Summary Background Brain metastases commonly develop in patients with melanoma and are a frequent cause of death of patients with this disease. Ipilimumab improves survival in patients with advanced ...melanoma. We aimed to investigate the safety and activity of this drug specifically in patients with brain metastases. Methods Between July 31, 2008, and June 3, 2009, we enrolled patients with melanoma and brain metastases from ten US centres who were older than 16 years into two parallel cohorts. Patients in cohort A were neurologically asymptomatic and were not receiving corticosteroid treatment at study entry; those in cohort B were symptomatic and on a stable dose of corticosteroids. Patients were to receive four doses of 10 mg/kg intravenous ipilimumab, one every 3 weeks. Individuals who were clinically stable at week 24 were eligible to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous ipilimumab every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with disease control, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease after 12 weeks, assessed with modified WHO criteria. Analyses of safety and efficacy included all treated patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00623766. Findings We enrolled 72 patients: 51 into cohort A and 21 into cohort B. After 12 weeks, nine patients in cohort A exhibited disease control (18%, 95% CI 8–31), as did one patient in cohort B (5%, 0·1–24). When the brain alone was assessed, 12 patients in cohort A (24%, 13–38) and two in cohort B (10%, 1–30) achieved disease control. We noted disease control outside of the brain in 14 patients (27%, 16–42) in cohort A and in one individual (5%, 0·1–24) in cohort B. The most common grade 3 adverse events in cohort A were diarrhoea (six patients 12%) and fatigue (six 12%); in cohort B, they were dehydration (two individuals 10%), hyperglycaemia (two 10%), and increased concentrations of serum aspartate aminotransferase (two 10%). One patient in each cohort had grade 4 confusion. The most common grade 3 immune-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six patients 12%) and rash (one 2%) in cohort A, and rash (one individual 5%) and increased concentrations of serum aspartate aminotransferase (two 10%) in cohort B. One patient in cohort A died of drug-related complications of immune-related colitis. Interpretation Ipilimumab has activity in some patients with advanced melanoma and brain metastases, particularly when metastases are small and asymptomatic. The drug has no unexpected toxic effects in this population. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Background Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF ...inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAFV 600 mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01721746. Findings Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5–40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5–23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3–4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three 1% of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two 1% each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 14% of 102), thrombocytopenia (six 6%), and anaemia (five 5%). We noted grade 3–4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Background Patients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAFV600 mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and ...safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. Methods We carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAFV600 mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both. Patients had to have resolution of all ipilimumab-related adverse events to grade 0–1 and prednisone 10 mg/day or less for at least 2 weeks, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion to be eligible. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (1:1:1) patients in a block size of six to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide). Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and BRAFV600 mutation status. Individual treatment assignment between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was open label, but investigators and patients were masked to assignment of the dose of pembrolizumab. We present the primary endpoint at the prespecified second interim analysis of progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01704287 . The study is closed to enrolment but continues to follow up and treat patients. Findings Between Nov 30, 2012, and Nov 13, 2013, we enrolled 540 patients: 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 179 to receive chemotherapy. Based on 410 progression-free survival events, progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·45–0·73; p<0·0001) and those assigned to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg (0·50, 0·39–0·64; p<0·0001) compared with those assigned to chemotherapy. 6-month progression-free survival was 34% (95% CI 27–41) in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 38% (31–45) in the 10 mg/kg group, and 16% (10–22) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 20 (11%) patients in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 25 (14%) in the pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg group, and 45 (26%) in the chemotherapy group. The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse event in the pembrolizumab groups was fatigue (two 1% of 178 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and one <1% of 179 patients in the 10 mg/kg group, compared with eight 5% of 171 in the chemotherapy group). Other treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events include generalised oedema and myalgia (each in two 1% patients) in those given pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg; hypopituitarism, colitis, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, hyponatremia, and pneumonitis (each in two 1%) in those given pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg; and anaemia (nine 5%), fatigue (eight 5%), neutropenia (six 4%), and leucopenia (six 4%) in those assigned to chemotherapy. Interpretation These findings establish pembrolizumab as a new standard of care for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme.
Summary Background The anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab has shown potent antitumour activity at different doses and schedules in patients with melanoma. We compared the ...efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab at doses of 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks in patients with ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma. Methods In an open-label, international, multicentre expansion cohort of a phase 1 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with advanced melanoma whose disease had progressed after at least two ipilimumab doses were randomly assigned with a computer-generated allocation schedule (1:1 final ratio) to intravenous pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1) by independent central review. Analysis was done on the full-analysis set (all treated patients with measurable disease at baseline). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01295827. Findings 173 patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (n=89) or 10 mg/kg (n=84). Median follow-up duration was 8 months. ORR was 26% at both doses—21 of 81 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and 20 of 76 in the 10 mg/kg group (difference 0%, 95% CI −14 to 13; p=0·96). Treatment was well tolerated, with similar safety profiles in the 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg groups and no drug-related deaths. The most common drug-related adverse events of any grade in the 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg groups were fatigue (29 33% vs 31 37%), pruritus (23 26% vs 16 19%), and rash (16 18% vs 15 18%). Grade 3 fatigue, reported in five (3%) patients in the 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab group, was the only drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse event reported in more than one patient. Interpretation The results suggest that pembrolizumab at a dose of 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks might be an effective treatment in patients for whom there are few effective treatment options. Funding Merck Sharp and Dohme.
Summary CNS metastases are the most common cause of malignant brain tumours in adults. Historically, patients with brain metastases have been excluded from most clinical trials, but their inclusion ...is now becoming more common. The medical literature is difficult to interpret because of substantial variation in the response and progression criteria used across clinical trials. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) working group is an international, multidisciplinary effort to develop standard response and progression criteria for use in clinical trials of treatment for brain metastases. Previous efforts have focused on aspects of trial design, such as patient population, variations in existing response and progression criteria, and challenges when incorporating neurological, neuro-cognitive, and quality-of-life endpoints into trials of patients with brain metastases. Here, we present our recommendations for standard response and progression criteria for the assessment of brain metastases in clinical trials. The proposed criteria will hopefully facilitate the development of novel approaches to this difficult problem by providing more uniformity in the assessment of CNS metastases across trials.
Summary Therapeutic outcomes for patients with brain metastases need to improve. A critical review of trials specifically addressing brain metastases shows key issues that could prevent acceptance of ...results by regulatory agencies, including enrolment of heterogeneous groups of patients and varying definitions of clinical endpoints. Considerations specific to disease, modality, and treatment are not consistently addressed. Additionally, the schedule of CNS imaging and consequences of detection of new or progressive brain metastases in trials mainly exploring the extra-CNS activity of systemic drugs are highly variable. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group is an independent, international, collaborative effort to improve the design of trials in patients with brain tumours. In this two-part series, we review the state of clinical trials of brain metastases and suggest a consensus recommendation for the development of criteria for future clinical trials.
Summary Neurocognitive function, neurological symptoms, functional independence, and health-related quality of life are major concerns for patients with brain metastases. The inclusion of these ...endpoints in trials of brain metastases and the methods by which these measures are assessed vary substantially. If functional independence or health-related quality of life are planned as key study outcomes, then the reliability and validity of these endpoints can be crucial because methodological issues might affect the interpretation and acceptance of findings. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group is an independent, international, and collaborative effort to improve the design of clinical trials in patients with brain tumours. In this report, the second in a two-part series, we review clinical trials of brain metastases in relation to measures of clinical benefit and provide a framework for the design and conduct of future trials.
Summary 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 In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069) we recruited patients from 19 specialist cancer centres in two countries (France and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for four doses. Subsequently, patients assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipilimumab alone received placebo every 2 weeks during this phase. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The study funder, patients, investigators, and study site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, which has been reported previously, was the proportion of patients with BRAFV600 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 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 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 Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden—a mainstay of evaluation of cancer ...therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline—iRECIST—was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies.
Summary Background Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit ...with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. Methods We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3–5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01783938 , and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. Findings Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3–5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 50%; 95% CI 37·6–62·4 of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 43%; 31·1–55·3 of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten 15%) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 20% in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten 15% vs 12 17%), and diarrhoea (eight 12% vs five 7%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 41%; 95% CI 29·4–53·8 vs 14 20%; 11·4–31·3). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7–50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0–72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7–50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6–71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8–25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7–not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6–23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2–26·5; HR 0·48 95% CI 0·29–0·80). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64–85 vs 54%; 42–65). Interpretation Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
PDF
