule or to IFN-α 9 MU subcutaneously thrice weekly. Overall survival was compared by two-sided log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Progression-free survival, response, and safety end points were assessed with updated follow-up. RESULTS: Median overall survival was greater in the sunitinib group than in the IFN-α group (26.4 v 21.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.821; 95% CI, 0.673 to 1.001; P = .051) per the primary analysis of unstratified log-rank test (P = .013 per unstratified Wilcoxon test). By stratified log-rank test, the HR was 0.818 (95% CI, 0.669 to 0.999; P = .049). Within the IFN-α group, 33% of patients received sunitinib, and 32% received other vascular endothelial growth factor-signaling inhibitors after discontinuation from the trial. Median progression-free survival was 11 months for sunitinib compared with 5 months for IFN-α (P < .001). Objective response rate was 47% for sunitinib compared with 12% for IFN-α (P < .001). The most commonly reported sunitinib-related grade 3 adverse events included hypertension (12%), fatigue (11%), diarrhea (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%). CONCLUSION: Sunitinib demonstrates longer overall survival compared with IFN-α plus improvement in response and progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. The overall survival highlights an improved prognosis in patients with RCC in the era of targeted therapy.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2022, Naples, December 1st-3rd, 2022.

The Great Debate session at the 2022 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 1-3) featured counterpoint views from leading experts on five contemporary topics of debate in the management of melanoma. The debates considered the choice of anti-lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3 therapy or ipilimumab in combination with anti-programmed death (PD)-1 therapy, whether anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still acceptable as a comparator arm in clinical trials, whether adjuvant treatment of melanoma is still a useful treatment option, the role of adjuvant therapy in stage II melanoma, what role surgery will continue to have in the treatment of melanoma. As is customary in the Melanoma Bridge Great Debates, the speakers are invited by the meeting Chairs to express one side of the assigned debate and the opinions given may not fully reflect personal views. Audiences voted in favour of either side of the argument both before and after each debate.

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

Phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in treatment-naïve patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort B).

BACKGROUND: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of nivolumab monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) and the efficacy of nivolumab/ipilimumab salvage therapy in patients with tumors unresponsive to initial nivolumab monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible patients with treatment-naïve nccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completion of 96 weeks of treatment (Part A). Patients with PD prior to, or stable disease (SD) at 48 weeks (prolonged SD) were potentially eligible to receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (Part B). Patients were required to submit tissue from a metastatic lesion obtained within 12 months prior to study entry and prior to Part B for correlative studies. RESULTS: 35 patients with nccRCC were enrolled: 19 (54%) had papillary, 6 (17%) had chromophobe and 10 (29%) had unclassified histology. At median follow-up of 22.9 months, RECIST-defined objective response rate (ORR) was 5 of 35 (14.3% 95% CI 4.8% to 30.3%) (complete response (CR) 2 (5.7%) and partial response (PR) 3 (8.6%)). ORR by histology was: papillary-1/19 (5%); chromophobe-1/6 (17%); and unclassified-3/10 (30%). Nine patients (26%) had tumors with sarcomatoid features with 3 (33%) (2 unclassified and 1 papillary) responding. ORR was 0/18, 3/11 (27%) and 2/6 (33%) for patients with tumor progammed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of <5%, ≥5% or not measured, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 4.0 (2.7-4.3) months. Two of five responders have progressed. Thirty-two patients had PD or prolonged SD and therefore, were potentially eligible for salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (Part B), but 15 patients did not enroll due to grade 2-3 toxicity (6) on nivolumab, symptomatic disease progression (5), or other reasons including no biopsy tissue (4). In the 17 Part B patients, there was one PR (6%) (unclassified/non-sarcomatoid). Grade >3 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 7/35 (20%) on nivolumab and 7/17 (41%) on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab with one patient experiencing sudden death. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy has limited activity in treatment-naïve nccRCC with most responses (4 of 5) seen in patients with sarcomatoid and/or unclassified tumors. Toxicity is consistent with prior nivolumab studies. Salvage treatment with nivolumab/ipilimumab was provided in half of these patients with minimal activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03117309.

Survival, Durable Tumor Remission, and Long-Term Safety in Patients With Advanced Melanoma Receiving Nivolumab.

PURPOSE: Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) is an inhibitory receptor expressed by activated T cells that downmodulates effector functions and limits the generation of immune memory. PD-1 blockade can mediate tumor regression in a substantial proportion of patients with melanoma, but it is not known whether this is associated with extended survival or maintenance of response after treatment is discontinued. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced melanoma (N = 107) enrolled between 2008 and 2012 received intravenous nivolumab in an outpatient setting every 2 weeks for up to 96 weeks and were observed for overall survival, long-term safety, and response duration after treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Median overall survival in nivolumab-treated patients (62% with two to five prior systemic therapies) was 16.8 months, and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 62% and 43%, respectively. Among 33 patients with objective tumor regressions (31%), the Kaplan-Meier estimated median response duration was 2 years. Seventeen patients discontinued therapy for reasons other than disease progression, and 12 (71%) of 17 maintained responses off-therapy for at least 16 weeks (range, 16 to 56+ weeks). Objective response and toxicity rates were similar to those reported previously; in an extended analysis of all 306 patients treated on this trial (including those with other cancer types), exposure-adjusted toxicity rates were not cumulative. CONCLUSION: Overall survival following nivolumab treatment in patients with advanced treatment-refractory melanoma compares favorably with that in literature studies of similar patient populations. Responses were durable and persisted after drug discontinuation. Long-term safety was acceptable. Ongoing randomized clinical trials will further assess the impact of nivolumab therapy on overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Neurological applications of belzutifan in von Hippel-Lindau disease.

Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease is a tumor predisposition syndrome caused by mutations in the VHL gene that presents with visceral neoplasms and growths, including clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and central nervous system manifestations, such as hemangioblastomas of the brain and spine. The pathophysiology involves dysregulation of oxygen sensing caused by the inability to degrade HIFα, leading to the overactivation of hypoxic pathways. Hemangioblastomas are the most common tumors in patients with VHL and cause significant morbidity. Until recently, there were no systemic therapies available for patients that could effectively reduce the size of these lesions. Belzutifan, the first approved HIF-2α inhibitor, has demonstrated benefit in VHL-associated tumors, with a 30% response rate in hemangioblastomas and ~30%-50% reduction in their sizes over the course of treatment. Anemia is the most prominent adverse effect, affecting 76%-90% of participants and sometimes requiring dose reduction or transfusion. Other significant adverse events include hypoxia and fatigue. Overall, belzutifan is well tolerated; however, long-term data on dosing regimens, safety, and fertility are not yet available. Belzutifan holds promise for the treatment of neurological manifestations of VHL and its utility may influence the clinical management paradigms for this patient population.

Non-viral precision T cell receptor replacement for personalized cell therapy.

T cell receptors (TCRs) enable T cells to specifically recognize mutations in cancer cells1-3. Here we developed a clinical-grade approach based on CRISPR-Cas9 non-viral precision genome-editing to simultaneously knockout the two endogenous TCR genes TRAC (which encodes TCRα) and TRBC (which encodes TCRß). We also inserted into the TRAC locus two chains of a neoantigen-specific TCR (neoTCR) isolated from circulating T cells of patients. The neoTCRs were isolated using a personalized library of soluble predicted neoantigen-HLA capture reagents. Sixteen patients with different refractory solid cancers received up to three distinct neoTCR transgenic cell products. Each product expressed a patient-specific neoTCR and was administered in a cell-dose-escalation, first-in-human phase I clinical trial ( NCT03970382 ). One patient had grade 1 cytokine release syndrome and one patient had grade 3 encephalitis. All participants had the expected side effects from the lymphodepleting chemotherapy. Five patients had stable disease and the other eleven had disease progression as the best response on the therapy. neoTCR transgenic T cells were detected in tumour biopsy samples after infusion at frequencies higher than the native TCRs before infusion. This study demonstrates the feasibility of isolating and cloning multiple TCRs that recognize mutational neoantigens. Moreover, simultaneous knockout of the endogenous TCR and knock-in of neoTCRs using single-step, non-viral precision genome-editing are achieved. The manufacture of neoTCR engineered T cells at clinical grade, the safety of infusing up to three gene-edited neoTCR T cell products and the ability of the transgenic T cells to traffic to the tumours of patients are also demonstrated.

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.

Clinical Activity of Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase-Targeted Therapies in Patients With Non-V600 BRAF-Mutant Tumors.

PURPOSE: Non-V600 mutations comprise approximately 35% of all BRAF mutations in cancer. Many of these mutations have been identified as oncogenic drivers and can be classified into three classes according to molecular characteristics. Consensus treatment strategies for class 2 and 3 BRAF mutations have not yet been established. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with published reports of individual patients with cancer harboring class 2 or 3 BRAF mutations from 2010 to 2021, to assess treatment outcomes with US Food and Drug Administration-approved mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway targeted therapy (MAPK TT) according to BRAF class, cancer type, and MAPK TT type. Coprimary outcomes were response rate and progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 18,167 studies were screened, identifying 80 studies with 238 patients who met inclusion criteria. This included 167 patients with class 2 and 71 patients with class 3 BRAF mutations. Overall, 77 patients achieved a treatment response. In both univariate and multivariable analyses, response rate and progression-free survival were higher among patients with class 2 compared with class 3 mutations, findings that remain when analyses are restricted to patients with melanoma or lung primary cancers. MEK ± BRAF inhibitors demonstrated greater clinical activity in class 2 compared with class 3 BRAF-mutant tumors than BRAF or EGFR inhibitors. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that MAPK TTs have clinical activity in some class 2 and 3 BRAF-mutant cancers. BRAF class may dictate responsiveness to current and emerging treatment strategies, particularly in melanoma and lung cancers. Together, this analysis provides clinical validation of predictions made on the basis of a mutation classification system established in the preclinical literature. Further evaluation with prospective clinical trials is needed for this population.

Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities, Version 1.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The aim of the NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities is to provide guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events resulting from cancer immunotherapy. The NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions, consisting of medical and hematologic oncologists with expertise across a wide range of disease sites, and experts from the areas of dermatology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, neurooncology, nephrology, cardio-oncology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, and oncology nursing. The content featured in this issue is an excerpt of the recommendations for managing toxicities related to CAR T-cell therapies and a review of existing evidence. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines, including recommendations for managing toxicities related to immune checkpoint inhibitors, visit NCCN.org.

Phase II Study of Nivolumab and Salvage Nivolumab/Ipilimumab in Treatment-Naive Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A).

PURPOSE: To determine the value of tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as a predictive biomarker of nivolumab monotherapy efficacy in treatment-naive patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and the efficacy of salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with tumors unresponsive to nivolumab monotherapy. METHODS: Eligible patients with treatment-naive ccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completing 96 treatment weeks (part A). Patients with PD before or stable disease at 48 weeks could receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (part B). The primary end point was improvement in 1-year progression-free survival in patients with tumor PD-L1 expression > 20% versus 0%. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled. The objective response rate (ORR) was 34.1% (95% CI, 25.8 to 43.2). ORR by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium category was favorable-risk 57.1%, intermediate-risk/poor-risk 25.0%, and by sarcomatoid features 36.4%. The ORR was 26.9%, 50.0%, and 75.0% for patients with the tumor PD-L1 expression of 0, 1-20, or > 20%, respectively (trend test P value = .002). The median duration of response was 27.6 (19.3 to not reached) months, with 26 of 42 responders including 17 of 20 with favorable-risk disease remaining progression-free. The 1-year progression-free survival was 34.6% and 75.0% in the PD-L1 = 0% and > 20% categories, respectively (P = .050). Ninety-seven patients with PD or prolonged stable disease were potentially eligible for part B, and 35 were enrolled. The ORR for part B was 11.4%. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 35% of patients on nivolumab and 43% of those on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab monotherapy is active in treatment-naive ccRCC. Although efficacy appears to be less than that of nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with intermediate-risk/poor-risk disease, favorable-risk patients had notable benefit. Efficacy correlated with tumor PD-L1 status. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab was frequently not feasible and of limited benefit.

Phase Ib/II Trial of Ribociclib in Combination with Binimetinib in Patients with NRAS-mutant Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Enhanced MAPK pathway signaling and cell-cycle checkpoint dysregulation are frequent in NRAS-mutant melanoma and, as such, the regimen of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib and the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib is a rational combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a phase Ib/II, open-label study of ribociclib + binimetinib in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma (NCT01781572). Primary objectives were to estimate the MTD/recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of the combination (phase Ib) and to characterize combination antitumor activity at the RP2D (phase II). Tumor genomic characterization and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics were also evaluated. RESULTS: Ten patients (16.4%) experienced dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1 of phase Ib. Overall response rate in the phase II cohort (n = 41) for the selected RP2D (binimetinib 45 mg twice daily + ribociclib 200 mg once daily, 21 days on/7 days off) was 19.5% [8/41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 8.8-34.9]. The response rate was 32.5% (13/40; 95% CI, 20.1-48.0) in patients with NRAS mutation with concurrent alterations of CDKN2A, CDK4, or CCND1. Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI, 3.5-5.6) and median overall survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.3-14.2) for all patients. Common treatment-related toxicities included creatine phosphokinase elevation, rash, edema, anemia, nausea, diarrhea, and fatigue. Pharmacokinetics and safety were consistent with single-agent data, supporting a lack of drug-drug interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib + binimetinib can be safely administered and is clinically active in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma. Co-mutations of cell-cycle genes may define a population with greater likelihood of treatment benefit. See related commentary by Moschos, p. 2977.

Leptomeningeal metastases: the future is now.

Leptomeningeal metastases (LM) constitute an involvement of cancer which is associated with marked morbidity and mortality. The contemporary diagnostic and therapeutic management of LM from solid tumors is reviewed. Therapeutic modalities including systemic therapies, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-directed therapies, and radiation therapy are discussed. This is to provide context for how the field of LM management may evolve in the near term. The future directions currently undergoing investigation for diagnostic, response assessment, and therapeutic purposes are highlighted. This is done within the context of the pathophysiology of the disease. Specifically the role of CSF circulating tumor cells and cell free circulating tumor DNA in diagnosis and response assement are reviewed. Novel therapeutic approaches across a range of modalities are discussed. Numerous ongoing studies which have the potential to alter the management of LM are referenced.