Interleukin-6 blockade for prophylaxis and management of immune-related adverse events in cancer immunotherapy

Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Global Phase III Trial of Talimogene Laherparepvec Combined With Pembrolizumab for Advanced Melanoma

Purpose: The combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and an encouraging complete response rate (CRR) in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase Ib study. We report the efficacy and safety from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, international study of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab (T-VEC-pembrolizumab) versus placebo plus pembrolizumab (placebo-pembrolizumab) in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods: Patients with stage IIIB-IVM1c unresectable melanoma, naïve to antiprogrammed cell death protein-1, were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-VEC-pembrolizumab or placebo-pembrolizumab. T-VEC was administered at ≤ 4 × 106 plaque-forming unit (PFU) followed by ≤ 4 × 108 PFU 3 weeks later and once every 2 weeks until dose 5 and once every 3 weeks thereafter. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously 200 mg once every 3 weeks. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate per mRECIST, CRR, and safety. Here, we report the primary analysis for PFS, the second preplanned interim analysis for OS, and the final analysis. Results: Overall, 692 patients were randomly assigned (346 T-VEC-pembrolizumab and 346 placebo-pembrolizumab). T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.04; P = .13) or OS (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.22; P = .74) compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was 48.6% for T-VEC-pembrolizumab (CRR 17.9%) and 41.3% for placebo-pembrolizumab (CRR 11.6%); the durable response rate was 42.2% and 34.1% for the arms, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of patients in the T-VEC-pembrolizumab arm and in 19.5% of patients in the placebo-pembrolizumab arm. Conclusion: T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS or OS compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. Safety results of the T-VEC-pembrolizumab combination were consistent with the safety profiles of each agent alone

KEYNOTE - D36: Personalized immunotherapy with a neoepitope vaccine, EVX-01 and pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma

Despite improvements made with checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy, a need for new approaches to improve outcomes for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma remains. EVX-01, a personalized neoepitope vaccine, combined with pembrolizumab treatment, holds the potential to fulfill this need. Here we present the rationale and novel design behind the KEYNOTE - D36 trial: an open label, single arm, phase II trial aiming to establish the clinical proof of concept and evaluate the safety of EVX-01 in combination with pembrolizumab in CPI naive patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The primary objective is to evaluate if EVX-01 improves best overall response after initial stable disease or partial response to pembrolizumab treatment, in patients with advanced melanoma. The novel end points ensure a decisive readout which may prove helpful before making major investments in phase III trials with limited phase I data. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05309421 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Circulating tumor DNA reflects uveal melanoma responses to protein kinase C inhibition

The prognosis for patients with UM is poor, and recent clinical trials have failed to prolong overall survival (OS) of these patients. Over 95% of UM harbor activating driver mutations, and this allows for the investigation of ctDNA. In this study, we investigated the value of ctDNA for adaptive clinical trial design in metastatic UM. Longitudinal plasma samples were analyzed for ctDNA in 17 metastatic UM patients treated with PKCi-based therapy in a phase 1 clinical trial setting. Plasma ctDNA was assessed using digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) and a custom melanoma gene panel for targeted next generation sequencing (NGS). Baseline ctDNA strongly correlated with baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (p \u3c 0.001) and baseline disease burden (p = 0.002). Early during treatment (EDT) ctDNA accurately predicted patients with clinical benefit to PKCi using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC 0.84, [95% confidence interval 0.65–1.0, p = 0.026]). Longitudinal ctDNA assessment was informative for establishing clinical benefit and detecting disease progression with 7/8 (88%) of patients showing a rise in ctDNA and targeted NGS of ctDNA revealed putative resistance mechanisms prior to radiological progression. The inclusion of longitudinal ctDNA monitoring in metastatic UM can advance adaptive clinical trial design

Systemic LRG1 Expression in Melanoma is Associated with Disease Progression and Recurrence

The response rates upon neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in stage III melanoma are higher as compared with stage IV disease. Given that successful ICB depends on systemic immune response, we hypothesized that systemic immune suppression might be a mechanism responsible for lower response rates in late-stage disease, and also potentially with disease recurrence in early-stage disease. Plasma and serum samples of cohorts of patients with melanoma were analyzed for circulating proteins using mass spectrometry proteomic profiling and Olink proteomic assay. A cohort of paired samples of patients with stage III that progressed to stage IV disease (n = 64) was used to identify markers associated with higher tumor burden. Baseline patient samples from the OpACIN-neo study (n = 83) and PRADO study (n = 49; NCT02977052) were used as two independent cohorts to analyze whether the potential identified markers are also associated with disease recurrence after neoadjuvant ICB therapy. When comparing baseline proteins overlapping between patients with progressive disease and patients with recurrent disease, we found leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein 1 (LRG1) to be associated with worse prognosis. Especially nonresponder patients to neoadjuvant ICB (OpACIN-neo) with high LRG1 expression had a poor outcome with an estimated 36-month event-free survival of 14% as compared with 83% for nonresponders with a low LRG1 expression (P = 0.014). This finding was validated in an independent cohort (P = 0.0021). LRG1 can be used as a biomarker to identify patients with high risk for disease progression and recurrence, and might be a target to be combined with neoadjuvant ICB. Significance: LRG1 could serve as a potential target and as a biomarker to identify patients with high risk for disease recurrence, and consequently benefit from additional therapies and intensive follow-up

Spartalizumab or placebo in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib in patients with BRAF\textit{BRAF}V600-mutant melanoma: exploratory biomarker analyses from a randomized phase 3 trial (COMBI-i)

BackgroundThe randomized phase 3 COMBI-i trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with spartalizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram) vs placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in the overall population of patients with unresectable/metastatic $\textit{BRAF}$V600-mutant melanoma. This prespecified exploratory biomarker analysis was performed to identify subgroups that may derive greater treatment benefit from sparta-DabTram.MethodsIn COMBI-i (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02967692), 532 patients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally two times daily and trametinib 2 mg orally one time daily or placebo-DabTram. Baseline/on-treatment pharmacodynamic markers were assessed via flow cytometry-based immunophenotyping and plasma cytokine profiling. Baseline programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status and T-cell phenotype were assessed via immunohistochemistry; $\textit{BRAF}$V600 mutation type, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) via DNA sequencing; gene expression signatures via RNA sequencing; and CD4$^{+}$/CD8$^{+}$ T-cell ratio via immunophenotyping.ResultsExtensive biomarker analyses were possible in approximately 64% to 90% of the intention-to-treat population, depending on sample availability and assay. Subgroups based on PD-L1 status/TMB or T-cell inflammation did not show significant differences in PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram vs placebo-DabTram, although T-cell inflammation was prognostic across treatment arms. Subgroups defined by $\textit{BRAF}$V600K mutation (HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.99)), detectable ctDNA shedding (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.96)), or CD4$^{+}$/CD8$^{+}$ ratio above median (HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.84)) derived greater PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram vs placebo-DabTram. In a multivariate analysis, ctDNA emerged as strongly prognostic (p=0.007), while its predictive trend did not reach significance; in contrast, CD4$^{+}$/CD8$^{+}$ ratio was strongly predictive (interaction p=0.0131).ConclusionsThese results support the feasibility of large-scale comprehensive biomarker analyses in the context of a global phase 3 study. T-cell inflammation was prognostic but not predictive of sparta-DabTram benefit, as patients with high T-cell inflammation already benefit from targeted therapy alone. Baseline ctDNA shedding also emerged as a strong independent prognostic variable, with predictive trends consistent with established measures of disease burden such as lactate dehydrogenase levels. CD4$^{+}$/CD8$^{+}$ T-cell ratio was significantly predictive of PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram but requires further validation as a biomarker in melanoma. Taken together with previous observations, further study of checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combination in patients with higher disease burden may be warranted

Adjuvant immunotherapy recommendations for stage III melanoma: physician and nurse interviews

Background Adjuvant immunotherapy is revolutionising care for patients with resected stage III and IV melanoma. However, immunotherapy may be associated with toxicity, making treatment decisions complicated. This study aimed to identify factors physicians and nurses considered regarding adjuvant immunotherapy for melanoma. Methods In-depth interviews were conducted with physicians (medical oncologists, surgeons and dermatologists) and nurses managing patients with resected stage III melanoma at three Australian tertiary melanoma centres between July 2019 and March 2020. Factors considered regarding adjuvant immunotherapy were explored. Recruitment continued until data saturation and thematic analysis was undertaken. Results Twenty-five physicians and nurses, aged 28–68 years, 60% females, including eleven (44%) medical oncologists, eight (32%) surgeons, five (20%) nurses, and one (4%) dermatologist were interviewed. Over half the sample managed five or more new resected stage III patients per month who could be eligible for adjuvant immunotherapy. Three themes about adjuvant immunotherapy recommendations emerged: [1] clinical and patient factors, [2] treatment information provision, and [3] individual physician/nurse factors. Melanoma sub-stage and an individual patient’s therapy risk/benefit profile were primary considerations. Secondary factors included uncertainty about adjuvant immunotherapy’s effectiveness and their views about treatment burden patients might consider acceptable. Conclusions Patients’ disease sub-stage and their treatment risk versus benefit drove the melanoma health care professionals’ adjuvant immunotherapy endorsement. Findings clarify clinician preferences and values, aiding clinical communication with patients and facilitating clinical decision-making about management options for resected stage III melanoma

Dabrafenib plus trametinib is effective in the treatment of BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma patients:analysis of patients from the dabrafenib plus trametinib Named Patient Program (DESCRIBE II)

In clinical trials, dabrafenib plus trametinib improved overall survival (OS) compared with single-agent BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. We investigated dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy in a compassionate-use setting [Named Patient Program (NPP); DESCRIBE II]. A retrospective chart review of patients with BRAF V600-mutated unresectable stage III/IV melanoma receiving dabrafenib plus trametinib as compassionate use was conducted. Treatment patterns and duration, clinical outcomes, and tolerability were evaluated. Of 271 patients, 92.6% had stage IV melanoma, including 36.5% with brain metastases. Overall, 162 patients (59.8%) were BRAFi naive and 171 (63.1%) received first-line dabrafenib plus trametinib. Among BRAFi-naive patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 67.3%, median OS (mOS) was 20.0 months, and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7.5 months. In BRAFi-naive patients with known brain metastases (n = 62), ORR was 61.3%, mOS was 15.5 months, and mPFS was 6.2 months. Eighty-four patients received BRAFi monotherapy for >30 days and switched to dabrafenib plus trametinib prior to progression. Of these 84 patients, 63 had known disease status at the time of switch, and 22 improved with the combination therapy. No new safety signals were identified, and dabrafenib plus trametinib was well tolerated. Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed substantial clinical activity in NPP patients with BRAF V600-mutated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Analysis of treatment patterns demonstrated the effectiveness of the combination in patients with brain metastases and across lines of therapy with a well tolerated and manageable safety profile