Genomic and Transcriptomic Features of Response to Anti-PD-1 Therapy in Metastatic Melanoma.

PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade provides significant clinical benefits for melanoma patients. We analyzed the somatic mutanomes and transcriptomes of pretreatment melanoma biopsies to identify factors that may influence innate sensitivity or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. We find that overall high mutational loads associate with improved survival, and tumors from responding patients are enriched for mutations in the DNA repair gene BRCA2. Innately resistant tumors display a transcriptional signature (referred to as the IPRES, or innate anti-PD-1 resistance), indicating concurrent up-expression of genes involved in the regulation of mesenchymal transition, cell adhesion, extracellular matrix remodeling, angiogenesis, and wound healing. Notably, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-targeted therapy (MAPK inhibitor) induces similar signatures in melanoma, suggesting that a non-genomic form of MAPK inhibitor resistance mediates cross-resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. Validation of the IPRES in other independent tumor cohorts defines a transcriptomic subset across distinct types of advanced cancer. These findings suggest that attenuating the biological processes that underlie IPRES may improve anti-PD-1 response in melanoma and other cancer types.

A plain language summary exploring a new treatment combination for untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer: enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary provides the results of a study of two treatments for cancer, enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab, that were studied together against locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC), a cancer that occurs most commonly in the bladder. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In the 45 patients studied, around 16% did have serious side effects, but most side effects were manageable. Twenty-four percent of patients, however, stopped the study treatment because of their side effects. Within about 2 months of starting treatment, most patients' (73%) tumors were smaller and stayed smaller, on average, for more than 2 years. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer when they cannot receive the typical treatment, cisplatin. Advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer is a type of cancer where the cancer has already spread outside of the bladder or urinary tract.

Isolation and characterization of NY-ESO-1-specific T cell receptors restricted on various MHC molecules.

Tumor-specific T cell receptor (TCR) gene transfer enables specific and potent immune targeting of tumor antigens. Due to the prevalence of the HLA-A2 MHC class I supertype in most human populations, the majority of TCR gene therapy trials targeting public antigens have employed HLA-A2-restricted TCRs, limiting this approach to those patients expressing this allele. For these patients, TCR gene therapy trials have resulted in both tantalizing successes and lethal adverse events, underscoring the need for careful selection of antigenic targets. Broad and safe application of public antigen-targeted TCR gene therapies will require (i) selecting public antigens that are highly tumor-specific and (ii) targeting multiple epitopes derived from these antigens by obtaining an assortment of TCRs restricted by multiple common MHC alleles. The canonical cancer-testis antigen, NY-ESO-1, is not expressed in normal tissues but is aberrantly expressed across a broad array of cancer types. It has also been targeted with A2-restricted TCR gene therapy without adverse events or notable side effects. To enable the targeting of NY-ESO-1 in a broader array of HLA haplotypes, we isolated TCRs specific for NY-ESO-1 epitopes presented by four MHC molecules: HLA-A2, -B07, -B18, and -C03. Using these TCRs, we pilot an approach to extend TCR gene therapies targeting NY-ESO-1 to patient populations beyond those expressing HLA-A2.

Pembrolizumab with or Without Lenvatinib as First-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (LEAP-011): A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pembrolizumab plus either lenvatinib or placebo as first-line therapy for advanced UC in the phase 3 LEAP-011 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC who were ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy or any platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus either lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An external data monitoring committee (DMC) regularly reviewed safety and efficacy data every 3 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between June 25, 2019 and July 21, 2021, 487 patients were allocated to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 245) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n = 242). The median time from randomization to the data cutoff date (July 26, 2021) was 12.8 mo (interquartile range, 6.9-19.3). The median PFS was 4.5 mo in the combination arm and 4.0 mo in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.72-1.14]). The median OS was 11.8 mo for the combination arm and 12.9 mo for the pembrolizumab arm (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.87-1.48]). Grade 3-5 adverse events attributed to trial treatment occurred in 123 of 241 patients (51%) treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 66 of 242 patients (27%) treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab. This trial was terminated earlier than initially planned based on recommendation from the DMC. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-to-risk ratio for first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not considered favorable versus pembrolizumab plus placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not more effective than pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Temporal changes in treatment patterns by age group and functional status before and after PD-1/L1 inhibitor approvals in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Introduction: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) has poor prognosis. A high unmet need exists for novel treatment for those who are unfit for platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods: We aimed to describe real-world temporal changes in patient characteristics and 1L treatment selection for mUC patients in the United States following the approval of anti-PD-1/L1 treatments. This study was a retrospective, observational study using anonymized and structured oncology electronic medical record (EMR) data from IQVIA and the US Oncology Network iKnowMed (USON). Results: After approval of 1L anti-PD-1/L1 treatment for mUC, there is a marked increase in the use of 1L anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapies, accompanied by a proportional decrease in 1L platinum-based treatments and non-guideline-based therapy; particularly among the elderly (> 75 years) and those with poor ECOG performance status (ECOG PS 2+). Discussion: Anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapies fulfill the prior unmet need of frail mUC patients who are ineligible for platinum-based therapies.

Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab in Previously Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC); however, toxicity is substantial, responses are rarely durable, and many patients with la/mUC are ineligible. Each enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab have shown a survival benefit versus chemotherapy in UC, are not restricted by cisplatin eligibility, and warrant investigation as a first-line (1L) combination therapy in patients ineligible for cisplatin. METHODS: In this ongoing phase Ib/II, multicenter, open-label study, 1L cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC received enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg once daily on days 1 and 8 and pembrolizumab 200 mg (day 1) intravenously once daily in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was safety. Key secondary end points included confirmed objective response rate, duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty-five patients received enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were peripheral sensory neuropathy (55.6%), fatigue (51.1%), and alopecia (48.9%). Twenty-nine patients (64.4%) had grade 3 or higher TRAEs; the most common were increased lipase (17.8%), maculopapular rash (11.1%), and fatigue (11.1%). One death (2.2%) was classified as a TRAE. The confirmed objective response rate after a median of nine cycles was 73.3% with a complete response rate of 15.6%. The median DOR and median OS were 25.6 months and 26.1 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab showed a manageable safety profile. Most patients experienced tumor shrinkage. The median DOR and median OS exceeding 2 years in a cisplatin-ineligible patient population make this a promising combination currently under investigation in a phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04223856).

Standard-Dose Pembrolizumab Plus Alternate-Dose Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma: KEYNOTE-029 Cohort 1C, a Phase 2 Randomized Study of Two Dosing Schedules.

PURPOSE: Standard-dose pembrolizumab plus alternative-dose ipilimumab (1 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses) were tolerable and had robust antitumor activity in advanced melanoma in cohort B of the phase 1 KEYNOTE-029 study. Cohort C evaluated standard-dose pembrolizumab with two other alternative ipilimumab regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive unresectable stage III/IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for ≤24 months plus ipilimumab 50 mg Q6W for 4 doses (PEM200+IPI50), or the same pembrolizumab regimen plus ipilimumab 100 mg Q12W for 4 doses (PEM200+IPI100). Primary end points were incidence of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review. Per protocol-defined thresholds, grade 3-5 TRAE incidence ≤26% indicated meaningful toxicity reduction and ORR ≥48% indicated no decrease in efficacy versus data reported for other PD-1 inhibitor/ipilimumab combinations. RESULTS: Median follow-up on February 18, 2019, was 16.3 months in PEM200+IPI50 (N = 51) and 16.4 months in PEM200+IPI100 (N = 51). Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 12 (24%) patients in PEM200+IPI50 and 20 (39%) in PEM200+IPI100. One patient in PEM200+IPI50 died from treatment-related autoimmune myocarditis. Immune-mediated AEs or infusion reactions occurred in 21 (42%) patients in PEM200+IPI50 and 28 (55%) in PEM200+IPI100. ORR was 55% in PEM200+IPI50; 61% in PEM200+IPI100. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus ipilimumab 50 mg Q6W or 100 mg Q12W demonstrated antitumor activity above the predefined threshold; pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab 50 mg Q6W had lower incidence of grade 3-5 TRAEs than the predefined threshold, suggesting a reduction in toxicity. See related commentary by Jameson-Lee and Luke, p. 5153.

Long-term outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma who had initial stable disease with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-001 and KEYNOTE-006.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with melanoma and early stable disease (SD) with pembrolizumab have unclear prognosis. We present post hoc analyses of long-term outcomes for patients with early SD, partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) with pembrolizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who received pembrolizumab in the KEYNOTE-001 and KEYNOTE-006 studies and had SD, PR or CR at weeks 12 or 24 were included. RESULTS: Of 294 patients in the week 12 analysis, 107 (36.4%) had SD at week 12, of whom 7 (6.5%) had a best overall response of CR, 43 (40.2%) had PR and 57 (53.3%) had SD. Forty-eight-month overall survival (OS) rates were 95.2%, 73.0% and 47.7%, respectively, for patients with CR, PR and SD at week 12. Similar results were observed in the 241 patients in the week 24 analysis. Forty-eight-month OS rates were 72.1% for patients with SD at week 12 followed by subsequent response and 75.0% for patients with PR at week 12 followed by no change in response or progression. Thirty-six-month and 48-month OS rates were 11.6% and not reached, respectively, for patients with SD at week 12 followed by progression before week 24. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients (46.7%) with early (week 12) SD with pembrolizumab achieved subsequent PR or CR. Patients with SD at week 12 and subsequent CR/PR had similar survival to those who maintained PR. In contrast, patients with SD at week 12 and subsequent progression had poor survival outcomes. These findings may guide treatment decisions for patients achieving early SD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01295827 (KEYNOTE-001); NCT01866319 (KEYNOTE-006).

The cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy or atezolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma in the United States.

Aims: Pembrolizumab demonstrated significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) vs. chemotherapy in the Phase III KEYNOTE-045 trial, and is approved in the US for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. Using longer follow-up and individual patient-data from KEYNOTE-045, this study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy or atezolizumab from a US payer perspective.Materials and methods: A partitioned-survival model was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy were extrapolated using a piecewise modelling approach, where patient-level data from KEYNOTE-045 were used for the initial period followed by parametric distributions. OS of atezolizumab was estimated by indirect treatment comparisons based on KEYNOTE-045 and IMvigor211. Different scenarios were explored in the absence of indirect comparisons on PFS and time-on-treatment (ToT) between pembrolizumab and atezolizumab. Drug acquisition/administration, disease management, adverse events, and terminal care costs were considered.Results: Compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab resulted in a mean gain of 1.33 life-years and 1.14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and an incremental cost of $106,299, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $93,481/QALY gained. Pembrolizumab dominated atezolizumab in extending patients' life by 0.89 years and 0.76 QALYs, while reducing costs by $26,458. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included survival extrapolation, OS hazard ratio of pembrolizumab vs. atezolizumab, and time horizon. Pembrolizumab had a 66% and 100% probability of being cost-effective vs. chemotherapy and atezolizumab, respectively, at a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.Limitations and conclusions: Uncertainties remain with extrapolated PFS and OS for pembrolizumab, OS indirect comparison, and ToT for atezolizumab. Despite these limitations, the model used robust methods to estimate key clinical endpoints with patient-level data from longer follow-up of KEYNOTE-045. Pembrolizumab dominates atezolizumab and is very likely cost-effective vs. chemotherapy in 2 L mUC at a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

Publisher Correction: Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition with PD-1 blockade immunotherapy in BRAF-mutant melanoma.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition with PD-1 blockade immunotherapy in BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Oncogene-targeted therapy with B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF) and mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors induces a high initial response rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma, with a median duration of response of approximately 1 year1-3. Immunotherapy with antibodies to programmed death 1 (PD-1) produces lower response rates but with long response duration. Preclinical models suggest that combining BRAF and MEK inhibitors with PD-1 blockade therapy improves antitumor activity4-6, which may provide additional treatment options for patients unlikely to have long-lasting responses to either mode of therapy alone. We enrolled 15 patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma in a first-in-human clinical trial of dabrafenib, trametinib and pembrolizumab ( NCT02130466 ). Eleven patients (73%) experienced grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events, the most common being elevation of liver function tests and pyrexia, most of which resolved with drug interruption or discontinuation of either the anti-PD-1 antibody or the targeted therapy combination. Eleven patients (73%; 95% confidence interval = 45-92%) had an objective response, and six (40%; 95% confidence interval = 16-68%) continued with a response at a median follow-up of 27 months (range = 10.3-38.4+ months) for all patients. This study suggests that this triple-combined therapy may benefit a subset of patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma by increasing the frequency of long-lasting antitumor responses.

Dabrafenib, trametinib and pembrolizumab or placebo in BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Blocking programmed death 1 (PD-1) may enhance the durability of anti-tumor responses that are induced by the combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK1. Here we performed a randomized phase 2 trial ( NCT02130466 ), in which patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600E/K-mutant, advanced melanoma received the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib together with the PD-1-blocking antibody pembrolizumab (triplet; n = 60) or placebo (doublet; n = 60). The primary end point of progression-free survival was numerically improved in the triplet group-16.0 months-compared with 10.3 months in the doublet group (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = 0.043); however, the trial did not reach the planned benefit for a statistically significant improvement. Median duration of response was 18.7 months (95% confidence interval, 10.1-22.1) and 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 6.0-14.1); 59.8 and 27.8% of responses were estimated to have lasted for more than 18 months for triplet and doublet treatment, respectively. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 58.3 and 26.7% of patients treated with triplet and doublet therapies, respectively, which were most commonly fever, increased transaminase levels and rash. One patient who received triplet therapy died of pneumonitis. In summary, triplet therapy with dabrafenib, trametinib and pembrolizumab conferred numerically longer progression-free survival and duration of response with a higher rate of grade 3/4 adverse events compared with the doublet therapy of dabrafenib, trametinib and placebo.

Development of MK-8353, an orally administered ERK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Constitutive activation of ERK1/2 occurs in various cancers, and its reactivation is a well-described resistance mechanism to MAPK inhibitors. ERK inhibitors may overcome the limitations of MAPK inhibitor blockade. The dual mechanism inhibitor SCH772984 has shown promising preclinical activity across various BRAFV600/RAS-mutant cancer cell lines and human cancer xenografts. METHODS: We have developed an orally bioavailable ERK inhibitor, MK-8353; conducted preclinical studies to demonstrate activity, pharmacodynamic endpoints, dosing, and schedule; completed a study in healthy volunteers (P07652); and subsequently performed a phase I clinical trial in patients with advanced solid tumors (MK-8353-001). In the P07652 study, MK-8353 was administered as a single dose in 10- to 400-mg dose cohorts, whereas in the MK-8353-001 study, MK-8353 was administered in 100- to 800-mg dose cohorts orally twice daily. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity were analyzed. RESULTS: MK-8353 exhibited comparable potency with SCH772984 across various preclinical cancer models. Forty-eight patients were enrolled in the P07652 study, and twenty-six patients were enrolled in the MK-8353-001 study. Adverse events included diarrhea (44%), fatigue (40%), nausea (32%), and rash (28%). Dose-limiting toxicity was observed in the 400-mg and 800-mg dose cohorts. Sufficient exposure to MK-8353 was noted that correlated with biological activity in preclinical data. Three of fifteen patients evaluable for treatment response in the MK-8353-001 study had partial response, all with BRAFV600-mutant melanomas. CONCLUSION: MK-8353 was well tolerated up to 400 mg twice daily and exhibited antitumor activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. However, antitumor activity was not particularly correlated with pharmacodynamic parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01358331. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., and NIH (P01 CA168585 and R35 CA197633).

MAPK pathway inhibition induces MET and GAB1 levels, priming BRAF mutant melanoma for rescue by hepatocyte growth factor.

Therapeutic resistance is a major obstacle to achieving durable clinical responses with targeted therapies, highlighting a need to elucidate the underlying mechanisms responsible for resistance and identify strategies to overcome this challenge. An emerging body of data implicates the tyrosine kinase MET in mediating resistance to BRAF inhibitors in BRAFV600E mutant melanoma. In this study we observed a dominant role for the HGF/MET axis in mediating resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors in models of BRAFV600E and NRAS mutant melanoma. In addition, we showed that MAPK pathway inhibition induced rapid increases in MET and GAB1 levels, providing novel mechanistic insight into how BRAFV600E mutant melanoma is primed for HGF-mediated rescue. We also determined that tumor-derived HGF, not systemic HGF, may be required to convey resistance to BRAF inhibition in vivo and that resistance could be reversed following treatment with AMG 337, a selective MET inhibitor. In summary, these findings support the clinical evaluation of MET-directed targeted therapy to circumvent resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAFV600E mutant melanoma. In addition, the induction of MET following treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has the potential to serve as a predictive biomarker for identifying patients best suited for MET inhibitor combination therapy.

Interferon Receptor Signaling Pathways Regulating PD-L1 and PD-L2 Expression.

PD-L1 and PD-L2 are ligands for the PD-1 immune inhibiting checkpoint that can be induced in tumors by interferon exposure, leading to immune evasion. This process is important for immunotherapy based on PD-1 blockade. We examined the specific molecules involved in interferon-induced signaling that regulates PD-L1 and PD-L2 expression in melanoma cells. These studies revealed that the interferon-gamma-JAK1/JAK2-STAT1/STAT2/STAT3-IRF1 axis primarily regulates PD-L1 expression, with IRF1 binding to its promoter. PD-L2 responded equally to interferon beta and gamma and is regulated through both IRF1 and STAT3, which bind to the PD-L2 promoter. Analysis of biopsy specimens from patients with melanoma confirmed interferon signature enrichment and upregulation of gene targets for STAT1/STAT2/STAT3 and IRF1 in anti-PD-1-responding tumors. Therefore, these studies map the signaling pathway of interferon-gamma-inducible PD-1 ligand expression.