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)

Primary Analysis and 4-Year Follow-Up of the Phase III NIBIT-M2 Trial in Melanoma Patients With Brain Metastases

Purpose: Phase II trials have shown encouraging activity with ipilimumab plus fotemustine and ipilimumab plus nivolumab in melanoma brain metastases. We report the primary analysis and 4-year follow-up of the NIBIT-M2 study, the first phase III trial comparing these regimens with fotemustine in patients with melanoma with brain metastases. Patients and methods: This phase III study recruited patients 18 years of age and older with BRAF wild-type or mutant melanoma, and active, untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases from nine centers, randomized (1:1:1) to fotemustine, ipilimumab plus fotemustine, or ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: From January, 2013 to September, 2018, 27, 26, and 27 patients received fotemustine, ipilimumab plus fotemustine, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Median OS was 8.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.8-12.2] in the fotemustine arm, 8.2 months (95% CI, 2.2-14.3) in the ipilimumab plus fotemustine arm (HR vs. fotemustine, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.59-1.99; P = 0.78), and 29.2 months (95% CI, 0-65.1) in the ipilimumab plus nivolumab arm (HR vs. fotemustine, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87; P = 0.017). Four-year survival rate was significantly higher for ipilimumab plus nivolumab than fotemustine [(41.0%; 95% CI, 20.6-61.4) vs. 10.9% (95% CI, 0-24.4; P = 0.015)], and was 10.3% (95% CI, 0-22.6) for ipilimumab plus fotemustine. In the fotemustine, ipilimumab plus fotemustine, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab arms, respectively, 11 (48%), 18 (69%), and eight (30%) patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events, without treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Compared with fotemustine, ipilimumab plus nivolumab significantly improved overall and long-term survival of patients with melanoma with asymptomatic brain metastases

Sunny holidays before and after melanoma diagnosis are respectively associated with lower breslow thickness and lower relapse rates in Italy

Background: Previous studies have reported an association between sun exposure and improved cutaneous melanoma (CM) survival. We analysed the association of UV exposure with prognostic factors and outcome in a large melanoma cohort. Methods: A questionnaire was given to 289 (42%) CM patients at diagnosis (Group 1) and to 402 CM patients (58%) during follow-up (Group 2). Analyses were carried out to investigate the associations between sun exposure and melanoma prognostic factors and survival. Results: Holidays in the sun two years before CM diagnosis were significantly associated with lower Breslow thickness (p=0.003), after multiple adjustment. Number of weeks of sunny holidays was also significantly and inversely associated with thickness in a dose-dependent manner (p=0.007). However when stratifying by gender this association was found only among women (p=0.0004) the risk of CM recurrence in both sexes was significantly lower in patients (n=271) who had holidays in the sun after diagnosis, after multiple adjustment including education: HR=0.30 (95%CI:0.10-0.87; p=0.03) conclusions: Holidays in the sun were associated with thinner melanomas in women and reduced rates of relapse in both sexes. However, these results do not prove a direct causal effect of sun exposure on survival since other confounding factors, such as vitamin D serum levels and socio-economic status, may play a role. Other factors in sun seeking individuals may also possibly affect these results

First-Line, Fixed-Duration Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Followed by Nivolumab in Clinically Diverse Patient Populations With Unresectable Stage III or IV Melanoma: CheckMate 401

PURPOSE To address the paucity of data in patients with historically poor outcomes, we conducted the single-arm phase IIIb CheckMate 401 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy in clinically diverse patient populations with advanced melanoma. METHODS Treatment-naive patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg (240 mg following a protocol amendment) once every 2 weeks for ≤24 months. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3-5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), brain metastasis status, and melanoma subtype. RESULTS In total, 533 patients received at least one dose of study drug. Grade 3-5 select TRAEs affecting the GI (16%), hepatic (15%), endocrine (11%), skin (7%), renal (2%), and pulmonary (1%) systems occurred in the all-treated population; similar incidence rates were observed across all subgroups. At 21.6 months' median follow-up, 24-month OS rates were 63% in the all-treated population, 44% in the ECOG PS 2 subgroup (including patients with cutaneous melanoma only), 71% in the brain metastasis subgroup, 36% in the ocular/uveal melanoma subgroup, and 38% in the mucosal melanoma subgroup. CONCLUSION Nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy was tolerable in patients with advanced melanoma and poor prognostic characteristics. Efficacy was similar between the all-treated population and patients with brain metastases. Reduced efficacy was observed in patients with ECOG PS 2, ocular/uveal melanoma, and/or mucosal melanoma, highlighting the continued need for novel treatment options for these difficult-to-treat patients

P863 KEYNOTE-022 parts 4 and 5: pembrolizumab plus trametinib for patients with solid tumors or BRAF wild-type melanoma

Background Pembrolizumab+dabrafenib+trametinib demonstrated promising antitumor activity and acceptable tolerability in BRAF-mutant melanoma in phase 1/2 KEYNOTE-022 parts 1 and 2 (NCT02130466). Pembrolizumab+dabrafenib+trametinib numerically prolonged PFS and DOR versus placebo+dabrafenib+trametinib but had a higher grade 3-5 TRAE rate in part 3. KEYNOTE-022 parts 4 and 5 evaluated pembrolizumab+trametinib. Methods In part 4 (open-label, 3+3 dose-finding) patients with advanced solid tumors (irrespective of BRAF status) or unresectable/metastatic BRAF wild-type melanoma received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W with trametinib as concurrent (2 or 4 weeks of trametinib run-in [1.5 or 2 mg QD], then pembrolizumab+trametinib [1.5 or 2 mg QD]) or intermittent dosing (2 weeks of trametinib run-in [1.5 or 2 mg QD], then pembrolizumab+trametinib [1.5 or 2 mg QD; 1 week off/2 weeks on]). Interim MTDs identified in part 4 were confirmed in part 5 using a modified toxicity probability interval design. The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, and ORR by investigator assessment per RECIST v1.1 of the maximum administered or tolerated dose (MAD/MTD) of pembrolizumab+trametinib. Safety was analyzed for all patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug; patients treated during the trametinib run-in who discontinued study before receiving pembrolizumab were included; patients who did not complete trametinib run-in or receive ≥66% of planned doses during the 6-week dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluable period were not included for DLT evaluation. AEs were graded per NCI CTCAE v4. Results Of 42 enrolled patients, most were female (61.9%); median age was 55.0 years; 57.1% had received ≥2 prior lines of therapy. At database cutoff (June 26, 2019), median follow-up was 9.0 months (range, 1.4-25.6 months). Of 38 DLT-evaluable patients, 10 had DLTs (table 1). Dosing regimens were selected for confirmation in part 5 based on safety data. Any-grade TRAEs occurred in 39 (92.9%) patients; grade 3-4 TRAEs occurred in 19 (45.2%), none were grade 5. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 8 (19.0%) patients. Immune-mediated AEs occurred in 12 (28.6%) patients, most commonly severe skin reactions (n=6; 14.3%), pneumonitis (n=3; 7.1%), hypothyroidism (n=2; 4.8%). The MTD of concurrent pembrolizumab+trametinib was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 1.5 mg with 2 weeks of trametinib run-in (ORR, 0/16; 0%) and the MTD of intermittent pembrolizumab+trametinib was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 2 mg with 2 weeks of run-in (ORR, 4/15; 26.7%). Conclusions Both concurrent or intermittent pembrolizumab+trametinib dosing were feasible and the combination showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors or advanced BRAF wild-type melanoma

Long-Term Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab or Nivolumab Alone Versus Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE 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 AND METHODS 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. RESULTS 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 BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF–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. CONCLUSION 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

Health-related quality of life results from the phase III CheckMate 067 study

Background Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody of immune checkpoint programmed death 1 on T cells (PD-1), combined with ipilimumab, an immune checkpoint cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor, as combination therapy on the one hand and nivolumab as monotherapy on the other, have both demonstrated improved efficacy compared with ipilimumab alone in the CheckMate 067 study. However, the combination resulted in a higher frequency of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), which could result in diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here we report analyses of HRQoL for patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trial CheckMate 067.Patients and methods HRQoL was assessed at weeks 1 and 5 per 6-week cycle for the first 6 months, once every 6 weeks thereafter, and at two follow-up visits using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Care Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EuroQoL Five Dimensions Questionnaire. In addition to the randomised population, patient subgroups, including BRAF mutation status, partial or complete response, treatment-related AEs of grade 3/4, and those who discontinued due to any reason and due to an AE, were investigated.Results Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone both maintained HRQoL, and no clinically meaningful deterioration was observed over time compared with ipilimumab. In addition, similar results were observed across patient subgroups, and no clinically meaningful changes in HRQoL were observed during follow-up visits for patients who discontinued due to any cause.Conclusion These results further support the clinical benefit of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. The finding that the difference in grade 3/4 AEs between the arms did not translate into clinically meaningful differences in the reported HRQoL may be relevant in the clinical setting.Study number NCT01844505

Novel Biomarkers and Druggable Targets in Advanced Melanoma

Immunotherapy with Ipilimumab or antibodies against programmed death (ligand) 1 (anti-PD1/PDL1), targeted therapies with BRAF-inhibitors (anti-BRAF) and their combinations significantly changed melanoma treatment options in both primary, adjuvant and metastatic setting, allowing for a cure, or at least long-term survival, in most patients. However, up to 50% of those with advance or metastatic disease still have no significant benefit from such innovative therapies, and clinicians are not able to discriminate in advance neither who is going to respond and for how long nor who is going to develop collateral effects and which ones. However, druggable targets, as well as affordable and reliable biomarkers are needed to personalize resources at a single-patient level. In this manuscript, different molecules, genes, cells, pathways and even combinatorial algorithms or scores are included in four biomarker chapters (molecular, immunological, peripheral and gut microbiota) and reviewed in order to evaluate their role in indicating a patient’s possible response to treatment or development of toxicities