Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial

The great debate at "Melanoma Bridge 2018", Naples, December 1st, 2018

The great debate session at the 2018 Melanoma Bridge congress (November 29-December 1, Naples, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on three topical issues in melanoma. These were whether overall survival should still be the main endpoint for clinical trials in melanoma, whether anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4 is still the optimal choice of drug to use in combination with an anti-programmed death (PD)/PD-ligand (L)-1 agent, and the place of adjuvant versus neoadjuvant therapy in patients with melanoma. These three important debates are summarised in this report.

Comprehensive Clinical Trial Data Summation for BRAF-MEK Inhibition and Checkpoint Immunotherapy in Metastatic Melanoma

This review focuses on checkpoint and BRAF inhibitors, exploring outcomes based on clinical and disease characteristics to identify trends that might inform treatment decisions for the management of melanoma.

Background.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors, along with BRAF and MEK inhibitors, have dramatically changed the management of and outlook for patients with metastatic melanoma. Analyses of long‐term follow‐up data and subanalyses based on disease characteristics may inform clinical decision making.

Methods.

Reports of clinical trials in metastatic melanoma published between January 1, 2012, and August 30, 2018, were identified using PubMed (terms: melanoma AND [dabrafenib OR trametinib OR vemurafenib OR cobimetinib OR encorafenib OR ipilimumab OR nivolumab OR pembrolizumab]) and were systematically reviewed. Relevant congress proceedings were also assessed. Efficacy data from key phase III trials were analyzed and trends identified.

Results.

Substantial improvements in objective response rates, progression‐free survival, and overall survival were documented across 14 identified publications. Subgroup findings supported that patients with lower disease burden derive greater benefit than patients with more advanced disease, limiting the value of disease burden in the clinical decision‐making process. However, these agents consistently conferred benefits despite the presence of poor prognostic features. Several clinically relevant questions remain, including how best to sequence immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination targeted therapy.

Conclusion.

This research, coupled with ongoing investigations, including those on predictive biomarkers, suggests that the treatment decision‐making process is likely to become more nuanced.

Implications for Practice.

The management of melanoma has been rapidly advancing with new classes of agents, including immune checkpoint and BRAF inhibitors. With long‐term follow‐up, their impact on response rates and survival outcomes is well documented. Additional findings from subgroup analyses suggest that patients with lower disease burden derive greater benefit, yet both consistently confer benefit in patients with higher disease burden. Currently, there is a paucity of data to guide first‐line treatment selection between immunotherapy and BRAF‐targeted therapy in clinical practice or to estimate their impact when sequenced. Gaining these insights will facilitate a more nuanced management approach.

OMIC signatures to understand cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting: Melanoma and immune cells interplay in immunotherapy

Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer. Cutaneous melanomas usually originate from exposure to the mutagenic effects of ultraviolet radiation, and as such they exhibit the highest rate of somatic mutations than any other human cancer, and an extensive expression of neoantigens concurrently with a dense infiltrate of immune cells. The coexistence of high immunogenicity and high immune cell infiltration may sound contradictory for cancers carrying a gloomy outcome. However, recent studies have unveiled a variety of immunosuppressive mechanisms that often permeate the tumor microenvironment and that are responsible for tumor escaping from immunosurveillance mechanisms. Nonetheless, this particular immune profile has opened a new window of treatments based on immunotherapy that have significantly improved the clinical outcome of melanoma patients. Still, positive and complete therapy responses have been limited, and this particular cancer continues to be a major clinical challenge. The transcriptomic signatures of those patients with clinical benefit and those with progressive disease have provided a more complete picture of the universe of interactions between the tumor and the immune system. In this review, we integrate the results of the immunotherapy clinical trials to discuss a novel understanding of the mechanisms guiding cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting. A clear notion of the cellular and molecular processes shaping how the immune system and the tumor are continuously coevolving would result in the rational design of combinatory therapies aiming to counteract the signaling pathways and cellular processes responsible for immunoescape mechanisms and provide clinical benefit to immunotherapy nonresponsive patients.

Upfront Surgical Resection of Melanoma Brain Metastases Provides a Bridge Toward Immunotherapy-Mediated Systemic Control

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint blockade has systemic efficacy in patients with metastatic melanoma, including those with brain metastases (MBMs). However, immunotherapy-induced intracranial tumoral inflammation can lead to neurologic compromise, requiring steroids, which abrogate the systemic efficacy of this approach. We investigated whether upfront neurosurgical resection of MBM is associated with a therapeutic advantage when performed prior to initiation of immunotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An institutional review board-approved, retrospective study identified 142 patients with MBM treated with immune checkpoint blockade between 2010 and 2016 at Massachusetts General Hospital, of whom 79 received surgery. Patients were classified based on the temporal relationship between immunotherapy, surgery, and development of central nervous system metastases. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of diagnosis of MBM until death from any cause. Multivariate model building included a prognostic Cox model of OS, the effect of immunotherapy and surgical sequencing on OS, and the effect of immunotherapy and radiation sequencing on OS.

RESULTS

The 2-year overall survival for patients treated with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4, programmed death 1, or combinatorial blockade was 19%, 54%, and 57%, respectively. Among immunotherapy-naïve melanoma brain metastases, surgery followed by immunotherapy had a median survival of 22.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.6-39.2) compared with 10.8 months for patients treated with immunotherapy alone (95% CI, 7.8-16.3) and 9.4 months for patients treated with immunotherapy followed by surgery (95% CI, 4.1 to ∞; p = .12). On multivariate analysis, immunotherapy-naïve brain metastases treated with immunotherapy alone were associated with increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.00-2.99) compared with immunotherapy-naïve brain metastases treated with surgery followed by immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

In treatment-naïve patients, early surgical resection for local control should be considered prior to commencing immunotherapy. A prospective, randomized trial comparing the sequence of surgery and immunotherapy for treatment-naïve melanoma brain metastases is warranted.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In this retrospective study of 142 patients with melanoma brain metastases treated with immune checkpoint blockade, the development of melanoma brain metastases following immunotherapy was associated with decreased survival compared with diagnosis of immunotherapy-naïve brain metastases. The benefit of surgical intervention was seen in immunotherapy-naïve brain metastases in contrast to brain metastases that developed on immunotherapy. These results suggest that upfront local control with surgery for immunotherapy-naïve melanoma brain metastasis may provide a bridge toward immunotherapy-mediated systemic control.

The Advanced Practice Provider Perspective: Treating Patients With Immuno-Oncology Combination Therapy Across Tumor Types

A number of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as immuno-oncology (IO) monotherapy for multiple solid and hematologic tumor types across various lines of therapy. Furthermore, evidence shows some patients may derive additional benefit from IO combination therapy. Three IO combination regimens, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab or atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, are approved by the FDA as of April 2019. Because peripheral immune surveillance via T-cell activity is increased to attack malignant cells, the antitumor effects of ICIs may be accompanied by immune-mediated adverse reactions (IMARs). Although potentially more efficacious than monotherapy, IO combination therapies are associated with increased incidences of IMARs vs. IO monotherapy. Advanced practice providers (APPs) are uniquely placed within the multidisciplinary team to counsel patients with cancer on their IO treatment and educate them about identifying manifestations of IMARs. Advanced practice providers should be aware of the presentation and time to onset of IMARs, appropriate management to reduce risk of organ dysfunction, and guidelines for treating these patients. This article reviews IO/IO and IO/chemotherapy combination regimens with respect to clinical efficacy and safety, and discusses the role of the APP in managing IMARs associated with IO combination therapy.

Comparative efficacy of combination immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Aim: Comparison of clinical outcomes of nivolumab + ipilimumab versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors (dabrafenib + trametinib or vemurafenib + cobimetinib) in BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. Methods: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted between nivolumab + ipilimumab (CheckMate 067/069 studies) and BRAF + MEK inhibitors (COMBI-d, COMBI-v and coBRIM studies). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and objective response rates were assessed. Results: After adjusting, nivolumab + ipilimumab showed improved OS versus dabrafenib + trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46–0.89) or vemurafenib + cobimetinib (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.36–0.89); OS outcomes were similar at 1 year, with benefits emerging after 12 months; progression-free survival and objective response rates were similar. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 54.1% with nivolumab + ipilimumab, 31.6% with dabrafenib + trametinib and 59.5% with vemurafenib + cobimetinib. Conclusion: Nivolumab + ipilimumab had significantly improved clinical outcomes versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors, with benefits increasing after longer follow-up. Ongoing randomized trials directly comparing these treatments are necessary to prospectively validate these findings.

Adverse Events Following Cancer Immunotherapy: Obstacles and Opportunities

Oncology has recently undergone a revolutionary change with widespread adoption of immunotherapy for many cancers. Immunotherapy using monoclonal antibodies against checkpoint molecules, including programmed death (PD)-1, PD ligand (PD-L)1, and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4, is effective in a significant subset of patients. However, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have emerged as frequent complications of checkpoint blockade, likely due to the physiological role of checkpoint pathways in regulating adaptive immunity and preventing autoimmunity. As immunotherapy becomes more common, a better understanding of the etiology of irAEs and ways to limit these events is needed. At the same time, studying these new therapy-related disorders provides an opportunity to better understand naturally occurring human autoimmune and inflammatory disorders, with the potential to improve therapies for cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Long-Term Survival, Quality of Life, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Advanced Melanoma Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become a standard of care option for the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. Since the approval of the first immune checkpoint (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab in 2011 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) blocking monoclonal antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab thereafter, an increasing proportion of patients with unresectable advanced melanoma achieved long-term overall survival. Little is known about the psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive function, and quality of life (QOL) of these survivors. Knowledge about the long term side-effects of these novel treatments is scarce as long-term survivorship is a novel issue in the field of immunotherapy. The purpose of this review is to summarize our current knowledge regarding the survival and safety results of pivotal clinical trials in the field of advanced melanoma and to highlight potential long-term consequences that are likely to impact psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive functioning, and QOL. The issues raised substantiate the need for clinical investigation of these issues with the aim of optimizing comprehensive health care for advanced melanoma survivors.

Melanoma: the new perspectives from clinical and translational research

The prognosis of metastatic melanoma has not changed throughout the 20th century. However, in the last decade, we have witnessed a continuous improvement in survival, with many long-term survivors. These results are largely because of the simultaneous development of the knowledge in the biology of metastatic malignant melanoma and of the relationship between the disease and the host's immune system that allowed the development of effective new treatments. In this overview, we summarize the therapies available today, their biological rationale, and the research field currently under investigation divided into three main chapters: target therapies, immunotherapies, and their combination.

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer in solid organ transplantation recipients: an institutional experience and a systematic review of the literature

Background

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer, but their use remains limited by off-target inflammatory and immune-related adverse events. Solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients have been excluded from clinical trials owing to concerns about alloimmunity, organ rejection, and immunosuppressive therapy. Thus, we conducted a retrospective study and literature review to evaluate the safety of CPIs in patients with cancer and prior SOT.

Methods

Data were collected from the medical records of patients with cancer and prior SOT who received CPIs at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from January 1, 2004, through March 31, 2018. Additionally, we systematically reviewed five databases through April 2018 to identify studies reporting CPIs to treat cancer in SOT recipients. We evaluated the safety of CPIs in terms of alloimmunity, immune-related adverse events, and mortality. We also evaluated tumor response to CPIs.

Results

Thirty-nine patients with allograft transplantation were identified. The median age was 63 years (range 14–79 years), 74% were male, 62% had metastatic melanoma, 77% received anti-PD-1 agents, and 59% had prior renal transplantation, 28% hepatic transplantation, and 13% cardiac transplantation. Median time to CPI initiation after SOT was 9 years (range 0.92–32 years). Allograft rejection occurred in 41% of patients (11/23 renal, 4/11 hepatic, and 1/5 cardiac transplantations), at similar rates for anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy. The median time to rejection was 21 days (95% confidence interval 19.3–22.8 days). There were no associations between time since SOT and frequency, timing, or type of rejection. Overall, 31% of patients permanently discontinued CPIs because of allograft rejection. Graft loss occurred in 81%, and death was reported in 46%. Of the 12 patients with transplantation biopsies, nine (75%) had acute rejection, and five of these rejections were T cell-mediated. In melanoma patients, 36% responded to CPIs.

Conclusions

SOT recipients had a high allograft rejection rate that was observed shortly after CPI initiation, with high mortality rates. Further studies are needed to optimize the anticancer treatment approach in these patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0585-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are associated with prognosis in various tumors. However, it remains controversial whether the presence of TILs is related to an improved prognosis in melanoma. This meta-analysis confirmed the favorable prognostic role of the CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, FOXP3+, and CD20+ TILs in the overall survival of melanoma patients and found an association between the TILs present and improved overall survival. Additionally, subgroup analysis demonstrated that brisk TILs were obviously associated with OS, RFS and DSS/MSS. Thus, TILs may be a predictive biomarker in melanoma. This analysis will provide more insight into the study of TILs and predictive biomarker.

Proteomic test for anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade treatment of metastatic melanoma with and without BRAF mutations

The therapeutic landscape in metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically in the last decade, with the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors resulting in durable responses for a large number of patients. For patients with BRAF mutations, combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors demonstrated response rates and benefit comparable to those from immune checkpoint inhibitors, providing the rationale for sequential treatment with targeted and immunotherapies and raising the question of optimal treatment sequencing.

Biomarkers for the selection of anti-PD-1 therapy in BRAF wild type (BRAF WT) and in BRAF mutated (BRAF MUT) patients help development of alternative treatments for patients unlikely to benefit, and might lead to better understanding of the interaction of checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy. In this paper we evaluate the performance of a previously developed serum proteomic test, BDX008, in metastatic melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 agents and investigate the role of BRAF mutation status. BDX008, a pre-treatment proteomic test associated with acute phase reactants, wound healing and complement activation, stratifies patients into two groups, BDX008+ and BDX008-, with better and worse outcomes on immunotherapy.

Serum samples were available from 71 patients treated with anti-PD1 inhibitors; 25 patients had BRAF mutations, 39 were wild type. Overall, BDX008+ patients had significantly better overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.50, P = 0.016) and a trend for better progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.61, P = 0.060) than BDX008- patients. BDX008 classification was statistically significant in the analyses adjusted for mutation status, LDH, and line of treatment (P = 0.009 for OS and 0.031 for PFS). BRAF WT BDX008+ patients had markedly long median OS of 32.5 months and 53% landmark 2 years survival, with statistically significantly superior OS as compared to BDX008- patients (HR = 0.41, P = 0.032). The difference between BDX008+ and BDX008- in PFS in BRAF WT patients and in OS and PFS in BRAF MUT patients did not reach statistical significance, though numerically was consistent with overall results. The test demonstrated significant interaction with neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (PFS P = 0.041, OS P = 0.004). BDX008 as a biomarker selecting for benefit from immune checkpoint blockade, especially in patients with wild type BRAF and in subgroups with low NLR, warrants further evaluation.

Novel agents positively impact chemotherapy and transplantation in Hodgkin lymphoma

INTRODUCTION

Majority of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) can be successfully cured with frontline conventional therapeutics. Approximately 50-60% of those whose disease recur or is refractory to conventional treatment, can be cured with salvage therapies followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT). Conventional treatments, however, may cause significant long-term toxicities. Areas covered: This article reviews the treatment advances in HL with the incorporation of novel and targeted agents that are aimed to improve cure rates while reducing toxicities. Expert opinion: Brentuximab vedotin (BV) and checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated clear clinical benefit in HL. Majority of patients receive BV before or directly after AHCT as part of salvage or maintenance regimens. In patients who relapse after AHCT, checkpoint inhibitors are the treatment of choice, either as a stand-alone therapy or more commonly as a bridge to a potentially curative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). A multitude of other targeted agents and combinations, as well as cellular and immunotherapeutic in HL, are under investigation.

Novel agents may positively impact chemotherapy and transplantation in subsets of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Introduction: Molecular and biologic heterogeneity in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has resulted in a broad range of clinical outcomes. While standard frontline chemoimmunotherapy cures majority of patients with DLBCL, treatment failure in certain DLBCL subsets remains high. Prognosis in these patients is dismal. Therefore, optimization of front-line therapy, as well as development of more effective salvage treatments, is an unmet medical need. Areas covered: This article reviews the treatment advances in DLBCL with novel and targeted agents that are aimed to improve efficacy especially in those with high-risk features. Expert opinion: Incorporation of novel therapies such as immunomodulatory agents and Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors in the treatment of higher-risk DLBCL subgroups have shown to be effective; however, confirmatory data are required to change the standard of care. While autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy targeting CD19-positive B-cells have revolutionized the outcomes of refractory DLBCL, the complexity of its production, post-infusion care, and the associated cost, currently has limited its use to select academic centers in the US. A multitude of other targeted agents and combinations as well as cellular and immunotherapeutic agents are under investigation.

Understanding Immune Evasion and Therapeutic Targeting Associated with PD-1/PD-L1 Pathway in Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma

In tumor microenvironment, the programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint has a crucial role of mechanism of T cell exhaustion leading to tumor evasion. Ligands of PD-1, programmed death ligand 1/2 (PD-L1/L2) are over-expressed in tumor cells and participate in prolonged tumor progression and survivals. Recently, clinical trials for patients who failed to obtain an optimal response prior to standardized chemotherapy in several solid cancers have been focused on targeting therapy against PD-1 to reduce disease progression rates and prolonged survivals. Since various inhibitors targeting the immune checkpoint in PD-1/PD-L1 pathway in solid cancers have been introduced, promising approach using anti-PD-1 antibodies were attempted in several types of hematologic malignances. In diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) as the most common and aggressive B cell type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies were studies in various clinical trials. In this review, we summarized the results of several studies associated with PD-1/PD-L1 pathway as an immune evasion mechanism and described clinical trials about targeting therapy against PD-1/PD-L1 pathway in DLBCL.

Size Matters: The Functional Role of the CEACAM1 Isoform Signature and Its Impact for NK Cell-Mediated Killing in Melanoma

Malignant melanoma is the most aggressive and treatment resistant type of skin cancer. It is characterized by continuously rising incidence and high mortality rate due to its high metastatic potential. Various types of cell adhesion molecules have been implicated in tumor progression in melanoma. One of these, the carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 1 (CEACAM1), is a multi-functional receptor protein potentially expressed in epithelia, endothelia, and leukocytes. CEACAM1 often appears in four isoforms differing in the length of their extracellular and intracellular domains. Both the CEACAM1 expression in general, and the ratio of the expressed CEACAM1 splice variants appear very dynamic. They depend on both the cell activation stage and the cell growth phase. Interestingly, normal melanocytes are negative for CEACAM1, while melanomas often show high expression. As a cell–cell communication molecule, CEACAM1 mediates the direct interaction between tumor and immune cells. In the tumor cell this interaction leads to functional inhibitions, and indirectly to decreased cancer cell immunogenicity by down-regulation of ligands of the NKG2D receptor. On natural killer (NK) cells it inhibits NKG2D-mediated cytolysis and signaling. This review focuses on novel mechanistic insights into CEACAM1 isoforms for NK cell-mediated immune escape mechanisms in melanoma, and their clinical relevance in patients suffering from malignant melanoma.

Recent treatment strategy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung in Japan

Squamous cell carcinoma of the lung is associated with smoking in its development and comprises about 20-30% of all lung cancers. Its treatment strategy had been limited for the past decades, inevitably resulting in the poor outcome. However in the 2010s, it has dramatically changed mainly with the recent clinical introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we will introduce various clinical studies involving squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

Targeting DNA Methylation and EZH2 Activity to Overcome Melanoma Resistance to Immunotherapy

Methylation of DNA at CpG sites is the most common and stable of epigenetic changes in cancer. Hypermethylation acts to limit immune checkpoint blockade immunotherapy by inhibiting endogenous interferon responses needed for recognition of cancer cells. By contrast, global hypomethylation results in the expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and inhibitory cytokines, accompanied by epithelial-mesenchymal changes that can contribute to immunosuppression. The drivers of these contrasting methylation states are not well understood. DNA methylation also plays a key role in cytotoxic T cell 'exhaustion' associated with tumor progression. We present an updated exploratory analysis of how DNA methylation may define patient subgroups and can be targeted to develop tailored treatment combinations to help improve patient outcomes.

Five-year outcomes from a phase 3 METRIC study in patients with BRAF V600 E/K-mutant advanced or metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

Primary findings from the METRIC (TMT212A2301) study demonstrated that trametinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma with a BRAF V600 E/K mutation. However, clinical data characterising the long-term use of these therapies in combination with BRAF inhibitors or as monotherapies are limited.

METHODS

In this open-label, phase 3 study, 322 patients with BRAF V600 E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to receive trametinib (2 mg orally, once daily; n = 214) or chemotherapy (dacarbazine [1000 mg/m2] or paclitaxel [175 mg/m2] intravenously, every 3 weeks; n = 108). Patients who progressed on chemotherapy were allowed to cross over and receive trametinib. Five-year results of efficacy and safety analyses are reported.

RESULTS

The median PFS was 4.9 months in the trametinib arm versus 1.5 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.73). Landmark OS rates for trametinib versus chemotherapy arms at 1 year, 2 years and 5 years were 60.9% versus 49.6%, 32.0% versus 29.4% and 13.3% versus 17.0%, respectively. Most patients (n = 70 [65%]) from the chemotherapy arm crossed over to the trametinib arm early in their treatment. No unexpected adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This 5-year follow-up of patients with BRAF V600 E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma on a targeted therapy demonstrates that long-term use of trametinib is possible with no new or unexpected adverse events. Some patients experienced long-term survival benefit with trametinib monotherapy (METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.).

Evaluation of Two Dosing Regimens for Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 511 Trial

PURPOSE

Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) is approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma in several countries. We conducted a phase IIIb/IV study (CheckMate 511) to determine if nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) improves the safety profile of the combination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (N = 360) age 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO3+IPI1 or NIVO1+IPI3 once every 3 weeks for four doses. After 6 weeks, all patients received NIVO 480 mg once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was a comparison of the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) between groups. Secondary end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The study was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy end points.

RESULTS

At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 AEs was 34% with NIVO3+IPI1 versus 48% with NIVO1+IPI3 ( P = .006). In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 50.6% in the NIVO1+IPI3 group, with complete responses in 15.0% and 13.5% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 8.9 months in the NIVO1+IPI3 group. Median overall survival was not reached in either group.

CONCLUSION

The CheckMate 511 study met its primary end point, demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs with NIVO3+IPI1 versus NIVO1+IPI3. Descriptive analyses showed that there were no meaningful differences between the groups for any efficacy end point, although longer follow up may help to better characterize efficacy outcomes.

Sentinel bruising as a presentation of metastatic melanoma

A 46-year-old man presented with a 4-week history of bruising with subcutaneous nodules and weight loss. He also had a 2-week history of progressive back and hip pain. He had been diagnosed with stage Ib cutaneous melanoma 30 months previously, which had been fully excised. A sentinel lymph node biopsy was negative. On examination, there were five skin lesions at different stages. Each had spontaneously appeared as a bruise with a central subcutaneous nodule, and the bruising then faded to leave a persistent subcutaneous nodule. Excision of one of the nodules demonstrated a 4.5 mm diameter partly necrotic melanoma deposit in the dermis. CT scan of the head, chest, abdomen and pelvis showed widespread metastases. This rare presentation of cutaneous malignant melanoma metastases has been termed 'sentinel bruising'. There are fewer than 10 cases reported in the literature.

Reprogramming lymphocytes for the treatment of melanoma: From biology to therapy

This decade has introduced drastic changes in melanoma therapy, predominantly due to the materialization of the long promise of immunotherapy. Cytotoxic T cells are the chief component of the immune system, which are targeted by different strategies aimed to increase their capacity against melanoma cells. To this end, reprogramming of T cells occurs by T cell centered manipulation, targeting the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment or altering the whole patient. These are enabled by delivery of small molecules, functional monoclonal antibodies, different subunit vaccines, as well as living lymphocytes, native or genetically engineered. Current FDA-approved therapies are focused on direct T cell manipulation, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors blocking CTLA-4 and/or PD-1, which paves the way for an effective immunotherapy backbone available for combination with other modalities. Here we review the biology and clinical developments that enable melanoma immunotherapy today and in the future.

Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy for Melanoma in Japan

OPINION STATEMENT

Melanoma has several clinically and pathologically distinguishable subtypes, which also differ genetically. Mutation patterns vary among different melanoma subtypes, and efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors differs depending on the subtype of melanoma. In spite of the recent revolution of systemic therapies for advanced melanoma, access to innovative agents is still restricted in many countries. This review article aimed to describe the epidemiology and current status of systemic therapies for melanoma in Japan, where melanoma is rare, but access to innovative agents is available. Acral and mucosal melanomas, which are common in Asian populations, predominantly occur in sun-protected areas and share several biological features. Both the melanomas harbor KIT mutation in approximately 15% of the cases; BRAF or NRAS mutation is found in approximately 10-15% of acral melanoma, but these mutations are less frequent in mucosal melanoma. Combined use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors is one of the standards of care for patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma. In patients with melanoma harboring KIT mutation in exon 11 or 13, KIT inhibitors can be a treatment option; however, none of them have been approved in Japan. Immune-checkpoint inhibitors are expected to be less effective against acral and mucosal melanomas because their somatic mutation burden is lower than those in non-acral cutaneous melanomas. A recently completed phase II trial of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy in 30 Japanese patients with melanoma, including seven with acral and 12 with mucosal melanoma, demonstrated an objective response rate of 43%. Regarding oncolytic viruses, canerpaturev (C-REV, also known as HF10) and talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) are currently under review in early phase trials. In the adjuvant setting, dabrafenib plus trametinb combination, nivolumab monotherapy, and pembrolizumab monotherapy were approved in July, August, and December 2018 in Japan, respectively. However, most of the adjuvant phase III trials excluded patients with mucosal melanoma. A phase III trial of adjuvant therapy with locoregional interferon (IFN)-β versus surgery alone is ongoing in Japan (JCOG1309, J-FERON), in which IFN-β is injected directly into the site of the primary tumor postoperatively, so that it would be drained through the untreated lymphatic route to the regional node basin. After the recent approval of these new agents, the JCOG1309 trial will be revised to focus on patients with stage II disease. In conclusion, acral and mucosal melanomas have been treated based on the available medical evidence for the treatment of non-acral cutaneous melanomas. Considering the differences in genetic backgrounds and therapeutic efficacy of immunotherapy, specialized therapeutic strategies for these subtypes of melanoma should be established in the future.

Mechanisms of Primary and Secondary Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPis) have revolutionized cancer therapy with broad activities against a wide range of malignancies. However, in many malignancies their efficacy remains limited due to the primary resistance. Furthermore, a high percentage of patients develop progression due to the secondary resistance even after obtaining a response or achieving a stable disease. In this review, we will discuss the mechanisms that underlie the primary and secondary resistance to ICPis in cancer immunotherapy and provide an overview to impart a broad understanding of the critical issues that are encountered in clinical oncology practice.

The Emergence of Natural Killer Cells as a Major Target in Cancer Immunotherapy

Immune 'checkpoint' inhibitors can increase the activity of tumor-resident cytotoxic lymphocytes and have revolutionized cancer treatment. Current therapies block inhibitory pathways in tumor-infiltrating CD8⁺ T cells and recent studies have shown similar programs in other effector populations such as natural killer (NK) cells. NK cells are critical for immunosurveillance, particularly the control of metastatic cells or hematological cancers. However, how NK cells specifically recognize transformed cells and dominant negative feedback pathways, as well as how tumors escape NK cell control, remains undefined. This review summarizes recent advances that have illuminated inhibitory checkpoints in NK cells, some of which are shared with conventional cytotoxic T lymphocytes. It also outlines emerging approaches aimed at unleashing the potential of NK cells in immunotherapy.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with treatment sequences in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma

AIM

The cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences in BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A discrete event simulation model was developed to estimate total costs and health outcomes over a patient's lifetime (30 years). Efficacy was based on the CheckMate 067/069 trials and a matching-adjusted-indirect comparison between immuno-oncology and targeted therapies. Safety, cost (in US dollars; US third-party payer perspective) and health-related quality-of-life inputs were based on published literature.

RESULTS

Estimated survival gain was higher for sequences initiating with anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 than for anti-PD-1 monotherapy or BRAF+MEK inhibitors. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained for first-line anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 was US$54,273 versus first-line anti-PD-1 and $79,124 versus first-line BRAF+MEK inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Initiating treatment with anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 was more cost-effective than initiation with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or BRAF+MEK inhibitors.