Faculty Bibliography

A mass spectrometry analysis was performed using serum from patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors to define baseline protein signatures associated with outcome in metastatic melanoma. Pretreatment serum was obtained from a development set of 119 melanoma patients on a trial of nivolumab with or without a multipeptide vaccine and from patients receiving pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or both nivolumab and ipilimumab. Spectra were obtained using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry. These data combined with clinical data identified patients with better or worse outcomes. The test was applied to five independent patient cohorts treated with checkpoint inhibitors and its biology investigated using enrichment analyses. A signature consisting of 209 proteins or peptides was associated with progression-free and overall survival in a multivariate analysis. The test performance across validation cohorts was consistent with the development set results. A pooled analysis, stratified by set, demonstrated a significantly better overall survival for "sensitive" relative to "resistant" patients, HR = 0.15 (95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.40, P < 0.001). The test was also associated with survival in a cohort of ipilimumab-treated patients. Test classification was found to be associated with acute phase reactant, complement, and wound healing pathways. We conclude that a pretreatment signature of proteins, defined by mass spectrometry analysis and machine learning, predicted survival in patients receiving PD-1 blocking antibodies. This signature of proteins was associated with acute phase reactants and elements of wound healing and the complement cascade. This signature merits further study to determine if it identifies patients who would benefit from PD-1 blockade. Cancer Immunol Res; 6(1); 79-86. ©2017 AACR.

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy has led to major treatment advances for several cancers including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Despite this, a significant percentage of patients do not respond or develop resistance. Potential mechanisms of resistance include lack of expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), decreased capacity to present tumor antigens, and the presence of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Mocetinostat is a spectrum-selective inhibitor of class I/IV histone deacetylases (HDACs), a family of proteins implicated in epigenetic silencing of immune regulatory genes in tumor and immune cells. Mocetinostat upregulated PD-L1 and antigen presentation genes including class I and II human leukocyte antigen (HLA) family members in a panel of NSCLC cell lines in vitro. Mocetinostat target gene promoters were occupied by a class I HDAC and exhibited increased active histone marks after mocetinostat treatment. Mocetinostat synergized with interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) in regulating class II transactivator (CIITA), a master regulator of class II HLA gene expression. In a syngeneic tumor model, mocetinostat decreased intratumoral T-regulatory cells (Tregs) and potentially myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) populations and increased intratumoral CD8+ populations. In ex vivo assays, patient-derived, mocetinostat-treated Tregs also showed significant down regulation of FOXP3 and HELIOS. The combination of mocetinostat and a murine PD-L1 antibody antagonist demonstrated increased anti-tumor activity compared to either therapy alone in two syngeneic tumor models. Together, these data provide evidence that mocetinostat modulates immune-related genes in tumor cells as well as immune cell types in the tumor microenvironment and enhances checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: The development of brain metastases is common for systemic treatment failure in patients with melanoma and has been associated with a poor prognosis. Recent advances with BRAF and immune checkpoint therapies have led to improved patient survival. Herein, the authors evaluated the risk of de novo brain metastases and survival among patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) since the introduction of more effective therapies. METHODS: Patients with unresectable AJCC stage III/IV melanoma who received first-line systemic therapy at Moffitt Cancer Center between 2000 and 2012 were identified. Data were collected regarding patient characteristics, stage of disease, systemic therapies, MBM status/management, and overall survival (OS). The risk of de novo MBM was calculated using a generalized estimating equation model and survival comparisons were performed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional analyses. RESULTS: A total of 610 patients were included, 243 of whom were diagnosed with MBM (40%). Patients with MBM were younger, with a lower frequency of regional metastasis. No significant differences were noted with regard to sex, BRAF status, or therapeutic class. The risk of de novo MBM was found to be similar among patients treated with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy, BRAF-targeted therapy, ipilimumab, and anti-programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 regimens. The median OS of patients with MBM was significantly shorter when determined from the time of first regional/distant metastasis but not when determined from the time of first systemic therapy. The median OS from the time of MBM diagnosis was 7.5 months, 8.5 months, and 22.7 months, respectively, for patients diagnosed from 2000 to 2008, 2009 to 2010, and 2011 to the time of last follow-up (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Brain metastases remain a common source of systemic treatment failure. The OS for patients with MBM has improved significantly. Further research into MBM prevention is needed. Cancer 2017. (c) 2017 American Cancer Society.

Purpose To report 5-year landmark analysis efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma (MM) who received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (D) and MEK inhibitor trametinib (T) combination therapy versus D monotherapy in the randomized phase II BRF113220 study part C. Patients and Methods BRAF inhibitor-naive patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive D 150 mg twice a day, D 150 mg twice a day plus T 1 mg once daily, or D 150 mg twice a day plus T 2 mg once daily (D + T 150/2). Patients who received D monotherapy could cross over to D + T 150/2 postprogression. Efficacy and safety were analyzed 4 and 5 years after initiation in patients with >/= 5 years of follow-up. Results As of October 13, 2016, 18 patients who received D + T 150/2 remained in the study (13 [24%] of 54 enrolled at this dose plus five [11%] of 45 initially administered D who crossed over to D + T). With D + T 150/2, overall survival (OS; 4 years, 30%; 5 years, 28%) and progression-free survival (4 and 5 years, both 13%) appeared to stabilize with extended follow-up. Increased OS was observed in patients who received D + T with baseline normal lactate dehydrogenase (5 years, 45%) and normal lactate dehydrogenase with fewer than three organ sites with metastasis (5 years, 51%). With extended follow-up, one additional patient who received D + T 150/2 improved from a partial to a complete response. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion This 5-year analysis represents the longest follow-up to date with BRAF + MEK inhibitor combination therapy in BRAF V600-mutant MM. Consistent with trends observed in landmark analyses with shorter follow-up, this therapy elicits durable plateaus of long-term OS and progression-free survival that last >/= 5 years in some patients with MM.

Purpose Until recently, limited options existed for patients with advanced melanoma who experienced disease progression while receiving treatment with ipilimumab. Here, we report the coprimary overall survival (OS) end point of CheckMate 037, which has previously shown that nivolumab resulted in more patients achieving an objective response compared with chemotherapy regimens in ipilimumab-refractory patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 expression, BRAF status, and best prior cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy response, then randomly assigned 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (ICC; dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or carboplatin area under the curve 6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). Patients were treated until they experienced progression or unacceptable toxicity, with follow-up of approximately 2 years. Results Two hundred seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (99% treated) and 133 to ICC (77% treated). More nivolumab-treated patients had brain metastases (20% v 14%) and increased lactate dehydrogenase levels (52% v 38%) at baseline; 41% of patients treated with ICC versus 11% of patients treated with nivolumab received anti-programmed death 1 agents after randomly assigned therapy. Median OS was 16 months for nivolumab versus 14 months for ICC (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95.54% CI, 0.73 to 1.24); median progression-free survival was 3.1 months versus 3.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95.1% CI, 0.78 to 1.436). Overall response rate (27% v 10%) and median duration of response (32 months v 13 months) were notably higher for nivolumab versus ICC. Fewer grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in patients on nivolumab (14% v 34%). Conclusion Nivolumab demonstrated higher, more durable responses but no difference in survival compared with ICC. OS should be interpreted with caution as it was likely impacted by an increased dropout rate before treatment, which led to crossover therapy in the ICC group, and by an increased proportion of patients in the nivolumab group with poor prognostic factors.

Background: We previously confirmed the feasibility of adoptive cell therapy (ACT) with tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) for patients with advanced melanoma. Patients successfully treated had a 38% response rate, but patient attrition due to progression before ACT (21 %) resulted in a response rate of only 26% based on intent to treat (IIT) analysis. We hypothesized that combination immunotherapy would decrease attrition due to progression. Here we present the final report of a pilot trial combining ipilimumab (IPI) and ACT.
Method(s): Thirteen patients with metastatic melanoma were accrued to an IRB-approved trial. All had >1 cm³ of soft tissue/nodal metastases amenable to resection leaving residual disease. Patients received 3 mg/kg of IPI two weeks prior to tumor resection for TIL generation. One week following resection, a second dose of IPI was administered. ACT included pre-conditioning chemotherapy and TIL infusion followed by IL-2. Two additional doses of IPI were given 2 and 5 weeks after ACT. Feasibility was a primary endpoint and considered achieved if > 2 doses of IPI and TIL were infused to at least 60% of all patients. The clinical responses were assessed by RECIST 1.1 criteria at 12 weeks following TIL transfer.
Result(s): All patients received at least 2 doses of IPI, and 12 of the 13 patients (92%) received TIL One patient (7%) dropped out due to progression before TIL infusion. TIL were expanded from 47.2% of tumor fragments and 58.7% of these fragments generated TIL reactive to autologous tumor. Median number of infused TIL was 6.5e10 (2.29e10-1.04e11) and median 85% were CD8+ (27-99). At 12 weeks following infusion, of the 13 patients enrolled, there were 6 responders (46%). Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (1.4-42.2). Grade >3 immune-related adverse events included colitis (1), uveitis (1), and hypothyroidism (1).
Conclusion(s): IPI combined with ACT with TILs for patients with advanced melanoma is feasible with decreased attrition due to progression and is associated with promising clinical results based upon ITT analysis. This combination approach of TIL cell therapy and co-inhibitory blockade serves as a model for future efforts to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy for patients with cancer

BACKGROUND:The EORTC 18071 phase 3 trial compared adjuvant ipilimumab with placebo in patients with stage III melanoma. The primary endpoint, recurrence-free survival, was significantly longer in the ipilimumab group than in the placebo group. Investigator-reported toxic effects of ipilimumab consisted mainly of skin, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and hepatic immune-related adverse events. Adjuvant treatment with ipilimumab in this setting was approved in October, 2014, by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the results of the primary outcome of this trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), of this trial. METHODS:EORTC 18071 was a multinational, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) in 19 countries worldwide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by an interactive voice response system, to receive either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geographical region. HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality-of-life instrument at baseline, weeks 4, 7, 10, and 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter up to 2 years, irrespective of disease progression. Results were summarised by timepoint and in a longitudinal manner in the intention-to-treat population. Two summary scores were calculated for each HRQoL scale: the average score reported during induction (ipilimumab or placebo at a dose of 10 mg/kg, administered as one single dose at the start of days 1, 22, 43, and 64-ie, four doses in 3 weeks), and the average score reported after induction. A predefined threshold of a 10 point difference between arms was considered clinically relevant. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the global health scale, with the predefined hypothesis of no clinically relevant differences after induction between groups. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2007-001974-10, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00636168. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between July 10, 2008, and Aug 1, 2011, 951 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 475 in the ipilimumab group and 476 in the placebo group. Compliance with completing the HRQoL questionnaire was 893 (94%) of 951 patients at baseline, 693 (75%) of 924 at week 24, and 354 (51%) of 697 at week 108. Patient mean global health scores during (77·32 [SD 17·36] vs 72·96 [17·82]; p=0·00011) and after induction (76·48 [17·52] vs 72·32 [18·60]; p=0·00067) were statistically significantly different between groups but were not clinically relevant. Mean global health scores differed most between the groups at week 7 (77 [SD 19] in the placebo group vs 72 [22] in the ipilimumab group) and week 10 (77 [20] vs 70 [23]). Mean HRQoL scores differed by more than 10 points at week 10 between treatment groups for diarrhoea (7·67 [SD 17·05] for placebo vs 18·17 [28·35] for ipilimumab) and insomnia (15·17 [22·53] vs 25·60 [29·19]). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite increased toxicity, which led to treatment discontinuation for most patients during the induction phase of ipilimumab administration, overall HRQoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, was similar between groups, as no clinically relevant differences (10 points or more) in global health status scores were observed during or after induction. Clinically relevant deterioration for some symptoms was observed at week 10, but after induction, no clinically relevant differences remained. Together with the primary analysis, results from this trial show that treatment with ipilimumab results in longer recurrence-free survival compared with that for treatment with placebo, with little impairment in HRQoL despite grade 3-4 investigator-reported adverse events. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Epigenetic signaling networks dynamically regulate gene expression to maintain cellular homeostasis. Previously, we uncovered that WEE1 phosphorylates histone H2B at tyrosine 37 (pY37-H2B) to negatively regulate global histone transcriptional output. Although pY37-H2B is readily detected in cancer cells, its functional role in pathogenesis is not known. Herein, we show that WEE1 deposits the pY37-H2B marks within the tumor suppressor gene, isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2), to repress transcription in multiple cancer cells, including glioblastoma multiforme (GBMs), melanoma and prostate cancer. Consistently, GBMs and primary melanoma tumors that display elevated WEE1 mRNA expression exhibit significant down regulation of the IDH2 gene transcription. IDH2 catalyzes the oxidative decarboxylation of isocitrate to α-ketoglutarate (α-KG), an essential cofactor for the TET family of 5-methylcytosine (5mC) hydroxylases that convert 5-mC to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC). Significantly, the WEE1 inhibitor AZD1775 not only abrogated the suppressive H2B Y37-phosphorylation and upregulated IDH2 mRNA levels but also effectively reversed the 'loss of 5-hmC' phenotype in melanomas, GBMs and prostate cancer cells, as well as melanoma xenograft tumors. These data indicate that the epigenetic repression of IDH2 by WEE1/pY37-H2B circuit may be a hitherto unknown mechanism of global 5-hmC loss observed in human malignancies.

Background: NIVO and IPI are immune checkpoint inhibitors approved for advanced melanoma. IPI is also approved in the US for resected stage III melanoma, based on a phase 3 trial demonstrating an improvement in recurrence-free survival (RFS). We report the first results of a phase 3 trial designed to evaluate NIVO vs IPI for resected stage III/IV melanoma at high risk of recurrence. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind trial, eligible patients (pts) included those >=15 yrs of age who underwent complete resection of stage IIIb/c or IV melanoma. 906 pts were randomized (stratified by stage and PD-L1 status) 1:1 to receive NIVO 3 mg/ kg (n=453) every 2 wks or IPI 10 mg/kg (n=453) every 3 wks for 4 doses, then every 12 wks (from week 24) for up to 1 yr, disease recurrence, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was RFS in the intent-to-treat population. Results: Overall, 34%/47%/19% of pts had stage IIIb/IIIc/IV; 32%, ulcerated primary; 48%, macroscopic lymph node involvement; and 42%, BRAF mutation. At a median follow-up of 18.5 mo, NIVO significantly improved RFS vs IPI (Table). Results from prespecified subgroup analyses demonstrated consistent hazard ratios favoring NIVO. Conclusions: NIVO as adjuvant therapy significantly improved RFS vs IPI for pts with stage III/IV melanoma at high risk of recurrence and demonstrated a superior safety profile. (Table Presented)

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are altering the treatment paradigm in oncology, impacting the care of a rapidly increasing number of patients; but many healthcare providers (HCPs) remain unfamiliar and inexperienced with managing the unique spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). An online decision support tool was developed to give HCPs easy access to fair-balanced guidance and management algorithms that are patient-specific and extend beyond standard recommendations found in the respective product inserts [1]. Methods To use the tool, HCPs entered patient symptoms, organ system affected, and the grade or severity of the event along with their planned management strategy. Subsequently, the HCPs using the tool were provided an expert recommendation for management of that specific irAE. Recommendations in the tool comprised algorithms developed from peer-reviewed publications and the personal clinical experience of Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD. Here, we report a comparison of the intended irAE management of HCPs for 2896 cases entered into the tool from 11/9/16 through 7/21/17 with the expert recommendations for those patient cases. Results Cases involving GI symptoms (n = 818; 28% of all cases) were most frequently entered into the tool with renal symptom cases (n = 153; 5% of all cases) having the fewest entries (Table 1). The planned irAE management strategy of HCPs differed from the expert recommendations for 49% of the cases overall with the greatest divergence in neurologic- and endocrine-related cases (56% and 66%, respectively). The proportion of cases in which the planned management strategies of the HCPs differed from the expert recommendations also varied by symptom grade/severity ranging from 84% differing for grade 3 adrenal insufficiency to 21% differing for grade 4 renal toxicity. Overall, the largest proportion of cases with HCP variance from optimal recommended practice occurred with those having intermediate to high symptom severity (grades 2/3). Overall, of 648 HCPs who responded to a survey about the impact of the tool on their practice, 93% indicated that the recommendations provided by the tool either changed or confirmed their management plan. Conclusions These data suggest that many HCPs are not optimally managing irAEs associated with ICI use and that an online tool can provide a resource to improve patient care and safety. A detailed analysis of the tool, including case entries and planned management vs best practice recommendations for each irAE and grade will be presented