Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Retrospective analysis of irAEs in melanoma patients treated with nivolumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN/METHODS:Data were pooled from 148 patients (33 resected, 115 unresectable) treated with nivolumab plus peptide vaccine or nivolumab alone every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. Patients with stable disease or regression received an additional 12-week cycle, then nivolumab alone every 12 weeks for up to 2 additional years. Frequency, grade, and characteristics of immune-related adverse events (irAE) were analyzed. A 12-week landmark survival analysis using a multivariate time-dependent Cox proportional hazard model assessed difference in overall survival (OS) in the presence or absence of irAEs. RESULTS:IrAEs of any grade were observed in 68.2% of patients (101 of 148). Grade III/IV irAEs were infrequent: 3 (2%) had grade III rash, 2 (1.35%) had asymptomatic grade III elevation in amylase/lipase, and 2 (1.35%) had grade III colitis. A statistically significant OS difference was noted among patients with any grade of irAE versus those without (P ≤ 0.001), and OS benefit was noted in patients who reported three or more irAE events (P ≤ 0.001). Subset analyses showed statistically significant OS differences with rash [P = 0.001; HR, 0.423; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.243-0.735] and vitiligo (P = 0.012; HR, 0.184; 95% CI, 0.036-0.94). Rash and vitiligo also correlated with statistically significant OS differences in patients with metastatic disease (P = 0.004 and P = 0.028, respectively). No significant survival differences were seen with other irAEs (endocrinopathies, colitis, or pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS:Cutaneous irAEs are associated with improved survival in melanoma patients treated with nivolumab, and clinical benefit should be validated in larger prospective analyses.

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.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are publishing a new edition of the ESMO/ASCO Global Curriculum (GC) thanks to contribution of 64 ESMO-appointed and 32 ASCO-appointed authors. First published in 2004 and updated in 2010, the GC edition 2016 answers to the need for updated recommendations for the training of physicians in medical oncology by defining the standard to be fulfilled to qualify as medical oncologists. At times of internationalisation of healthcare and increased mobility of patients and physicians, the GC aims to provide state-of-the-art cancer care to all patients wherever they live. Recent progress in the field of cancer research has indeed resulted in diagnostic and therapeutic innovations such as targeted therapies as a standard therapeutic approach or personalised cancer medicine apart from the revival of immunotherapy, requiring specialised training for medical oncology trainees. Thus, several new chapters on technical contents such as molecular pathology, translational research or molecular imaging and on conceptual attitudes towards human principles like genetic counselling or survivorship have been integrated in the GC. The GC edition 2016 consists of 12 sections with 17 subsections, 44 chapters and 35 subchapters, respectively. Besides renewal in its contents, the GC underwent a principal formal change taking into consideration modern didactic principles. It is presented in a template-based format that subcategorises the detailed outcome requirements into learning objectives, awareness, knowledge and skills. Consecutive steps will be those of harmonising and implementing teaching and assessment strategies.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab and peginterferon alfa-2b are established systemic treatment options for melanoma that have distinct mechanisms of action. Given the need for improved therapies for advanced melanoma, we conducted an open-label, single institution, phase Ib study to assess the safety and tolerability of using these two agents in combination. METHODS: Study treatment consisted of ipilimumab given every 3 weeks, for a total of four infusions, concurrent with peginterferon alfa-2b administered subcutaneous weekly for a total of 12 weeks. This was followed by maintenance therapy with peginterferon alfa-2b administered subcutaneously weekly for up to 144 additional weeks. The study was designed as a two-stage dose escalation scheme with continuous dose-limiting toxicity monitoring during the induction phase. RESULTS: Thirty one patients received at least 1 dose of study treatment and 30 were assessable for efficacy endpoints. We found that ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg dosing with peginterfeon alfa-2b at 2 mug/kg/week was the maximum tolerated dose of this combination. The incidence of grade 3 drug-related adverse events (AEs) was 45.2%. There were no grade 4/5 AEs. The overall response rate was 40% by immune-related response criteria. Median progression-free survival was 5.9 months. The median overall survival was not reached with at a median follow-up of 35.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: We report that the combination of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg dosing combined with peginterfeon alfa-2b at 2 mug/kg/week demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile and a promising efficacy signal. Further study of this combination is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01496807, Registered December 19th, 2011.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation of immune checkpoints such as CTLA4 or PD-1 with targeted antibodies has recently emerged as an effective anticancer strategy in multiple malignancies. Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of diseases in need of more effective treatments. Different subtypes of soft tissue and bone sarcomas have been shown to express PD-1 ligand. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients (pts) with relapsed metastatic/unresectable sarcomas, who were treated with nivolumab provided under a patient assistance program from the manufacturer. Pts underwent CT or PET/CT imaging at baseline and after at least four doses of nivolumab; RECIST 1.1 criteria were used for response assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-eight pts with soft tissue (STS, N = 24) or bone sarcoma (N = 4), received IV nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks from July 2015. Median age was 57 (24-78), male:female ratio was 14:14; the median number of nivolumab cycles was eight. Eighteen pts concomitantly received pazopanib at 400-800 mg daily. The most common side effect was grade 1-2 LFT elevations; grade 3-4 toxicity occurred in five patients (colitis, LFT elevations, pneumonitis). Twenty-four pts received at least four cycles. We observed three partial responses: one dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, one epithelioid sarcoma and one maxillary osteosarcoma (last two patients on pazopanib); nine patients had stable disease including three leiomyosarcomas; 12 patients had progression of disease including 4 leiomyosarcoma. Clinical benefit (response + stability) was observed in 50% of the evaluable patients. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a rationale for further exploring the efficacy of nivolumab and other checkpoint inhibitors in soft tissue and bone sarcoma.

PURPOSE: To provide a more precise estimate of long-term survival observed for ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma, we performed a pooled analysis of overall survival (OS) data from multiple studies. METHODS: The primary analysis pooled OS data for 1,861 patients from 10 prospective and two retrospective studies of ipilimumab, including two phase III trials. Patients were previously treated (n = 1,257) or treatment naive (n = 604), and the majority of patients received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (n = 965) or 10 mg/kg (n = 706). We also conducted a secondary analysis of OS data (n = 4,846) with an additional 2,985 patients from an expanded access program. OS rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Among 1,861 patients, median OS was 11.4 months (95% CI, 10.7 to 12.1 months), which included 254 patients with at least 3 years of survival follow-up. The survival curve began to plateau around year 3, with follow-up of up to 10 years. Three-year survival rates were 22%, 26%, and 20% for all patients, treatment-naive patients, and previously treated patients, respectively. Including data from the expanded access program, median OS was 9.5 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 10.0 months), with a plateau at 21% in the survival curve beginning around year 3. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of OS to date for ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma. We observed a plateau in the survival curve, beginning at approximately 3 years, which was independent of prior therapy or ipilimumab dose. These data add to the evidence supporting the durability of long-term survival in ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma.