KEYNOTE-022 part 3: a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 study of pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib in BRAF-mutant melanoma

Overall survival with first-line atezolizumab in combination with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma (IMspire150): second interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAF^V600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis.

METHODS

The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43-63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1-45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6-44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9-not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0-34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib.

INTERPRETATION

Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAF^V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Oncosuppressive miRNAs loaded in lipid nanoparticles potentiate targeted therapies in BRAF-mutant melanoma by inhibiting core escape pathways of resistance

BRAF-mutated melanoma relapsing after targeted therapies is an aggressive disease with unmet clinical need. Hence the need to identify novel combination therapies able to overcome drug resistance. miRNAs have emerged as orchestrators of non-genetic mechanisms adopted by melanoma cells to challenge therapies. In this context we previously identified a subset of oncosuppressor miRNAs downregulated in drug-resistant melanomas. Here we demonstrate that lipid nanoparticles co-encapsulating two of them, miR-199-5p and miR-204-5p, inhibit tumor growth both in vitro and in vivo in combination with target therapy and block the development of drug resistance. Mechanistically they act by directly reducing melanoma cell growth and also indirectly by hampering the recruitment and reprogramming of pro-tumoral macrophages. Molecularly, we demonstrate that the effects on macrophages are mediated by the dysregulation of a newly identified miR-204-5p-miR-199b-5p/CCL5 axis. Finally, we unveiled that M2 macrophages programs are molecular signatures of resistance and predict response to therapy in patients. Overall, these findings have strong translational implications to propose new combination therapies making use of RNA therapeutics for metastatic melanoma patients.

Case report: Complete response of an anaplastic thyroid carcinoma patient with NRAS Q61R/BRAF D594N mutations to the triplet of dabrafenib, trametinib and PD-1 antibody

Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma, BRAF non-V600, NRAS, combination immunotherapy and targeted therapy, case report. Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC) is a rare type of thyroid cancer with a mortality rate near 100%. BRAF V600 and NRAS mutations are the most common drivers of ATC. While patients with BRAF V600-mutated ATC can be treated with BRAF-targeted therapy, there is no effective treatment for ATC driven by NRAS or non-V600 BRAF mutations. For patients with untargetable driver mutations, immunotherapy provides an alternative treatment option. Here, we present a metastatic ATC patient with PD-L1 positive (tumor proportion score of 60%) tumor and NRAS Q61R/BRAF D594N mutations, who progressed on PD-1 antibody sintilimab plus angiogenesis inhibitor anlotinib. The class 3 BRAF mutant D594N is sensitive to the inhibition of MEK inhibitor trametinib, and its oncogenic activity also depends on CRAF, which can be inhibited by BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib. For these reasons, the patient received a salvage treatment regime of dabrafenib, trametinib, and sintilimab, which resulted in a complete pathological response. To our best knowledge, this is the first report of successful treatment of ATC patients with concurrent NRAS/BRAF non-V600 mutations with the combination of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. Further investigation is required to decipher the mechanism by which the combination of dabrafenib/trametinib with PD-1 antibody overcomes initial immunotherapy resistance likely mediated by concurrent BRAF and NRAS mutations.

BRAF and MEK Inhibitors and Their Toxicities: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis summarizes the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AE) of BRAFi and MEKi.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline/PubMed was conducted to identify suitable articles published in English up to 31 December 2021. The primary outcomes were profiles for all-grade and grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs, and the analysis of single side effects belonging to both categories.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of treatment-related all-grade Aes was 99% for Encorafenib (95% CI: 0.97-1.00) and 97% for Trametinib (95% CI: 0.92-0.99; I² = 66%) and Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.94-0.99; I² = 0%). In combined therapies, the rate was 98% for both Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (95% CI: 0.96-0.99; I² = 77%) and Encorafenib + Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.96-1.00). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 69% of cases for Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.50-0.84; I² = 71%), 68% for Encorafenib (95% CI: 0.61-0.74), and 72% for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (95% CI: 0.65-0.79; I² = 84%). The most common grade 1-2 AEs were pyrexia (43%) and fatigue (28%) for Dabrafenib + Trametinib and diarrhea for both Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (52%) and Encorafenib + Binimetinib (34%). The most common AEs of grade 3 or higher were pyrexia, rash, and hypertension for Dabrafenib + Trametinib (6%), rash and hypertension for Encorafenib + Binimetinib (6%), and increased AST and ALT for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides comprehensive data on treatment-related adverse events of BRAFi and MEKi combination therapies, showing related toxicity profiles to offer a helpful tool for clinicians in the choice of therapy.

SEMA6A/RhoA/YAP axis mediates tumor-stroma interactions and prevents response to dual BRAF/MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutant melanoma

Background

Despite the promise of dual BRAF/MEK inhibition as a therapy for BRAF-mutant (BRAF-mut) melanoma, heterogeneous responses have been observed in patients, thus predictors of benefit from therapy are needed. We have previously identified semaphorin 6A (SEMA6A) as a BRAF-mut-associated protein involved in actin cytoskeleton remodeling. The purpose of the present study is to dissect the role of SEMA6A in the biology of BRAF-mut melanoma, and to explore its predictive potential towards dual BRAF/MEK inhibition.

Methods

SEMA6A expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry in melanoma cohort RECI1 (N = 112) and its prognostic potential was investigated in BRAF-mut melanoma patients from DFCI and TCGA datasets (N = 258). The molecular mechanisms regulated by SEMA6A to sustain tumor aggressiveness and targeted therapy resistance were investigated in vitro by using BRAF-mut and BRAF-wt melanoma cell lines, an inducible SEMA6A silencing cell model and a microenvironment-mimicking fibroblasts-coculturing model. Finally, SEMA6A prediction of benefit from dual BRAF/MEK inhibition was investigated in melanoma cohort RECI2 (N = 14).

Results

Our results indicate higher protein expression of SEMA6A in BRAF-mut compared with BRAF-wt melanoma patients and show that SEMA6A is a prognostic indicator in BRAF-mut melanoma from TCGA and DFCI patients cohorts. In BRAF-mut melanoma cells, SEMA6A coordinates actin cytoskeleton remodeling by the RhoA-dependent activation of YAP and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition by dabrafenib+trametinib induces SEMA6A/RhoA/YAP axis. In microenvironment-mimicking co-culture condition, fibroblasts confer to melanoma cells a proliferative stimulus and protect them from targeted therapies, whereas SEMA6A depletion rescues the efficacy of dual BRAF/MEK inhibition. Finally, in BRAF-mut melanoma patients treated with dabrafenib+trametinib, high SEMA6A predicts shorter recurrence-free interval.

Conclusions

Overall, our results indicate that SEMA6A contributes to microenvironment-coordinated evasion of melanoma cells from dual BRAF/MEK inhibition and it might be a good candidate predictor of short-term benefit from dual BRAF/MEK inhibition.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13046-022-02354-w.

CIMT 2022: Report on the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Cancer Immunotherapy

The 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Cancer Immunotherapy (CIMT), Europe's cancer immunotherapy meeting, was the first in-person event organized by CIMT since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a hybrid event from May 10-12, the meeting attracted 920 academic and clinical professionals from over 40 countries, who met to discuss the latest advances in cancer immunology and immunotherapy research. This report summarizes the highlights of CIMT2022.

Mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibition augments the T cell response against HOXB7-expressing tumor through human leukocyte antigen upregulation

Homeobox B7 (HOXB7) is a master regulatory gene that regulates cell proliferation and activates oncogenic pathways. Overexpression of HOXB7 correlates with aggressive behavior and poor prognosis in patients with cancer. However, the expression and role of HOXB7 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) remain unclear. In this study, we observed that most samples from patients with oropharyngeal cancer and HNSCC expressed HOXB7. As no direct inhibitor has been reported, we identified a potent peptide epitope to target HOXB7-expressing tumors through immune cells. A novel HOXB7-derived peptide epitope (HOXB7_8-25 ) elicited antigen-specific and tumor-reactive promiscuous CD4⁺ T cell responses. These CD4⁺ T cells produced γ-interferon (IFN-γ) and had the direct ability to kill tumors through granzyme B. Notably, downregulation of HOXB7 using siRNA enhanced human leukocyte antigen class II expression on tumor cells by decreasing the phosphorylation of MAPK. Mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibition augmented IFN-γ production by HOXB7-reactive CD4⁺ T cell responses without decreasing the expression of HOXB7. These results suggest that combining HOXB7 peptide-based vaccine with MAPK inhibitors could be an effective immunological strategy for cancer treatment.

Phase I trial of pembrolizumab plus vemurafenib and cobimetinib in patients with metastatic melanoma

Background

Preclinical and translational evidence suggest BRAF/MEK inhibitors modulate the tumor microenvironment (TME), providing rationale for combination with immunotherapy.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, phase I trial evaluated pembrolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with untreated, BRAFV600E/K mutant advanced melanoma. The first 4 patients received vemurafenib with pembrolizumab, and the next 5 patients received vemurafenib and cobimetinib with pembrolizumab. Primary endpoints: safety and maximum tolerated dose of the triplet.

Secondary endpoints

objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and quality of life (QoL). The trial was closed after enrollment of 9 (planned 30) patients due to dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Study NCT02818023 was approved by the IRB, and all patients provided informed consent.

Results

Patients received a median of 6 cycles of therapy. 8 of 9 experienced drug-related grade 3/4 AEs. DLTs included dermatitis (n=8), hepatitis (n=1), QTc prolongation (n=1), and arthralgias (n=1 each). QoL assessments identified a clinically significant decrease in self assessed QoL at 1 year compared to baseline (0.38 v 0.43). Median PFS was 20.7 months and median OS was 23.8 months for vemurafenib with pembrolizumab. Median PFS and OS were not reached for patients receiving triple therapy. ORR in the overall cohort was 78% (7/9). 2 patients experienced a complete response, 5 had a partial response, 1 had stable disease, and 1 had progressive disease. 4 patients had ongoing responses at data analysis. Peripheral blood flow cytometry identified significantly decreased PD1 expression on CD4+ T-cells at 3 and 9 weeks compared to baseline, not corresponding to clinical response.

Conclusions

Triple therapy with vemurafenib, cobimetinib and pembrolizumab is associated with high response rates but significant adverse events, leading to early study closure.

Triple Combination of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and BRAF/MEK Inhibitors in BRAFV600 Melanoma: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), namely programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or cytotoxic t-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, are currently the standard of care for the treatment of advanced melanoma, with robust and durable responses in a subset of patients. For BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has resulted in high objective response rates, but most responses are short-lived. Preclinical data suggest that BRAF and MEK inhibitors result in immunomodulatory changes in the tumor microenvironment; early data in murine models further suggest that these changes could enhance sensitivity to ICIs. Subsequently, the notion of combining the two therapy modalities for a more effective response was further evolved in early phase clinical trials. In this review, we analyzed the results of recent phase 2 and 3 clinical trials investigating the combination of ICIs with targeted therapy in BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma. Furthermore, we evaluated the results of recent studies investigating the first-line treatment sequencing of ipilimumab/nivolumab and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in these patients. We discussed the study limitations and interpreted how these recent advances could be incorporated into the treatment landscape of advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.

The future of targeted kinase inhibitors in melanoma

Melanoma is a cancer of the pigment-producing cells of the body and its incidence is rising. Targeted inhibitors that act against kinases in the MAPK pathway are approved for BRAF-mutant metastatic cutaneous melanoma and increase patients' survival. Response to these therapies is limited by drug resistance and is less durable than with immune checkpoint inhibition. Conversely, rare melanoma subtypes have few therapeutic options for advanced disease and MAPK pathway targeting agents show minimal anti-tumor effects. Nevertheless, there is a future for targeted kinase inhibitors in melanoma: in new applications such as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy and in novel combinations with immunotherapies or other targeted therapies. Pre-clinical studies continue to identify tumor dependencies and their corresponding actionable drug targets, paving the way for rational targeted kinase inhibitor combinations as a personalized medicine approach for melanoma.

Novel Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets for Melanoma

Malignant melanoma is one of the most common cancers in the world. In the disease’s early stages, treatment involves surgery, in advanced stages however, treatment options were once scarce. There has been a paradigm shift in advanced melanoma treatment with the introduction of immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Understanding the molecular pathways and their pathologic counterparts helped identifying specific biomarkers that lead to the development of specific targeted therapies. In this review we briefly present some of these markers and their relevance to melanoma treatment.

Advanced Acral Melanoma Therapies: Current Status and Future Directions

Melanoma is one of the deadliest malignancies. Its incidence has been significantly increasing in most countries in recent decades. Acral melanoma (AM), a peculiar subgroup of melanoma occurring on the palms, soles, and nails, is the main subtype of melanoma in people of color and is extremely rare in Caucasians. Although great progress has been made in melanoma treatment in recent years, patients with AM have shown limited benefit from current therapies and thus consequently have worse overall survival rates. Achieving durable therapeutic responses in this high-risk melanoma subtype represents one of the greatest challenges in the field. The frequency of BRAF mutations in AM is much lower than that in cutaneous melanoma, which prevents most AM patients from receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, AM has more frequent mutations such as KIT and CDK4/6, so targeted therapy may still improve the survival of some AM patients in the future. AM may be less susceptible to immune checkpoint inhibitors because of the poor immunogenicity. Therefore, how to enhance the immune response to the tumor cells may be the key to the application of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced AM. Anti-angiogenic drugs, albumin paclitaxel, or interferons are thought to enhance the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Combination therapies based on the backbone of PD-1 are more likely to provide greater clinical benefits. Understanding the molecular landscapes and immune microenvironment of AM will help optimize our combinatory strategies.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases.

METHODS

TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, CNS metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (ten [17%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. One death in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort (limbic encephalitis) was considered to be related to atezolizumab treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib provided promising intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Loss of MHC-I antigen presentation correlated with immune checkpoint blockade tolerance in MAPK inhibitor-resistant melanoma

Immune checkpoint blockade and MAPK-targeted combined therapy is a promising regimen for advanced melanoma patients. However, the clinical benefit from this combo regimen remains limited, especially in patients who acquired resistance to MAPK-targeted therapy. Here, we systematically characterized the immune landscape during MAPK-targeted therapy in patients and mouse melanoma models. We observed that both the abundance of tumor-infiltrated T cells and the expression of immune-related genes were upregulated in the drug-responsive period, but downregulated in the resistance period, implying that acquired drug resistance dampens the antitumor immune response. Further transcriptomic dissection indicated that loss of MHC-I antigen presentation on tumor cells plays a critical role in the reduction of T cell infiltration during drug resistance. Survival analysis demonstrates that loss of antigen presentation and reduction of T-cell infiltration during acquired drug resistance are associated with poorer clinical response and prognosis of anti-PD-1 therapy in melanoma patients. In addition, we identified that alterations in the MAPK inhibitor resistance-related oncogenic signaling pathway closely correlated with deficiency of MHC-I antigen presentation, including activation of the PI3K-mTOR, MAPK, and Wnt pathways. In conclusion, our research illuminates that decreased infiltration of T cells is associated with acquired drug resistance during MAPK-targeted therapy, which may underlie the cross-resistance to immune checkpoint blockade.

The expanding role for small molecules in immuno-oncology

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) using antibodies against PD1 and its ligand PDL1 has prompted substantial efforts to develop complementary drugs. Although many of these are antibodies directed against additional checkpoint proteins, there is an increasing interest in small-molecule immuno-oncology drugs that address intracellular pathways, some of which have recently entered clinical trials. In parallel, small molecules that target pro-tumorigenic pathways in cancer cells and the tumour microenvironment have been found to have immunostimulatory effects that synergize with the action of ICI antibodies, leading to the approval of an increasing number of regimens that combine such drugs. Combinations with small molecules targeting cancer metabolism, cytokine/chemokine and innate immune pathways, and T cell checkpoints are now under investigation. This Review discusses the recent milestones and hurdles encountered in this area of drug development, as well as our views on the best path forward.

Targeting RAS in neuroblastoma: Is it possible?

Neuroblastoma is a common solid tumor in children and a leading cause of cancer death in children. Neuroblastoma exhibits genetic, morphological, and clinical heterogeneity that limits the efficacy of current monotherapies. With further research on neuroblastoma, the pathogenesis of neuroblastoma is found to be complex, and more and more treatment therapies are needed. The importance of personalized therapy is growing. Currently, various molecular features, including RAS mutations, are being used as targets for the development of new therapies for patients with neuroblastoma. A recent study found that RAS mutations are frequently present in recurrent neuroblastoma. RAS mutations have been shown to activate the MAPK pathway and play an important role in neuroblastoma. Treating RAS mutated neuroblastoma is a difficult challenge, but many preclinical studies have yielded effective results. At the same time, many of the therapies used to treat RAS mutated tumors also have good reference values for treating RAS mutated neuroblastoma. The success of KRAS-G12C inhibitors has greatly stimulated confidence in the direct suppression of RAS. This review describes the biological role of RAS and the frequency of RAS mutations in neuroblastoma. This paper focuses on the strategies, preclinical, and clinical progress of targeting carcinogenic RAS in neuroblastoma, and proposes possible prospects and challenges in the future.

Targeting KRAS: Crossroads of Signaling and Immune Inhibition

Mutations of RAS are commonly seen in human cancers, especially in lung, colorectal, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Despite huge effort for decades, targeting RAS mutations has been “undruggable” because of the molecular instability of RAS protein inhibition. However, the recent discovery of the KRAS G12C inhibitor paved the way to expand therapeutic options for patients with cancer harboring the KRAS G12C mutation. At the same time, the successful development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) drastically changed the paradigm of cancer treatment and resulted in a better understanding of the tumor immune microenvironment in patients with KRAS-mutant cancer. This review describes the following: the clinical characteristics of cancer with KRAS mutation; successful development of the KRAS G12C inhibitor and its impact on the tumor immune microenvironment; and potential new avenues such as the combination strategy using KRAS inhibitor and ICI, with preclinical and clinical rationales for overcoming resistance to inhibition of KRAS to improve therapeutic efficacy for patients with cancer harboring KRAS mutations.

Phase II Study of Selumetinib in Children and Young Adults With Tumors Harboring Activating Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Pathway Genetic Alterations: Arm E of the NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH Trial

PURPOSE

The NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial assigns patients age 1-21 years with relapsed or refractory solid tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase II studies of molecularly targeted therapies on the basis of detection of predefined genetic alterations. Patients with tumors harboring mutations or fusions driving activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway were treated with the MEK inhibitor selumetinib.

METHODS

Patients received selumetinib twice daily for 28-day cycles until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate; secondary end points included progression-free survival and tolerability of selumetinib.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (median age: 14 years) were treated. All were evaluable for response and toxicities. The most frequent diagnoses were high-grade glioma (HGG; n = 7) and rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 7). Twenty-one actionable mutations were detected: hotspot mutations in KRAS (n = 8), NRAS (n = 3), and HRAS (n = 1), inactivating mutations in NF1 (n = 7), and BRAF V600E (n = 2). No objective responses were observed. Three patients had a best response of stable disease including two patients with HGG (NF1 mutation, six cycles; KRAS mutation, 12 cycles). Six-month progression-free survival was 15% (95% CI, 4 to 34). Five patients (25%) experienced a grade 3 or higher adverse event that was possibly or probably attributable to study drug.

CONCLUSION

A national histology-agnostic molecular screening strategy was effective at identifying children and young adults eligible for treatment with selumetinib in the first Pediatric MATCH treatment arm to be completed. MEK inhibitors have demonstrated promising responses in some pediatric tumors (eg, low-grade glioma and plexiform neurofibroma). However, selumetinib in this cohort with treatment-refractory tumors harboring MAPK alterations demonstrated limited efficacy, indicating that pathway mutation status alone is insufficient to predict response to selumetinib monotherapy for pediatric cancers.

Immunomodulatory Properties of PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK/MEK/ERK Inhibition Augment Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Melanoma and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Hyperactivation of PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK/MEK/ERK signaling pathways is commonly observed in many cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and melanoma. Moreover, the compensatory upregulation of the MAPK/MEK/ERK pathway has been associated with therapeutic resistance to targeted inhibition of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, and vice versa. The immune-modulatory effects of both PI3K and MAPK inhibition suggest that inhibition of these pathways might enhance response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). ICIs have become the standard-of-care for metastatic melanoma and are recently an option for TNBC when combined with chemotherapy, but alternative options are needed when resistance develops. In this review, we present the current mechanistic understandings, along with preclinical and clinical evidence, that outline the efficacy and safety profile of combinatorial or sequential treatments with PI3K inhibitors, MAPK inhibitors, and ICIs for treatment of malignant melanoma and metastatic TNBC. This approach may present a potential strategy to overcome resistance in patients who are a candidate for ICI therapy with tumors harboring either or both of these pathway-associated mutations.

STARBOARD: encorafenib + binimetinib + pembrolizumab for first-line metastatic/unresectable BRAF V600-mutant melanoma

Despite the significant progress in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, there remains two primary treatment options: targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Targeted therapy or immunotherapy alone is associated with efficacy limitations including efficacy limited to select patient subsets. With separate mechanisms of action and different response patterns, the combination of targeted agents and immunotherapy to treat patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma may further improve patient outcomes. Current treatment guidelines recommend treatment with targeted agents alone, immunotherapy, or the combination of targeted agents and immunotherapy. The randomized, double-blind STARBOARD trial aims to evaluate efficacy and safety of encorafenib, binimetinib and pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma in comparison to pembrolizumab.

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

Background

The 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 BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. This prespecified exploratory biomarker analysis was performed to identify subgroups that may derive greater treatment benefit from sparta-DabTram.

Methods

In 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; 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.

Results

Extensive 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 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).

Conclusions

These 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.

Trial registration number

NCT02967692.

Combination of immunotherapy and other targeted therapies in advanced cutaneous melanoma

Cutaneous Melanoma (CM) is an aggressive cancer whose incidence is increasing worldwide. However, the knowledge of its biology and genes driving cell growth and survival allowed to develop new drugs that have improved PFS and OS of advanced disease. Both BRAF targeting agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been adopted for the treatment of metastatic disease and the adjuvant setting. Several melanoma patients show innate or acquired drug-resistance and thus new strategies are required for overcoming this complication. New ICIs have been developed, and strategies of combination or sequencing are under investigation in ongoing clinical trials. In addition, pre-clinical data have demonstrated that many strategies induce the release of neoantigens within the tumor microenvironment, thus suggesting the combination of new agents with ICIs. Here, we review the ongoing strategies in advanced CM including a dedicated section on treatment of brain metastases.

Acceptability of Drugs in the Treatment of Unresectable/Metastatic BRAF V600-Mutant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Although many novel regimens have entered the treatment paradigm for unresectable/metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, there is still a lack of head-to-head comparison in terms of security. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the risk of adverse events (AEs) across different treatments and to provide an acceptability ranking for patients.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in Embase, PubMed, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Clinical Trials.gov with a time frame from database inception to December 24, 2021. We retrieved evidence on the cumulative incidence of any-grade AEs means grades 1-5 AEs (regardless of severity) and severe AEs based on the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrI).

Results

Twelve publications and thirteen treatments enrolling 5,803 patients were included. For any-grade AEs, the acceptability of combined dabrafenib and trametinib is superior to the combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (RR: 0.94; Crl: 0.89, 0.98). Furthermore, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab increases any-grade AEs than single-agent ipilimumab (RR: 0.90; Crl: 0.83, 0.96) or nivolumab (RR: 0.90; Crl: 0.84, 0.97). For severe AEs, dabrafenib has the best acceptability than single-agent vemurafenib (RR: 0.66; Crl: 0.50, 0.87) or encorafenib (RR: 0.64; Crl: 0.43, 0.94). In addition, ipilimumab (SUCRA: 0.87) ranks first in the acceptability for any-grade AEs, and nivolumab (SUCRA: 0.95) ranks first in the acceptability for severe AEs. The ranking of the combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (SUCRA: 0.66) is superior to encorafenib in combination with binimetinib (SUCRA: 0.39) and combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (SUCRA: 0.18).

Conclusions

We identified the lowest AE risk treatment options for BRAF V600-mutant melanoma patients. In general, immunotherapy (ipilimumab or nivolumab) has better acceptability than most targeted therapies, and triplet therapies are related with the worst acceptability. Moreover, single-agent dabrafenib can be used as the first choice in monotherapy, and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib is the preferred combination therapy. Overall, the combination of immunotherapy drugs increases any-grade and severe AEs than a single agent, whereas the condition of targeted therapy drugs cannot be simply generalized. Therefore, this information can facilitate evidence-based decision-making and support optimizing treatment and outcomes in clinical practice.

Managing Metastatic Melanoma in 2022: A Clinical Review

Cutaneous melanoma remains the most lethal of the primary cutaneous neoplasms, and although the incidence of primary melanoma continues to rise, the mortality from metastatic disease remains unchanged, in part through advances in treatment. Major developments in immunomodulatory and targeted therapies have provided robust improvements in response and survival trends that have transformed the clinical management of patients with metastatic melanoma. Additional advances in immunologic and cancer cell biology have contributed to further optimization in (1) risk stratification, (2) prognostication, (3) treatment, (4) toxicity management, and (5) surveillance approaches for patients with an advanced melanoma diagnosis. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the historical and future advances regarding the translational and clinical implications of advanced melanoma and share multidisciplinary recommendations to aid clinicians in the navigation of current treatment approaches for a variety of patient cohorts.

Long-Term Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Metastatic Melanoma

Increasing knowledge about the biology of melanoma and of immunology has led to the development and regulatory approval of the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab, which are indicated for the treatment of melanoma irrespective of the B-Raf proto-oncogene mutation status of the tumour. Only a subset of patients will respond, but those who do can expect long-lasting, previously unheard-of responses. Long-term survival results for the registration trials, including CheckMate 067, Keynote-006, and Keynote-001, have recently been published. In particular, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab showed an impressive 5-year overall survival of just over 50%. However, toxicity remains a significant concern, with some of the side effects being life threatening and/or life changing. In this review, we discuss the safety and efficacy data of all the agents currently approved for the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma, identifying factors that influence the choice of a single agent rather than combination therapy. We highlight the potential biomarkers of response, effects of long-term toxicity, and options after progression.

Combination targeted and immune therapy in the treatment of advanced melanoma: a valid treatment option for patients?

Melanomas harboring an activating BRAFV600 mutation account for 50% of all advanced melanomas. The approval of BRAF-targeted therapy revolutionized treatment of these patients with achievement of impressive responses. However, development of resistance to these drugs is a significant problem, and as such, duration of response remains low, with median progression free survival of around 11–15 months. Immune checkpoint blockers exploit the immune system to eradicate cancer and can produce durable disease control that results in long-term, treatment-free survival in some patients. These drugs have shown very impressive survival in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. Thus, there is a need to continue to utilize emerging data to achieve long-term disease control for patients with advanced melanoma. Combining targeted therapy with immune therapy may be one possible way to achieve this goal. In this review, the mechanisms of action of these two pathways, including the mechanistic basis of this combination, are summarized, along with results of completed and ongoing trials in triple therapy.

Research Trends and Most Influential Clinical Studies on Anti-PD1/PDL1 Immunotherapy for Cancers: A Bibliometric Analysis

In this study, a bibliometric analysis was carried out to identify the most influential clinical studies and research trends on anti-programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (anti-PD1/PDL1) immunotherapy. On January 1, 2022, we used Web of Science to identify the 100 most frequently cited papers on clinical studies investigating anti-PD1/PDL1 immunotherapy, and extracted the following data: publication year, source title, country/region, institution, and the total number of citations. The research design and area were classified independently by the authors. Subsequently, we carried out a bibliometric analysis to determine the trends and identify the major journals on anti-PD1/PDL1 immunotherapy. The authors analyzed the current research hotspots based on papers published in major journals from 2020 to 2021. These 100 papers were cited a total of 138,840 times, and the median number of citations was 899.5 (range: 341–7,983). “Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer” by Topalian et al. had the highest number of citations (7,983 times). New England Journal of Medicine had the highest number of top-cited papers (40 papers), average citations per paper (1,558.3 citations), and rate of top-cited papers (65.6%). Authors from the USA contributed most of the papers (76 papers). Lung cancer (30 papers, 46,422 citations) and melanoma (20 papers, 30,881 citations) were the most cited research areas. In summary, anti-PD1/PDL1 has become standard treatment for various cancer, while adjuvant anti-PD1/PDL1 therapy is currently a research hotspot. New England Journal of Medicine was identified as the most influential journal in this area. Non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma are the most well-studied cancers, while nivolumab and pembrolizumab are the most commonly investigated anti-PD1/PDL1 antibodies. Further studies are warranted to identify effective predictive biomarkers or models, clarify the molecular mechanism of combined therapy, and establish optimal therapeutic strategies. This study may assist researchers in obtaining a comprehensive impression of the landscape and current trends in anti-PD1/PDL1 immunotherapy and gain inspiration to conduct further studies.

Triplet Therapy in Melanoma - Combined BRAF/MEK Inhibitors and Anti-PD-(L)1 Antibodies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We provide an updated review of clinical trials evaluating the combination of BRAF/MEK inhibitors with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (triplet therapy) for patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma, accompanied by a summary of the biological evidence supporting this combination.

RECENT FINDINGS

Resistance to BRAF/MEK inhibition and comparatively low response rates to immune checkpoint inhibitors remain clinical challenges in the treatment of melanoma. Preclinical data demonstrates that targeted therapy is immune-modulatory and synergises with immune checkpoint inhibition. Several randomised controlled trials have evaluated the combination of targeted therapy with immune checkpoint inhibition. Triplet therapy has shown improvements in progression-free survival and durability of response compared to BRAF/MEK inhibition alone; however, questions remain regarding the best clinical scenario for implementation of this regimen in the era of front-line immunotherapy.

[The research progress of PD-1/L1 inhibitors application in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma]

Over the past few years, the FDA has approved PD-1/L1 inhibitor for the treatment of advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, involving PD-1/L1 inhibitor monotherapy, PD-1/L1 inhibitor combined with chemoradiotherapy, combined with targeted therapy, combined with neoadjuvant immunotherapy and duplex-block of immune checkpoints and so on. Herein, we briefly review the latest research results in this field, and summarize the application and efficacy of immunotherapy in the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma， which will benefits such patients to develop more precise and individualized treatment plans.

Turnaround Times in Melanoma BRAF Testing and the Impact on the Initiation of Systemic Therapy at a Single Tertiary Care Cancer Center

PURPOSE

The identification of BRAF mutations in melanoma enables targeted therapy and improves patient outcomes. Barriers to BRAF molecular testing affect the quality of care and therapeutic options.

METHODS

This retrospective study mapped BRAF testing timelines in adult patients with melanoma at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre to identify obstacles to timely BRAF reporting and its impact on the initiation of therapy.

RESULTS

Sixty-six cases were included. The median time between BRAF request and result was 12 days (95% CI, 8 to 15) when the BRAF test was ordered by pathology, compared with 20 days (95% CI, 16 to 23) if the test was requested by another specialist (P < .001). When the BRAF test and biopsy were performed within the same institution, the BRAF median turnaround time (TAT) was 13 days (95% CI, 6 to 19) compared with 19 days (95% CI, 16 to 21) if the sample was transferred from another institution (P = .02). Forty-seven patients received systemic therapy, and 20 had metastatic disease. In the metastatic subgroup, if the BRAF result was available at the first medical oncology visit, the initiation of treatment was 20 days (95% CI, 9.6 to 30.3), but was delayed to 31 days (95% CI, 10.8 to 51.1) if the BRAF result was not available (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

This study showed variations in BRAF test results in TAT. One factor affecting this timeline is the transfer time, which can be streamlined by pathology reflex testing. Delays in TAT affect the timing and type of therapeutic intervention, especially in patients with stage IV disease.

Real-World Evidence of Systemic Therapy Sequencing on Overall Survival for Patients with Metastatic BRAF-Mutated Cutaneous Melanoma

Aim: To evaluate optimal systemic therapy sequencing (first-line targeted therapy (1L-TT) vs. first-line immunotherapy (1L-IO)) in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. Methods: Nation-wide prospective data of patients with newly diagnosed BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma were retrieved from the Canadian Melanoma Research Network. Results: Our study included 79 and 107 patients in the 1L-IO and 1L-TT groups, respectively. There were more patients with ECOG 0−1 (91% vs. 72%, p = 0.023) in the 1L-IO group compared to the 1L-TT group. Multivariable Cox analysis suggested no OS differences between the two groups (HR 0.838, 95%CI 0.502−1.400, p = 0.500). However, patients who received 1L-TT then 2L-IO had the longest OS compared to 1L-IO without 2L therapy, 1L-IO then 2L-TT, and 1L-TT without 2L therapy (38.3 vs. 32.2 vs. 16.9 vs. 6.3 months, p < 0.001). For patients who received 2L therapy, those who received 2L-IO had a trend towards OS improvement compared with the 2L-TT group (21.7 vs. 8.9 months, p = 0.053). Conclusions: Our nation-wide prospective study failed to establish any optimal systemic therapy sequencing in advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma patients. Nevertheless, we provided evidence that immunotherapy has durable efficacy in advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma patients, regardless of treatment line, and that Canadian medical oncologists were selecting the appropriate treatment sequences in a real-world setting, based on patients’ clinical and tumour characteristics.

Cancer patient survival can be parametrized to improve trial precision and reveal time-dependent therapeutic effects

Individual participant data (IPD) from oncology clinical trials is invaluable for identifying factors that influence trial success and failure, improving trial design and interpretation, and comparing pre-clinical studies to clinical outcomes. However, the IPD used to generate published survival curves are not generally publicly available. We impute survival IPD from ~500 arms of Phase 3 oncology trials (representing ~220,000 events) and find that they are well fit by a two-parameter Weibull distribution. Use of Weibull functions with overall survival significantly increases the precision of small arms typical of early phase trials: analysis of a 50-patient trial arm using parametric forms is as precise as traditional, non-parametric analysis of a 90-patient arm. We also show that frequent deviations from the Cox proportional hazards assumption, particularly in trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, arise from time-dependent therapeutic effects. Trial duration therefore has an underappreciated impact on the likelihood of success.

Analysis of more than 150 Phase 3 oncology clinical trials supports parametric statistical analysis, significantly increasing the precision of small early-phase trials and relating deviations from the Cox proportional hazards model to trial duration.

Current Controversies and Challenges on BRAF V600K-Mutant Cutaneous Melanoma

About 50% of melanomas harbour a BRAF mutation. Of these 50%, 10% have a V600K mutation. Although it is the second most common driver mutation after V600E, no specific studies have been conducted to identify a clinical and therapeutic gold standard for this patient subgroup. We analysed articles, including registrative clinical trials, to identify common clinical and biological traits of the V600K melanoma population, including different adopted therapeutic strategies. Melanoma V600K seems to be more frequent in Caucasian, male and elderly populations with a history of chronic sun damage and exposure. Prognosis is poor and no specific prognostic factor has been identified. Recent findings have underlined how melanoma V600K seems to be less dependent on the ERK/MAPK pathway, with a higher expression of PI3KB and a strong inhibition of multiple antiapoptotic pathways. Both target therapy with BRAF inhibitors + MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy with anti-checkpoint blockades are effective in melanoma V600K, although no sufficient evidence can currently support a formal recommendation for first line treatment choice in IIIC unresectable/IV stage patients. Still, melanoma V600K represents an unmet medical need and a marker of poor prognosis for cutaneous melanoma.

Predictable Clinical Benefits without Evidence of Synergy in Trials of Combination Therapies with Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors

PURPOSE

Combinations of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) with other cancer therapies have been approved for advanced cancers in multiple indications, and numerous trials are under way to test new combinations. However, the mechanisms that account for the superiority of approved ICI combinations relative to their constituent monotherapies remain unknown.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We analyzed 13 phase III clinical trials testing combinations of ICIs with each other or other drugs in patients with advanced melanoma and lung, breast, gastric, kidney, and head and neck cancers. The clinical activity of the individual constituent therapies, measured in the same or a closely matched trial cohort, was used to compute progression-free survival (PFS) curves expected under a model of independent drug action. To identify additive or synergistic efficacy, PFS expected under this null model was compared with observed PFS by Cox regression.

RESULTS

PFS elicited by approved combination therapies with ICIs could be accurately predicted from monotherapy data using the independent drug action model (Pearson r = 0.98, P < 5 × 10^-9, N = 4,173 patients, 8 types of cancer). We found no evidence of drug additivity or synergy except in one trial in which such interactions might have extended median PFS by 9 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining ICIs with other cancer therapies affords predictable and clinically meaningful benefit by providing patients with multiple chances of response to a single agent. Conversely, there exists no evidence in phase III trials that other therapies interact with and enhance the activity of ICIs. These findings can inform the design and testing of new ICI combination therapies while emphasizing the importance of developing better predictors (biomarkers) of ICI response.

Randomized Phase III Trial Evaluating Spartalizumab Plus Dabrafenib and Trametinib for BRAF V600-Mutant Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma

PURPOSE

Preclinical data suggest the combination of an anti-programmed death receptor 1 antibody plus dabrafenib and trametinib to have superior antitumor activity compared with dabrafenib plus trametinib alone. These observations are supported by translational evidence suggesting that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus targeted therapy may improve treatment outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-i is a phase III trial evaluating spartalizumab, an anti-programmed death receptor 1 antibody, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram), versus placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

METHODS

Patients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally twice daily and trametinib 2 mg orally once daily or placebo-DabTram. Participants were age ≥ 18 years with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary end point (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02967692).

RESULTS

At data cutoff (July 1, 2020), the median progression-free survival was 16.2 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 23.9 months) in the sparta-DabTram arm versus 12.0 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 15.4 months) in the placebo-DabTram arm (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.03]; P = .042 [one-sided; nonsignificant]). The objective response rates were 69% (183 of 267 patients) versus 64% (170 of 265 patients), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 55% (146 of 267) of patients in the sparta-DabTram arm and 33% (88 of 264) in the placebo-DabTram arm.

CONCLUSION

The study did not meet its primary end point; broad first-line use of sparta-DabTram is not supported by these results. Further biomarker-driven investigation may identify patient subpopulations who could benefit from checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combinations.

Atezolizumab, cobimetinib, and vemurafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of metastatic melanoma has been revolutionized by the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibition. Nevertheless, almost half of patients will progress or show primary resistance to treatment. The combination of BRAF/MEK and immune checkpoint inhibition might achieve higher response rates and improve long-term disease control. The IMspire150 trial investigated the combination of atezolizumab, cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus cobimetinib and vemurafenib alone.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab, cobimetinib and vemurafenib for patients with advanced or metastatic BRAF mutant melanoma. The combination is compared with the current standard of care including BRAF/MEK inhibition and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

EXPERT OPINION

Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib showed superior progression-free survival in metastatic melanoma compared to cobimetinib and vemurafenib alone. Triplet therapy might be an option in situations of urgent need for disease control, when oncologists choose BRAF/MEK inhibition over immune checkpoint inhibition as first line treatment. At this time results are not mature yet, and longer follow-up including overall survival data is needed. The future role of this combination will also be determined by a comparison with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Neoadjuvant therapy for melanoma: new and evolving concepts

Effective systemic therapies, including targeted BRAF/MEK inhibition and immune checkpoint blockade, have significantly changed the treatment landscape for malignant melanoma. Specifically, there have been promising clinical trial findings associated with the use of neoadjuvant therapy for clinically node-positive and oligometastatic disease, conditions that have historically been managed with up-front surgical resection when possible. This review focuses on the burgeoning field of neoadjuvant therapy for melanoma. We review the rationale for this treatment approach, summarize completed and ongoing neoadjuvant clinical trials, and contextualize these findings within the growing body of knowledge about targeted and immune checkpoint therapy. Finally, we discuss future directions for neoadjuvant trials in melanoma, with particular focus on biomarker development, treatment effect modification, novel therapeutic regimens, and evolving surgical indications for regional and oligometastatic disease.

State of affairs regarding targeted pharmacological therapy of cancers metastasized to the brain

In 1999 a visionary short article by The Wall Street Journal writers Robert Langreth and Michael Waldholz popularized the new term "personalized medicine," that is to say, the targeting of drugs to each unique genetic profile. From today's perspective, targeted approaches have clearly found the widest use in the antineoplastic domain. The current review was initiated to review the progress that has been made regarding the treatment of patients with advanced cancer and brain metastases. PubMed was searched for the terms brain metastasis, brain metastases, or metastatic brain in the Title/Abstract. Selection was limited to randomized controlled trial (RCT) and publication date January 2010 to February 2022. Following visual review, 51 papers on metastatic lung cancer, 12 on metastatic breast cancer, and 9 on malignant melanoma were retained and underwent full analysis. Information was extracted from the papers giving specific numbers for intracranial response rate and/or overall survival. Since most pharmacological trials on advanced cancers excluded patients with brain metastases and since hardly any information on adjuvant radiotherapy and radiosurgery is available from the pharmacological trials, precise assessment of the effect of targeted medication for the subgroups with brain metastases is difficult. Some quantitative information regarding the success of targeted pharmacological therapy is only available for patients with breast and lung cancer and melanoma. Overall, targeted approaches approximately doubled the lifespan in the subgroups of brain metastases from tumors with targetable surface receptors such as anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion receptor in non-small cell lung cancer or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. For these types, overall survival in the situation of brain metastases is now more than a year. For receptor-negative lung cancer and melanoma, introduction of immune checkpoint blockers brought a substantial advance, although overall survival for melanoma metastasized to the brain appears to remain in the range of 6 to 9 months. The outlook for small cell lung cancer metastasized to the brain apparently remains poor. The introduction of targeted therapy roughly doubled survival times of advanced cancers including those metastasized to the brain, but so far, targeted therapy does not differ essentially from chemotherapy, therefore also facing tumors developing escape mechanisms. With the improved perspective of patients suffering from brain metastases, it becomes important to further optimize treatment of this specific patient group within the framework of randomized trials.

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.

Signal pathways of melanoma and targeted therapy

Melanoma is the most lethal skin cancer that originates from the malignant transformation of melanocytes. Although melanoma has long been regarded as a cancerous malignancy with few therapeutic options, increased biological understanding and unprecedented innovations in therapies targeting mutated driver genes and immune checkpoints have substantially improved the prognosis of patients. However, the low response rate and inevitable occurrence of resistance to currently available targeted therapies have posed the obstacle in the path of melanoma management to obtain further amelioration. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms underlying melanoma pathogenesis more comprehensively, which might lead to more substantial progress in therapeutic approaches and expand clinical options for melanoma therapy. In this review, we firstly make a brief introduction to melanoma epidemiology, clinical subtypes, risk factors, and current therapies. Then, the signal pathways orchestrating melanoma pathogenesis, including genetic mutations, key transcriptional regulators, epigenetic dysregulations, metabolic reprogramming, crucial metastasis-related signals, tumor-promoting inflammatory pathways, and pro-angiogenic factors, have been systemically reviewed and discussed. Subsequently, we outline current progresses in therapies targeting mutated driver genes and immune checkpoints, as well as the mechanisms underlying the treatment resistance. Finally, the prospects and challenges in the development of melanoma therapy, especially immunotherapy and related ongoing clinical trials, are summarized and discussed.

Should Targeted Therapy Be Continued in BRAF-Mutant Melanoma Patients after Complete Remission?

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapy is used to treat patients with a BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma and is continued until disease progression or severe toxicity. No robust data on the management of patients achieving a complete remission (CR) are available.

MAIN OBJECTIVE

To determine the relapse rate in the first year after targeted therapy discontinuation in patients in CR.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

To determine the relapse rates throughout the follow-up and to identify prognostic factors for relapse at 1 year.

METHODS

A retrospective, monocentric observational study was conducted in patients with advanced melanoma included in the RIC-Mel database who discontinued targeted therapy after achieving a CR confirmed by CT scan and PET/CT scan.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were included. Seventeen (58.6%) patients were treated with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) alone and 12 (41.4%) with a BRAFi combined with a MEK inhibitor (BRAFi + MEKi). The median treatment duration was 9.7 months. The relapse rates after discontinuation were 69% at 12 months (BRAFi: 70.6%; BRAFi + MEKi: 66.7%) and 76% at 36 months (BRAFi: 76.5%; BRAFi + MEKi: 75%). A non-significant trend towards a higher risk of relapse was found in women (p = 0.1; RR 3.36; 95% CI 0.77-17.07), in patients with an LDH level greater than the upper limits of normal (p = 0.58; RR 2.43; 95% CI 0.10-56.71), and when more than two metastatic sites were involved (p = 0.19; RR 4.6; 95% CI 0.46-46.51). After relapse, targeted therapy was resumed in 17 patients (7 with BRAFi; 10 with BRAFi + MEKi) with a response rate of 53%.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-life study provided long-term data in patients who discontinued targeted therapy after CR. Most patients experienced a relapse in the first year after targeted therapy discontinuation, of whom 50% were in the first 3 months. After targeted therapy resumption, 53% of relapsing patients achieved an objective response. Patients should be followed during the first year after treatment discontinuation. In addition, patients with less than 3 metastatic sites, a baseline LDH level with normal ranges, men, and patients responding rapidly to treatment would be more likely to maintain a CR after treatment discontinuation.

Short-term treatment with multi-drug regimens combining BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy and immunotherapy results in durable responses in Braf-mutated melanoma

Targeted and immunotherapy regimens have revolutionized the treatment of advanced melanoma patients. Despite this, only a subset of patients respond durably. Recently, combination strategies of BRAF/MEK inhibitors with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy (α-CTLA-4 or α-PD-1) have increased the rate of durable responses. Based on evidence from our group and others, these therapies appear synergistic, but at the cost of significant toxicity. We know from other treatment paradigms (e.g. hematologic malignancies) that combination strategies with multi-drug regimens (>4 drugs) are associated with more durable disease control. To better understand the mechanism of these improved outcomes, and to identify and prioritize new strategies for testing, we studied several multi-drug regimens combining BRAF/MEK targeted therapy and immunotherapy combinations in a Braf-mutant murine melanoma model (Braf^V600E/Pten^−/−). Short-term treatment with α-PD-1 and α-CTLA-4 monotherapies were relatively ineffective, while treatment with α-OX40 demonstrated some efficacy [17% of mice with no evidence of disease, (NED), at 60-days]. Outcomes were improved in the combined α-OX40/α-PD-1 group (42% NED). Short-term treatment with quadruplet therapy of immunotherapy doublets in combination with targeted therapy [dabrafenib and trametinib (DT)] was associated with excellent tumor control, with 100% of mice having NED after combined DT/α-CTLA-4/α-PD-1 or DT/α-OX40/α-PD-1. Notably, tumors from mice in these groups demonstrated a high proportion of effector memory T cells, and immunologic memory was maintained with tumor re-challenge. Together, these data provide important evidence regarding the potential utility of multi-drug therapy in treating advanced melanoma and suggest these models can be used to guide and prioritize combinatorial treatment strategies.

Cautious addition of targeted therapy to PD-1 inhibitors after initial progression of BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma on checkpoint inhibitor therapy

Background

Virtually all metastatic patients with metastatic melanoma who progress after initial treatment with PD-1 or CTLA-4 directed antibodies will die of their disease. Salvage options are urgently needed. It is theoretically attractive to combine immunotherapy with targeted agents in progressing patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma, but the toxicity of combined treatment has proven challenging.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of our patient database and identified 23 patients who progressed on initial checkpoint inhibitor treatment, who subsequently had cautious addition of BRAF±MEK inhibitor therapy to continued PD-1 antibody treatment.

Results

We found an objective response rate of 55% in second line therapy, with a median progression-free survival of 33.4 months and median overall survival of 34.1 months, with 40% of patients in unmaintained remission at over 3 years. Ten of 12 responding patients were able to discontinue all therapy and continue in unmaintained remission. Toxicity of this approach was generally manageable (21.7% grade 3–5 toxicity). There was 1 early sudden death for unknown reasons in a responding patient.

Discussion

Our results suggest that 2nd line therapy with PD-1 inhibitors plus BRAF±MEK inhibitors has substantial activity and manageable toxicity. This treatment can induce additional durable complete responses in patients who have progressed on initial immunotherapy. These results suggest further evaluation be performed of sequential PD-1 antibody treatment with cautious addition of targeted therapy in appropriate patients.

Combined BRAF-Targeted Therapy with Immunotherapy in BRAF-Mutated Advanced Melanoma Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review evidence on the efficacy and safety of combined BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Programmed death-1 pathway inhibitors administered with BRAF/MEK inhibitors showed promising anti-tumour activity in BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma and were investigated for safety and efficacy in three large international clinical trials. Although, in two out of those three randomized phase III studies, progression-free survival (PFS) did not reach statistical significance, results showed that duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS) were improved using combined therapy, sustaining the scientific rationale for its use at least in a subset of metastatic melanomas. However, the frequent occurrence of autoimmunity-induced toxicities should be considered since it is limiting the continuity and the wide application of these regimens. Novel treatment modalities combining targeted therapy with checkpoint inhibitors require further clinical investigation and elucidation of their effect on the immune system and cancer cell modulation.

Dermatologic adverse events associated with targeted therapies for melanoma

INTRODUCTION

The development of new targeted therapies has considerably changed the therapeutic paradigm of melanoma, significantly increasing overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). However, skin-related adverse sequelae might occur and impact on patients' quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

In this article we will cover the most important dermatological toxicities related to BRAF and MEK-inhibitors, along with updated management strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

BRAF inhibitors have represented a revolution in the treatment of melanoma. They have improved the outcome of the disease and therefore represent an important option in the management and care of patients with advanced melanoma. Skin toxicity (especially the onset of squamous skin carcinomas) has been considered a major cutaneous side effect and, although the addition of MEK inhibitors in combination has significantly reduced the incidence of skin sequelae, serious skin adverse events might develop anyway and impact significantly on patients'quality of life and on national health system budget. The introduction of BRAF and MEK inhibitors as a new effective adjuvant treatment option for stage III and ulcerated melanoma has proved a significant impact on the risk of recurrence, and may have interesting developments in the near future as a further therapeutic tool.

Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapy.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialists, and advocacy experts was convened to update the guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on evidence published from 2017 through 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 175 studies met the eligibility criteria of the systematic review and were pertinent to the development of the recommendations. Because of the paucity of high-quality evidence, recommendations are based on expert consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for specific organ system-based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented. While management varies according to the organ system affected, in general, ICPi therapy should be continued with close monitoring for grade 1 toxicities, except for some neurologic, hematologic, and cardiac toxicities. ICPi therapy may be suspended for most grade 2 toxicities, with consideration of resuming when symptoms revert ≤ grade 1. Corticosteroids may be administered. Grade 3 toxicities generally warrant suspension of ICPis and the initiation of high-dose corticosteroids. Corticosteroids should be tapered over the course of at least 4-6 weeks. Some refractory cases may require other immunosuppressive therapy. In general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, except for endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.