Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:New therapies for melanoma have been associated with increasing survival expectations, as opposed to the dismal outcomes of only a decade ago. Using a prospective registry, we aimed to define current survival goals for melanoma patients with brain metastases (BM), based on state-of-the-art multimodality care. METHODS:We reviewed 171 melanoma patients with BM receiving stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) who were followed with point-of-care data collection between 2012 and 2020. Clinical, molecular and imaging data were collected, including systemic treatment and radiosurgical parameters. RESULTS:SRS were predictors of long-term survival ([Formula: see text] 5 years) from initial SRS (p = 0.023 and p = 0.018, respectively). Five patients (16%) of the long-term survivors required no active treatment for [Formula: see text] 5 years. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Long-term survival in patients with melanoma BM is achievable in the current era of SRS combined with immunotherapies. For those alive [Formula: see text] 5 years after first SRS, 16% had been also off systemic or local brain therapy for over 5 years. Given late recurrences of melanoma, caution is warranted, however prolonged survival off active treatment in a subset of our patients raises the potential for cure.

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.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors, particularly anti-PD-1-based immune checkpoint inhibitors, have dramatically improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma and are currently deemed a standard of care. Ipilimumab/nivolumab is the first combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors to improve progression-free survival and overall survival in the first-line setting, with durable responses and the longest median overall survival, 72.1 months, of any drug therapy approved for advanced melanoma. However, its use is limited by the high rate of severe (grade 3-4) treatment-related adverse events. More recently, the novel immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of nivolumab/relatlimab (anti-PD-1/anti-LAG3) showed improved progression-free survival compared with nivolumab alone in the first-line setting and was well tolerated; thus, it is likely this combination will be added to the armamentarium as a first-line treatment for advanced melanoma. These changes in the treatment landscape have several treatment implications for decision-making. The choice of first-line systemic drug therapy, and the decision between immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy or combination therapy, requires a comprehensive assessment of disease-related factors and patient characteristics. Despite this striking progress, many patients' disease still progresses. Several new agents and therapeutic approaches are under investigation in clinical trials. Intralesional treatments hold promise for accessible metastases, although their broad application in the clinic will be limited. Prognostic and predictive biomarkers, as well as strategies to reduce treatment-related toxicities and overcome resistance, are required and are now the focus of clinical and translational research.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Here we used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to inhibit autophagy in combination with dabrafenib 150 mg bid and trametenib 2 mg qd (D+T). PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:melanoma patients. The primary objectives were the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and the one-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of >53%. RESULTS:34 were evaluable for one-year PFS rate. Patient demographics: elevated LDH: 47%; Stage IV M1c/M1d: 52%; prior immunotherapy: 50%. In phase I, there was no dose limiting toxicity. HCQ 600 mg po bid with D+T was the RP2D. The one-year PFS rate was 48.2% (95% CI = 31.0-65.5%), median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI = 5.4-16.9 months), and response rate (RR) was 85% (95% CI=64-95%). The complete response rate was 41% and median overall survival (OS) was 26.5 months. In patient with elevated LDH (n=16), the RR was 88% and median PFS and OS were 7.3 and 22 months, respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:melanoma patients with elevated LDH and previous immunotherapy is being conducted.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Veliparib (V), an oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, potentiates effects of alkylating agents and topoisomerase inhibitors in preclinical tumor models. We conducted a phase I trial of V with iv cyclophosphamide (C) and V plus iv doxorubicin (A) and C. METHODS:) Day 3 in 21-day cycles. In Group 3, patients received AC Day 1 plus V Days 1-7, and in Group 4, AC Day 1 plus V Days 1-14 was given in 21-day cycles to evaluate effects on γH2AX foci. RESULTS:Eighty patients were enrolled. MTD was not reached for V and C. MTD for V and AC was V 100 mg every 12 h Days 1-4 with AC (60/600 mg/m2) Day 3 every 21 days. V PK appears to be dose-dependent and has no effect on the PK of C. Overall, neutropenia and anemia were the most common adverse events. Objective response in V and AC treated groups was 22% (11/49). Overall clinical benefit rate was 31% (25/80). PAR decreased in PBMCs. Percentage of γH2AX-positive CTCs increased after treatment with V and AC. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:V and AC can be safely combined. Activity was observed in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and tumor mutational burden (TMB) are genomic biomarkers used to identify patients who are likely to benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Pembrolizumab was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in TMB-high (TMB-H) tumors, regardless of histology, based on KEYNOTE-158. The primary objective of this retrospective study was real-world applicability and use of immunotherapy in TMB/MSI-high patients to lend credence to and refine this biomarker. METHODS:Charts of patients with advanced solid tumors who had MSI/TMB status determined by next generation sequencing (NGS) (FoundationOne CDx) were reviewed. Demographics, diagnosis, treatment history, and overall response rate (ORR) were abstracted. Progression-free survival (PFS) was determined from Kaplan-Meier curves. PFS1 (chemotherapy PFS) and PFS2 (immunotherapy PFS) were determined for patients who received immunotherapy after progressing on chemotherapy. The median PFS2/PFS1 ratio was recorded. RESULTS:MSI-high or TMB-H [≥20 mutations per megabase (mut/MB)] was detected in 157 adults with a total of 27 distinct tumor histologies. Median turnaround time for NGS was 73 days. ORR for most recent chemotherapy was 34.4%. ORR for immunotherapy was 55.9%. Median PFS for patients who received chemotherapy versus immunotherapy was 6.75 months (95% confidence interval, 3.9-10.9 months) and 24.2 months (95% confidence interval, 9.6 months to not reached), respectively (P = 0.042). Median PFS2/PFS1 ratio was 4.7 in favor of immunotherapy. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This real-world study reinforces the use of TMB as a predictive biomarker. Barriers exist to the timely implementation of NGS-based biomarkers and more data are needed to raise awareness about the clinical utility of TMB. Clinicians should consider treating TMB-H patients with immunotherapy regardless of their histology.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:The recruitment of underserved patients into therapeutic oncology trials is imperative. The National Institutes of Health mandates the inclusion of minorities in clinical research, although their participation remains under-represented. Institutions have used data mining to match patients to clinical trials. In a public health care system, such expensive tools are unavailable. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The NYU Clinical Trials Office implemented a quality improvement program at Bellevue Hospital Cancer Center to increase therapeutic trial enrollment. Patients are screened through the electronic medical record, tumor board conferences, and the cancer registry. Our analysis evaluated two variables: number of patients identified and those enrolled into clinical trials. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Two years before the program, there were 31 patients enrolled. For a period of 24 months (July 2017 to July 2019), we identified 255 patients, of whom 143 (56.1%) were enrolled. Of those enrolled, 121 (84.6%) received treatment, and 22 (15%) were screen failures. Fifty-five (38.5%) were referred to NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center for therapy. Of the total enrollees, 64% were female, 56% were non-White, and overall median age was 55 years (range: 33-88 years). Our participants spoke 16 different languages, and 57% were non-English-speaking. We enrolled patients into eight different disease categories, with 38% recruited to breast cancer trials. Eighty-three percent of our patients reside in low-income areas, with 62% in both low-income and Health Professional Shortage Areas. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Prescreening at Bellevue has led to a 4.6-fold increase in patient enrollment to clinical trials. Future research into using prescreening programs at public institutions may improve access to clinical trials for underserved populations.

BACKGROUND:Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common, clinically significant autoinflammatory toxicities observed with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Preexisting immune-mediated inflammatory disease (pre-IMID) is considered a relative contraindication to ICI due to the risk of inciting flares. Improved understanding of the risks and benefits of treating pre-IMID patients with ICI is needed. METHODS:We studied melanoma patients treated with ICI and enrolled in a prospective clinicopathological database. We compiled a list of 23 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and evaluated their presence prior to ICI. We tested the associations between pre-IMID and progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and irAEs. RESULTS:In total, 483 melanoma patients were included in the study; 74 had pre-IMID and 409 did not. In patients receiving ICI as a standard of care (SoC), pre-IMID was significantly associated with irAEs (p = 0.04) as well as improved PFS (p = 0.024) and OS (p = 0.007). There was no significant association between pre-IMID and irAEs (p = 0.54), PFS (p = 0.197), or OS (p = 0.746) in patients treated through a clinical trial. Pre-IMID was significantly associated with improved OS in females (p = 0.012), but not in males (p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS:The dichotomy of the impact of pre-IMID on survival and irAEs in SoC versus clinical trial patients may reflect the inherit selection bias in patients accrued in clinical trials. Future mechanistic work is required to better understand the differences in outcomes between female and male pre-IMID patients. Our data challenge the notion that clinicians should avoid ICI in pre-IMID patients, although close monitoring and prospective clinical trials evaluating ICI in this population are warranted.