Faculty Bibliography

BackgroundMatrix metalloproteinase-23 (MMP-23) can block the voltage-gated potassium channel Kv1.3, whose function is important for sustained Ca2+ signaling during T cell activation. MMP-23 may also alter T cell activity and phenotype through cleavage of proteins affecting cytokine and chemokine signaling. We therefore tested the hypothesis that MMP-23 can negatively regulate the anti-tumor T cell response in human melanoma.MethodsWe characterized MMP-23 expression in primary melanoma patients who received adjuvant immunotherapy. We examined the association of MMP-23 with the anti-tumor immune response - as assessed by the prevalence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. Further, we examined the association between MMP-23 expression and response to immunotherapy. Considering also an in trans mechanism, we examined the association of melanoma MMP-23 and melanoma Kv1.3 expression.ResultsOur data revealed an inverse association between primary melanoma MMP-23 expression and the anti-tumor T cell response, as demonstrated by decreased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) (P inverted question mark= inverted question mark0.05), in particular brisk TILs (P inverted question mark= inverted question mark0.04), and a trend towards an increased proportion of immunosuppressive Foxp3+ regulatory T cells (P inverted question mark= inverted question mark0.07). High melanoma MMP-23 expression is also associated with recurrence in patients treated with immune biologics (P inverted question mark= inverted question mark0.037) but not in those treated with vaccines (P inverted question mark= inverted question mark0.64). Further, high melanoma MMP-23 expression is associated with shorter periods of progression-free survival for patients receiving immune biologics (P inverted question mark= inverted question mark0.025). On the other hand, there is no relationship between melanoma MMP-23 and melanoma Kv1.3 expression (P inverted question mark= inverted question mark0.27).ConclusionsOur data support a role for MMP-23 as a potential immunosuppressive target in melanoma, as well as a possible biomarker for informing melanoma immunotherapies.

PURPOSE: The antibody-drug conjugate glembatumumab vedotin links a fully human immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody against the melanoma-related glycoprotein NMB (gpNMB) to the potent cytotoxin monomethyl auristatin E. This study evaluated the safety and activity of glembatumumab vedotin in patients with advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received glembatumumab vedotin every 3 weeks (schedule 1) in a dose escalation and phase II expansion at the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). Dosing during 2 of 3 weeks (schedule 2) and weekly (schedule 3) was also assessed. The primary end points were safety and pharmacokinetics. The secondary end points included antitumor activity, gpNMB expression, and immunogenicity. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen patients were treated using schedule 1 (n = 79), schedule 2 (n = 15), or schedule 3 (n = 23). The MTDs were 1.88, 1.5, and 1.0 mg/kg for schedules 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities that occurred in two or more patients included rash, neutropenia, fatigue, neuropathy, arthralgia, myalgia, and diarrhea. Three treatment-related deaths (resulting from pneumococcal sepsis, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and renal failure) occurred at doses exceeding the MTDs. In the schedule 1 phase II expansion cohort (n = 34), five patients (15%) had a partial response and eight patients (24%) had stable disease for >/= 6 months. The objective response rate (ORR) was 2 of 6 (33%) for the schedule 2 MTD and 3 of 12 (25%) for the schedule 3 MTD. Rash was correlated with a greater ORR and improved progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: Glembatumumab vedotin is active in advanced melanoma. The schedule 1 MTD (1.88 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) was associated with a promising ORR and was generally well tolerated. More frequent dosing was potentially associated with a greater ORR but increased toxicity.

PURPOSE: Dabrafenib is a selective, potent ATP-competitive inhibitor of the BRAFV600-mutant kinase that has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials. We report the rationale for dose selection in the first-in-human study of dabrafenib, including pharmacokinetics, tissue pharmacodynamics, 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) pharmacodynamics, and dose-response relationship. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Dabrafenib was administered orally once, twice (BID), or three times daily (TID). Selected dose cohorts were expanded to collect adequate data on safety, pharmacokinetics, or pharmacodynamics. A recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was chosen based on safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and response data. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-four patients were enrolled and treated with doses ranging from 12 mg once daily to 300 mg BID in 10 cohorts. Pharmacokinetic assessment of dabrafenib demonstrated a less-than-dose-proportional increase in exposure after repeat dosing above 150 mg BID. Similar to parent drug concentrations, exposure for all metabolites demonstrated less-than-dose-proportional increases. Predicted target inhibition of pERK (>80%) was achieved at 150 mg BID, with a similar magnitude of inhibition at higher doses in BRAFV600 mutation melanoma biopsy samples. Although there was large variability between patients, FDG uptake decreased with higher daily doses in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. A favorable activity and tolerability profile was demonstrated at 150 mg BID. There was no improvement with TID dosing compared with BID dosing, based on FDG-PET and tumor response analyses in patients with melanoma. CONCLUSION: The RP2D of dabrafenib was determined to be 150 mg BID after considering multiple factors, including pharmacokinetics, tissue pharmacodynamics, FDG-PET pharmacodynamics, and the dose-response relationship. A maximum tolerated dose for dabrafenib was not determined. Clin Cancer Res; 20(17); 4449-58. (c)2014 AACR.

BACKGROUND: Addition of a MEK inhibitor to a BRAF inhibitor enhances tumour growth inhibition, delays acquired resistance, and abrogates paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway in preclinical models of BRAF-mutated melanoma. We assessed the safety and efficacy of combined BRAF inhibition with vemurafenib and MEK inhibition with cobimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. METHODS: We undertook a phase 1b study in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma. We included individuals who had either recently progressed on vemurafenib or never received a BRAF inhibitor. In the dose-escalation phase of our study, patients received vemurafenib 720 mg or 960 mg twice a day continuously and cobimetinib 60 mg, 80 mg, or 100 mg once a day for either 14 days on and 14 days off (14/14), 21 days on and 7 days off (21/7), or continuously (28/0). The primary endpoint was safety of the drug combination and to identify dose-limiting toxic effects and the maximum tolerated dose. Efficacy was a key secondary endpoint. All patients treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib were included in safety and efficacy analyses (intention-to-treat). The study completed accrual and all analyses are final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01271803. FINDINGS: 129 patients were treated at ten dosing regimens combining vemurafenib and cobimetinib: 66 had recently progressed on vemurafenib and 63 had never received a BRAF inhibitor. Dose-limiting toxic effects arose in four patients. One patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 80 mg once a day 14/14 had grade 3 fatigue for more than 7 days; one patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg once a day 21/7 had a grade 3 prolongation of QTc; and two patients on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg 28/0 had dose-limiting toxic effects-one developed grade 3 stomatitis and fatigue and one developed arthralgia and myalgia. The maximum tolerated dose was established as vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day in combination with cobimetinib 60 mg 21/7. Across all dosing regimens, the most common adverse events were diarrhoea (83 patients, 64%), non-acneiform rash (77 patients, 60%), liver enzyme abnormalities (64 patients, 50%), fatigue (62 patients, 48%), nausea (58 patients, 45%), and photosensitivity (52 patients, 40%). Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (12 patients, 9%; all grade 3), raised amounts of alkaline phosphatase (11 patients, 9%]), and anaemia (nine patients, 7%). Confirmed objective responses were recorded in ten (15%) of 66 patients who had recently progressed on vemurafenib, with a median progression-free survival of 2.8 months (95% CI 2.6-3.4). Confirmed objective responses were noted in 55 (87%) of 63 patients who had never received a BRAF inhibitor, including six (10%) who had a complete response; median progression-free survival was 13.7 months (95% CI 10.1-17.5). INTERPRETATION: The combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable when administered at the respective maximum tolerated doses. The combination has promising antitumour activity and further clinical development is warranted in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma, particularly in those who have never received a BRAF inhibitor; confirmatory clinical testing is ongoing. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B; LY3009806), a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, alone and in combination with dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). METHODS: Eligible patients received ramucirumab (10mg/kg) + dacarbazine (1000mg/m2) (Arm A) or ramucirumab only (10mg/kg) (Arm B) every 3weeks. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), overall response and safety. FINDINGS: Of 106 randomised patients, 102 received study treatment (Arm A, N=52; Arm B, N=50). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median PFS was 2.6months (Arm A) and 1.7months (Arm B); median 6-month PFS rates were 30.7% and 17.9% and 12-month PFS rates were 23.7% and 15.6%, respectively. In Arm A, 9 (17.3%) patients had partial response (PR) and 19 (36.5%), stable disease (SD); PR and SD in Arm B were 2 (4.0%) and 21 (42.0%), respectively. Median OS was 8.7months in Arm A and 11.1months in Arm B. Patients in both arms tolerated the treatment with limited Grade 3/4 toxicities. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab alone or in combination with dacarbazine was associated with an acceptable safety profile in patients with MM. Although the study was not powered for comparison between treatment arms, PFS appeared greater with combination therapy. Sustained disease control was observed on both study arm.

Neural infiltration in primary melanoma is a histopathologic feature that has been associated with desmoplastic histopathologic subtype and local recurrence in the literature. We tested the hypothesis that improved detection and characterization of neural infiltration into peritumoral or intratumoral location and perineural or intraneural involvement could have a prognostic relevance. We studied 128 primary melanoma cases prospectively accrued and followed at New York University using immunohistochemical detection with antihuman neurofilament protein and routine histology with hematoxylin and eosin. Neural infiltration, defined as the presence of tumor cells involving or immediately surrounding nerve foci, was identified and characterized using both detection methods. Neural infiltration rate of detection was enhanced by immunohistochemistry for neurofilament in matched-pair design (47% by immunohistochemistry versus 25% by routine histology). Immunohistochemical detection of neural infiltration was significantly associated with ulceration (P = .021), desmoplastic and acral lentiginous histologic subtype (P = .008), and head/neck/hands/feet tumor location (P = .037). Routinely detected neural infiltration was significantly associated with local recurrence (P = .010). Immunohistochemistry detected more intratumoral neural infiltration cases compared with routine histology (30% versus 3%, respectively). Peritumoral and intratumoral nerve location had no impact on clinical outcomes. Using a multivariate model controlling for stage, neither routinely detected neural infiltration nor enhanced immunohistochemical characterization of neural infiltration was significantly associated with disease-free or overall survival. Our data demonstrate that routinely detected neural infiltration is associated with local recurrence in all histologic subtypes but that improved detection and characterization of neural infiltration with immunohistochemistry in primary melanoma does not add to prognostic relevance.

OPINION STATEMENT: The management of high-risk melanoma has historically included primary surgical resection with or without lymphadenectomy followed by an array of adjuvant options including radiation therapy or immunomodulatory therapies such as interferon-alpha, granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor, and a multitude of vaccines. There has been a long-standing interest in the development of vaccines in high-risk and metastatic melanoma, and clinical trials have been ongoing for decades. Given that melanoma is identified as one of the most immunogenic solid tumors, there is continued hope that vaccine therapies will improve clinical outcomes. Despite intense interest in this field, few clinical trials to-date have demonstrated significant benefit from melanoma vaccines in high-risk disease. Several trials have even documented a detrimental effect on outcomes after vaccine administration. While the role of vaccines in the adjuvant setting of high-risk melanoma presently remains unclear, recent advances in immunotherapy for melanoma including development of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibodies have demonstrated meaningful clinical responses. With further study and focus on mechanisms of immune regulation, there remains promise for the role of vaccines in combination with other immune-stimulatory agents in high-risk melanoma.

PURPOSE: This open-label, multicenter study was designed to allow access to vemurafenib for patients with metastatic melanoma, bridging the time between end of enrollment in the phase III registration trial (December 2010) and commercial availability following US Food and Drug Administration approval of vemurafenib for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma (August 2011). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF mutation (detected by the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test). Unlike previous vemurafenib trials, patients with poor performance status (PS) and treated brain metastases were permitted. Enrolled patients received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. RESULTS: Of 374 patients enrolled at 29 US sites (December 2010 to October 2011), 371 patients received vemurafenib and were followed up for a median of 2.8 months (the study had a prespecified end upon vemurafenib approval and commercial availability). At baseline, most patients (75%) had stage M1c disease, and 19% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 2 or 3; 72% of patients had received prior systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma, 27% received prior ipilimumab, and 29% radiotherapy for prior brain metastases. Because reassessment data to confirm response were not available for most patients, point estimates of objective response rate (ORR) are reported. Among 241 efficacy-evaluable patients, the ORR was 54% (median time to response, 1.9 months). The ORR in non-central nervous system sites in patients with previously treated brain metastases (n = 68) was 53%. The ORR in prior ipilimumab-treated patients (n = 68) was 52%. For patients with PS of 0 or 1 (n = 210) and 2 or 3 (n = 31), the ORRs were 55%, and 42%, respectively. The safety profile observed was consistent with that reported in previous studies. The number of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was higher in patients with PS 2 or 3 than in those with PS 0 or 1 (10% vs. 5%, respectively). Adverse events requiring a dose reduction (at least 1 level) occurred in 11% of patients, and 9 patients (2%) experienced events leading to vemurafenib withdrawal, including 2 with repeated QT interval prolongation. DISCUSSION: This study confirmed the established rapid and high tumor response rate achievable with vemurafenib in BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. Several groups not included in previous studies, including patients with previously treated brain metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 2 to 3, or previous ipilimumab treatment had benefitted from vemurafenib similar to the overall population. No new safety signals were detected.

Purpose: The TLR 7/8 agonist, Resiquimod has been shown to induce local activation of immune cells, production of cytokines, and antigenpresentation by dendritic cells, features desirable for cancer vaccine adjuvants. In this study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of vaccination with NY-ESO-1 protein emulsified in Montanide ISA-51 VG when given with or without Resiquimod in surgically resected stage IIB-IV melanoma patients. Experimental design: This is a two-part study design. Part I represents an open-label dose-escalation with Resiquimod using 2 cohorts treated with 100mug NY-ESO-1 protein emulsified in 1.25mL Montanide (day1) followed by topical application of 1000mg of the 0.2% Resiquimod gel on days 1 and 3 for cohort-1 (N=3) or days 1, 3, and 5 for cohort-2 (N=3). The cycles were repeated every 3 weeks, total of 4 cycles. For part II of the study, patients were blindly randomized to receive 100mug NY-ESO-1 protein emulsified in 1.25mL Montanide (day1) followed by topical application of placebo gel (Arm-A; N=8) or 1000mg of 0.2% Resiquimod gel (Arm-B; N=12) using the dosing regimen established in Part I. Blood samples were collected at baseline, one week after each cycle of vaccination, and at follow-up visit for the assessment of NY-ESO-1-specific humoral and cellular immune responses. Results: The vaccines were generally well-tolerated, with no grade 4 adverse events or study-related deaths. Most study participants experienced mild adverse reactions reported as Grade 1 or 2 per CTCAE criteria v. 4. One patient experienced a grade 3 syncopal episode that was unrelated to the study drugs and another patient had a grade 3 injection site necrosis that was possibly related to the study drugs. NYESO- 1 specific antibody responses were induced in both study arms although higher mean antibody titers were observed in Arm B. NY-ESO-1 specific CD4+ T cell responses were induced in patients in both study arms. However, significant NY-ESO-1 CD8+ T cell responses were detected only in Arm B. Conclusions: The current study shows that Resiquimod is safe and contributes to the induction of immune responses in patients