Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first ...randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 10
plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 10
plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.
A unique collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of ...Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on cutaneous melanoma diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Cutaneous melanomas are excised with 1- to 2-cm safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection shall be performed as a staging procedure in patients with tumour thickness ≥1.0 mm or ≥0.8 mm with additional histological risk factors, although there is as yet no clear survival benefit for this approach. Therapeutic decisions in stage III/IV patients should be primarily made by an interdisciplinary oncology team (“Tumor Board”). Adjuvant therapies in stage III/IV patients are primarily anti–PD-1, independent of mutational status, or dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF-mutant patients. In distant metastasis, either resected or not, systemic treatment is indicated. For first-line treatment, particularly in BRAF wild-type patients, immunotherapy with PD-1 antibodies alone or in combination with CTLA-4 antibodies shall be considered. In particular scenarios for patients with stage IV melanoma and a BRAF-V600 E/K mutation, first-line therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors can be offered as an alternative to immunotherapy. In patients with primary resistance to immunotherapy and harbouring a BRAF-V600 E/K mutation, this therapy shall be offered in second-line. Systemic therapy in stage III/IV melanoma is a rapidly changing landscape, and it is likely that these recommendations may change in the near future.
Abstract Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most common cancers in Caucasian populations, accounting for 20% of all cutaneous malignancies. A unique collaboration of ...multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on cSCC diagnosis and management, based on a critical review of the literature, existing guidelines and the expert’s experience. The diagnosis of cSCC is primarily based on clinical features. A biopsy or excision and histologic confirmation should be performed in all clinically suspicious lesions in order to facilitate the prognostic classification and correct management of cSCC. The first line treatment of cutaneous SCC is complete surgical excision with histopathological control of excision margins. The EDF–EADO–EORTC consensus group recommends a standardised minimal margin of 5 mm even for low-risk tumours. For tumours, with histological thickness of >6 mm or in tumours with high risk pathological features, e.g. high histological grade, subcutaneous invasion, perineural invasion, recurrent tumours and/or tumours at high risk locations an extended margin of 10 mm is recommended. As lymph node involvement by cSCC increases the risk of recurrence and mortality, a lymph node ultrasound is highly recommended, particularly in tumours with high-risk characteristics. In the case of clinical suspicion or positive findings upon imaging, a histologic confirmation should be sought either by fine needle aspiration or by open lymph node biopsy. In large infiltrating tumours with signs of involvement of underlying structures, additional imaging tests, such as CT or MRI imaging may be required to accurately assess the extent of the tumour and the presence of metastatic spread. Current staging systems for cSCC are not optimal, as they have been developed for head and neck tumours and lack extensive validation or adequate prognostic discrimination in certain stages with heterogeneous outcome measures. Sentinel lymph node biopsy has been used in patients with cSCC, but there is no conclusive evidence of its prognostic or therapeutic value. In the case of lymph node involvement by cSCC, the preferred treatment is a regional lymph node dissection. Radiation therapy represents a fair alternative to surgery in the non-surgical treatment of small cSCCs in low risk areas. It generally should be discussed either as a primary treatment for inoperable cSCC or in the adjuvant setting. Stage IV cSCC can be responsive to various chemotherapeutic agents; however, there is no standard regimen. EGFR inhibitors such as cetuximab or erlotinib, should be discussed as second line treatments after mono- or polychemotherapy failure and disease progression or within the framework of clinical trials. There is no standardised follow-up schedule for patients with cSCC. A close follow-up plan is recommended based on risk assessment of locoregional recurrences, metastatic spread or development of new lesions.
Purpose: Immunotherapeutic agents produce antitumor effects by inducing cancer-specific immune responses or by modifying native immune
processes. Resulting clinical response patterns extend beyond ...those of cytotoxic agents and can manifest after an initial
increase in tumor burden or the appearance of new lesions (progressive disease). Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
or WHO criteria, designed to detect early effects of cytotoxic agents, may not provide a complete assessment of immunotherapeutic
agents. Novel criteria for the evaluation of antitumor responses with immunotherapeutic agents are required.
Experimental Design: The phase II clinical trial program with ipilimumab, an antibody that blocks CTL antigen-4, represents the most comprehensive
data set available to date for an immunotherapeutic agent. Novel immune therapy response criteria proposed, based on the shared
experience from community workshops and several investigators, were evaluated using data from ipilimumab phase II clinical
trials in patients with advanced melanoma.
Results: Ipilimumab monotherapy resulted in four distinct response patterns: ( a ) shrinkage in baseline lesions, without new lesions; ( b ) durable stable disease (in some patients followed by a slow, steady decline in total tumor burden); ( c ) response after an increase in total tumor burden; and ( d ) response in the presence of new lesions. All patterns were associated with favorable survival.
Conclusion: Systematic criteria, designated immune-related response criteria, were defined in an attempt to capture additional response
patterns observed with immune therapy in advanced melanoma beyond those described by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid
Tumors or WHO criteria. Further prospective evaluations of the immune-related response criteria, particularly their association
with overall survival, are warranted. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(23):7412–20)
A unique collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), and the European Organization of Research and ...Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on cutaneous melanoma diagnosis and treatment, based on the systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Cutaneous melanomas are excised with one to 2-cm safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection shall be performed as a staging procedure in patients with tumor thickness ≥1.0 mm or ≥0.8 mm with additional histological risk factors, although there is as yet no clear survival benefit for this approach. Therapeutic decisions in stage III/IV patients should be primarily made by an interdisciplinary oncology team (“tumor board”). Adjuvant therapies can be proposed in stage III/completely resected stage IV patients and are primarily anti-PD-1, independent of mutational status, or alternatively dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF mutant patients. In distant metastases (stage IV), either resected or not, systemic treatment is always indicated. For first-line treatment particularly in BRAF wild-type patients, immunotherapy with PD-1 antibodies alone or in combination with CTLA-4 antibodies shall be considered. In stage IV melanoma with a BRAF-V600 E/K mutation, first-line therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors can be offered as an alternative to immunotherapy. In patients with primary resistance to immunotherapy and harboring a BRAF-V600 E/K mutation, this therapy shall be offered as second-line therapy. Systemic therapy in stage III/IV melanoma is a rapidly changing landscape, and it is likely that these recommendations may change in the near future.
SummaryBackgroundDesmoid tumours are locally aggressive tumours associated with substantial morbidity. No systemic treatments are approved for this disease, with methotrexate–vinblastine the only ...chemotherapy regimen assessed in a clinical trial setting to date. VEGF overexpression is a common feature in aggressive desmoid tumours. Pazopanib is an oral antiangiogenic agent targeting VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-like protein (PDGFR) α and β, and c-KIT tyrosine kinases. We aimed to assess antitumour activity and safety of targeted therapy or combination chemotherapy in progressive desmoid tumours. MethodsDESMOPAZ was a non-comparative, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted at 12 centres from the French Sarcoma Group. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) with progressive desmoid tumours, normal organ function and centrally documented progressive disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 based on two imaging assessments obtained within less than a 6-month interval. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral pazopanib 800 mg per day for up to 1 year or to an intravenous regimen combining vinblastine (5 mg/m 2 per dose) and methotrexate (30 mg/m 2 per dose), administered weekly for 6 months and then every other week for 6 months. Randomisation was stratified according to inclusion centre and tumour location. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had not progressed at 6 months in the first 43 patients who had received one complete or two incomplete cycles of pazopanib. This endpoint was also assessed as a prespecified exploratory endpoint in all patients who had received one complete or two incomplete cycles of methotrexate–vinblastane. Safety analyses were done for all patients who received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01876082. FindingsFrom Dec 4, 2012, to Aug 18, 2017, 72 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (n=48 in the pazopanib group; n=24 in the methotrexate–vinblastine group). Median follow-up was 23·4 months (IQR 17·1–25·5). 46 patients in the pazopanib group and 20 patients in the methotrexate–vinblastine group were assessable for activity. In the first 43 patients assessable for the primary endpoint in the pazopanib group, the proportion of patients who had not progressed at 6 months was 83·7% (95% CI 69·3–93·2). The proportion of patients treated with methotrexate–vinblastine who had not progressed at 6 months was 45·0% (95% CI 23·1–68·5). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the pazopanib group were hypertension (n=10, 21%) and diarrhoea (n=7, 15%) and in the methotrexate–vinblastine group were neutropenia (n=10, 45%) and liver transaminitis (n=4, 18%). 11 patients (23%) had at least one serious adverse event related to study treatment in the pazopanib group, as did and six patients (27%) in the methotrexate–vinblastine group. InterpretationPazopanib has clinical activity in patients with progressive desmoid tumours and could be a valid treatment option in this rare and disabling disease. FundingGlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.
Immunotherapy has revolutionized the management of cancers. At the end of 2018, 1,716 clinical trials assessed regimen that combine program death‐1 (PD‐1)/program death ligand‐1 (PD‐L1) blockers with ...other cancer therapies (tyrosine kinase inhibitor, chemotherapy and radiotherapy). There is a contrast between these clinical dynamics and the difficulty of identifying biomarkers to better select patients that could benefit from immunotherapy. In this context, different tumor classifications have been proposed to try to better stratify patients. They rely on the characteristics of the tumor microenvironment and led first to divide them into hot and cold tumors. In this review, we aim to demonstrate the limitations of this classification focusing on the differential significance of subpopulations of intratumor CD8 + T cells. We also underline novel mechanisms of resistance to anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 blockade, focusing on myeloid cells, hypoxia and tumor immunoediting under treatment. Understanding the mechanisms of resistance to immune‐checkpoint inhibitor is indeed a powerful research driver that allows further identification of novel biomarkers, drug development and bring a rational to innovative therapeutic combinations.
Ipilimumab has been shown to improve survival in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. In this study, ipilimumab plus dacarbazine improved survival in patients with previously ...untreated metastatic melanoma.
The survival rate for patients with metastatic melanoma is low, with an expected 2-year survival rate of 10 to 20%.
1
–
3
Although dacarbazine has never been shown to improve survival in randomized, controlled studies, it has been the drug most frequently compared with new agents or combination therapies in randomized trials involving patients with melanoma.
4
,
5
High-dose interleukin-2 is associated with durable, complete responses, with a survival benefit, in a small subgroup of patients with metastatic melanoma.
6
,
7
Ipilimumab, a fully human, IgG1 monoclonal antibody, blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), a negative regulator of T cells, and thereby augments . . .
Purpose The addition of nivolumab (anti-programmed death-1 antibody) to ipilimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated 4 antibody) in patients with advanced melanoma improves antitumor ...response and progression-free survival but with a higher frequency of adverse events (AEs). This cross-melanoma study describes the safety profile of the approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab regimen. Methods This retrospective safety review on data from three trials (phase I, II, and III) included patients with advanced melanoma who received at least one dose of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 and then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity while following established guidelines for AE management. Analyses were of all treatment-related AEs, select (immune-related) AEs, time to onset and resolution, and use of immune-modulating agents and their effects on outcome. Results Among 448 patients, median duration of follow-up was 13.2 months. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55.5% of patients; 35.7% had treatment-related AEs that led to discontinuation. The most frequent treatment-related select AEs of any grade were skin (64.3%) and GI (46.7%) and of grade 3/4, hepatic (17.0%) and GI (16.3%); 30.1% developed a grade 2 to 4 select AE in more than one organ category. Median time to onset of grade 3/4 treatment-related select AEs ranged from 3.1 (skin) to 16.3 (renal) weeks, and with the exclusion of endocrine AEs, median time to resolution from onset ranged from 1.9 (renal) to 4.5 (pulmonary) weeks, with resolution rates between 79% and 100% while using immune-modulating agents. Four (< 1%) on-study deaths were attributed to therapy. Conclusion Frequency of grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and occurred earlier than historical experience with either agent alone, but resolution rates were similar.
In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and ...safety outcomes.
Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated.
Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with
-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with
-wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed.
These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.
PDF
