Neoadjuvant relatlimab and nivolumab in resectable melanoma.

Relatlimab and nivolumab combination immunotherapy improves progression-free survival over nivolumab monotherapy in patients with unresectable advanced melanoma1. We investigated this regimen in patients with resectable clinical stage III or oligometastatic stage IV melanoma (NCT02519322). Patients received two neoadjuvant doses (nivolumab 480 mg and relatlimab 160 mg intravenously every 4 weeks) followed by surgery, and then ten doses of adjuvant combination therapy. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate2. The combination resulted in 57% pCR rate and 70% overall pathologic response rate among 30 patients treated. The radiographic response rate using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 was 57%. No grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events were observed in the neoadjuvant setting. The 1- and 2-year recurrence-free survival rate was 100% and 92% for patients with any pathologic response, compared to 88% and 55% for patients who did not have a pathologic response (P = 0.005). Increased immune cell infiltration at baseline, and decrease in M2 macrophages during treatment, were associated with pathologic response. Our results indicate that neoadjuvant relatlimab and nivolumab induces a high pCR rate. Safety during neoadjuvant therapy is favourable compared to other combination immunotherapy regimens. These data, in combination with the results of the RELATIVITY-047 trial1, provide further confirmation of the efficacy and safety of this new immunotherapy regimen.

B cells are associated with survival and immunotherapy response in sarcoma.

Soft-tissue sarcomas represent a heterogeneous group of cancer, with more than 50 histological subtypes1,2. The clinical presentation of patients with different subtypes is often atypical, and responses to therapies such as immune checkpoint blockade vary widely3,4. To explain this clinical variability, here we study gene expression profiles in 608 tumours across subtypes of soft-tissue sarcoma. We establish an immune-based classification on the basis of the composition of the tumour microenvironment and identify five distinct phenotypes: immune-low (A and B), immune-high (D and E), and highly vascularized (C) groups. In situ analysis of an independent validation cohort shows that class E was characterized by the presence of tertiary lymphoid structures that contain T cells and follicular dendritic cells and are particularly rich in B cells. B cells are the strongest prognostic factor even in the context of high or low CD8+ T cells and cytotoxic contents. The class-E group demonstrated improved survival and a high response rate to PD1 blockade with pembrolizumab in a phase 2 clinical trial. Together, this work confirms the immune subtypes in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma, and unravels the potential of B-cell-rich tertiary lymphoid structures to guide clinical decision-making and treatments, which could have broader applications in other diseases.

B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures promote immunotherapy response.

Treatment with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has revolutionized cancer therapy. Until now, predictive biomarkers1-10 and strategies to augment clinical response have largely focused on the T cell compartment. However, other immune subsets may also contribute to anti-tumour immunity11-15, although these have been less well-studied in ICB treatment16. A previously conducted neoadjuvant ICB trial in patients with melanoma showed via targeted expression profiling17 that B cell signatures were enriched in the tumours of patients who respond to treatment versus non-responding patients. To build on this, here we performed bulk RNA sequencing and found that B cell markers were the most differentially expressed genes in the tumours of responders versus non-responders. Our findings were corroborated using a computational method (MCP-counter18) to estimate the immune and stromal composition in this and two other ICB-treated cohorts (patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma). Histological evaluation highlighted the localization of B cells within tertiary lymphoid structures. We assessed the potential functional contributions of B cells via bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing, which demonstrate clonal expansion and unique functional states of B cells in responders. Mass cytometry showed that switched memory B cells were enriched in the tumours of responders. Together, these data provide insights into the potential role of B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures in the response to ICB treatment, with implications for the development of biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

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.).

Utility of next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis of metastatic melanoma: A case report.

During routine dermatologic examination, a 77-year-old male was noted to have a firm blue subcutaneous nodule on his right lateral upper back. His past medical history included metastatic melanoma of unknown primary involving right and left axillary lymph nodes, treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab with complete response, and subsequent primary uveal melanoma. The subcutaneous nodule was located near his previous right axillary scar for metastatic melanoma. Excision of the nodule showed a plexiform neoplasm involving mid and deep dermis composed of spindle and epithelioid atypical cells admixed with numerous melanophages. Central necrosis was present. Immunohistochemical studies revealed the tumor cells to be diffusely positive for HMB45, with retained expression of BAP1 and p16. The tumor cells were negative for PRAME, nuclear expression of ß-catenin, LEF1, and BRAF V600E. Molecular studies demonstrated BAP1 and GNA11 somatic mutations, a profile different from that exhibited by his prior melanoma. Collectively, these data were interpreted as a metastasis from uveal melanoma and not a recurrence of his metastatic likely cutaneous melanoma after complete response to immunotherapy. This case emphasizes the importance of molecular studies for definitive diagnosis in challenging clinical situations, especially when there is discordance among histopathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular studies. Integration of clinical, histopathological, and molecular features is warranted.

Current drug development and trial designs in neuro-oncology: report from the first American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society for Neuro-Oncology Clinical Trials Conference.

Successful drug development for people with cancers of the CNS has been challenging. There are multiple barriers to successful drug development including biological factors, rarity of the disease, and ineffective use of clinical trials. Based upon a series of presentations at the First Central Nervous System Clinical Trials Conference hosted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Society for Neuro-Oncology, we provide an overview on drug development and novel trial designs in neuro-oncology. This Review discusses the challenges of therapeutic development in neuro-oncology and proposes strategies to improve the drug discovery process by enriching the pipeline of promising therapies, optimising trial design, incorporating biomarkers, using external data, and maximising efficacy and reproducibility of clinical trials.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases. METHODS: TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, brain metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (11 [18%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients who received triplet therapy in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

National Cancer Institute Collaborative Workshop on Shaping the Landscape of Brain Metastases Research: challenges and recommended priorities.

Brain metastases are an increasing global public health concern, even as survival rates improve for patients with metastatic disease. Both metastases and the sequelae of their treatment are key determinants of the inter-related priorities of patient survival, function, and quality of life, mandating a multidimensional approach to clinical care and research. At a virtual National Cancer Institute Workshop in September, 2022, key stakeholders convened to define research priorities to address the crucial areas of unmet need for patients with brain metastases to achieve meaningful advances in patient outcomes. This Policy Review outlines existing knowledge gaps, collaborative opportunities, and specific recommendations regarding consensus priorities and future directions in brain metastases research. Achieving major advances in research will require enhanced coordination between the ongoing efforts of individual organisations and consortia. Importantly, the continual and active engagement of patients and patient advocates will be necessary to ensure that the directionality of all efforts reflects what is most meaningful in the context of patient care.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Suppress Hepatitis C Virus Replication in Infected Patients With Solid Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Data are scarce regarding the virologic impact and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We examined the virologic impact of ICI in HCV-infected patients with solid tumors and their safety. METHODS: HCV-infected patients with solid tumor treated with ICI at our institution between April 26, 2016, and January 5, 2022, were enrolled in a prospective observational study. The primary outcomes were ICI-induced changes in HCV viremia (HCV inhibition and HCV reactivation) and safety of ICI. RESULTS: We enrolled 52 consecutive patients with solid tumors treated with ICI. Most were men (41; 79%), White (31; 59%), without cirrhosis (34; 65%), and with HCV genotype 1 (40; 77%). Four patients (7.7%) experienced HCV inhibition while receiving ICI including 1 patient who developed undetectable viremia for 6 months in the absence of direct-acting antivirals (DAA). Two patients (4%) developed HCV reactivation, both while receiving immunosuppressive therapy for ICI-related toxic effects. Adverse events occurred in 36 patients (69%), and 39 of the 47 adverse events (83%) were grade 1-2. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 8 patients (15%), and in all cases, they were related to ICI, not to HCV. No HCV-associated liver failure or death occurred. DISCUSSION: Inhibition of HCV replication with virologic cure can develop in patients receiving ICI without DAA. HCV reactivation occurs primarily in patients receiving immunosuppressants for ICI-related toxic effects. ICI are safe in HCV-infected patients with solid tumors. Chronic HCV infection should not be considered a contraindication for ICI therapy.

A phase 1 study of veliparib (ABT-888) plus weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced solid malignancies, with an expansion cohort in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) (ETCTN 8620).

BACKGROUND: Veliparib is a poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, and it has clinical activity with every 3 weeks carboplatin and paclitaxel. In breast cancer, weekly paclitaxel is associated with improved overall survival. We aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of veliparib with weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel as well as safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic solid tumors and adequate organ function were eligible. A standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was followed by a TNBC expansion cohort. Veliparib doses ranging from 50 to 200 mg orally bid were tested with carboplatin (AUC 2) and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) given weekly in a 21-day cycle. Adverse events (AE) were evaluated by CTCAE v4.0, and objective response rate (ORR) was determined by RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled, of whom 22 had TNBC. Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The RP2D was determined to be 150 mg PO bid veliparib with weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel 2 weeks on, 1 week off, based on hematologic toxicity requiring dose reduction in the first 5 cycles of treatment. The most common grade 3/4 AEs included neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. PK parameters of veliparib were comparable to single-agent veliparib. In 23 patients with evaluable disease, the ORR was 65%. In 19 patients with TNBC with evaluable disease, the ORR was 63%. CONCLUSION: Veliparib can be safely combined with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin, and this triplet combination has promising clinical activity.

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.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases. METHODS: TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, CNS metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (ten [17%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. One death in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort (limbic encephalitis) was considered to be related to atezolizumab treatment. INTERPRETATION: Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib provided promising intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Cutaneous adverse events in 155 patients with metastatic melanoma consecutively treated with anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 combination immunotherapy: Incidence, management, and clinical benefit.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increased use of combination checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and the resulting increased cutaneous adverse events (CAEs), this study reviewed patients with melanoma treated with combination CPIs to characterize CAE features and their clinical impact, correlation to adverse events in other organs, and correlation to tumor response. METHODS: Patients from the authors' institutional database who received at least 1 dose of ipilimumab in combination with either nivolumab or pembrolizumab between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, for stage IV or unresectable stage III melanoma were identified. The time to next treatment (TTNT) was calculated from the start of CPI therapy to the start of the next treatment or death, and the development of CAEs was tested in a time-dependent Cox regression to identify associations with TTNT. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (52.3%) experienced a total of 92 CAEs, including eczematous dermatitis (25.0%), morbilliform eruption (22.8%), vitiligo (12.0%), and pruritus without rash (8.7%). The median times to the onset and resolution of CAEs were 21 days (range, 0-341 days) and 50 days (range, 1-352 days), respectively. Most CAEs resolved after patients entered the CPI maintenance phase and treatment with oral antihistamines with or without topical steroids. CPI discontinuation occurred in 4 patients (2.6%) because of CAEs, in 49 (31.6%) because of other immune-related adverse events, and in 20 (12.9%) because of melanoma progression or death. For patients definitively treated with CPIs (n = 134; 86.5%), TTNT was significantly longer with CAEs than without CAEs (hazard ratio, 0.567; 95% CI, 0.331-0.972; P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: CAEs were mostly reversible and rarely required therapy discontinuation. The development of CAEs was associated with a longer TTNT, and this suggested a possible clinical benefit.

The "Great Debate" at Melanoma Bridge 2021, December 2nd-4th, 2021.

The Great Debate session at the 2021 Melanoma Bridge virtual congress (December 2-4) featured counterpoint views from experts on seven important issues in melanoma. The debates considered the use of adoptive cell therapy versus use of bispecific antibodies, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors versus immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whether the use of corticosteroids for the management of side effects have an impact on outcomes, the choice of programmed death (PD)-1 combination therapy with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 or lymphocyte-activation gene (LAG)-3, whether radiation is needed for brain metastases, when lymphadenectomy should be integrated into the treatment plan and then the last debate, telemedicine versus face-to-face. As with previous Bridge congresses, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs and positions taken by experts during the debates may not have necessarily reflected their respective personal view. Audiences voted both before and after each debate.

Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy (NAST) in Patients with Melanoma: Surgical Considerations by the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC).

Exciting advances in melanoma systemic therapies have presented the opportunity for surgical oncologists and their multidisciplinary colleagues to test the neoadjuvant systemic treatment approach in high-risk, resectable metastatic melanomas. Here we describe the state of the science of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) for melanoma, focusing on the surgical aspects and the key role of the surgical oncologist in this treatment paradigm. This paper summarizes the past decade of developments in melanoma treatment and the current evidence for NAST in stage III melanoma specifically. Issues of surgical relevance are discussed, including the risk of progression on NAST prior to surgery. Technical aspects, such as the definition of resectability for melanoma and the extent and scope of routine surgery are presented. Other important issues, such as the utility of radiographic response evaluation and method of pathologic response evaluation, are addressed. Surgical complications and perioperative management of NAST related adverse events are considered. The International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium has the goal of harmonizing NAST trials in melanoma to facilitate rapid advances with new approaches, and facilitating the comparison of results across trials evaluating different treatment regimens. Our ultimate goals are to provide definitive proof of the safety and efficacy of NAST in melanoma, sufficient for NAST to become an acceptable standard of care, and to leverage this platform to allow more personalized, biomarker-driven, tailored approaches to subsequent treatment and surveillance.

Current and emerging options for patients with melanoma brain metastases.

Melanoma is the most aggressive skin cancer, with a high incidence of metastatic spread and a predilection for metastases to the brain. It represents the third most common origin of brain metastases after breast and lung cancer. With the advent of targeted therapy and immunotherapy in melanoma, along with improved local therapy options such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), the treatment of melanoma brain metastases (MBM) has led to significant improvements in outcome. In this review, we provide an overview of management options for patients with MBM while highlighting emerging treatment options. Surgery may be considered for patients with symptomatic MBM, whereas SRS is considered standard for patients with 1 to 4 brain lesions. Combination immunotherapy has led to durable intracranial responses and improved long-term outcomes for patients with asymptomatic MBM. The data available to date have shown that patients with MBM can have a durable response and overall response that are similar to those of patients without brain metastases, and additional trials are ongoing. Mounting evidence suggests that patients with MBM should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials, which range from early-phase trials to phase 3 studies, to accelerate much-needed drug development in this population.

Autoimmune antibodies correlate with immune checkpoint therapy-induced toxicities.

Immune checkpoint (IC) therapy provides substantial benefits to cancer patients but can also cause distinctive toxicities termed immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Biomarkers to predict toxicities will be necessary to improve management of patients receiving IC therapy. We relied on serological analysis of recombinant cDNA expression libraries to evaluate plasma samples from patients treated with IC therapy and identified autoantibodies, both in pretreatment and on-treatment samples prior to the development of irAEs, which correlate with the development of immune-related hypophysitis (anti-GNAL and anti-ITM2B autoantibodies) and pneumonitis (anti-CD74 autoantibody). We developed an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and tested additional patient samples to confirm our initial findings. Collectively, our data suggest that autoantibodies may correlate with irAEs related to IC therapy, and specific autoantibodies may be detected early for the management of irAEs.

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.

Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma have excluded patients with untreated brain metastases. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma and at least one measurable, nonirradiated brain metastasis (tumor diameter, 0.5 to 3 cm) and no neurologic symptoms received nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of intracranial clinical benefit, defined as the percentage of patients who had stable disease for at least 6 months, complete response, or partial response. RESULTS: Among 94 patients with a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of intracranial clinical benefit was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47 to 68); the rate of complete response was 26%, the rate of partial response was 30%, and the rate of stable disease for at least 6 months was 2%. The rate of extracranial clinical benefit was 56% (95% CI, 46 to 67). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 55% of patients, including events involving the central nervous system in 7%. One patient died from immune-related myocarditis. The safety profile of the regimen was similar to that reported in patients with melanoma who do not have brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the National Cancer Institute; CheckMate 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320058 .).