Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.

BACKGROUND: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort. METHODS: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

A phase 1 study of triple-targeted therapy with BRAF, MEK, and AKT inhibitors for patients with BRAF-mutated cancers.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant PI3K/AKT signaling in BRAF-mutant cancers contributes to resistance to BRAF inhibitors. The authors examined dual MAPK and PI3K pathway inhibition in patients who had BRAF-mutated solid tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01902173). METHODS: Patients with BRAF V600E/V600K-mutant solid tumors received oral dabrafenib at 150 mg twice daily with dose escalation of oral uprosertib starting at 50 mg daily, or, in the triplet cohorts, with dose escalation of both oral trametinib starting at 1.5 mg daily and oral uprosertib starting at 25 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed within the first 56 days of treatment. Radiographic responses were assessed at 8-week intervals. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (22 evaluable) were enrolled in parallel doublet and triplet cohorts. No DLTs were observed in the doublet cohorts (N = 7). One patient had a DLT at the maximum administered dose of triplet therapy (dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg daily plus uprosertib 75 mg daily). Three patients in the doublet cohorts had partial responses (including one who had BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma). Two patients in the triplet cohorts had a partial response, and one patient had an unconfirmed partial response. Pharmacokinetic data suggested reduced dabrafenib and dabrafenib metabolite exposure in patients who were also exposed to both trametinib and uprosertib, but not in whose who were exposed to uprosertib without trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant inhibition of both the MAPK and PI3K-AKT pathways for the treatment of BRAF-mutated cancers was well tolerated, leading to objective responses, but higher level drug-drug interactions affected exposure to dabrafenib and its metabolites.

Health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus relatlimab versus nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma: RELATIVITY-047 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 trial, a novel fixed-dose combination (FDC) of nivolumab plus relatlimab (NIVO + RELA; a programmed death-1 and a lymphocyte-activation gene 3 inhibitor, respectively) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus NIVO in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma (median follow-up, 13.2 months) with stable health-related quality of life (HRQoL), although grade three or four treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were more frequent with the combination. Updated HRQoL results (median follow-up, 19.3 months) are presented. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive intravenous NIVO + RELA (480 mg and 160 mg, respectively) or NIVO (480 mg) every 4 weeks. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Melanoma (FACT-M) and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at baseline, before dosing at each treatment cycle, and at follow-up (posttreatment) visits. RESULTS: Consistent with the initial analysis, HRQoL remained stable with NIVO + RELA on treatment and was similar to that with NIVO. Mean changes from baseline did not exceed clinically meaningful thresholds. HRQoL results were consistent across instruments and scales/subscales. Despite an increased rate of grade three or four TRAEs with NIVO + RELA versus NIVO, the proportion of patients reporting that they were bothered 'quite a bit' or 'very much' by TRAEs was low and comparable between treatments. CONCLUSION: Results from the RELATIVITY-047 trial show that the PFS benefit with NIVO + RELA FDC over NIVO was obtained with stable patient-reported HRQoL, supporting NIVO + RELA as a first-line treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma.

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.).

Intersection of immune and oncometabolic pathways drives cancer hyperprogression during immunotherapy.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) can produce durable responses against cancer. We and others have found that a subset of patients experiences paradoxical rapid cancer progression during immunotherapy. It is poorly understood how tumors can accelerate their progression during ICB. In some preclinical models, ICB causes hyperprogressive disease (HPD). While immune exclusion drives resistance to ICB, counterintuitively, patients with HPD and complete response (CR) following ICB manifest comparable levels of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells and interferon γ (IFNγ) gene signature. Interestingly, patients with HPD but not CR exhibit elevated tumoral fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) and ß-catenin signaling. In animal models, T cell-derived IFNγ promotes tumor FGF2 signaling, thereby suppressing PKM2 activity and decreasing NAD+, resulting in reduction of SIRT1-mediated ß-catenin deacetylation and enhanced ß-catenin acetylation, consequently reprograming tumor stemness. Targeting the IFNγ-PKM2-ß-catenin axis prevents HPD in preclinical models. Thus, the crosstalk of core immunogenic, metabolic, and oncogenic pathways via the IFNγ-PKM2-ß-catenin cascade underlies ICB-associated HPD.

Metastatic melanoma of the heart: Retrospective cohort study and systematic review of prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac metastasis of melanoma is rare and typically diagnosed post-mortem. Here we perform a retrospective cohort study and systematic review of patients with metastatic melanoma to characterize prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of cardiac metastasis. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic medical records of all outpatients with metastatic melanoma who underwent evaluation at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor from January 2009 to January 2022, identifying patients with a clinical or histopathologic diagnosis of cardiac metastasis. We performed a systematic review of the literature to summarize the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with melanoma and cardiac metastasis. RESULTS: Overall, 23 of 1254 (1.8%) patients with metastatic melanoma were diagnosed with cardiac metastasis. Cardiac metastasis was reported in the right ventricle (65%), left ventricle (35%), and right atrium (35%). A total of 11 (48%) patients experienced at least one cardiovascular complication after the diagnosis of cardiac metastasis, the most common being arrhythmia (30%), heart failure (22%), and pericardial effusion (17%). Immunotherapy was more commonly used in patients with cardiac metastasis (80% vs 65%; p = 0.005). Mortality at 2-years post-diagnosis was higher for patients with cardiac metastasis compared to those without (59% vs 37%; p = 0.034). Progression of malignancy was the underlying cause of death of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac metastasis occurs in <2% of patients with metastatic melanoma, can affect all cardiac structures, and is associated with various cardiovascular complications and high mortality.

Overall Survival and Response with Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Advanced Melanoma.

Survival and Response with Nivolumab and RelatlimabIn this follow-up, patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab + relatlimab or nivolumab alone. After approximately 6 months of additional follow-up, the combination's median progression-free survival was 10.2 months versus 4.6 months for monotherapy. The difference in overall survival rates was not statistically significant.

Treatment related toxicities with combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy in resected stage III melanoma.

Combination dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) is an FDA approved adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. We describe treatment-related toxicities with adjuvant D+T in a real-world population through a retrospective case series. The primary endpoint was development of toxicities. Results: Eighteen of the 20 patients (90%) required at least one treatment interruption due to adverse events (AEs), 11 patients (55%) required a dose reduction and 13 (65%) permanently discontinued therapy due to an AE. The nine patients who did not require dose reduction had been initiated on a lower starting dose of dabrafenib. The most common treatment-limiting AEs were recurrent pyrexia and chills (85%) and liver laboratory abnormalities (50%). The median total time on therapy was 148.5 days (range 19-383), 40.7% (range 5.2-100%) of the intended one-year duration. Conclusion: Adjuvant treatment of melanoma with combination D+T is associated with treatment-limiting toxicities in the majority of this patient group. Patients should be carefully monitored throughout therapy.

Early Response Assessment in Advanced Stage Melanoma Treated with Combination Ipilimumab/Nivolumab.

Background: Standard combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (I/N) is given as 4 induction doses for advanced stage melanoma followed by nivolumab single-agent maintenance therapy. While many patients receive less than 4 doses due to immune-related toxicities, it is unclear if fewer doses of I/N may still provide long term clinical benefit. Our aim is to determine if response assessment after 1 or 2 doses of I/N can predict long-term survival and assess if fewer doses of I/N can lead to similar survival outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis on a cohort of patients with advanced melanoma who w0ere treated with standard I/N. Cox regression of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) models were performed to assess the relationship between response after 1 or 2 doses of I/N and risk of progression and/or death. Clinical benefit response (CBR) was assessed, defined as SD (stable disease) + PR (partial response) + CR (complete response) by imaging. Among patients who achieved a CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N, a multivariable Cox regression of survival was used to compare 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4 doses of I/N adjusted by known prognostic variables in advanced melanoma. Results: 199 patients were evaluated. Patients with CBR after 1 dose of I/N had improved PFS (HR: 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.33; p<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.12, 0.05-0.32; p<0.001) compared to progressive disease (PD). Patients with CBR (vs PD) after 2 doses of I/N also had improved PFS (HR: 0.09, 0.05-0.16; p<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.07, 0.03-0.14; p<0.001). There was no survival risk difference comparing 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4 doses of I/N for PFS (HR: 0.95, 0.37-2.48; p=0.921) and OS (HR: 1.04, 0.22-4.78; p=0.965). Conclusions: Early interval imaging with response during induction with I/N may be predictive of long-term survival in advanced stage melanoma. CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N is associated with favorable survival outcomes, even in the setting of fewer I/N doses received. Further studies are warranted to evaluate if electively administering fewer combination I/N doses despite tolerance in select patients may balance the benefits of therapy while decreasing toxicities.

Current State of Adjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: Less Is More, or More Is Better?

Advances in melanoma treatments over the past decade have changed the course of survival for patients. Several adjuvant therapies have been approved and are now considered standard of care for high-risk patients. These therapies have shown improvements for recurrence-free survival and distant metastases-free survival, but not overall survival, as the data are maturing. The 5-year recurrence-free survival in the COMBI-AD study, which compared dabrafenib and trametinib with placebo, was 65% and 58%, respectively. In the KEYNOTE-054 study, the recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 63.7% versus 41%. Despite these advances, approximately 50% of patients will succumb to their disease. Adjuvant therapy is considered potentially curative and avoids the morbidity of relapsed disease and the poor outcomes seen in metastatic disease. However, the lack of overall survival benefit in clinical trials of patients with high-risk stage II and stage III disease raises the question of whether it is more efficacious to treat when there is residual microscopic disease, or to wait until the disease recurs to avoid treating those who may have been cured by surgery alone. Immunotherapy also has the potential for substantial toxicity that may be lifelong; hence, discussion of risks and benefits of therapy is warranted because there should be less tolerance for substantial toxicity in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant trials are needed that will integrate biomarkers to allow for better selection of patients who will truly benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Successful use of secukinumab in two melanoma patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthropathy.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are a major concern when treating cancer patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Selecting the most appropriate management of irAEs remains an ongoing challenge because prolonged use of glucocorticoids come with their own side effects and may counteract the antineoplastic effects from immunotherapy. In this case report, we present two patients with metastatic melanoma who developed symptoms of inflammatory arthritis attributed to ICI therapy. We found that treatment with secukinumab, an anti-IL-17A inhibitor, effectively managed their symptoms and did not lead to tumor progression. Our study suggests that secukinumab can be a safe and effective treatment option for ICI-induced inflammatory arthropathy.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are unwanted side effects commonly seen in cancer patients treated with immunotherapy. A frequently underreported irAE is inflammation of the joints (ankles, knees, shoulders, etc.), which is known as inflammatory arthropathy. Inflammatory arthropathy is frequently treated with steroids, but there is concern that it may counteract the anticancer effect from immunotherapy. Alternative treatments are needed to better treat this irAE without compromising the benefit of immunotherapy. In this case report, we present two patients with stage 4 melanoma who developed immunotherapy-induced inflammatory arthropathy and were successfully treated with secukinumab. We found that treating the inflammatory arthropathy was safe, effective, and did not lead to cancer progression in either patient.

Relatlimab and Nivolumab versus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) are distinct inhibitory immune checkpoints that contribute to T-cell exhaustion. The combination of relatlimab, a LAG-3-blocking antibody, and nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, has been shown to be safe and to have antitumor activity in patients with previously treated melanoma, but the safety and activity in patients with previously untreated melanoma need investigation. METHODS: In this phase 2-3, global, double-blind, randomized trial, we evaluated relatlimab and nivolumab as a fixed-dose combination as compared with nivolumab alone when administered intravenously every 4 weeks to patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4 to 15.7) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 5.6) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92]; P = 0.006 by the log-rank test). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 47.7% (95% CI, 41.8 to 53.2) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 36.0% (95% CI, 30.5 to 41.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival across key subgroups favored relatlimab-nivolumab over nivolumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.9% of patients in the relatlimab-nivolumab group and in 9.7% of patients in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: The inhibition of two immune checkpoints, LAG-3 and PD-1, provided a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than inhibition of PD-1 alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. Relatlimab and nivolumab in combination showed no new safety signals. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; RELATIVITY-047 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03470922.).

Biomarker Trends, Incidence, and Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Myocarditis.

Background: Myocarditis is a dreaded and unpredictable complication of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We sought to determine whether routinely measured biomarkers could be helpful in monitoring for ICI myocarditis. Objectives: The authors examined biomarker trends of patients on ICI and their association with the incidence of ICI myocarditis and outcomes. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults who received at least one dose of ICI at Michigan Medicine between June 2014 and December 2021 and underwent systematic serial testing for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatine phosphokinase (CPK), and lactate dehydrogenase during ICI therapy. Results: Among 2,606 patients (mean age 64 ± 13 years; 60.7% men), 27 (1.0%) were diagnosed with ICI myocarditis. At diagnosis, patients with myocarditis had an elevated high-sensitivity troponin T (100%), ALT (88.9%), AST (85.2%), CPK (88.9%), and lactate dehydrogenase (92.6%). Findings were confirmed in an independent cohort of 30 patients with biopsy-confirmed ICI myocarditis. A total of 95% of patients with ICI myocarditis had elevations in at least 3 biomarkers compared with 5% of patients without myocarditis. Among the noncardiac biomarkers, only CPK was associated (per 100% increase) with the development of myocarditis (HR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.59-2.10) and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01-1.20) in multivariable analysis. Elevations in CPK had a sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 23% for identifying myocarditis. Conclusions: ICI myocarditis is associated with changes in AST, ALT, and CPK. An increase in noncardiac biomarkers during ICI treatment, notably CPK, should prompt further evaluation for ICI myocarditis.

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.

Long-term outcomes of patients with active melanoma brain metastases treated with combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 204): final results of an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab was efficacious in patients with asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in CheckMate 204, but showed low efficacy in patients with symptomatic MBM. Here, we provide final 3-year follow-up data from the trial. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study (CheckMate 204) included adults (aged ≥18 years) with measurable MBM (0·5-3·0 cm in diameter). Asymptomatic patients (cohort A) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and no neurological symptoms or baseline corticosteroid use; symptomatic patients (cohort B) had an ECOG performance status of 0-2 with stable neurological symptoms and could be receiving low-dose dexamethasone. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was given intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease lasting ≥6 months) assessed in all treated patients. Intracranial progression-free survival and overall survival were key secondary endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2015, and Nov 1, 2017, 119 (72%) of 165 screened patients were enrolled and treated: 101 patients were asymptomatic (cohort A; median follow-up 34·3 months [IQR 14·7-36·4]) and 18 were symptomatic (cohort B; median follow-up 7·5 months [1·2-35·2]). Investigator-assessed intracranial clinical benefit was observed in 58 (57·4% [95% CI 47·2-67·2]) of 101 patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) of 18 patients in cohort B; investigator-assessed objective response was observed in 54 (53·5% [43·3-63·5]) patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6-41·4]) patients in cohort B. 33 (33%) patients in cohort A and three (17%) patients in cohort B had an investigator-assessed intracranial complete response. For patients in cohort A, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 54·1% (95% CI 42·7-64·1) and overall survival was 71·9% (61·8-79·8). For patients in cohort B, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 18·9% (95% CI 4·6-40·5) and overall survival was 36·6% (14·0-59·8). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (15 [15%] of 101 patients each) in cohort A; no grade 3 TRAEs occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B, and no grade 4 events occurred. The most common serious TRAEs were colitis, diarrhoea, hypophysitis, and increased alanine aminotransferase (five [5%] of each among the 101 patients in cohort A); no serious TRAE occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B. There was one treatment-related death (myocarditis in cohort A). INTERPRETATION: The durable 3-year response, overall survival, and progression-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients support first-line use of nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Symptomatic disease in patients with MBM remains difficult to treat, but some patients achieve a long-term response with the combination. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Safety and efficacy of the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma and asymptomatic or symptomatic brain metastases (CheckMate 204).

BACKGROUND: In patients with melanoma and asymptomatic brain metastases (MBM), nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an intracranial response rate of 55%. Here, we present the first report for patients who were symptomatic and/or required corticosteroids and updated data for asymptomatic patients. METHODS: Patients with measurable MBM, 0.5-3.0 cm, were enrolled into Cohort A (asymptomatic) or Cohort B (stable neurologic symptoms and/or receiving corticosteroids). Nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, and ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, were given intravenously every 3 weeks ×4, followed by nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or 24 months. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (CBR; complete response [CR], partial response [PR], or stable disease ≥6 months). RESULTS: Symptomatic patients (N = 18) received a median of one nivolumab and ipilimumab combination dose and had an intracranial CBR of 22.2%. Two of 12 patients on corticosteroids had CR; 2 responded among the 6 not on corticosteroids. Median intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 1.2 and 8.7 months, respectively. In contrast, with 20.6 months of follow-up, we confirmed an intracranial CBR of 58.4% in asymptomatic patients (N = 101); median duration of response, PFS, and OS were not reached. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides durable clinical benefit for asymptomatic patients with MBM and should be considered for first-line therapy. This regimen has limited activity in MBM patients with neurologic symptoms and/or requiring corticosteroids, supporting the need for alternative approaches and methods to reduce the dependency on corticosteroids. Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058.

Targeting the Gut Microbiome to Mitigate Immunotherapy-Induced Colitis in Cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been a transformational advance in cancer therapy in the past decade. However, ICIs can produce immune-related adverse effects (irAEs), which can lead to both morbidity and premature termination of therapy. Recent studies suggest that the gut microbiota and its metabolites affect ICI efficacy and toxicity. Herein, we review such evidence in the context of ICI-induced colitis. In particular, the short-chain fatty acid butyrate, a microbial metabolite, has known protective effects on the intestine. We discuss how the use of dietary prebiotics, which can be metabolized by bacteria to produce butyrate, can be an intriguing new investigational approach to prevent ICI-associated colitis and lead to improved patient outcomes.

Liver metastasis restrains immunotherapy efficacy via macrophage-mediated T cell elimination.

Metastasis is the primary cause of cancer mortality, and cancer frequently metastasizes to the liver. It is not clear whether liver immune tolerance mechanisms contribute to cancer outcomes. We report that liver metastases diminish immunotherapy efficacy systemically in patients and preclinical models. Patients with liver metastases derive limited benefit from immunotherapy independent of other established biomarkers of response. In multiple mouse models, we show that liver metastases siphon activated CD8+ T cells from systemic circulation. Within the liver, activated antigen-specific Fas+CD8+ T cells undergo apoptosis following their interaction with FasL+CD11b+F4/80+ monocyte-derived macrophages. Consequently, liver metastases create a systemic immune desert in preclinical models. Similarly, patients with liver metastases have reduced peripheral T cell numbers and diminished tumoral T cell diversity and function. In preclinical models, liver-directed radiotherapy eliminates immunosuppressive hepatic macrophages, increases hepatic T cell survival and reduces hepatic siphoning of T cells. Thus, liver metastases co-opt host peripheral tolerance mechanisms to cause acquired immunotherapy resistance through CD8+ T cell deletion, and the combination of liver-directed radiotherapy and immunotherapy could promote systemic antitumor immunity.

The impact of BRAF mutation status on clinical outcomes with anti-PD-1 monotherapy versus combination ipilimumab/nivolumab in treatment-naïve advanced stage melanoma.

Nearly half of all metastatic melanoma patients possess the BRAF V600 mutation. Several therapies are approved for advanced stage melanoma, but it is unclear if there is a differential outcome to various immunotherapy regimens based on BRAF mutation status. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of metastatic or unresectable melanoma patients who were treated with combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) or anti-PD-1 monotherapy, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab, as first-line treatment. 235 previously untreated patients were identified in our study. Our univariate analysis showed no statistical difference in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with ipi/nivo versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the BRAF V600 mutant cohort, but there was improved PFS [HR: 0.48, 95% CI, 0.28-0.80] and OS [HR: 0.50, 95% CI, 0.26-0.96] with ipi/nivo compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the BRAF WT group. After adjusting for known prognostic variables in our multivariable analysis, the BRAF WT cohort continued to show PFS and OS benefit with ipi/nivo compared to anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Our single-institution analysis suggests ipi/nivo should be considered over anti-PD-1 monotherapy as the initial immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma patients regardless of BRAF mutation status, but possibly with greater benefit in BRAF WT.