LBA3 Pembrolizumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage II melanoma: Efficacy and safety results from the KEYNOTE-716 double-blind phase III trial

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.

Pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of IIB or IIC melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Up to 30% of patients with stage IIB and 50% of stage IIC melanoma experience recurrence within 5 years after radical surgery. Adjuvant treatment is expected to improve this prognosis.

AREAS COVERED

Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that acts against the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor. Pembrolizumab was first approved in monotherapy for the treatment of unresectable/metastatic melanoma based on the results of the prospective KEYNOTE-001, KEYNOTE-002, and KEYNOTE-006 trials. KEYNOTE-716 is the randomized phase III trial of pembrolizumab treatment in resected stage II melanoma. Treatment with pembrolizumab is statistically significant, reducing the risk of recurrence as well as distant metastases risk after primary tumor resection. Pembrolizumab treatment has a 24-month RFS rate of 81.2% (HR 0.64 vs placebo) and a DMFS rate of 88.1%.

EXPERT OPINION

1-year adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment of stage IIB/C melanoma patients significantly reduces recurrence or death risk. The safety profile of adjuvant treatment is not different from previously reported and is manageable. Longer follow-up is required to fully understand the efficacy and safety of adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma, as the number of patients needed to treat is twice as high as for stage III patients.

Nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma: a propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison and number needed to treat analysis for recurrence-free survival and overall survival

BACKGROUND

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data for adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo (proxy for routine surveillance) in patients with high-risk, resected melanoma are lacking. This post hoc, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used pooled data from the phase 3 EORTC 18,071 (ipilimumab vs. placebo) and CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs. ipilimumab) trials to assess RFS and OS with nivolumab versus placebo and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) over 4 years.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition) were included. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. RFS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and placebo. OS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus placebo. To adjust for different post-recurrence treatments, the difference in post-recurrence survival between the two ipilimumab arms was added to OS of the placebo arm.

RESULTS

This ITC included 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and placebo, respectively. Following IPTW, nivolumab was associated with improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61) and ipilimumab (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85). RFS NNT was 4.2 for nivolumab versus placebo and 8.9 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab. After post-recurrence survival adjustment, weighted 4-year OS rates were 75.8% for nivolumab and 64.1% for placebo; OS NNT for nivolumab versus placebo was 8.5.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma in this ITC, nivolumab improved RFS versus placebo and ipilimumab, and OS versus placebo after post-recurrence survival adjustment.

Nail Apparatus Melanoma: Current Management and Future Perspectives

Nail apparatus melanoma (NAM) is a rare type of cutaneous melanoma that belongs to the acral melanoma subtype. NAM is managed principally in accordance with the general treatment for cutaneous melanoma, but there is scarce evidence in support of this in the literature. Acral melanoma is genetically different from non-acral cutaneous melanoma, while recently accumulated data suggest that NAM also has a different genetic background from acral melanoma. In this review, we focus on recent advances in the management of NAM. Localized NAM should be surgically removed; amputation of the digit and digit-preserving surgery have been reported. Sentinel lymph node biopsy can be considered for invasive NAM for the purpose of accurate staging. However, it is yet to be clarified whether patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes can be safely spared completion lymph node dissection. Similar to cutaneous melanoma, immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are used as the first-line treatment for metastatic NAM, but data on the efficacy of these therapies remain scarce. The therapeutic effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors could be lower for NAM than for cutaneous melanoma. This review highlights the urgent need to accumulate data to better define the optimal management of this rare melanoma.

Prognosis of Patients With Primary Melanoma Stage I and II According to American Joint Committee on Cancer Version 8 Validated in Two Independent Cohorts: Implications for Adjuvant Treatment

PURPOSE

The first randomized trial of adjuvant treatment with checkpoint inhibitor in stage II melanoma reported a significant reduction in risk of tumor recurrence. This study evaluates two independent data sets to further document survival probabilities for patients with primary stage I and II melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Central Malignant Melanoma Registry (CMMR) in Germany evaluated 17,544 patients with a primary diagnosis of stage I and II melanoma from 2000 to 2015. The exploratory cohort consisted of 6,725 patients from the Center for Dermato-Oncology at the University of Tübingen, and the confirmatory cohort consisted of 10,819 patients from 11 other German centers. Survival outcomes were compared with published American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 (AJCCv8) stage I and II survival data.

RESULTS

For the two CMMR cohorts in stage IA compared with the AJCCv8 cohort, melanoma-specific survival rates at 10 years were 95.1%-95.6% versus 98%; 89.7%-90.9% versus 94% in stage IB; 80.7%-83.1% versus 88% in stage IIA; 72.0%-79.9% versus 82% in stage IIB; and 57.6%-64.7% versus 75% in stage IIC, respectively. Recurrence rates were approximately twice as high as melanoma-specific mortality rates in stages IA-IIA.

CONCLUSION

The melanoma-specific survival rates in the two CMMR cohorts across stages I and II are less favorable than published in AJCCv8. This has important implications for the consideration of adjuvant treatment in this population.

Clinically Significant Risk Thresholds in the Management of Primary Cutaneous Melanoma: A Survey of Melanoma Experts

BACKGROUND

Risk-based thresholds to guide management are undefined in the treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma but are essential to advance the field from traditional stage-based treatment to more individualized care.

METHODS

To estimate treatment risk thresholds, hypothetical clinical melanoma scenarios were developed and a stratified random sample was distributed to expert melanoma clinicians via an anonymous web-based survey. Scenarios provided a defined 5-year risk of recurrence and asked for recommendations regarding clinical follow-up, imaging, and adjuvant therapy. Marginal probability of response across the spectrum of 5-year recurrence risk was estimated. The risk at which 50% of respondents recommended a treatment was defined as the risk threshold.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 56% (89/159). Three separate multivariable models were constructed to estimate the recommendations for clinical follow-up more than twice/year, for surveillance cross-sectional imaging at least once/year, and for adjuvant therapy. A 36% 5-year risk of recurrence was identified as the threshold for recommending clinical follow-up more than twice/year. The thresholds for recommending cross-sectional imaging and adjuvant therapy were 30 and 59%, respectively. Thresholds varied with the age of the hypothetical patient: at younger ages they were constant but increased rapidly at ages 60 years and above.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, these data provide the first estimates of clinically significant treatment thresholds for patients with cutaneous melanoma based on risk of recurrence. Future refinement and adoption of thresholds would permit assessment of the clinical utility of novel prognostic tools and represents an early step toward individualizing treatment recommendations.

Optimal systemic therapy for high-risk resectable melanoma

Immunotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors and molecularly targeted therapy with BRAF inhibitors were pioneered in the setting of advanced-stage, unresectable melanoma, where they revolutionized treatment and considerably improved patient survival. These therapeutic approaches have also been successfully transitioned into the resectable disease setting, with the regulatory approvals of ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and dabrafenib plus trametinib as postoperative (adjuvant) treatments for various, overlapping groups of patients with high-risk melanoma. Moreover, these agents have shown variable promise when used in the preoperative (neoadjuvant) period. The expanding range of treatment options available for resectable high-risk melanoma, all of which come with risks as well as benefits, raises questions over selection of the optimal therapeutic strategy and agents for each individual, also considering that many patients might be cured with surgery alone. Furthermore, the use of perioperative therapy has potentially important implications for the management of patients who have disease recurrence. In this Viewpoint, we asked four expert investigators and medical or surgical oncologists who have been involved in the key studies of perioperative systemic therapies for their perspectives on the optimal management of patients with high-risk melanoma.

Using a Clinicopathologic and Gene Expression (CP-GEP) Model to Identify Stage I-II Melanoma Patients at Risk of Disease Relapse

Background: The current standard of care for patients without sentinel node (SN) metastasis (i.e., stage I−II melanoma) is watchful waiting, while >40% of patients with stage IB−IIC will eventually present with disease recurrence or die as a result of melanoma. With the prospect of adjuvant therapeutic options for patients with a negative SN, we assessed the performance of a clinicopathologic and gene expression (CP-GEP) model, a model originally developed to predict SN metastasis, to identify patients with stage I−II melanoma at risk of disease relapse. Methods: This study included patients with cutaneous melanoma ≥18 years of age with a negative SN between October 2006 and December 2017 at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital (Sweden) and Erasmus MC Cancer Institute (The Netherlands). According to the CP-GEP model, which can be applied to the primary melanoma tissue, the patients were stratified into high or low risk of recurrence. The primary aim was to assess the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) of low- and high-risk CP-GEP. A secondary aim was to compare the CP-GEP model with the EORTC nomogram, a model based on clinicopathological variables only. Results: In total, 535 patients (stage I−II) were included. CP-GEP stratification among these patients resulted in a 5-year RFS of 92.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 86.4−96.4) in CP-GEP low-risk patients (n = 122) versus 80.7% (95%CI: 76.3−84.3) in CP-GEP high-risk patients (n = 413; hazard ratio 2.93 (95%CI: 1.41−6.09), p < 0.004). According to the EORTC nomogram, 25% of the patients were classified as having a ‘low risk’ of recurrence (96.8% 5-year RFS (95%CI 91.6−98.8), n = 130), 49% as ‘intermediate risk’ (88.4% 5-year RFS (95%CI 83.6−91.8), n = 261), and 26% as ‘high risk’ (61.1% 5-year RFS (95%CI 51.9−69.1), n = 137). Conclusion: In these two independent European cohorts, the CP-GEP model was able to stratify patients with stage I−II melanoma into two groups differentiated by RFS.

A decade of checkpoint blockade immunotherapy in melanoma: understanding the molecular basis for immune sensitivity and resistance

Ten years since the immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab was approved for advanced melanoma, it is time to reflect on the lessons learned regarding modulation of the immune system to treat cancer and on novel approaches to further extend the efficacy of current and emerging immunotherapies. Here, we review the studies that led to our current understanding of the melanoma immune microenvironment in humans and the mechanistic work supporting these observations. We discuss how this information is guiding more precise analyses of the mechanisms of action of immune checkpoint blockade and novel immunotherapeutic approaches. Lastly, we review emerging evidence supporting the negative impact of melanoma metabolic adaptation on anti-tumor immunity and discuss how to counteract such mechanisms for more successful use of immunotherapy.

PIVOT-12: a phase III study of adjuvant bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in resected stage III/IV melanoma at high risk for recurrence

Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG: NKTR-214) is an immunostimulatory IL-2 cytokine prodrug engineered to deliver a controlled, sustained and preferential IL-2 pathway signal. Nivolumab (NIVO), a PD-1 inhibitor, has been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced melanoma and recurrence-free survival in the adjuvant setting. PIVOT-02 showed that BEMPEG plus NIVO was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. PIVOT-12 is a randomized, phase III, global, multicenter, open-label study comparing adjuvant therapy with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO alone in adult and adolescent patients with completely resected cutaneous stage III/IV melanoma at high risk of recurrence. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy, as measured by recurrence-free survival, of BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Major clinical research advances in gynecologic cancer in 2021

In the 2021 series, we not only summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology but also added discussions to every part, based on communications at the conference. A review of cervical cancer included adjuvant treatments such as radiation and chemoradiation (concurrent or sequential) after radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer, and immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced, recurrent, and metastatic disease. Ovarian cancer research included studies of secondary cytoreductive surgery in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, and various trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors with or without vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors and conventional chemotherapy. The rechallenge of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance in heavily pretreated ovarian cancer were also addressed. For uterine corpus cancer, dostarlimab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody) alone, or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in combination with pembrolizumab for advanced, metastatic, or recurrent endometrial cancer were reviewed. The survival differences between the intensive and minimalist follow-up protocols were also described. In this review, we compared salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy in terms of quality of life in BRCA 1 and 2 pathogenic variant carriers.

Atezolizumab Treatment of Tumors With High Tumor Mutational Burden From MyPathway, a Multicenter, Open-label, Phase 2a Multiple Basket Study

High tumor mutational burden (TMB-H) correlates with improved immunotherapy response. We assessed atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks for TMB-H tumors from MyPathway (NCT02091141), a phase IIa multibasket study. One hundred twenty-one patients had advanced solid tumors with TMB ≥10 mut/Mb by any Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–certified assay. The preplanned primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in patients with TMB ≥16 mut/Mb tumors by FoundationOne TMB testing [F1(CDx)]. Patients with F1(CDx) TMB ≥10 and <16 mut/Mb were also evaluated. Ninety patients with 19 tumor types and F1(CDx) TMB ≥10 mut/Mb were efficacy evaluable. In 42 patients with F1(CDx) TMB ≥16 mut/Mb, confirmed ORR was 38.1% [16/42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 23.6–54.4], and disease control rate was 61.9% (26/42; 95% CI, 45.6–76.4) versus 2.1% (1/48; 95% CI, 0.1–11.1) and 22.9% (11/48; 95% CI, 12.0–37.3) for 48 patients with TMB ≥10 and <16 mut/Mb. Responses were observed in nine different tumor types (47%; 9/19).

Clinical Significance of Distant Metastasis-Free Survival (DMFS) in Melanoma: A Narrative Review from Adjuvant Clinical Trials

Cutaneous melanoma is the most dangerous skin cancer, with high death rates in advanced stages. To assess the impact of each treatment on patient outcomes, most studies use relapse-free survival (RFS) as a primary endpoint and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a secondary endpoint. The aim of this narrative review of the main adjuvant studies for resected stage III/IV melanoma, with a specific focus on DMFS, is to evaluate DMFS trends and their potential association with RFS, identify which treatments are possibly associated with better outcomes in terms of DMFS and their potential predictive factors, and discuss DMFS trends in terms of patient management in daily practice. We outline the impact of each available treatment option on DMFS and RFS according to the years of follow-up and compare data from different studies. Overall, the trends of DMFS closely follow those of RFS, with most patients relapsing at visceral rather than regional sites. As it captures the burden of patients who develop distant relapse, DMFS could be considered a primary endpoint, in addition to RFS, in adjuvant trials, identifying patients whose relapse is associated with a worse prognosis and who may need further systemic treatment.