Adjuvant and neoadjuvant immunotherapies in hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver cancer, specifically hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is the sixth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. The development of effective systemic therapies, particularly those involving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has substantially improved the outcomes of patients with advanced-stage HCC. Approximately 30% of patients are diagnosed with early stage disease and currently receive potentially curative therapies, such as resection, liver transplantation or local ablation, which result in median overall survival durations beyond 60 months. Nonetheless, up to 70% of these patients will have disease recurrence within 5 years of resection or local ablation. To date, the results of randomized clinical trials testing adjuvant therapy in patients with HCC have been negative. This major unmet need has been addressed with the IMbrave 050 trial, demonstrating a recurrence-free survival benefit in patients with a high risk of relapse after resection or local ablation who received adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In parallel, studies testing neoadjuvant ICIs alone or in combination in patients with early stage disease have also reported efficacy. In this Review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current approaches to manage patients with early stage HCC. We also describe the tumour immune microenvironment and the mechanisms of action of ICIs and cancer vaccines in this setting. Finally, we summarize the available evidence from phase II/III trials of neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches and discuss emerging clinical trials, identification of biomarkers and clinical trial design considerations for future studies.

Perioperative therapy of melanoma: Adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment

Surgery is the mainstay treatment of melanoma. However, even after radical resection the risk of relapses in majority of stage IIB-IV disease remains high. Currently, the standard treatment after surgery in high risk patients is systemic adjuvant therapy administered up to one year based on the results of clinical trials indicating significant reduction of risk of relapses. All clinical trials in adjuvant setting were based as primary end-point on relapse-free survival, not overall survival, and they did not incorporate and validate biomarkers prospectively. A new therapeutic strategy in locoregional advanced melanomas becomes a preoperative treatment to further increase of the cure rates and decrease the duration of systemic therapy.

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.

Die Systemtherapie des malignen Melanoms

In den vergangenen 10 Jahren wurde die Systemtherapie des malignen Melanoms durch die Zulassung neuer Substanzen revolutioniert. In der vorliegenden Übersicht werden zunächst die aktuellen adjuvanten Therapiemöglichkeiten beschrieben, anschließend werden der Kenntnisstand zur neoadjuvanten Therapie dargestellt und schließlich die Behandlungsoptionen im inoperablen Stadium beleuchtet.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in synchronous clinical stage III melanoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma can present with primary melanoma lesions, locally recurrent melanoma or in-transit metastases. Neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates and an impressive relapse-free survival in patients with nodal macroscopic stage III melanoma. Whether primary site melanoma and in-transit metastases respond similarly to lymph node metastases with neoadjuvant immunotherapy is largely unknown. Such data would clarify whether surgical excision of these melanoma lesions should be performed before neoadjuvant therapy or whether it could be deferred and performed in conjunction with lymphadenectomy following neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

PATIENTS

Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma were identified from the OpACIN, OpACIN-neo and PRADO neoadjuvant trials, where all patients were treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. An additional case treated outside those clinical trials was included.

RESULTS

Seven patients were identified; six patients had a concordant response in primary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis and the lymph node metastases. One patient had concordant progression in both the primary and nodal tumour lesions and developed stage IV disease during neoadjuvant treatment, and thus, no resection was performed.

CONCLUSION

Pathologic response following neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in primary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis is concordant with a response in the lymph node metastases, indicating that there may be no need to perform upfront surgery to these melanoma lesions prior to neoadjuvant treatment.

Rationalizing the pathway to personalized neoadjuvant immunotherapy: the Lombard Street Approach

Neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy is part of the established standard of care in cancer treatment; neoadjuvant application of immunotherapy, however, is only performed within recent trials. Combination of programmed cell death protein 1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 blockade shows promising results with high pathologic response rates in the neoadjuvant setting and a very low relapse rate in the responding patients. In addition, neoadjuvant administration allows direct determination of treatment efficacy within the individual patient, and offers easy access to paired tumor material, both pretherapy and post-therapy, thus facilitates the rational development of new combinations driven by preclinical analyses. Patient-derived human tumor explant systems such as a recently developed human patient-derived tumor fragment platform can provide an additional tool to further rationalize the development of new treatment combinations. We will discuss neoadjuvant immunotherapy as a unique opportunity for rational trial design, the development of immune signatures for non-responding patients to steer clinical trial development, and the use of patient-derived ex vivo models to identify new personalized immunotherapy combinations. In this context, we propose the 'Lombard Street Approach', a back and forth approach of characterizing non-responders on neoadjuvant immunotherapy combinations, identifying promising new combinations for this group in the tumor fragment platform, and performing subsequently signature-driven small proof-of-concept combination trials. Repeating this approach with smaller and smaller groups of non-responders will step by step increase the percentage of patients benefiting from neoadjuvant immunotherapy in a rational and fast manner.

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab for Patients With Resectable Merkel Cell Carcinoma in the CheckMate 358 Trial

PURPOSE

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer commonly driven by the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV). The programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunosuppressive pathway is often upregulated in MCC, and advanced metastatic MCC frequently responds to PD-1 blockade. We report what we believe to be the first trial of anti-PD-1 in the neoadjuvant setting for resectable MCC.

METHODS

In the phase I/II CheckMate 358 study of virus-associated cancer types, patients with resectable MCC received nivolumab 240 mg intravenously on days 1 and 15. Surgery was planned on day 29. Tumor regression was assessed radiographically and microscopically. Tumor MCPyV status, PD-L1 expression, and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were assessed in pretreatment tumor biopsies.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIA-IV resectable MCC received ≥ 1 nivolumab dose. Three patients (7.7%) did not undergo surgery because of tumor progression (n = 1) or adverse events (n = 2). Any-grade treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18 patients (46.2%), and grade 3-4 events in 3 patients (7.7%), with no unexpected toxicities. Among 36 patients who underwent surgery, 17 (47.2%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR). Among 33 radiographically evaluable patients who underwent surgery, 18 (54.5%) had tumor reductions ≥ 30%. Responses were observed regardless of tumor MCPyV, PD-L1, or TMB status. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months, median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival were not reached. RFS significantly correlated with pCR and radiographic response at the time of surgery. No patient with a pCR had tumor relapse during observation.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab administered approximately 4 weeks before surgery in MCC was generally tolerable and induced pCRs and radiographic tumor regressions in approximately one half of treated patients. These early markers of response significantly predicted improved RFS. Additional investigation of these promising findings is warranted.

"To Anticipate": Neoadjuvant Therapy in Melanoma with a Focus on Predictive Biomarkers

Despite surgical resection and adjuvant therapies, stage III melanomas still have a substantial risk of relapse. Neoadjuvant therapy is an emerging strategy that might offer superior efficacy compared to adjuvant therapy. Moreover, neoadjuvant therapy has some virtual advantages: it might allow for less demolitive surgery, permit the in vivo evaluation of drug efficacy, help tailor adjuvant treatments, and play a crucial role in innovative translational research. Herein, we review the available literature to explore the scientific background behind the neoadjuvant approach. We also discuss published clinical trials with a focus on predictive biomarkers and ongoing studies. Finally, we outline a possible framework for future neoadjuvant clinical trial development based on the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium guidelines.

Neoadjuvant treatments in patients with high-risk resectable stage III/IV melanoma

Introduction: In recent years, the introduction of targeted therapy and immunotherapy into clinical practice has radically changed the management of advanced melanoma. More recently, these treatments also became the standard of care in the adjuvant setting. However, high-risk resectable stage III melanoma (i.e. with clinically detected regional lymph node involvement and/or satellites/in transit metastases) still has a high risk of relapse, even after adjuvant treatment, suggesting that the activity of immunotherapy and targeted therapy may play a relevant role in a neoadjuvant setting.Area covered: In this review, we discuss the results of the main clinical trials conducted in the neoadjuvant setting for patients with resectable stage III and stage IV melanoma, with a focus on the hot topics and a look at the future perspectives of the field.Expert opinion: The long-term effects of immunotherapy and the high response rate of targeted therapy provided the strong rationale to start neoadjuvant clinical trials for patients with resectable stage III and oligometastatic stage IV melanoma. Neoadjuvant therapy may play an important role not only for its possible impact on overall survival, but also as a predictive biological marker to allow for a more accurate personalization of adjuvant treatments.

Learning from clinical trials of neoadjuvant checkpoint blockade

Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition, in which the therapy is administered before surgery, is a promising new approach to managing bulky but resectable melanoma, and is also being explored in other cancers. This strategy has a high pathologic response rate, which correlates with survival outcomes. The fact that biopsies are routinely available provides a unique opportunity for understanding the responses to therapy and carrying out reverse translation in which these data are used to select therapies in the clinic or in trials that are more likely to improve patient outcomes. In this Perspective, we discuss the rationale for neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable solid tumors based on preclinical and human translational data, summarize the results of recent clinical trials and ongoing research, and focus on future directions for enhancing reverse translation.

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy for Locally Advanced Melanoma

OPINION STATEMENT

Patients with clinical stage III melanoma, defined as palpable lymph nodes with or without in-transit metastases, have poor prognosis even with recent advances with targeted and checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the adjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant therapy for clinical stage III melanoma is an attractive treatment paradigm as patient outcomes may be improved by earlier introduction to systemic therapy. Additionally, preoperative therapy that shrinks disease has the potential to improve surgical morbidity. Neoadjuvant therapy also provides for pathologic response assessment which can serve as a way to stratify patient outcomes and subsequent disease relapse risk. Early trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy are yielding promising results, with high rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) and improved relapse-free survival rates. Ipilimumab, nivolumab with or without ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab have been investigated in the neoadjuvant setting. A meta-analysis has shown a 1-year relapse-free survival rate of over 80% with neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Importantly, pooled data also shows that pCR strongly correlates with outcomes. Early phase trials have also highlighted the importance of dosing of neoadjuvant therapy to appropriately balance response and immune related toxicities, which can be severe. The combination of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg and nivolumab 3 mg/kg has been identified as an optimal regimen for further study. Translational studies have highlighted the ability of neoadjuvant immunotherapy to expand tumor-specific T cells in both the tumor microenvironment and peripheral blood. At this time, surgical resection and adjuvant therapy remains standard of care for clinical stage III melanoma; however, appropriate patients should be considered for ongoing neoadjuvant clinical trials.

Possibilities of Improving the Clinical Value of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapies in Cancer Care by Optimizing Patient Selection

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies have become the most important medical therapies in many malignancies, such as melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and urogenital cancers. However, due to generally low response rates of PD-(L)1 monotherapy, both PD-(L)1 combination therapies and novel therapeutics are under large-scale clinical evaluation. Thus far, clinical trials have rather suboptimally defined the patient population most likely to benefit from ICI therapy, and there is an unmet need for negative predictive markers aiming to reduce the number of non-responding patients in clinical practice. Furthermore, there is a strong need for basic tumor immunology research and innovative clinical trials to fully unleash the potential of ICI combinations for the benefit of patients.