Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Cancer immunotherapy has been firmly established as a standard of care for patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma. Therapeutic outcomes in clinical trials have resulted in the approval of 11 new drugs and/or combination regimens for patients with melanoma. However, prospective data to support evidence-based clinical decisions with respect to the optimal schedule and sequencing of immunotherapy and targeted agents, how best to manage emerging toxicities and when to stop treatment are not yet available. METHODS:To address this knowledge gap, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Melanoma Task Force developed a process for consensus recommendations for physicians treating patients with melanoma integrating evidence-based data, where available, with best expert consensus opinion. The initial consensus statement was published in 2013, and version 2.0 of this report is an update based on a recent meeting of the Task Force and extensive subsequent discussions on new agents, contemporary peer-reviewed literature and emerging clinical data. The Academy of Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine) clinical practice guidelines were used as a basis for consensus development with an updated literature search for important studies published between 1992 and 2017 and supplemented, as appropriate, by recommendations from Task Force participants. RESULTS:The Task Force considered patients with stage II-IV melanoma and here provide consensus recommendations for how they would incorporate the many immunotherapy options into clinical pathways for patients with cutaneous melanoma. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:These clinical guidleines provide physicians and healthcare providers with consensus recommendations for managing melanoma patients electing treatment with tumor immunotherapy.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:An association between mutational burden and response to immune checkpoint therapy has been documented in several cancer types. The potential for such a mutational burden threshold to predict response to immune checkpoint therapy was evaluated in several clinical datasets, where mutational burden was measured either by whole-exome sequencing (WXS) or using commercially available sequencing panels. Methods/UNASSIGNED:WXS and RNA-seq data of 33 solid cancer types from TCGA were analyzed to determine whether a robust immune checkpoint activating mutation (iCAM) burden threshold associated with evidence of immune checkpoint activation exists in these cancers that may serve as a biomarker for response to immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Results/UNASSIGNED:We find that a robust iCAM threshold, associated with signatures of immune checkpoint activation, exists in 8 of 33 solid cancers: melanoma, lung adenocarcinoma, colon adenocarcinoma, endometrial cancer, stomach adenocarcinoma, cervical cancer, ER+HER2- breast cancer, and bladder-urothelial cancer. Tumors with mutational burden higher than the threshold (iCAM+) also had clear histologic evidence of lymphocytic infiltration. In published datasets of melanoma, lung adenocarcinoma and colon cancer, patients with iCAM+ tumors had significantly better response to immune checkpoint therapy compared to those with iCAM- tumors. ROC analysis using TCGA predictions as gold standard showed that iCAM+ tumors are accurately identifiable using clinical sequencing assays, such as FoundationOne or StrandAdvantage. Using the FoundationOne derived threshold, analysis of 113 melanoma tumors, showed that iCAM+ patients have significantly better response to immune checkpoint therapy. iCAM+ and iCAM- tumors have distinct mutation patterns and different immune microenvironments. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:In 8 solid cancers, a mutational burden threshold exists that may predict response to immune checkpoint blockade. This threshold is identifiable using available clinical sequencing assays.

Purpose To establish the safety profile and antitumor activity of the anti-programmed death 1 receptor monoclonal antibody, pembrolizumab, in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC) that expressed programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Patients and Methods KEYNOTE-028 (NCT02054806) is a nonrandomized, multicohort, phase Ib trial of pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-positive advanced solid tumors. Key eligibility criteria for the NPC cohort included unresectable or metastatic disease, failure on prior standard therapy, and PD-L1 expression in 1% or more of tumor cells or tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Patients received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks up to 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator review. Tumor response was assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) every 8 weeks for the first 6 months and every 12 weeks thereafter. Results Twenty-seven patients received pembrolizumab. Median age was 52.0 years (range, 18 to 68 years); 92.6% received prior therapies for RM-NPC; 70.4% had received three or more therapies. Partial response and stable disease were observed in seven and 14 patients, respectively, for an ORR of 25.9% (95% CI, 11.1 to 46.3) over a median follow-up of 20 months. ORR by central review was similar (26.3%). Drug-related adverse events that occurred in 15% or more of patients included rash (25.9%), pruritus (25.9%), pain (22.2%), hypothyroidism (18.5%), and fatigue (18.5%). Grade ≥ 3 drug-related adverse events occurred in eight patients (29.6%), and there was one drug-related death (sepsis). As of the data cutoff (June 20, 2016), two patients remained on pembrolizumab treatment. Conclusion Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with RM-NPC.

Recent advances in immuno-oncology and regulatory approvals have been rapid and paradigm shifting in many difficult-to-treat malignancies. Despite immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy becoming the standard of care across multiple tumor types, there are many unanswered questions that need to be addressed before this therapeutic modality can be fully harnessed. Areas of limitations include treatment of patients not sufficiently represented in clinical trials, uncertainty of the optimal treatment dosing and duration, and lack of understanding regarding long-term immune related toxicities and atypical tumor responses. Patients such as those with autoimmune disease, chronic viral infections, limited performance status, and brain metastases were often excluded from initial trials due to concerns of safety. However, limited data suggest that some of these patients can benefit from therapy with manageable toxicities; thus, future studies should incorporate these patients to clearly define safety and efficacy. There are still controversies regarding the optimal dosing strategy that can vary from weight-based to flat dosing, with undefined treatment duration. Further elucidation of the optimal dosing approach and evaluation of predictive biomarkers should be incorporated in the design of future trials. Finally, there are long-term immune-mediated toxicities, atypical tumor responses such as pseudoprogression and endpoints unique to immuno-oncology that are not adequately captured by traditional trial designs; thus, novel study designs are needed. In this article, we discuss in detail the above challenges and propose needed areas of research for exploration and incorporation in the next generation of immuno-oncology clinical trials.

The development of immunotherapy is an important breakthrough for the treatment of cancer, with antitumor efficacy observed in a wide variety of tumors. To optimize immunotherapy use, approaches must be developed to identify which patients are likely to achieve benefit. To minimize therapeutic toxicities and costs, understanding the ideal choice and sequencing of the numerous immuno-oncology agents available for individual patients is thus critical, but fraught with challenges. The immune tumor microenvironment (TME) is a unique aspect of the response to immuno-oncology agents and measurement of single biomarkers does not adequately capture these complex interactions. Therefore, multiple potential biomarkers are likely needed. Current candidates in this area include PD-L1 expression, CD8⁺ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, tumor mutation load and neoantigen burden, immune-related gene signatures, and multiplex IHC assays that examine the pharmacodynamic and spatial interactions of the TME. The most fruitful investigations are likely to use several techniques to predict response and interrogate mechanisms of resistance. Immuno-oncology biomarker research must employ validated assays to ask focused research questions utilizing clinically annotated tissue collections and biomarker-focused clinical trial designs to investigate specific endpoints. Real-time input from patients and their advocates into biomarker discovery is necessary to ensure that the investigations pursued will improve both clinical outcomes and quality of life. We herein provide a framework of recommendations to guide the search for immuno-oncology biomarkers of value.

Purpose The safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against programmed death 1 (PD-1), were assessed in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-expressing extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in the multicohort, phase Ib open-label KEYNOTE-028 study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02054806). Methods Patients with SCLC received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for 24 months or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. PD-L1 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry. PD-L1-positive patients had membranous PD-L1 expression in ≥ 1% of tumor and associated inflammatory cells or positive staining in stroma. Response was assessed by investigator per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 every 8 weeks for the first 6 months and every 12 weeks thereafter. Adverse events (AEs) were reported per the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Primary end points were safety, tolerability, and objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and duration of response. Results Twenty-four patients with PD-L1-expressing SCLC were enrolled and received at least one pembrolizumab dose. At the data cutoff date (June 20, 2016), the median follow-up duration was 9.8 months (range, 0.5 to 24 months). All 24 patients experienced AEs; the most common were asthenia (n = 7), fatigue (n = 7), and cough (n = 6). Two patients experienced grade 3 to 5 treatment-related AEs: one patient had elevated bilirubin, and one patient had asthenia, grade 5 colitis, and intestinal ischemia. One patient had a complete response, and seven patients had partial responses, resulting in an ORR of 33% (95% CI, 16% to 55%). Conclusion The safety of pembrolizumab was consistent with the known safety profile in other tumor types. Pembrolizumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in patients with pretreated, PD-L1-expressing SCLC.

Purpose: Many patients with BRAF^V600E mutant melanoma treated with BRAF inhibitors experience a rapid response, but ultimately develop resistance. Insight into the mechanism of resistance is critical for development of more effective treatment strategies.Experimental Design: Comprehensive genomic profiling of serial biopsies was performed in a patient with a BRAF^V600E mutant metastatic melanoma who developed resistance to vemurafenib. An AGAP3-BRAF fusion gene, identified in the vemurafenib-resistant tumor, was expressed in BRAF^V600E melanoma cell lines, and its effect on drug sensitivity was evaluated.Results: Clinical resistance to vemurafenib in a melanoma harboring a BRAF^V600E mutation was associated with acquisition of an AGAP3-BRAF fusion gene. Expression of the AGAP3-BRAF fusion in BRAF^V600E mutant melanoma cells induced vemurafenib resistance; however, these cells remained relatively sensitive to MEK inhibitors. The patient experienced clinical benefit following treatment with the combination of a BRAF and a MEK inhibitor. Rebiopsy of the tumor at a later time point, after BRAF and MEK inhibitors had been discontinued, showed loss of the AGAP3-BRAF fusion gene. Mixing experiments suggest that cells harboring both BRAF^V600E and AGAP3-BRAF only have a fitness advantage over parental BRAF^V600E cells during active treatment with a BRAF inhibitor.Conclusions: We report acquisition of a BRAF fusion as a novel mechanism of acquired resistance to vemurafenib in a patient with melanoma harboring a BRAF^V600E mutation. The acquisition and regression of clones harboring this fusion during the presence and absence of a BRAF inhibitor are consistent with rapidly evolving clonal dynamics in melanoma. Clin Cancer Res; 23(18); 5631-8. ©2017 AACR.

Purpose The multicohort phase Ib KEYNOTE-028 (NCT02054806) study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab, an anti-programmed death 1 monoclonal antibody, in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) -positive advanced solid tumors. The results from the advanced endometrial cancer cohort are reported. Patients and Methods Female patients with locally advanced or metastatic PD-L1-positive endometrial cancer who had experienced progression after standard therapy were eligible. Patients received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 24 months or until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary efficacy end point was objective response rate by RECIST (version 1.1). Secondary end points included safety, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, and overall survival. The data cutoff was February 17, 2016. Results Of 75 patients screened, 36 (48.0%) had PD-L1-positive tumors, and 24 (32.0%) were enrolled. Fifteen (62.5%) of these 24 patients had received at least two previous lines of therapy for advanced disease. Three patients (13.0%) achieved confirmed partial response (95% CI, 2.8% to 33.6%); the median DOR was not reached. Two patients were still receiving treatment and exhibiting continued response at time of data cutoff. Three additional patients (13.0%) achieved stable disease, with a median duration of 24.6 weeks. One patient who achieved partial response had a polymerase E mutation. Thirteen patients (54.2%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs), with fatigue (20.8%), pruritus (16.7%), pyrexia (12.5%), and decreased appetite (12.5%) occurring in ≥ 10% of patients. Grade 3 treatment-related AEs were reported in four patients. No patient experienced a grade 4 AE, and no patient discontinued treatment because of an AE. Conclusion Pembrolizumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile and durable antitumor activity in a subgroup of patients with heavily pretreated advanced PD-L1-positive endometrial cancer.

Purpose: ONC201 is a small-molecule selective antagonist of the G protein-coupled receptor DRD2 that is the founding member of the imipridone class of compounds. A first-in-human phase I study of ONC201 was conducted to determine its recommended phase II dose (RP2D).Experimental Design: This open-label study treated 10 patients during dose escalation with histologically confirmed advanced solid tumors. Patients received ONC201 orally once every 3 weeks, defined as one cycle, at doses from 125 to 625 mg using an accelerated titration design. An additional 18 patients were treated at the RP2D in an expansion phase to collect additional safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic information.Results: No grade >1 drug-related adverse events occurred, and the RP2D was defined as 625 mg. Pharmacokinetic analysis revealed a C_max of 1.5 to 7.5 μg/mL (∼3.9-19.4 μmol/L), mean half-life of 11.3 hours, and mean AUC of 37.7 h·μg/L. Pharmacodynamic assays demonstrated induction of caspase-cleaved keratin 18 and prolactin as serum biomarkers of apoptosis and DRD2 antagonism, respectively. No objective responses by RECIST were achieved; however, radiographic regression of several individual metastatic lesions was observed along with prolonged stable disease (>9 cycles) in prostate and endometrial cancer patients.Conclusions: ONC201 is a selective DRD2 antagonist that is well tolerated, achieves micromolar plasma concentrations, and is biologically active in advanced cancer patients when orally administered at 625 mg every 3 weeks. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4163-9. ©2017 AACR.

BACKGROUND:The frequency with which targeted tumor sequencing results will lead to implemented change in care is unclear. Prospective assessment of the feasibility and limitations of using genomic sequencing is critically important. METHODS:A prospective clinical study was conducted on 100 patients with diverse-histology, rare, or poor-prognosis cancers to evaluate the clinical actionability of a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified, comprehensive genomic profiling assay (FoundationOne), using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumors. The primary objectives were to assess utility, feasibility, and limitations of genomic sequencing for genomically guided therapy or other clinical purpose in the setting of a multidisciplinary molecular tumor board. RESULTS:Of the tumors from the 92 patients with sufficient tissue, 88 (96%) had at least one genomic alteration (average 3.6, range 0-10). Commonly altered pathways included p53 (46%), RAS/RAF/MAPK (rat sarcoma; rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma; mitogen-activated protein kinase) (45%), receptor tyrosine kinases/ligand (44%), PI3K/AKT/mTOR (phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase; protein kinase B; mammalian target of rapamycin) (35%), transcription factors/regulators (31%), and cell cycle regulators (30%). Many low frequency but potentially actionable alterations were identified in diverse histologies. Use of comprehensive profiling led to implementable clinical action in 35% of tumors with genomic alterations, including genomically guided therapy, diagnostic modification, and trigger for germline genetic testing. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Use of targeted next-generation sequencing in the setting of an institutional molecular tumor board led to implementable clinical action in more than one third of patients with rare and poor-prognosis cancers. Major barriers to implementation of genomically guided therapy were clinical status of the patient and drug access. Early and serial sequencing in the clinical course and expanded access to genomically guided early-phase clinical trials and targeted agents may increase actionability. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE/CONCLUSIONS:Identification of key factors that facilitate use of genomic tumor testing results and implementation of genomically guided therapy may lead to enhanced benefit for patients with rare or difficult to treat cancers. Clinical use of a targeted next-generation sequencing assay in the setting of an institutional molecular tumor board led to implementable clinical action in over one third of patients with rare and poor prognosis cancers. The major barriers to implementation of genomically guided therapy were clinical status of the patient and drug access both on trial and off label. Approaches to increase actionability include early and serial sequencing in the clinical course and expanded access to genomically guided early phase clinical trials and targeted agents.