Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy for Locally Advanced Melanoma

Anti-PD-(L)1-Based Neoadjuvant Therapy in Head and Neck Carcinoma: a Meta-analysis of Prospective Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiprogressive disease (PD)-(L)1-based neoadjuvant therapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients and identify potential prognostic biomarkers.

DATA SOURCES

Databases were systematically searched for prospective clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD-(L)1-based neoadjuvant therapy for HNSCC before January 12, 2024.

REVIEW METHODS

We estimated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were further performed.

RESULTS

A total of 570 patients from 20 studies were included. The pooled major pathological response (MPR), pathological complete response (pCR), and partial pathological response (PPR) rates were 30.7%, 15.3%, and 68.2%, respectively. Surgical complications, surgical delayed rate, all grade treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) and ≥Grade 3 TRAEs were 0.6%, 0.3%, 82.6%, and 9.7%, respectively. Best MPR or pCR rate was detected in patients receiving neoadjuvant anti-PD-(L)1 therapy + radiotherapy (with MPR rate of 75.5% and pCR rate of 51.1%) and neoadjuvant anti-PD-(L)1 therapy + chemotherapy groups (with MPR rate of 57.5% and pCR rate of 26.7%). No differences were detected in subgroups stratified by neoadjuvant treatment cycles, human papillomavirus (HPV) status, and tumor location. Patients with baseline Combined Positive Score (CPS) ≥ 20 have higher MPR and pCR rates compared to patients with CPS < 20. High Tumor Cell Proportion Score was also associated with MPR and pCR. Objective response rate is a strong predictor of MPR (odds ratio [OR] = 7.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.20%-18.91%) and pCR (OR = 3.24, 95% CI = 1.40%-7.48%).

CONCLUSION

Anti-PD-(L)1-based neoadjuvant therapy was effective and safe for HNSCC patients.

Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.

The current management and biomarkers of immunotherapy in advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric carcinoma (GC) is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Most patients are diagnosed at later stage, because of few treatment options, the prognosis is poor. In recent years, however, Immune checkpoint inhibitors(ICIs), such as anti- programmed death-1 (PD-1), anti-PD-L1, and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4, have emerged as promising therapeutic agents in GC. Here, we summary the current treatment and advances of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the advanced stage of GC.

METHODS

WANFANG MED ONLINE, CNKI, NCBI PUBMED and clinicaltrials.gov were used to search literature spanning from 2000 to 2021, and all literatures about "advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer, Immune checkpoint inhibitors, PD-1, PD-L1, Cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4, immune therapy" with detailed data were included.

RESULTS

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab have been recommended for the third line or subsequent therapy in advanced GC. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy has been recommended for the first line treatment in advanced GC in China. Many other ICIs have been demonstrating encouraging efficacy. PD-L1, MSI-H, Epstein Barr virus, and tumor mutational burden (TMB) status maybe potential biomarkers for response to clinical outcomes for ICIs in GC.

CONCLUSION

ICIs have shown encouraging treatment efficacy and manageable safety profile in GC. Some biomarkers including PD-L1, MSI-H, EBV, and TMB status could evaluate the efficacy of ICIs in GC.

Immunotherapy to Avoid Orbital Exenteration in Patients With Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Background

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) of the head and neck can require complex and disfiguring surgery in order to achieve cure, which can be morbid and negatively impact patient quality of life. The management of advanced CSCC has been revolutionized by immunotherapy with current clinical trials also exploring its role in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Patients may decline morbid curative surgery, such as orbital exenteration, and the outcomes of immunotherapy use in this unique group of patients require further investigation.

Methods

We reviewed the records of 119 patients treated at a major Australian quaternary oncology centre with immunotherapy (either cemiplimab or pembrolizumab) for advanced CSCC.

Results

We identified 7 patients recommended curative surgery involving orbital exenteration after multidisciplinary discussion, who declined surgery due to concerns about morbidity and/or disfigurement. All 7 patients demonstrated a response to treatment, and six avoided orbital exenteration. Two patients experienced pseudoprogression.

Conclusions

The management of CSCC can be complex and requires the input of a multidisciplinary team. Immunotherapy to avoid or reduce the extent of morbid definitive surgery is an emerging treatment option.

Identification of 15 lncRNAs Signature for Predicting Survival Benefit of Advanced Melanoma Patients Treated with Anti-PD-1 Monotherapy

The blockade of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) as monotherapy has been widely used in melanoma, but to identify melanoma patients with survival benefit from anti-PD-1 monotherapy is still a big challenge. There is an urgent need for prognostic signatures improving the prediction of immunotherapy responses of these patients. We analyzed transcriptomic data of pre-treatment tumor biopsies and clinical profiles in advanced melanoma patients receiving only anti-PD-1 monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) from the PRJNA356761 and PRJEB23709 data sets as the training and validation cohort, respectively. Weighted gene co-expression network analysis was used to identify the key module, then least absolute shrinkage and selection operator was conducted to determine prognostic-related long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs). Subsequently, the differentially expressed genes between different clusters were identified, and their function and pathway annotation were performed. In this investigation, 92 melanoma patients with complete survival information (51 from training cohort and 41 from validation cohort) were included in our analyses. We initiallyidentified the key module (skyblue) by weighted gene co-expression network analysis, and then identified a 15 predictive lncRNAs (AC010904.2, LINC01126, AC012360.1, AC024933.1, AL442128.2, AC022211.4, AC022211.2, AC127496.5, NARF-AS1, AP000919.3, AP005329.2, AC023983.1, AC023983.2, AC139100.1, and AC012615.4) signature in melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator in the training cohort. These results were then validated in the validation cohort. Finally, enrichment analysis showed that the functions of differentially expressed genes between two consensus clusters were mainly related to the immune process and treatment. In summary, the 15 lncRNAs signature is a novel effective predictor for prognosis in advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab and High-Dose IFNα-2b in Resectable Regionally Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy may improve the clinical outcome of regionally advanced operable melanoma and allows for rapid clinical and pathologic assessment of response. We examined neoadjuvant pembrolizumab and high-dose IFNα-2b (HDI) therapy in patients with resectable advanced melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with resectable stage III/IV melanoma were treated with concurrent pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks and HDI 20 MU/m²/day i.v., 5 days per week for 4 weeks, then 10 MU/m²/day subcutaneously 3 days per week for 2 weeks. Definitive surgery followed, as did adjuvant combination immunotherapy, completing a year of treatment. Primary endpoint was safety of the combination. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), pathologic complete response (pCR), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). Blood samples for correlative studies were collected throughout. Tumor tissue was assessed by IHC and flow cytometry at baseline and at surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients were enrolled, and 30 were evaluable. At data cutoff (October 2, 2019), median follow-up for OS was 37.87 months (range, 33.2-43.47). Median OS and RFS were not reached. Radiographic ORR was 73.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 55.5-85.8], with a 43% (95% CI: 27.3-60.1) pCR rate. None of the patients with a pCR have had a recurrence. HDI and pembrolizumab were discontinued in 73% and 43% of patients, respectively. Correlative analyses suggested that intratumoral PD-1/PD-L1 interaction and HLA-DR expression are associated with pCR (P = 0.002 and P = 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant concurrent HDI and pembrolizumab demonstrated promising clinical activity despite high rates of treatment discontinuation. pCR is a prognostic indicator.See related commentary by Menzies et al., p. 4133.

Atypical Cardiac Location of Melanoma of Unknown Origin

The subject was a 66-year-old woman, suffering from the chest pain evoked by physical activity. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) revealed an abnormal structure, 41 × 29 mm. In MSCT, a hypodensic mobile tissue lesion that was infiltrating the whole thickness of left ventricle was confirmed. PET excluded the existence of other remote lesions. After surgical tumor removal, histopathological differential diagnosis revealed melanoma, myoepithelial cancer, and MPNST “high–grade” sarcoma. A control TTE detected a tumor that was 14 × 10 mm. After immunohistochemical results, immunotherapy with pembrolizumab was used, which resulted in complete tumor resolution. Presently, surgical resection and neoadjuvant targeted immunochemotherapy remain the treatment of choice for clinical stage III/IV melanoma.

Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Clinical Stage III Melanoma in the Modern Therapeutic Era

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) can decrease lymph node basin (LNB) recurrences in patients with clinically evident melanoma lymph node (LN) metastases following lymphadenectomy, but its role in the era of modern systemic therapies (ST), immune checkpoint or BRAF/MEK inhibitors, is unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients at four institutions who underwent lymphadenectomy (1/1/2010-12/31/2019) for clinically evident melanoma LN metastases and received neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant ST with RT, or ST alone, but met indications for RT, were identified. Comparisons were made between ST alone and ST/RT groups. The primary outcome was 3-year cumulative incidence (CI) of LNB recurrence. Secondary outcomes included 3-year incidences of in-transit/distant recurrence and survival estimates.

RESULTS

Of 98 patients, 76 received ST alone and 22 received ST/RT. Median follow-up time for patients alive at last follow-up was 44.6 months. The ST/RT group had fewer inguinal node metastases (ST 36.8% versus ST/RT 9.1%; P = 0.04), and more extranodal extension (ST 50% versus ST/RT 77.3%; P = 0.02) and positive lymphadenectomy margins (ST 2.6% versus ST/RT 13.6%; P = 0.04). The 3-year CI of LNB recurrences was lower for the ST/RT group compared with the ST group (13.9% versus 25.2%), but this reduction was not statistically significant (P = 0.36). Groups did not differ significantly in in-transit/distant recurrences (P = 0.24), disease-free survival (P = 0.14), or melanoma-specific survival (P = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of modern ST, RT may still have value in reducing LNB recurrences in melanoma with clinical LN metastases. Further research should focus on whether select patient populations derive benefit from combination therapy, and optimizing indications for RT following neoadjuvant ST.

Primary and metastatic breast tumors cross-talk to influence immunotherapy responses

The presence of a tumor can alter host immunity systematically. The immune-tumor interaction in one site may impact the local immune microenvironment in distal tissues through the circulation, and therefore influence the efficacy of immunotherapies to distant metastases. Improved understanding of the immune-tumor interactions during immunotherapy treatment in a metastatic setting may enhance the efficacy of current immunotherapies. Here we investigate the response to αPD-1/αCTLA4 and trimAb (αDR5, α4-1BB, αCD40) of 67NR murine breast tumors grown simultaneously in the mammary fat pad (MFP) and lung, a common site of breast cancer metastasis, and compared to tumors grown in isolation. Lung tumors present in isolation were resistant to both therapies. However, in MFP and lung tumor-bearing mice, the presence of a MFP tumor could increase lung tumor response to immunotherapy and decrease the number of lung metastases, leading to complete eradication of lung tumors in a proportion of mice. The MFP tumor influence on lung metastases was mediated by CD8⁺ T cells, as CD8⁺ T cell depletion abolished the difference in lung metastases. Furthermore, mice with concomitant MFP and lung tumors had increased tumor specific, effector CD8⁺ T cells infiltration in the lungs. Thus, we propose a model where tumors in an immunogenic location can give rise to systemic anti-tumor CD8⁺ T cell responses that could be utilized to target metastatic tumors. These results highlight the requirement for clinical consideration of cross-talk between primary and metastatic tumors for effective immunotherapy for cancers otherwise resistant to immunotherapy.

Biological Factors behind Melanoma Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Modern immunotherapy together with targeted therapy has revolutionized the treatment of advanced melanoma. Inhibition of immune checkpoints significantly improved the median overall survival and gave hope to many melanoma patients. However, this treatment has three serious drawbacks: high cost, serious side effects, and an effectiveness limited only to approximately 50% of patients. Some patients do not derive any or short-term benefit from this treatment due to primary or secondary resistance. The response to immunotherapy depends on many factors that fall into three main categories: those associated with melanoma cells, those linked to a tumor and its microenvironment, and those classified as individual ontogenic and physiological features of the patient. The first category comprises expression of PD-L1 and HLA proteins on melanoma cells as well as genetic/genomic metrics such as mutational load, (de)activation of specific signaling pathways and epigenetic factors. The second category is the inflammatory status of the tumor: “hot” versus “cold” (i.e., high versus low infiltration of immune cells). The third category comprises metabolome and single nucleotide polymorphisms of specific genes. Here we present up-to-date data on those biological factors influencing melanoma response to immunotherapy with a special focus on signaling pathways regulating the complex process of anti-tumor immune response. We also discuss their potential predictive capacity.