Faculty Bibliography

Background: Unlike other solid tumors, the impact of primary HS on melanoma survival and response to systemic therapy is not well studied. Nodular melanoma (NM) has a worse prognosis than superficial spreading melanoma (SSM), which is usually attributed to thicker primary tumors. Herein, we examine the hypothesis that HS might have an impact on MSS independent of thickness and that NM and SSM exhibit different mutational landscapes that associate with response to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy (IT) and BRAF targeted therapy (TT) in the metastatic setting. Methods: Primary NM and SSM patients prospectively enrolled at NYU (2002 - 2016) were compared to the most recent SEER cohort (1973 - 2012) and analyzed with respect to MSS. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) was performed on a subset of matched tumor-germline pairs, allowing a comparison of the mutational landscape between NM and SSM. In the metastatic setting, survival analyses were used to compare outcomes and responses to treatment across HS. Results: The NYU cohort of 1,621 patients with either NM (n = 510) or SSM (n = 1,111) was representative of the analogous SEER cohort (21,339 NM, 97,169 SSM), with NM presenting as thicker, more ulcerated, and later stage (all p < 0.001). Among the NYU cohort, NM was found to have lower rates of TIL (p = 0.047), higher mitotic index (p < 0.001), and higher rates of NRAS mutation (p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox models, NM was a significant predictor of worse MSS, independent of thickness and stage (p = 0.01). NM had a significantly lower mutational burden across the exome (p < 0.001). Some of the most under-mutated genes noted in NM were NOTCH4, BCL2L12 and RPS6KA6 (all p < 0.01). Among patients treated with TT (n = 56), NM remained a significant predictor of worse MSS (p = 0.004). However, there was no difference in response to IT. Conclusions: NM and SSM show divergent mutational patterns which may contribute to their different clinical behaviors and responses to BRAF targeted therapy. More studies are needed to better understand the key molecular and cellular processes driving such differences. Integration of HS data into prospective clinical trial reporting is needed to better assess its impact on response to treatment

Background: There are no predictive biomarkers of ipilimumab (IPI) toxicity. Of metastatic melanoma (MM) patients (pts) receiving IPI (3mg/kg), 35% require systemic therapies to treat immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 20% must terminate treatment (Horvat et al., JCO 2015). Here we tested the hypothesis that a pre-existing autoantibody (autoAb) profile is predictive of IPI irAEs. Methods: We measured autoAb levels in pre- and post-treatment sera from mm pts who received IPI (3mg/kg) monotherapy on a proteome microarray containing ~20,000 unique full-length human proteins (HuProt array, CDI Laboratories). Clinical data were prospectively collected with protocol-driven follow-up. IrAEs were categorized by CTCAE guidelines as none (grade 0), mild (grade 1-2), or severe (grade 3-4). AutoAb levels were standardized using median quantile normalization and considered positive hits if > 2-SD above the peak array signal and differed by >=2 fold with p < 0.05 between toxicity groups (Non-parametric Analysis/Wilcox test). Results: Seventy-eight sera from 37 mm pts were analyzed. Antibodies against CTLA-4 were significantly elevated post IPI treatment (p < 0.0001), validating the assay. The pre-treatment levels of 190 IgG autoAbs were significantly diferent in pts who experienced irAEs (n = 28) compared to those with no irAEs (n = 9). Comparison of severe irAE (n = 9) and no irAE (n = 9) groups revealed 129 IgG autoAbs that significantly differed in pre-treatment sera. Localization and pathway analysis (UniProt, KEGG, Reactome) showed 81/190 (43%) of the autoAbs targeted nuclear and mitochondrial antigens and were enriched in metabolic pathways (p = 0.015). AutoAbs associated with irAEs did not correlate with treatment response. Conclusions: AutoAbs to antigens enriched in metabolic pathways prior to treatment may predict IPI-induced toxicity in MM. The subcellular localization of targeted antigens could explain the autoimmune toxicities associated with IPI. Studies in larger cohorts and in pts receiving other checkpoint inhibitors and/or combination therapies are essential to determine the validity of the data. If validated, our results would support the discovery of the first toxicity predictor in cancer immunotherapy

Importance: Limited therapies are available in patients with inoperable locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Objective: To determine the efficacy of programmed cell death 1 receptor (PD-1) inhibitors in locally advanced cSCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single patient with locally advanced cSCC who declined surgery and radiotherapy underwent treatment with pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, at an academic dermatologic surgery section and cancer center. The patient was followed up for clinical and radiologic regression of cSCC. With the use of NanoString to amplify potential biomarkers, immunohistochemistry, and immunofluorescence, the ex vivo expression of PD-1 and a ligand (PD-L2) was assessed in 38 cSCC biopsy specimens from 24 patients with cSCC. Expression of PD-L1 and PD-L2 in the cSCC microenvironment was defined. Intervention: Pembrolizumab, 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, for 4 cycles. Main Outcomes and Measures: Expression of PD-L1 and PD-L2 in the cSCC microenvironment. Results: In 1 patient with locally advanced cSCC who was treated with pembrolizumab, nearly complete tumor regression was observed after 4 cycles of therapy. The NanoString technology used in 38 cSCC biopsy specimens from 24 patients with cSCC (19 men and 5 women; mean [SD] age, 76.4 [12.2] years) detected increased PD-1 and PD-L2 expression in high-risk cSCC. Immunohistochemical analysis confirmed enhanced expression of PD-1 and its ligands in cSCC with perineural invasion (mean [SEM] expression, 5.06 [1.27]; P = .05), superficial cSCC (mean [SEM] expression, 3.58 [1.50]; P = .15), organ transplant-associated cSCC (mean [SEM] expression, 3.01 [0.54]; P = .005), and infiltrative cSCC (mean [SD] expression, 2.01 [0.30]; P = .006) compared with normal skin specimens. In double-label immunofluorescence staining, CD11c+, a marker of myeloid dendritic cells, colocalized with PD-L1 and PD-L2 in cSCC lesions. Conclusions and Relevance: The favorable treatment response combined with significant involvement of PD-1 and PD ligands in cSCC lesions suggests that PD-1 blockade may be a viable therapeutic option for locally advanced cSCC and provides rationale for further investigation in future clinical trials.

Purpose TAK-733, an investigational, selective, allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor effects against multiple cancer cell lines and xenograft models. This first-in-human study investigated TAK-733 in patients with solid tumors. Methods Patients received oral TAK-733 once daily on days 1-21 in 28-day treatment cycles. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for AEs version 3.0. Response was assessed using RECIST v1.1. Blood samples for TAK-733 pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (inhibition of ERK phosphorylation) were collected during cycle 1. Results Fifty-one patients received TAK-733 0.2-22 mg. Primary diagnoses included uveal melanoma (24 %), colon cancer (22 %), and cutaneous melanoma (10 %). Four patients had dose-limiting toxicities of dermatitis acneiform, plus fatigue and pustular rash in one patient, and stomatitis in one patient. The maximum tolerated dose was 16 mg. Common drug-related AEs included dermatitis acneiform (51 %), diarrhea (29 %), and increased blood creatine phosphokinase (20 %); grade >/= 3 AEs were reported in 27 (53 %) patients. Median Tmax was 3 h; systemic exposure increased less than dose-proportionally over the dose range 0.2-22 mg. On day 21 maximum inhibition of ERK phosphorylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 46-97 % was seen in patients receiving TAK-733 >/= 8.4 mg. Among 41 response-evaluable patients, 2 (5 %) patients with cutaneous melanoma (one with BRAF L597R mutant melanoma) had partial responses. Conclusions TAK-733 had a generally manageable toxicity profile up to the maximum tolerated dose, and showed the anticipated pharmacodynamic effect of sustained inhibition of ERK phosphorylation. Limited antitumor activity was demonstrated. Further investigation is not currently planned.

OBJECTIVES: Since 2011, metastatic melanoma treatment has evolved with commercial approval of BRAF- and MEK-targeted therapy and CTLA-4- and PD-1-blocking antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). While novel therapies have demonstrated improved prognosis in clinical trials, few studies have examined the evolution of prognosis and toxicity of these drugs among an unselected population. We assess whether survival and toxicity reported in trials, which typically exclude most patients with brain metastases and poor performance status, are recapitulated within a commercial access population. METHODS: 182 patients diagnosed with stage IV melanoma from July 2006 to December 2013 and treated with BRAF- and/or MEK-targeted therapy or ICI were prospectively studied. Outcomes and clinicopathologic differences between trial and commercial cohorts were assessed. RESULTS: Patients receiving commercial therapy (vs. on trial) had poorer prognostic features (i.e., brain metastases) and lower median overall survival (mOS) when assessed across all treatments (9.2 vs. 17.5 months, p = 0.0027). While toxicity within trial and commercial cohorts did not differ, patients who experienced toxicity had increased mOS (p < 0.001), irrespective of stratification by trial status or therapy. CONCLUSION: Metastatic melanoma patients receiving commercial treatment may represent a different clinical population with poor prognostic features compared to trial patients. Toxicity may prognosticate treatment benefit.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is uncommon, biologically ill defined, and clinically understudied. MUP outcomes are seldom reported in clinical trials. In this study, we analyze responses of MUP patients treated with systemic therapy in an attempt to inform treatment guidelines for this unique population. METHODS: New York University (NYU)'s prospective melanoma database was searched for MUP patients treated with systemic therapy. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for MUP patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy reported in the literature, and their response and survival data were compared to the MUP patient data from NYU. Both groups' response data were compared to those reported for melanoma of known primary (MKP). RESULTS: The MUP patients treated at NYU had better outcomes on immunotherapy but worse on targeted therapy than the MUP patients in the literature. The NYU MUP patients and those in the literature had worse outcomes than the majority-MKP populations in 10 clinical trial reports. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that MUP patients might have poorer outcomes on systemic therapy as compared to MKP patients. Our cohort was small and limited data were available, highlighting the need for increased reporting of MUP outcomes and multi-institutional efforts to understand the mechanism behind the observed differences.

PURPOSE: AZD1775 is a WEE1 kinase inhibitor targeting G2 checkpoint control, preferentially sensitizing TP53-deficient tumor cells to DNA damage. This phase I study evaluated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of oral AZD1775 as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy in patients with refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In part 1, patients received a single dose of AZD1775 followed by 14 days of observation. In part 2, patients received AZD1775 as a single dose (part 2A) or as five twice per day doses or two once per day doses (part 2B) in combination with one of the following chemotherapy agents: gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2), cisplatin (75 mg/m2), or carboplatin (area under the curve, 5 mg/mLmin). Skin biopsies were collected for pharmacodynamic assessments. TP53 status was determined retrospectively in archival tumor tissue. RESULTS: Two hundred two patients were enrolled onto the study, including nine patients in part 1, 43 in part 2A (including eight rollover patients from part 1), and 158 in part 2B. AZD1775 monotherapy given as single dose was well tolerated, and the maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. In the combination regimens, the most common adverse events consisted of fatigue, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and hematologic toxicity. The maximum-tolerated doses and biologically effective doses were established for each combination. Target engagement, as a predefined 50% pCDK1 reduction in surrogate tissue, was observed in combination with cisplatin and carboplatin. Of 176 patients evaluable for efficacy, 94 (53%) had stable disease as best response, and 17 (10%) achieved a partial response. The response rate in TP53-mutated patients (n = 19) was 21% compared with 12% in TP53 wild-type patients (n = 33). CONCLUSION: AZD1775 was safe and tolerable as a single agent and in combination with chemotherapy at doses associated with target engagement.

BACKGROUND:Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS:wild-type melanoma achieving an investigator-assessed objective response. Overall survival was an exploratory endpoint and is reported in this Article. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01927419, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between Sept 16, 2013, and Feb 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients and enrolled 142, randomly assigning 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab alone. In each treatment group, one patient no longer met the study criteria following randomisation and thus did not receive study drug. At a median follow-up of 24·5 months (IQR 9·1-25·7), 2-year overall survival was 63·8% (95% CI 53·3-72·6) for those assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 53·6% (95% CI 38·1-66·8) for those assigned to ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43-1·26; p=0·26). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 51 (54%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nine (20%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were colitis (12 [13%] of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [11%]) in the combination group and diarrhoea (five [11%] of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two [4%]) in the ipilimumab alone group. Serious grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 (36%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (including colitis in ten [11%] of 94 patients, and diarrhoea in five [5%]) compared with four (9%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone (including diarrhoea in two [4%] of 46 patients, colitis in one [2%], and hypophysitis in one [2%]). No new types of treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this updated analysis. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Although follow-up of the patients in this study is ongoing, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab might lead to improved outcomes compared with first-line ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this population of patients. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:Bristol-Myers Squibb.