Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Antibodies inhibiting the programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) have demonstrated significant activity in the treatment of advanced cutaneous melanoma. The efficacy and safety of PD-1 blockade in patients with uveal melanoma has not been well characterized. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with stage IV uveal melanoma received PD-1 or PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) antibodies between 2009 and 2015 at 9 academic centers. Patients who were evaluable for response were eligible for the analysis. Imaging was performed every 12 weeks and at the investigators' discretion. Safety and clinical efficacy outcomes, including the best overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), were retrospectively determined. RESULTS: Of 56 eligible patients, 48 (86%) had received prior therapy, and 35 (63%) had received treatment with ipilimumab. Three patients had an objective response to ipilimumab, and 8 had stable disease as their best response. Thirty-eight patients (68%) received pembrolizumab, 16 (29%) received nivolumab, and 2 (4%) received atezolizumab. Objective tumor responses were observed in 2 patients for an overall response rate of 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-22.5%). Stable disease (>/=6 months) was observed in 5 patients (9%). The median PFS was 2.6 months (95% CI, 2.4-2.8 months), and the median OS was 7.6 months (95% CI, 0.7-14.6 months). There was no association between prior treatment with ipilimumab or liver-directed therapy and PFS or OS. Treatment was well tolerated, and only 1 patient discontinued treatment because of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies rarely confer durable remissions in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Clinical trial enrollment should be prioritized in this population. Cancer 2016. (c) 2016 American Cancer Society.

IMPORTANCE: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway limits immune responses to melanoma and can be blocked with the humanized anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the association of pembrolizumab with tumor response and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicohort, phase 1b clinical trials (enrollment, December 2011-September 2013). Median duration of follow-up was 21 months. The study was performed in academic medical centers in Australia, Canada, France, and the United States. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older and had advanced or metastatic melanoma. Data were pooled from 655 enrolled patients (135 from a nonrandomized cohort [n = 87 ipilimumab naive; n = 48 ipilimumab treated] and 520 from randomized cohorts [n = 226 ipilimumab naive; n = 294 ipilimumab treated]). Cutoff dates were April 18, 2014, for safety analyses and October 18, 2014, for efficacy analyses. EXPOSURES: Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks continued until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or investigator decision. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (best overall response of complete response or partial response) in patients with measurable disease at baseline per independent central review. Secondary end points included toxicity, duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among the 655 patients (median [range] age, 61 [18-94] years; 405 [62%] men), 581 had measurable disease at baseline. An objective response was reported in 194 of 581 patients (33% [95% CI, 30%-37%]) and in 60 of 133 treatment-naive patients (45% [95% CI, 36% to 54%]). Overall, 74% (152/205) of responses were ongoing at the time of data cutoff; 44% (90/205) of patients had response duration for at least 1 year and 79% (162/205) had response duration for at least 6 months. Twelve-month progression-free survival rates were 35% (95% CI, 31%-39%) in the total population and 52% (95% CI, 43%-60%) among treatment-naive patients. Median overall survival in the total population was 23 months (95% CI, 20-29) with a 12-month survival rate of 66% (95% CI, 62%-69%) and a 24-month survival rate of 49% (95% CI, 44%-53%). In treatment-naive patients, median overall survival was 31 months (95% CI, 24 to not reached) with a 12-month survival rate of 73% (95% CI, 65%-79%) and a 24-month survival rate of 60% (95% CI, 51%-68%). Ninety-two of 655 patients (14%) experienced at least 1 treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE) and 27 of 655 (4%) patients discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related AE. Treatment-related serious AEs were reported in 59 patients (9%). There were no drug-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab administration was associated with an overall objective response rate of 33%, 12-month progression-free survival rate of 35%, and median overall survival of 23 months; grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 14%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01295827.

PURPOSE: We evaluated atypical response patterns and the relationship between overall survival and best overall response measured per immune-related response criteria (irRC) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab in the phase Ib KEYNOTE-001 study (clinical trial information: NCT01295827). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks. Atypical responses were identified by using centrally assessed irRC data in patients with >/= 28 weeks of imaging. Pseudoprogression was defined as >/= 25% increase in tumor burden at week 12 (early) or any assessment after week 12 (delayed) that was not confirmed as progressive disease at next assessment. Response was assessed centrally per irRC and RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Of the 655 patients with melanoma enrolled, 327 had >/= 28 weeks of imaging follow-up. Twenty-four (7%) of these 327 patients had atypical responses (15 [5%] with early pseudoprogression and nine [3%] with delayed pseudoprogression). Of the 592 patients who survived >/= 12 weeks, 84 (14%) experienced progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC. Two-year overall survival rates were 77.6% in patients with nonprogressive disease per both criteria (n = 331), 37.5% in patients with progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC (n = 84), and 17.3% in patients with progressive disease per both criteria (n = 177). CONCLUSION: Atypical responses were observed in patients with melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. Based on survival analysis, conventional RECIST might underestimate the benefit of pembrolizumab in approximately 15% of patients; modified criteria that permit treatment beyond initial progression per RECIST v1.1 might prevent premature cessation of treatment.

The efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 targeted therapies in addition to anti-CTLA-4 solidifies immunotherapy as a modality to add to the anticancer arsenal. Despite raising the bar of clinical efficacy, immunologically targeted agents raise new challenges to conventional drug development paradigms by highlighting the limited relevance of assessing standard pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Specifically, systemic and intratumoral immune effects have not consistently correlated with standard relationships between systemic dose, toxicity, and efficacy for cytotoxic therapies. Hence, PK and PD paradigms remain inadequate to guide the selection of doses and schedules, both starting and recommended Phase 2 for immunotherapies. The promise of harnessing the immune response against cancer must also be considered in light of unique and potentially serious toxicities. Refining immune endpoints to better inform clinical trial design represents a high priority challenge. The Cancer Immunotherapy Trials Network investigators review the immunodynamic effects of specific classes of immunotherapeutic agents to focus immune assessment modalities and sites, both systemic and importantly intratumoral, which are critical to the success of the rapidly growing field of immuno-oncology.

: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as a mainstay of melanoma therapy and are playing an increasingly important role in the treatment of other tumor types. The clinical benefit afforded by these treatments can be accompanied by a unique spectrum of adverse events, called immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which reflect the drug's immune-based mechanism of action. IrAEs typically originate in the skin, gastrointestinal tract, liver, and endocrine system, although other organ systems may also be affected. This article provides an overview of irAEs associated with anti-programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) antibodies (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) as monotherapy or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibition (ipilimumab), followed by a discussion of irAEs of special clinical interest based on the potential for morbidity, frequent steroid use, and inpatient admission. We review clinical trial data and provide recommendations on how to manage irAEs associated with anti-PD-1 agents based on clinical experience and established management guidelines. We further illustrate the practical considerations of managing irAEs by presenting three cases of immune-related toxicity in melanoma patients treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. A better understanding of the identification and management of irAEs will help inform health care providers about the risks associated with anti-PD-1 treatment, to ensure the safe and appropriate use of these important new treatments. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated significant clinical benefit in advanced melanoma and other tumor types. These treatments are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which most commonly affect the skin and gastrointestinal tract, and, to a lesser extent, the liver, endocrine system, and other organs. This review focuses on the management of irAEs after treatment with anti-programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) antibodies (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) as monotherapy or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibition (ipilimumab) in patients with advanced melanoma. A better understanding of the management of irAEs will help ensure the safe and appropriate use of anti-PD-1 agents in melanoma and other tumor types.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged >/=18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37.6-62.4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31.1-55.3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29.4-53.8] vs 14 [20%; 11.4-31.3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26.7-50.8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49.0-72.8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26.7-50.8) and 42 (60%; 47.6-71.5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19.8 months (IQR 12.8-25.7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23.7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14.7 months (IQR 5.6-23.9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16.9 months (95% CI 9.2-26.5; HR 0.48 [95% CI 0.29-0.80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab is active in patients with metastatic melanoma who have failed ipilimumab. In this phase I/II study, we assessed nivolumab's safety in 92 ipilimumab-refractory patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, including those who experienced grade 3-4 drug-related toxicity to ipilimumab. We report long-term survival, response duration, and biomarkers in these patients after nivolumab treatment (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, then every 12 weeks for up to 2 years, with or without a multipeptide vaccine. The response rate for ipilimumab-refractory patients was 30% (95% CI, 21%-41%). The median duration of response was 14.6 months, median progression-free survival was 5.3 months, and median overall survival was 20.6 months, when patients were followed up for a median of 16 months. One- and 2-year survival rates were 68.4% and 31.2%, respectively. Ipilimumab-naive and ipilimumab-refractory patients showed no significant difference in survival. The 21 patients with prior grade 3-4 toxicity to ipilimumab that was managed with steroids tolerated nivolumab well, with 62% (95% CI, 38%-82%) having complete or partial responses or stabilized disease at 24 weeks. High numbers of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) were associated with poor survival. Thus, survival and long-term safety were excellent in ipilimumab-refractory patients treated with nivolumab. Prior grade 3-4 immune-related adverse effects from ipilimumab were not indicative of nivolumab toxicities, and patients had a high overall rate of remission or stability at 24 weeks. Prospectively evaluating MDSC numbers before treatment could help assess the expected benefit of nivolumab.Cancer Immunol Res; 4(4); 345-53. (c)2016 AACR.

Inactivation of Ras GTPase activating proteins (RasGAPs) can activate Ras, increasing the risk for tumor development. Utilizing a melanoma whole genome sequencing (WGS) data from 13 patients, we identified two novel, clustered somatic missense mutations (Y472H and L481F) in RASA1 (RAS p21 protein activator 1, also called p120RasGAP). We have shown that wild type RASA1, but not identified mutants, suppresses soft agar colony formation and tumor growth of BRAF mutated melanoma cell lines via its RasGAP activity toward R-Ras (related RAS viral (r-ras) oncogene homolog) isoform. Moreover, R-Ras increased and RASA1 suppressed Ral-A activation among Ras downstream effectors. In addition to mutations, loss of RASA1 expression was frequently observed in metastatic melanoma samples on melanoma tissue microarray (TMA) and a low level of RASA1 mRNA expression was associated with decreased overall survival in melanoma patients with BRAF mutations. Thus, these data support that RASA1 is inactivated by mutation or by suppressed expression in melanoma and that RASA1 plays a tumor suppressive role by inhibiting R-Ras, a previously less appreciated member of the Ras small GTPases.

BACKGROUND: The anti-programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) therapy nivolumab has significant clinical activity in patients with metastatic melanoma. However, little is known about the safety and outcomes in patients receiving anti-PD-1 therapy and stereotactic radiation for the treatment of brain metastases (BMs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analyzed retrospectively from two prospective nivolumab protocols enrolling 160 patients with advanced resected and unresectable melanoma at a single institution. Patients were included if BMs were diagnosed and treated with stereotactic radiation within 6 months of receiving nivolumab. The primary end point of this study was neurotoxicity; secondary end points included BM control and survival. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with a total of 73 BMs treated over 30 sessions were identified. Radiation was administered before, during and after nivolumab in 33 lesions (45%), 5 lesions (7%), and 35 lesions (48%), respectively. All BMs were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in a single session except 12 BMs treated with fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy, nine of which were in the postoperative setting. One patient experienced grade 2 headaches following SRS with symptomatic relief with steroid treatment. No other treatment-related neurologic toxicities or scalp reactions were reported. Eight (11%) local BM failures with a >/=20% increase in volume were noted. Of these lesions, hemorrhage was noted in 4, and edema was noted in 7. Kaplan-Meier estimates for local BM control following radiation at 6 and 12 months were 91% and 85%, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) from the date of stereotactic radiation and nivolumab initiation was 11.8 and 12.0 months, respectively, in patients receiving nivolumab for unresected disease (median OS was not reached in patients treated in the resected setting). CONCLUSIONS: In our series, stereotactic radiation to melanoma BMs is well tolerated in patients who received nivolumab. BM control and OS appear prolonged compared with standard current treatment. Prospective evaluation is warranted.