Ipilimumab with or without nivolumab in PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade refractory metastatic melanoma: a randomized phase 2 trial

In this randomized phase 2 trial, blockade of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) with continuation of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma who had received front-line anti-PD-1 or therapy against programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and whose tumors progressed was tested in comparison with CTLA-4 blockade alone. Ninety-two eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, or ipilimumab alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included the difference in CD8 T cell infiltrate among responding and nonresponding tumors, objective response rate, overall survival and toxicity. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival over ipilimumab (hazard ratio = 0.63, 90% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41-0.97, one-sided P = 0.04). Objective response rates were 28% (90% CI = 19-38%) and 9% (90% CI = 2-25%), respectively (one-sided P = 0.05). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% and 35% of patients, respectively, which is consistent with the known toxicity profile of these regimens. The change in intratumoral CD8 T cell density observed in the present analysis did not reach statistical significance to support the formal hypothesis tested as a secondary endpoint. In conclusion, primary resistance to PD-1 blockade therapy can be reversed in some patients with the combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03033576 .

Abstract CT013: S1616: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma that did not respond to anti-PD-1 therapy

Background: Patients with advanced melanoma primarily refractory to single agent PD-1 blockade therapy have an option of receiving the CTLA-4 blocking antibody ipilimumab, but if ipilimumab should be given as a single agent or in combination with the anti-PD-1 nivolumab has not been established prospectively.

Methods: Patients aged >18 with metastatic or unresectable melanoma without objective response to anti-PD-1 therapy given without CTLA-4 therapy were randomized 3:1 to receive either ipilimumab 3mg/kg + nivolumab 1mg/kg q3 wks x4 cycles followed by nivolumab 480mg q4wks (ipi/nivo) up to 2 years, or ipilimumab 3mg/kg q3weeks x4 cycles (ipi). Additional key eligibility criteria included ECOG Performance Statue (PS) 0-2, no active central nervous system metastases, autoimmune disease, or need for steroids at doses of >10 mg of prednisone or the equivalent. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Disease assessments were performed every 12 weeks until progression. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity. All patients were to submit a fresh tumor biopsy and whole blood for correlative endpoints prior to cycle 1 and again at week 5.

Results: 92 eligible patients were enrolled, 69 to ipi/nivo, 23 to ipi. Median age was 64 and 69 in the ipi/nivo and ipi arm respectively. 67% and 65% were male. 65% of patients in both arms had ECOG PS of 0. With a median follow up of 25.3 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.63 (90% CI 0.41, 0.97) with a statistically significant 1-sided p-value of 0.04 favoring ipi/nivo. The 6-month PFS estimates were 34% (90% CI: 25%-44%) and 13% (4%-27%) for ipi/nivo and ipi respectively. ORR was 28% for ipi/nivo (95% CI 17%-40%) and 9% for ipi (95% CI: 3%-34%). With a median follow up of 24.4 months, 39/69 patients in the ipi/nivo arm and 12/23 patients in the ipi arm had died. 12-month OS was 63% (90% CI 52%-72%) in the ipi/nivo arm and 57% (38%-71%) months in the ipi arm. HR for OS was 0.94 (90% CI 0.54, 1.62) in favor of ipi/nivo with a p-value of 0.42. Adverse event rates were similar in both arms. One treatment related death was reported in the ipi/nivo arm due to disseminated intravascular coagulation and one treatment related death was reported in the ipi arm due to colonic perforation.

Conclusions: This is the first prospective randomized study comparing ipi/nivo to ipi alone in patients with melanoma without response to anti-PD1 therapy. Ipi/nivo was associated with improved progression free survival as compared to ipi alone. The response rate of 28% to ipi/nivo as compared to 9% to ipi alone implies that patients who do not respond to PD-1 alone can be rescued with ipi/nivo. The toxicity of combination therapy was manageable. Ipi/nivo is an appropriate standard in patients with metastatic melanoma who do not respond to single-agent PD-1 therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03033576

Funding: NIH/NCI grants: U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180821, U10CA180868; Other grants: SU2C-AACR-CT06-17

Citation Format: Ari M. Vanderwalde, James Moon, Kari Kendra, Nikhil I. Khushalani, Frances Collichio, Jeffrey A. Sosman, Alexandra Ikeguchi, Adrienne I. Victor, Thach-Giao Truong, Bartosz Chmielowski, David C. Portnoy, Michael C. Wu, Kenneth F. Grossmann, Antoni Ribas. S1616: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma that did not respond to anti-PD-1 therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT013.

Multicenter phase II trial (SWOG S1609, cohort 51) of ipilimumab and nivolumab in metastatic or unresectable angiosarcoma: a substudy of dual anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 blockade in rare tumors (DART)

Purpose

Angiosarcoma is a rare aggressive endothelial cell cancer with high mortality. Isolated reports suggest immune checkpoint inhibition efficacy in angiosarcoma, but no prospective studies have been published. We report results for angiosarcoma treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab as a cohort of an ongoing rare cancer study.

Methods

This is a prospective, open-label, multicenter phase II clinical trial of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) plus nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) for metastatic or unresectable angiosarcoma. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free (PFS) and overall survival, and toxicity. A two-stage design was used.

Results

Overall, there were 16 evaluable patients. Median age was 68 years (range, 25–81); median number of prior lines of therapy, 2. Nine patients had cutaneous and seven non-cutaneous primary tumors. ORR was 25% (4/16). Sixty per cent of patients (3/5) with primary cutaneous scalp or face tumors attained a confirmed response. Six-month PFS was 38%. Altogether, 75% of patients experienced an adverse event (AE) (at least possibly related to drug) (25% grade 3–4 AE); 68.8%, an immune-related AE (irAE) (2 (12.5%), grade 3 or 4 irAEs (alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase increase and diarrhea)). There were no grade 5 toxicities. One of seven patients in whom tumor mutation burden (TMB) was assessed showed a high TMB (24 mutations/mb); that patient achieved a partial response (PR). Two of three patients with PDL1 immunohistochemistry assessed had high PDL1 expression; one achieved a PR.

Conclusion

The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated an ORR of 25% in angiosarcoma, with three of five patients with cutaneous tumors of the scalp or face responding. Ipilimumab and nivolumab warrant further investigation in angiosarcoma.

Trial registration number

NCT02834013.

Next generation sequencing of sarcomas: Response to crizotinib in two cases with MET amplification

11538

Background: Sarcoma subtypes are often defined by recurrent molecular alterations. The purpose of this study is to review the utility of next generation sequencing (NGS) in sarcoma patients and report clinical outcomes to matched therapies. Methods: The records of all patients seen at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) with sarcoma and NGS profiling between 8/2013 and 3/2020 were reviewed. Responses to agents targeting reported alterations were analyzed. In patients with fluorescent-in-situ hybridization (FISH) testing, fusion events by NGS were compared with FISH results. All highlighted pathogenic alterations on the NGS profile report as well as variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were recorded. Results: Seventy-five patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 25 received a treatment based on identified alterations; 1 had a complete response (CR), 4 had partial responses (PR), and 4 experienced disease stabilization (SD). We identified two patients with MET amplified sarcoma that responded to treatment with crizotinib. One other patient with a diagnosis of leiomyosarcoma was found to have an unusually high total mutational burden (TMB) and experienced complete pathologic response to dual checkpoint blockade. In 4 cases, testing resulted in a change in subtype diagnosis. Several rare and novel fusions were identified; a sarcoma with TPM4-NTRK3 fusion responded to larotrectinib, while a sarcoma with PML-JAK1 fusion did not respond to ruxolitinib, and a sarcoma with IL7R-BCL2 fusion progressed on venetoclax. Table summarizes matched therapies in responders. Conclusions: NGS profiling led to a targeted therapy with a clinical benefit rate of 12% in this cohort. NGS profiling led to a change in diagnosis in 5% of this cohort. Multi-institutional collaborations to track outcomes of matched therapy would help determine the utility of therapies in rare cancers and unusual alterations.[Table: see text]