Faculty Bibliography

Checkpoint immunotherapies (CPIs) have improved outcomes for metastatic melanoma patients, with objective response rates to combination ipilimumab and nivolumab of ~58%. Preclinical data suggest that histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibition enhances antitumor immune activity and may augment CPI. In a phase Ib open-label pilot trial (NCT03565406), patients with therapy-naive metastatic melanoma were treated with the class I/IV HDAC inhibitor mocetinostat orally three times a week in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab every 3 weeks for 12 weeks followed by 12-week maintenance cycles of nivolumab every 2 weeks and mocetinostat at the same dose and schedule as induction. The endpoints of the trial were safety, definition of a recommended phase 2 dose, preliminary assessment of response, and correlative marker determination. Patient PBMC and serum samples collected at baseline and on-treatment were assessed by flow cytometry and Luminex assays for immune correlates. Ten patients were treated: nine with 70-mg and one with 50-mg mocetinostat. In the 70-mg cohort, eight patients had objective responses. The patient in the 50-mg cohort had an early progression of disease. All patients had grade 2 or higher toxicities, and six had grades 3 and 4 toxicities. Patient PBMC showed significant decreases in myeloid-derived suppressor cells and trends towards reduced anti-inflammatory monocyte phenotypes. Patient serum showed significant upregulation of granzyme A and TNF and trends towards increased granzyme B and IFNγ. Collectively, combining CPI and mocetinostat had favorable response rates but with high levels of toxicity. Assessment of immune correlates supports a shift away from immunosuppressive phenotypes towards enhanced immune responses.

BACKGROUND:Recent data suggest that patients with stage III melanoma are at high risk for developing central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Because a subset of patients with stage II melanoma experiences worse survival outcomes than some patients with stage III disease, the authors investigated the risk of CNS metastasis in stage II melanoma to inform surveillance guidelines for this population. METHODS:test, the cumulative incidence, and Cox multivariable regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between baseline characteristics and the development of CNS metastases. RESULTS:Patients with stage III melanoma had a higher rate of developing brain metastases than those with stage II melanoma (100 of 468 patients [21.4%] vs. 82 of 586 patients [14.0%], respectively; p = .002). However, patients who had stage IIC melanoma had a significantly higher rate of isolated first recurrences in the CNS compared with those who had stage III disease (12.1% vs. 3.6%; p = .002). The risk of ever developing brain metastases was similarly elevated for patients who had stage IIC disease (hazard ratio [HR], 3.16; 95% CI, 1.77-5.66), stage IIIB disease (HR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.63-4.91), and stage IIIC disease (HR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.81-4.74), and the risk was highest in patients who had stage IIID disease (HR, 8.59; 95% CI: 4.11-17.97). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with stage IIC melanoma are at elevated risk for first recurrence in the CNS. Surveillance strategies that incorporate serial neuroimaging should be considered for these individuals until more accurate predictive markers can be identified.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Ipilimumab and nivolumab have each shown treatment benefit for high-risk resected melanoma. The phase III CheckMate 915 trial evaluated adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with resected stage IIIB-D or IV melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 1,833 patients received nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks (916 patients) or nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (917 patients) for ≤ 1 year. After random assignment, patients were stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and stage. Dual primary end points were recurrence-free survival (RFS) in randomly assigned patients and in the tumor PD-L1 expression-level < 1% subgroup. RESULTS:= .269) or in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1% (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14). In all patients, 24-month RFS rates were 64.6% (combination) and 63.2% (nivolumab). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 32.6% of patients in the combination group and 12.8% in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 0.4% of patients in the combination group and in no nivolumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks did not improve RFS versus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with stage IIIB-D or stage IV melanoma. Nivolumab showed efficacy consistent with previous adjuvant studies in a population resembling current practice using American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition, reaffirming nivolumab as a standard of care for melanoma adjuvant treatment.

PURPOSE:Adjuvant immunotherapy produces durable benefit for patients with resected melanoma, but many develop recurrence and/or immune-related adverse events (irAE). We investigated whether baseline serum autoantibody (autoAb) signatures predicted recurrence and severe toxicity in patients treated with adjuvant nivolumab, ipilimumab, or ipilimumab plus nivolumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:This study included 950 patients: 565 from CheckMate 238 (408 ipilimumab versus 157 nivolumab) and 385 from CheckMate 915 (190 nivolumab versus 195 ipilimumab plus nivolumab). Serum autoAbs were profiled using the HuProt Human Proteome Microarray v4.0 (CDI Laboratories, Mayaguez, PR). Analysis of baseline differentially expressed autoAbs was followed by recurrence and severe toxicity signature building for each regimen, testing of the signatures, and additional independent validation for nivolumab using patients from CheckMate 915. RESULTS:In the nivolumab independent validation cohort, high recurrence score predicted significantly worse recurrence-free survival [RFS; adjusted HR (aHR), 3.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.98-6.55], and outperformed a model composed of clinical variables including PD-L1 expression (P < 0.001). Severe toxicity score was a significant predictor of severe irAEs (aHR, 13.53; 95% CI, 2.59-86.65). In the ipilimumab test cohort, high recurrence score was associated with significantly worse RFS (aHR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.38-7.45) and severe toxicity score significantly predicted severe irAEs (aHR, 11.04; 95% CI, 3.84-37.25). In the ipilimumab plus nivolumab test cohort, high autoAb recurrence score was associated with significantly worse RFS (aHR, 6.45; 95% CI, 1.48-28.02), and high severe toxicity score was significantly associated with severe irAEs (aHR, 23.44; 95% CI, 4.10-212.50). CONCLUSIONS:Baseline serum autoAb signatures predicted recurrence and severe toxicity in patients treated with adjuvant immunotherapy. Prospective testing of the signatures that include datasets with longer follow-up and rare but more severe toxicities will help determine their generalizability and potential clinical utility. See related commentary by Hassel and Luke, p. 3914.

Background: Lifileucel showed durable responses in patients (pts) with advanced (unresectable/metastatic) melanoma in the post anti-PD-1 setting, with an ORR of 36% (Sarnaik JCO 2021). The recent approval of relatlimab (anti-LAG3 antibody) + nivolumab provides a new option for first-line (1L) treatment of advanced melanoma; however, ORR after exposure to this novel combination has been reported only for anti-CTLA-4-based therapies (11%; Menzies NEJM 2022).
Method(s): In the phase 2, C-144-01 study (NCT02360579), pts with advanced melanoma were previously treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor(s) (ICI) and BRAF +/- MEK inhibitors (if BRAF V600 mutation-positive). We performed a retrospective exploratory analysis to assess efficacy and safety of lifileucel in pts enrolled in C-144-01 who progressed on/after anti-LAG3-containing therapy. ORR was assessed by investigators per RECIST v1.1.
Result(s): Thirteen pts received prior anti-LAG3 (12 with anti-PD-1; 1 with anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4), with a median of 3 prior therapies. Anti-LAG3 was the last therapy prior to TIL therapy in 7 pts; 6 pts had other therapies after anti-LAG3 (eg, chemotherapy, ICI, targeted therapy). Anti-LAG3 was used in 1L in 4 pts; 9 pts received it post-progression. Median duration of anti-LAG3 therapy was 3.3 mo (range, 0.03-9.2 mo). ORR for lifileucel was 38.5% (5 partial responses); 3 responders had primary and 2 acquired resistance to anti-LAG3 + anti-PD-1. Responses were durable, with 60% of responses extending beyond 12 mo. Safety profile was consistent with prior reports; most common (>=30%) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia (85%), thrombocytopenia (85%), febrile neutropenia (39%), leukopenia (31%), neutropenia (31%), and lymphopenia (31%).
Conclusion(s): Lifileucel showed an encouraging 38.5% ORR in pts with advanced melanoma refractory to prior anti-LAG3 + anti-PD-1 +/- anti-CTLA-4. Similar to prior observations in pts after anti-PD-1 therapy, both primary and acquired anti-LAG3-resistant pts responded to lifileucel, suggesting that lifileucel outcomes may not be affected by prior anti-LAG3 therapy. Clinical trial identification: NCT02360579. Editorial acknowledgement: Medical writing support was provided by Second City Science (Vaniam Group, LLC) and funded by Iovance Biotheraputics, Inc. Legal entity responsible for the study: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
Funding(s): Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Disclosure: J. Larkin: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Eisai, Novartis, Incyte, Merck, touchIME, touchEXPERTS, Pfizer, Royal College of Physicians, Cambridge Healthcare Research, RGCP, VJOncology, Agence Unik, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Ipsen, Roche, EUSA Pharma, Aptitude, AstraZeneca, GSK, Calithera, Ultimovacs, Seagen, eCancer, Inselgruppe, Goldman Sachs, MSD; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role, Consulting: iOnctura, Apple Tree, Merck, BMS, Eisai, Debipharm, Incyte; Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Achilles, BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Immunocore, Aveo, Pharmacyclics. S. Dalle: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: BMS, MSD; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel expenses: BMS; Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: MSD. M.F. Sanmamed: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Roche; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role, Consulting: Numab, BMS; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: MSD; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Numab. J.C. Hassel: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Clinical Trial Agreement. H. Kluger: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Apexigen, BMS, Merck; Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Unpaid relationship: Celldex. M. Orloff: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role, Consulting: Trisalus, Ideaya, Immunocore; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Trisalus, Ideaya, Immunocore. J.S. Weber: Financial Interests, Personal, Funding, supports an IIT: BMS; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Biond, Evaxion, Neximmune, Instil Bio, OncoC4; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: BMS, Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Incyte, Genentech, Iovance, OncoC4, Sellas, Biond, Instil Bio, Evaxion; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: BMS, Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Incyte, Genentech, Iovance, OncoC4, Sellas, Biond, Instil Bio, Evaxion; Financial Interests, Personal, Royalties, named on a CTLA4 biomarker and a TIL growth patent: Moffitt; Financial Interests, Personal, Royalties, named on a PD-1 biomarker patent: Biodesix; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel: BMS. F. Graf Finckenstein: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. P. Hari: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. M. Jagasia: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. H. Yin: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. W. Shi: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. G. Sulur: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. X. Wu: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. V. Gontcharova: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks/Shares: Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. K. Lewis: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Array BioPhar, Merck, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Iovance Biotherapeutics, nektar, Merck; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel: Roche/Genentech, Regeneron, Neon Therapeutics, alkermes; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Array BioPharma, Iovance Biotherapeutics; Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: Roche/Genentech, Merck, Array BioPharma, Incyte, Nektar, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kartos Therapeutics, OncoSec, Regeneron, alkermes, Neon Therapeutics, Ultimovacs, Senhwa Biosciences, Replimune, Amgen, Seattle Genetics; Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Uncompensated Relationships: Roche/Genentech, Regeneron. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Copyright

Background/Purpose: Treatment with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has promising outcomes in many tumor types but carries higher adverse event risk than ICI monotherapy. Also, patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (AID) have largely been excluded from ICI clinical trials due to concern for pre-existing AID flare or immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This is the first study to analyze safety and effectiveness of ICI combination versus monotherapy for this at-risk population.
Method(s): We conducted a multi-center retrospective study in patients with pre-existing AIDs receiving ICIs (i.e., antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) single-agent (monotherapy) or ICI combination). Primary endpoints included the time to occurrence of any-type ICI AE (irAE or AID flare), time to irAEs and time to AID flares in the presence of the competing risk of death with progression free survival (PFS, time to progression or death) and overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoints. We used Fine-Gray models and Cox regression models to investigate the factors associated with these endpoints.
Result(s): 133 patients with pre-existing AID who received ICIs were identified: 69 (52%) monotherapy and 64 (48%) combination (Table 1). About half the patients had melanoma (44%) and 25% had lung cancer. Rheumatic (34%) or dermatologic (22%) pre-existing AIDs were the most common. Most patients (95%) had controlled autoimmune disease at ICI start. Six of 7 patients with active AID at baseline experienced some AE. Patients receiving baseline DMARD(s) were more likely to experience an AE (95%CI 1.079-2.996, p=0.024). The cumulative incidence of irAEs was higher for ICI combination compared to monotherapy (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 2.28, 95%CI 1.36-3.84), adjusting for age at malignancy, but there was no significant difference between rate of high-grade toxicity for patients treated with ICI combination versus monotherapy (See Figure 1). On subgroup analysis for patients with melanoma or lung cancer, the cumulative incidence of irAEs or AID flares were not statistically different between treatment groups. PFS was longer (but not statistically significant) for combination therapy for any tumor type compared to single agent (median 12.3mo, 95%CI 5.0-23.2 versus 7.3mo, 95%CI 5.2-11.3, p=0.116). Similar trend was noted for PFS for melanoma (median 23.2mo combination vs. 14.0mo monotherapy, p=0.4237), while the opposite relation was noted for lung cancer subgroup (4.4mo combination vs. 7.1mo monotherapy, p=0.2933).
Conclusion(s): Efficacy of ICI combination versus monotherapy was not statistically significant and so still remains unclear in this patient population, but there was no significant difference in rates of high-grade toxicity between the two cohorts. Our data supports the notion that patients with pre-existing AIDs should not be indiscriminately precluded from getting ICI combination. Our results provide guidance for future prospective clinical trials studying combination therapy for subgroups of this at-risk population. No statistically significant difference appreciated in high grade adverse events between patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease treated with ICI combination versus monotherapy. Grading determined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events rubric with grade 3 or higher considered "high grade."

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Nivolumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma based on data from CheckMate 238, which enrolled patients per American Joint Committee on Cancer version 7 (AJCC-7) criteria. Here, we analyse long-term outcomes per AJCC-8 staging criteria compared with AJCC-7 results to inform clinical decisions for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:In a double-blind, phase 3 trial (NCT02388906), patients aged ≥15 years with resected, histologically confirmed AJCC-7 stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma were randomised to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously ≤1 year. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed in patients with stage III disease, per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8. RESULTS:Per AJCC-7 staging, 42.4% and 57.3% of patients were in substage IIIB and IIIC, respectively; per AJCC-8, 1.1%, 30.4%, 62.8%, and 5.0% were in IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IIID. After 4 years' minimum follow-up, the AJCC-7 superior efficacy of nivolumab over ipilimumab in patients with resected stage III melanoma was preserved per AJCC-8 analysis. No statistically significant difference in RFS between stage III substage hazard ratios was observed per AJCC-7 or -8 staging criteria (interaction test: AJCC-7, P = 0.8115; AJCC-8, P = 0.1051; P = 0.8392 ((AJCC-7) and P = 0.8678 (AJCC-8) for DMFS). CONCLUSIONS:CheckMate 238 4-year RFS and DMFS outcomes are consistent per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging criteria. Outcome benefits can therefore be translated for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8.

BACKGROUND:Nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) is approved for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. However, real-world data on this regimen are limited in this setting. METHODS:This retrospective observational study utilized data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database and patient medical charts. Eligible patients were diagnosed with melanoma and received adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy from March to August 2018. Patients were grouped by dosing regimen: cohort 1 (C1), de novo nivolumab 480 mg Q4W; cohort 2 (C2), switched to nivolumab 480 mg Q4W after nivolumab 240 mg or 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); cohort 3 (C3), de novo nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W; or cohort 4 (C4), de novo nivolumab 240 mg Q2W. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. Duration of therapy and safety/tolerability were assessed. RESULTS:One hundred ninety-one patients were included (C1, n = 40; C2, n = 74; C3, n = 22; C4, n = 55). Duration of therapy was relatively consistent across cohorts (median, 10.3 months; range, 8.3-10.7). Likewise, proportions of patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar (range, 54.5%-60.1%), as were the most common events (fatigue, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, nausea, and pruritus). However, proportions experiencing 'significant' TRAEs varied between cohorts. Proportions discontinuing treatment were relatively consistent across cohorts. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses generally supported the unadjusted findings. CONCLUSIONS:Real-world safety profiles of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W and 480 mg Q4W were similar, and both were comparable to the well-documented safety of weight-based dosing (3 mg/kg Q2W), further supporting their approval and use in the adjuvant setting for melanoma.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor use in patients with pre-existing neurological autoimmune diseases. METHODS:In this retrospective case-series, we examined exacerbations of underlying disease and the occurrence of immune-related adverse events in 5 patients who had been diagnosed with a neurological autoimmune disease prior to receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for advanced malignancy. RESULTS:Two patients had a prior diagnosis of myasthenia gravis, two had Guillain-Barré syndrome, and one had chronic idiopathic demyelinating polyneuropathy. Only one patient experienced a flare of neurological autoimmune disease. Four of the five patients experienced immune-related adverse events unrelated to their neurological disease. CONCLUSIONS:In this case-series, exacerbations of neurological autoimmune disease were less common and less severe than expected. Further research is needed to determine which individuals are at greatest risk of neurological autoimmune disease complication while receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

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.