Ipilimumab alone or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-1) induces long-term disease control in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic melanoma; however, two-thirds of patients are resistant and will require further treatment. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) compared with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-[L]1). METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, was done at 15 melanoma centres in Australia, Europe, and the USA. We included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic melanoma (unresectable stage III and IV), who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (innate or acquired resistance) and who then received either ipilimumab monotherapy or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab), based on availability of therapies or clinical factors determined by the physician, or both. Tumour response was assessed as per standard of care (CT or PET-CT scans every 3 months). The study endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1. FINDINGS: We included 355 patients with metastatic melanoma, resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), who had been treated with ipilimumab monotherapy (n=162 [46%]) or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (n=193 [54%]) between Feb 1, 2011, and Feb 6, 2020. At a median follow-up of 22·1 months (IQR 9·5-30·9), the objective response rate was higher with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (60 [31%] of 193 patients) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (21 [13%] of 162 patients; p<0·0001). Overall survival was longer in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group (median overall survival 20·4 months [95% CI 12·7-34·8]) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (8·8 months [6·1-11·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival was also longer with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (median 3·0 months [95% CI 2·6-3·6]) than with ipilimumab (2·6 months [2·4-2·9]; HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·87; p=0·0019). Similar proportions of patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events in both groups (59 [31%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 54 [33%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were diarrhoea or colitis (23 [12%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 33 [20%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group) and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (24 [12%] vs 15 [9%]). One death occurred with ipilimumab 26 days after the last treatment: a colon perforation due to immune-related pancolitis. INTERPRETATION: In patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1, ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 seemed to yield higher efficacy than ipilimumab with a higher objective response rate, longer progression-free, and longer overall survival, with a similar rate of grade 3-5 toxicity. Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 should be favoured over ipilimumab alone as a second-line immunotherapy for these patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: None.

Integrating Personal Air Sensor and GPS to Determine Microenvironment-Specific Exposures to Volatile Organic Compounds.

Personal exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from indoor sources including consumer products is an understudied public health concern. To develop and evaluate methods for monitoring personal VOC exposures, we performed a pilot study and examined time-resolved sensor-based measurements of geocoded total VOC (TVOC) exposures across individuals and microenvironments (MEs). We integrated continuous (1 min) data from a personal TVOC sensor and a global positioning system (GPS) logger, with a GPS-based ME classification model, to determine TVOC exposures in four MEs, including indoors at home (Home-In), indoors at other buildings (Other-In), inside vehicles (In-Vehicle), and outdoors (Out), across 45 participant-days for five participants. To help identify places with large emission sources, we identified high-exposure events (HEEs; TVOC > 500 ppb) using geocoded TVOC time-course data overlaid on Google Earth maps. Across the 45 participant-days, the MEs ranked from highest to lowest median TVOC were: Home-In (165 ppb), Other-In (86 ppb), In-Vehicle (52 ppb), and Out (46 ppb). For the two participants living in single-family houses with attached garages, the median exposures for Home-In were substantially higher (209, 416 ppb) than the three participant homes without attached garages: one living in a single-family house (129 ppb), and two living in apartments (38, 60 ppb). The daily average Home-In exposures exceeded the estimated Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building guideline of 108 ppb for 60% of the participant-days. We identified 94 HEEs across all participant-days, and 67% of the corresponding peak levels exceeded 1000 ppb. The MEs ranked from the highest to the lowest number of HEEs were: Home-In (60), Other-In (13), In-Vehicle (12), and Out (9). For Other-In and Out, most HEEs occurred indoors at fast food restaurants and retail stores, and outdoors in parking lots, respectively. For Home-In HEEs, the median TVOC emission and removal rates were 5.4 g h-1 and 1.1 h-1, respectively. Our study demonstrates the ability to determine individual sensor-based time-resolved TVOC exposures in different MEs, in support of identifying potential sources and exposure factors that can inform exposure mitigation strategies.