Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Herein, we describe the use of systemic immunotherapy for both locally advanced and metastatic conjunctival melanoma. Current treatments for advanced conjunctival melanoma typically result in poor local control leading to disfiguring orbital exenteration surgery. Locoregional spread of conjunctival malignant melanoma typically requires pre-auricular and cervical lymph node dissection with post-operative adjuvant radiation therapy. In addition, classic systemic chemotherapy has been unsuccessful in the treatment of metastatic disease. METHODS:This is a retrospectively analyzed clinical case series of 5 patients with biopsy proven conjunctival melanoma who were treated with checkpoint inhibition therapy. Of these, 3 patients were treated for residual ocular disease present after failing multiple local therapies and refusing orbital exenteration surgery and two (with local ocular control) for metastatic conjunctival melanoma. Both those with locally advanced disease and patients with metastatic disease received an anti-PD1 agent in combination with another immunotherapeutic agent. All 5 were given multiple cycles of systemic anti-PD1 therapy, 1 was initially treated with single agent ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) prior to approval of anti-PD1 agents and two received interferon eye drops. As part of each ophthalmic examination, photographs of all conjunctival and eyelid surfaces were obtained. Systemic evaluations involved initial staging scans as well as periodic re-imaging. RESULTS:All cases have shown responses. Of the 2 complete responses, 1 was a patient with systemic disease. No patients developed ocular toxicity or loss of vision. However, systemic adverse effects included adrenal insufficiency, Grade-III colitis, Grade-II dermatitis, Grade-II hepatotoxicity and Grade-II pneumonitis. CONCLUSIONS:This report suggests that systemic immunotherapy with or without topical interferon is effective in treatment of malignant melanoma of the conjunctiva. Therefore, it can be considered for patients with advanced local conjunctival melanoma, those who refuse orbital exenteration surgery and those with systemic metastasis.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Two primary histologic subtypes, superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) and nodular melanoma (NM), comprise the majority of all cutaneous melanomas. NM is associated with worse outcomes, which have been attributed to increased thickness at presentation, and it is widely expected that NM and SSM would exhibit similar behavior once metastasized. Herein, we tested the hypothesis that primary histologic subtype is an independent predictor of survival and may impact response to treatment in the metastatic setting. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We examined the most recent Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort (n = 118 508) and the New York University (NYU) cohort (n = 1621) with available protocol-driven follow-up. Outcomes specified by primary histology were studied in both the primary and metastatic settings with respect to BRAF-targeted therapy and immunotherapy. We characterized known driver mutations and examined a 140-gene panel in a subset of NM and SSM cases using next-generation sequencing. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results/UNASSIGNED:NM was an independent risk factor for death in both the SEER (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41 to 1.70, P < .001) and NYU (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.05, 2.07, P = .03) cohorts, controlling for thickness, ulceration, stage, and other variables. In the metastatic setting, NM remained an independent risk factor for death upon treatment with BRAF-targeted therapy (HR = 3.33, 95% CI = 1.06 to 10.47, P = .04) but showed no statistically significant difference with immune checkpoint inhibition. NM was associated with a higher rate of NRAS mutation (P < .001), and high-throughput sequencing revealed NM-specific genomic alterations in NOTCH4, ANK3, and ZNF560, which were independently validated. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Our data reveal distinct clinical and biological differences between NM and SSM that support revisiting the prognostic and predictive impact of primary histology subtype in the management of cutaneous melanoma.

As recently as 10 years ago, a diagnosis of metastatic melanoma was considered fatal, with a prognosis of typically 6 months or less from diagnosis. The development of checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab and nivolumab, which modulate the effects of the CTLA-4 and PD-1, respectively, has revolutionized outcomes for these patients. Monotherapy improves metastatic disease survival, but dual therapy provides greater benefit with 58% of patients alive at 3 years. Combination immunotherapy is even active in brain metastases. In the adjuvant setting, data show that at 1 year over 70% patients remain disease-free with PD-1 blockade. Immunotherapy is generally safe and well tolerated. However, treatment-related endocrinopathies require long-term medications. Nowadays, advanced cutaneous melanoma is a more manageable disease.

Genetic analysis of melanoma has allowed us to identify a population of patients who have more aggressive disease and harbor the driver mutation BRAF. This mutation is found in approximately 50% of metastatic disease and provides a target for focused therapies to control this disease. These responses are usually brisk; however, they lack the durability of immunotherapy. Frontline therapy for patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma is not as straightforward as prescribing BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Prior trials of combination immunotherapy demonstrate similar responses and durability of responses in patients with BRAF wild-type as well as BRAF-mutated disease. Decisions about immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or the combination of immunotherapy with targeted therapy require an oncologist to evaluate multiple factors to select which treatment option is best for the patient. Trials for metastatic melanoma have included biomarkers as secondary endpoints and aim to identify some way to predict a response, or lack thereof, to therapy. Here, we discuss the utility and reliability of biomarkers in determining therapy for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma and discuss combination immunotherapy with targeted therapy versus sequential immunotherapy/targeted therapy as well as which regimen should be implemented as initial therapy.

Background Autoantibody landscapes are very specific to the individual, can remain stable for many years, and contain unique features reported in association with cancer, autoimmunity, infection, neurologic conditions, CD8+ T cell behavior, and checkpoint blockade adverse events [1-11]. The goal of this work was to determine whether pre-existing antigenspecific features in melanoma patient autoantibody landscapes would associate with clinical outcomes following checkpoint blockade. Methods Pre-treatment serum samples were collected from 117 melanoma patients prior to checkpoint blockade with anti-CTLA4 (N=60), anti-PD1 (N=38), or both in combination (N=16). All data was collected with approval of the NYU Institutional Review Board at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center with informed consent [11]. Serum samples were run on HuProt Human Proteome Microarrays containing >19,000 human proteins by CDI Laboratories. Raw serum IgG signal intensities were processed across staining cohorts via interquartile range normalization. Pre-existing antibody responses were defined as patient-specific IgG signals >3.5 median absolute deviations above cohort median IgG background (modified Z-score). Group statistics were computed (GraphPad Prism), and gene ontology enrichment analysis was performed (Enrichr) [12]. Results Several pre-existing antigen-specific IgG autoantibody targets were observed to have associations with good outcomes (SD/PR) or objective clinical responses (PR/CR) versus patients with progressive disease (POD). While final determination of the most predictive subsets is ongoing, many targets represent genes in an axis surrounding immune signaling pathways, hereditary neurodegenerative disease, and the ubiquitin proteasome pathway (ie, UBQLN1, UBQLN2). An exemplary example was observed in the autoantibody responses shared by >10% of all patients regardless of clinical outcome. Gene ontology enrichment analysis of these shared melanoma-patient autoantibodies versus KEGG 2019 [12] demonstrates this set of proteins is strongly enriched for neurotrophin signaling-associated proteins after multi-sample correction (P=0.004) (Table 1). Several other associations were observed cohort-wide for ontologies with tissuespecific enrichment in the brain, neurons, and neuronal processes. Conclusions In this pilot study, we found strong associations across the cohort for autoantibodies against nerve-growth-inducing neurotrophins and genes like UBQLN1 and UBQLN2 which have strong associations with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's - neurodegenerative diseases that are known to have incidences which correlate with melanoma [14-16]; this hints at a potential immunologic connection between the conditions, perhaps related to an antitumor / autoimmune axis involving the targets reported here. (Table Presented)

Background: During their lifetime about 8% of patients with single primary cutaneous melanoma (SPM) will develop multiple primary melanomas (MPM), which are associated with significantly higher mortality compared to patients with SPM. Based on the evidence that the immune system plays a role in regulating melanoma progression we explored whether germline genetic variants controlling the expression of immunomodulatory genes (immunomodulatory quantitative trait loci, eQTLs) discern risk of MPMcompared to patients with SPM or healthy controls.
Method(s): Previously, we identified 50 eQTLs significantly associated with the expression of 265 immunomodulatory genes using the MuTHer twin cohort. These 50 SNPs were genotyped in 837 SPM and 104MPM individuals using MassARRAY system. 1047 healthy controls were obtained from a publically available GWAS on CMascertained at MDAnderson (phs000187.v1.p1). We employed multivariate logistic regression to test the association of SNPs withMPM vs cancer-free controls andMPMvs SPM.
Result(s): When comparing MPMvs SPM, rs2071304, previously linked to expression of SPI1 in MuTHer data, showed a strong association with reduction ofMPM risk (OR=0.60; 95% CI=0.45-0.81; p=0.0007). Intriguingly, this variant also trended toward significance when comparing MPM vs controls (OR=0.61; 95% CI: 0.44-0.85; p=0.003). Finally, our most significant association when comparingMPM to controls was for rs2276645 (OR=0.60; 95% CI=0.45-0.81; p=0.0008), an eQTL associated with Zap-70 expression.
Conclusion(s): Our data, for the first time, indicate that the inherited host immunity impacts risk ofMPMin individuals with SPM, highlighting an importance of immune involvement in melanoma progression. The MPMrisk-predicting genetic variants identified here or in expanded efforts, currently underway, may eventually lead to a diagnostic tool allowing for enhanced screening and clinical management of patients at risk of MPM, hence reducing elevated MPM-associated mortality. Additionally, our results further support thatMPM and SPM may have different genetics underpinnings and should be treated as separate clinical entities

BACKGROUND:Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma have excluded patients with untreated brain metastases. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. METHODS:In this open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma and at least one measurable, nonirradiated brain metastasis (tumor diameter, 0.5 to 3 cm) and no neurologic symptoms received nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of intracranial clinical benefit, defined as the percentage of patients who had stable disease for at least 6 months, complete response, or partial response. RESULTS:Among 94 patients with a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of intracranial clinical benefit was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47 to 68); the rate of complete response was 26%, the rate of partial response was 30%, and the rate of stable disease for at least 6 months was 2%. The rate of extracranial clinical benefit was 56% (95% CI, 46 to 67). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 55% of patients, including events involving the central nervous system in 7%. One patient died from immune-related myocarditis. The safety profile of the regimen was similar to that reported in patients with melanoma who do not have brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS:Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the National Cancer Institute; CheckMate 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320058 .).

Combination anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy promotes antitumor immunity and provides superior benefit to patients with advanced-stage melanoma compared with either therapy alone. T cell immunity requires recognition of antigens in the context of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and class II proteins by CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cells, respectively. We examined MHC class I and class II protein expression on tumor cells from previously untreated melanoma patients and correlated the results with transcriptional and genomic analyses and with clinical response to anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, or combination therapy. Most (>50% of cells) or complete loss of melanoma MHC class I membrane expression was observed in 78 of 181 cases (43%), was associated with transcriptional repression of HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, and B2M, and predicted primary resistance to anti-CTLA-4, but not anti-PD-1, therapy. Melanoma MHC class II membrane expression on >1% cells was observed in 55 of 181 cases (30%), was associated with interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and IFN-γ-mediated gene signatures, and predicted response to anti-PD-1, but not anti-CTLA-4, therapy. We conclude that primary response to anti-CTLA-4 requires robust melanoma MHC class I expression. In contrast, primary response to anti-PD-1 is associated with preexisting IFN-γ-mediated immune activation that includes tumor-specific MHC class II expression and components of innate immunity when MHC class I is compromised. The benefits of combined checkpoint blockade may be attributable, in part, to distinct requirements for melanoma-specific antigen presentation to initiate antitumor immunity.

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.

BACKGROUND:Cancer-testis antigen NY-ESO-1 is a highly immunogenic melanoma antigen which has been incorporated into adjuvant vaccine clinical trials. Three such early-phase trials were conducted at our center among patients with high-risk resected melanoma. We herein report on the pooled long-term survival outcomes of these patients in comparison to historical controls. METHODS:All melanoma patients treated at NYU Langone Health under any of three prospective adjuvant NY-ESO-1 vaccine trials were retrospectively pooled into a single cohort. All such patients with stage III melanoma were subsequently compared to historical control patients identified via a prospective institutional database with protocol-driven follow-up. Survival times were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazard models were employed to identify significant prognostic factors and control for confounding variables. RESULTS:A total of 91 patients were treated with an NY-ESO-1 vaccine for the treatment of high-risk resected melanoma. Of this group, 67 patients were stage III and were selected for comparative analysis with 123 historical control patients with resected stage III melanoma who received no adjuvant therapy. Among the pooled vaccine cohort (median follow-up 61 months), the estimated median recurrence-free survival was 45 months, while the median overall survival was not yet reached. In the control cohort of 123 patients (median follow-up 30 months), the estimated median recurrence-free and overall survival were 22 and 58 months, respectively. Within the retrospective stage III cohort, NY-ESO-1 vaccine was associated with decreased risk of recurrence (HR = 0.56, p < 0.01) and death (HR = 0.51, p = 0.01). Upon controlling for sub-stage, the adjuvant NY-ESO-1 clinical trial cohort continued to exhibit decreased risk of recurrence (HR = 0.45, p < 0.01) and death (HR = 0.40, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:In this small retrospective cohort of resected stage III melanoma patients, adjuvant NY-ESO-1 vaccine immunotherapy was associated with longer recurrence-free and overall survival relative to historical controls. These data support the continued investigation of adjuvant NY-ESO-1 based immunotherapy regimens in melanoma.