Immune checkpoint inhibitors target the dysfunctional immune system, to induce cancer-cell killing by CD8-positive T cells. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, specifically anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD-1 ...antibodies, have revolutionised the management of many cancers, particularly advanced melanoma, for which tumour regression and long-term durable cancer control is possible in nearly 50% of patients, compared with less than 10% historically. Despite the absence of adequately powered trial data, combined anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibition has the highest 5-year overall survival rate of all therapies in advanced melanoma, and has high activity in melanoma brain metastases. A phase 3 study has shown the addition of an anti-LAG3 antibody to nivolumab improves progression-free survival, but its effect on overall survival and how this combination compares to combined anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibition is unknown. At present, there are no highly sensitive and specific biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, and clinical factors, such as volume and sites of disease, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and BRAF mutation status, are used to select initial therapy for patients with advanced melanoma. Immune checkpoint inhibitors can induce autoimmune toxicities by virtue of their mechanism of action. These toxicities, termed immune-related adverse events, occur most frequently with combined anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibition; can have a variety of presentations; can affect any organ system (most often the skin, colon, endocrine system, and liver); and appear to mimic classic autoimmune diseases. Immune-related adverse events require prompt recognition and management, which may be different from the autoimmune disease it mimics. Immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be safe for use in patients with HIV, viral hepatitis, and patients with mild-to-moderate pre-existing autoimmune diseases. Patients with organ transplants can respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors but have a high chance of transplant loss. PD-1 inhibitors are now an established standard of care as adjuvant therapy in high-risk resected stage III or IV melanoma. Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition for resectable stage III melanoma, which is currently limited to clinical trials, is emerging as a highly effective therapy.
Treatment options for patients with metastatic melanoma, and especially BRAF-mutant melanoma, have changed dramatically in the past 5 years, with the FDA approval of eight new therapeutic agents. ...During this period, the treatment paradigm for BRAF-mutant disease has evolved rapidly: the standard-of-care BRAF-targeted approach has shifted from single-agent BRAF inhibition to combination therapy with a BRAF and a MEK inhibitor. Concurrently, immunotherapy has transitioned from cytokine-based treatment to antibody-mediated blockade of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and, now, the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoints. These changes in the treatment landscape have dramatically improved patient outcomes, with the median overall survival of patients with advanced-stage melanoma increasing from approximately 9 months before 2011 to at least 2 years - and probably longer for those with BRAF-V600-mutant disease. Herein, we review the clinical trial data that established the standard-of-care treatment approaches for advanced-stage melanoma. Mechanisms of resistance and biomarkers of response to BRAF-targeted treatments and immunotherapies are discussed, and the contrasting clinical benefits and limitations of these therapies are explored. We summarize the state of the field and outline a rational approach to frontline-treatment selection for each individual patient with BRAF-mutant melanoma.
Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition, in which the therapy is administered before surgery, is a promising new approach to managing bulky but resectable melanoma, and is also being explored in other ...cancers. This strategy has a high pathologic response rate, which correlates with survival outcomes. The fact that biopsies are routinely available provides a unique opportunity for understanding the responses to therapy and carrying out reverse translation in which these data are used to select therapies in the clinic or in trials that are more likely to improve patient outcomes. In this Perspective, we discuss the rationale for neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable solid tumors based on preclinical and human translational data, summarize the results of recent clinical trials and ongoing research, and focus on future directions for enhancing reverse translation.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced-stage metastatic melanoma, as well as patients with many other solid cancers, yielding long-lasting responses ...and improved survival. However, a subset of patients who initially respond to immunotherapy, later relapse and develop therapy resistance (termed "acquired resistance"), whereas others do not respond at all (termed "primary resistance"). Primary and acquired resistance are key clinical barriers to further improving outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma, and the known mechanisms underlying each involves various components of the cancer immune cycle, and interactions between multiple signaling molecules and pathways. Due to this complexity, current knowledge on resistance mechanisms is still incomplete. Overcoming therapy resistance requires a thorough understanding of the mechanisms underlying immune evasion by tumors. In this review, we explore the mechanisms of primary and acquired resistance to immunotherapy in melanoma and detail potential therapeutic strategies to prevent and overcome them.
.
Summary After decades of treatment failure for metastatic melanoma, the development of BRAF inhibitors was highly anticipated to dramatically improve outcomes for patients with oncogene-addicted BRAF ...-mutant metastatic melanoma. Rapid and frequent responses occurred with BRAF inhibitors, but clinical benefit was usually transient because of the rapid emergence of drug resistance. Concurrently, and by contrast, ipilimumab, a novel immune checkpoint inhibitor, was shown to provide long-term clinical benefit, but only in a minority of patients. This situation generated an ongoing debate about how to best use these drugs in patients with BRAF -mutant melanoma. Recently, however, several new compounds and combinations of cell pathway signalling inhibitors and immunotherapies have been developed that look set to improve patient outcomes even further. In this Review, we discuss the existing evidence for the newest treatments for BRAF -mutant melanoma, including combined BRAF and MEK inhibition and PD-1–PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, and assess future treatment strategies that could change metastatic melanoma from a rapidly fatal terminal illness to a chronic disease for most patients.
SummaryBackgroundPembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. ...However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006. MethodsKEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAFV600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FindingsBetween Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7–59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5–41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3–22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·61–0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6–11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9–4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48–0·67, p<0·0001). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96 (17%) of 555 patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 50 (20%) of 256 patients in the ipilimumab group; the most common of these events were colitis (11 2% vs 16 6%), diarrhoea (ten 2% vs seven 3%), and fatigue (four <1% vs three 1%). Any-grade serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (14%) patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 45 (18%) patients in the ipilimumab group. One patient assigned to pembrolizumab died from treatment-related sepsis. InterpretationPembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. FundingMerck Sharp & Dohme.
SummaryBackgroundImmunotherapy combination treatments can improve patient outcomes. Epacadostat, an IDO1 selective inhibitor, and pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, showed promising antitumour activity ...in the phase 1–2 ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study in advanced melanoma. In this trial, we aimed to compare progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. MethodsIn this international, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma previously untreated with PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and had a known BRAFV600 mutant status or consented to BRAFV600 mutation testing during screening. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression and BRAFV600 mutation status and randomly assigned (1:1) through a central interactive voice and integrated web response system to receive epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. We used block randomisation with a block size of four in each stratum. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis population included randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study was stopped after the second interim analysis; follow-up for safety is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02752074. FindingsBetween June 21, 2016, and Aug 7, 2017, 928 patients were screened and 706 patients were randomly assigned to receive epacadostat plus pembrolizumab (n=354) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n=352). Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·3–14·5). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups for progression-free survival (median 4·7 months, 95% CI 2·9–6·8, for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs 4·9 months, 2·9–6·8, for placebo plus pembrolizumab; hazard ratio HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; one-sided p=0·52) or overall survival (median not reached in either group; epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs placebo plus pembrolizumab: HR 1·13, 0·86–1·49; one-sided p=0·81). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase, which occurred in 14 (4%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11 (3%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 37 (10%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 32 (9%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in either treatment group. InterpretationEpacadostat 100 mg twice daily plus pembrolizumab did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival compared with placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The usefulness of IDO1 inhibition as a strategy to enhance anti-PD-1 therapy activity in cancer remains uncertain. FundingIncyte Corporation, in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme.
Abstract Treatment of BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma with mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway targeted therapies (BRAF/MEK inhibitors) and immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionised ...management and improved outcomes for patients with advanced stage disease. However, acquired resistance to MAPK inhibitor therapy develops in the majority of patients at approximately 12 months and multiple mechanisms lead to resistance. Understanding the mechanisms of resistance is therefore critical for the development of more effective therapeutic strategies in BRAF-mutant melanoma. Recently, several distinct mechanisms of resistance to BRAF-inhibition have been proposed based on data obtained in experimental melanoma cell models and small series of human tumour samples. These include reactivation of the MAPK pathway resulting in continued extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation and activation of parallel signalling pathways including the PI3K-mTOR (phosphoinositide 3-kinase–mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway. Alterations in how the cells of the immune system respond to melanoma cells treated with targeted therapy may also influence response and progression. In this review, we discuss these mechanisms and identify potential therapeutic strategies to overcome resistance which, in turn, will lead to improved outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have activity across many tumor types, but activation of the immune system may also lead to significant, often steroid-refractory immune-related adverse events ...(irAEs). We sought to determine the activity of tocilizumab, an anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody, in treatment or prevention of auto-immune irAE in ICI-treated patients.
Institutional databases from 2 melanoma centers were reviewed for patients treated with ICIs and tocilizumab. Longitudinal assessment of C-reactive protein (CRP) and assessment of clinical improvement or prevention of flare of pre-existing auto-immune conditions were utilised to evaluate the benefit of tocilizumab.
Twenty-two patients were identified. Two were treated prophylactically. Twenty were treated for management of irAEs. Median time to irAE onset from ICI start was 48 days (range 8–786) and from irAE onset to tocilizumab 32 days (range 1–192). Median time to irAE resolution from tocilizumab was 6.5 days (range 1–93). Clinical improvement/benefit was demonstrated in 21/22 patients. Median CRP prior to ICI administration was 32 mg/l (range 0.3–99), at the onset of irAE 49.5 mg/L (range 0.3–251, P = 0.047) and after tocilizumab 18 mg/L (range 0.3–18, P = 0.0011). Tocilizumab was well tolerated with self-limiting and transient toxicities in 11 (50%) patients. From start of ICI, median progression-free survival was 6 months (range 3.9–18.8) and median overall survival was not reached.
Tocilizumab was a well-tolerated and effective steroid-sparing treatment for both management of irAEs, as well as prevention of flare of pre-existing auto-immune disorders. Prospective trials to evaluate its efficacy and impact on cancer outcomes compared with standard strategies are required.
•Anti-IL6 (interleukin-6) was effective for management of immunotherapy-related toxicities.•In pre-existing auto-immune disorders, anti-IL6 could prevent flare during immune checkpoint inhibitor.•Clinical improvement/benefit was demonstrated in 21/22 patients (96%).•Anti-IL6 was well-tolerated in 21 patients, with transient toxicities in 50%.•Caution is required in patients with underlying bowel disease (bowel perforation).
Dabrafenib and trametinib were approved for use as monotherapies in BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2013, and most recently, their use in combination ...has received accelerated FDA approval. Both drugs target the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway: dabrafenib selectively inhibits mutant BRAF that constitutively activates the pathway, and trametinib selectively inhibits MEK1 and MEK2 proteins activated by RAF kinases. The phase III study of dabrafenib in BRAF(V600E) metastatic melanoma reported rapid tumor regression in most patients and a 59% objective RECIST response rate. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were improved compared with dacarbazine. Toxicities were well tolerated and different from those reported for vemurafenib, the first FDA-approved BRAF inhibitor. Efficacy has been demonstrated in other BRAF-mutant genotypes. The phase III study of trametinib in BRAF inhibitor-naïve patients with BRAF(V600E) or BRAF(V600K) also showed benefit with a prolonged median PFS and OS compared with chemotherapy. Trametinib is ineffective in patients who have progressed on BRAF inhibitors. A phase II trial of combined dabrafenib and trametinib demonstrated higher response rates and longer median PFS than dabrafenib monotherapy, with less cutaneous toxicity. Here, we review the clinical development of both drugs as monotherapies and in combination, and discuss their role in the management of BRAF-mutant melanoma.
PDF
