Second-line therapies for steroid-refractory immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) induce adverse events (irAEs) that do not respond to steroids, i.e. steroid-refractory (sr) irAEs, and irAEs in which steroids cannot be tapered, i.e. steroid-dependent (sd) irAEs, in about 10% of cases. An evidence-based analysis of the effectiveness of second-line immunosuppressive agents with regard to irAE and tumor control is lacking.

METHODS

The international web-based Side Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology (SERIO; http://serio-registry.org) is a collaborative initiative with the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute to document rare, severe, complex or therapy-refractory immunotherapy-induced side effects. The registry was queried on August 1, 2023 for cases of irAEs which were treated with second-line therapies.

RESULTS

From a total of 1330 cases, 217 patients (16.3%) received 249 second-line therapies. A total of 19 different second-line therapies were employed, including TNF-alpha antagonists (46.5%), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG; 19.1%), mycophenolate mofetil (15.9%), and methotrexate (3.6%). Therapy choices were determined by the type of irAE. The time to onset of sr-/sd-irAEs after ICI initiation did not consistently differ from steroid-responsive irAEs. While 74.3% of sr-/sd-irAEs resolved and 13.1% had improved, 4.3% persisted, 3.9% resulted in permanent sequelae, and 4.3% in death with ongoing symptoms. Infliximab exhibited potential for earlier symptom improvement compared to mycophenolate mofetil or IVIG. Tumor response in patients with second-line treated sd-/sr-irAE was similar to patients with irAEs treated with steroids only.

CONCLUSION

Several second-line therapies are effective against sr-/sd-irAEs, the second-line therapies show no clear negative impact on tumor response, and infliximab shows potential for faster improvement of symptoms. However, prospective comparative data are needed.

Anti-PD-(L)1 plus BRAF/MEK inhibitors (triplet therapy) after failure of immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy in patients with advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

Effective treatment options are limited for patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT). Preclinical models support the combination of ICI with TT; however, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of triplet combinations in first-line setting showed limited advantage compared to TT only.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study, that included patients with advanced melanoma who were treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors in combination with an anti-PD-(L)1 antibody (triplet therapy) after failure of at least one anti-PD-(L)1-based therapy and one TT in seven major melanoma centers between February 2016 and July 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients were included, of which 32 patients, 66.7% had brain metastases, 37 patients (77.1%) had three or more metastatic organs and 21 patients (43.8%) had three or more treatment lines. The median follow-up time was 31.4 months (IQR, 22.27-40.45 months). The treatment with triplet therapy resulted in an ORR of 35.4% (n = 17) and a DCR of 47.9% (n = 23). The median DOR was 5.9 months (range, 3.39-14.27 months). Patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors as the last treatment line showed a slightly lower ORR (29.6%) compared to patients who received ICI or chemotherapy last (ORR: 42.9%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25% of patients (n = 12), with seven patients (14.6%) requiring discontinuation of treatment with both or either drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Triplet therapy has shown activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced melanoma and may represent a potential treatment regimen after failure of ICI and TT.

The RANKL inhibitor denosumab in combination with dual checkpoint inhibition is associated with increased CXCL-13 serum concentrations

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests additional immunomodulatory properties of RANKL inhibition possibly boosting the clinical efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicentre clinical trial in unresectable stage IV melanoma patients with bone metastases who received denosumab in parallel with dual ICI (BONEMET) and performed comprehensive immune monitoring at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after initiation of therapy. Secondary endpoints included tolerability and efficacy. For comparison, biospecimens from melanoma patients treated with dual ICI without denosumab were analyzed accordingly and served as retrospective reference cohort.

RESULTS

In both the BONEMET (n = 16) and the reference cohort (n = 18) serum levels of 17 cytokines, including IFNγ were significantly increased after 4 weeks of treatment. Patients who received ICI and denosumab showed a significantly higher increase in serum CXCL-13 and a significant decrease in VEGFc compared with the reference cohort. While no changes in T cell composition were observed at 4 weeks, patients in the BONEMET cohort showed a significant decrease in the peripheral naïve T-cell population and an increase in CD8+ effector cells after 12 weeks. Treatment-related adverse events occurred with comparable frequency (93.8% in the BONEMET cohort versus 83.3% in the reference cohort). 7/16 patients in the BONEMET cohort and 8/18 patients in the reference cohort achieved disease control.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab in combination with dual ICI modulates cytokine expression and T-cell composition in peripheral blood. The upregulation of CXCL-13, a key factor for initiating tertiary lymphoid structures, strengthens the hypothesis that denosumab indeed boost immunological effects.

The side effect registry immuno-oncology (SERIO) - A tool for systematic analysis of immunotherapy-induced side effects

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are effective in multiple tumor entities but induce a plethora of side effects. Comprehensive real-world analyses are essential to identify new signals, characterize diagnostic features, enable risk assessment, determine pathomechanisms, assess effectiveness of side effect management and compare tumor outcomes.

METHODS

The international online `Side-Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology´ (SERIO; www.serio-registry.org) collects rare, complex, and severe immunotherapy-induced side effects across all tumor entities with a strong focus on ICI-induced immune-related adverse events (irAE). The relational database management system (RDMS) contains structured data on patient and tumor characteristics, type of immunotherapy, treatment of side effects, and outcome of tumor and irAE. Data are captured within 25 organ modules including new modules for immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) for CAR-T-cell therapies and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) for bispecific antibodies. Information on biological samples is gathered.

RESULTS

A total of 1398 irAE cases have been documented by 58 centers from 13 countries in patients with 17 tumor types. IrAEs were induced by nine different immunotherapies including tebentafusp and CAR-T cell therapies, and resulted, among others, in neurological (7.6%), pulmonary (4.0%), and cardiac toxicities (2.9%). 50.0% of all irAEs were graded severe or life-threatening and 23.0% of patients received second-line therapy for steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent irAE. SERIO has contributed to 44 original publications on topics ranging from irMyocarditis to irEncephalitis to long-term persistent sequelae of immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A reliable evidence base is crucial for decision-making in rare, complex or therapy-refractory irAE. SERIO can help optimize side effect management and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality induced by immunotherapy.

Outcomes of patients with resected stage III/IV acral or mucosal melanoma, treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 based therapy

IMPORTANCE

Acral (AM) and mucosal melanomas (MM) are rare subtypes with a poor prognosis. In those with advanced disease, anti-PD-1 (PD1) therapy has reduced activity compared to that seen in non-acral cutaneous melanoma.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 in resected AM or MM.

DESIGN

An international, retrospective cohort study SETTING: Data up to November 2021 collected from 20 centres across 10 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and ninety four patients with resected stage III or IV1 AM or MM who received adjuvant PD1 were included and compared to matched patients from the Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) database using a propensity score matching analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated.

RESULTS

Forty five of 139 (32%) AM and 9 of 55 (16%) MM patients completed adjuvant therapy. The main reason for early treatment cessation in both groups was disease recurrence: 51 (37%) and 30 (55%) in the AM and MM groups, respectively. In the AM group adjuvant PD1 was associated with a longer RFS [HR-0.69 (0.52-0.92, p = 0.0127)], DMFS [HR0.58 (0.38-0.89, p = 0.0134)] and OS [HR of 0.59 (0.38-0.92, p-value 0.0196)] when compared to the historical cohort. In the MM group there was no statistical difference in RFS [HR1.36 (0.69-2.68,p-value 0.3799], DMFS or OS.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

After adjuvant PD1, both AM and MM have a high risk of recurrence. Our data suggests a benefit to using adjuvant PD1 therapy in resected AM but not in resected MM. Additional studies to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant PD1 for MM are needed.

Association of antibiotic treatment with survival outcomes in treatment-naïve melanoma patients receiving immune checkpoint blockade

PURPOSE

The interaction of gut microbiome and immune system is being studied with increasing interest. Disturbing factors, such as antibiotics may impact the immune system via gut and interfere with tumor response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB).

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective cohort study exclusively treatment-naïve patients with cutaneous or mucosal melanoma treated with first-line anti-PD-1 based ICB for advanced, non-resectable disease between 06/2013 and 09/2018 were included. Progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS) according to antibiotic exposure (within 60 days prior to ICB and after the start of ICB vs. no antibiotic exposure) were analyzed. To account for immortal time bias, data from patients with antibiotics during ICB were analyzed separately in the time periods before and after start of antibiotics.

RESULTS

Among 578 patients with first-line anti-PD1 based ICB, 7% of patients received antibiotics within 60 days prior to ICB and 19% after starting ICB. Antibiotic exposure prior to ICB was associated with worse PFS (adjusted HR 1.75 [95% CI 1.22-2.52]) and OS (adjusted HR 1.64 [95% CI 1.04-2.58]) by multivariate analysis adjusting for potential confounders. The use of antibiotics after the start of ICB had no effect on either PFS (adjusted HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.89-1.60) or OS (adjusted HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.75-1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic exposure within 60 days prior to ICB seems to be associated with worse PFS and OS in melanoma patients receiving first-line anti-PD1 based therapy, whereas antibiotics after the start of ICB do not appear to affect PFS or OS.

Efficacy and safety of 'Second Adjuvant' therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors after local therapy for recurrent melanoma following adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAK/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) reduce the risk of recurrence for patients with resected stage III melanoma. BRAFV600-mutated (BRAFmut) melanoma patients who recur with isolated disease following adjuvant therapy may be suitable for 'second adjuvant' treatment after local therapy. We sought to examine the efficacy and safety of 'second adjuvant' BRAF/MEKi.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with BRAFmut melanoma treated with adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy who recurred, underwent definitive local therapy and were then treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEKi were identified retrospectively from 13 centres (second adjuvant group). Demographics, disease and treatment characteristics and outcome data were examined. Outcomes were compared to BRAFmut patients who did not receive 'second adjuvant' therapy (no second adjuvant group).

RESULTS

73 patients were included; 61 who received 'second adjuvant' therapy and 12 who did not. Most initially recurred on PD-1 therapy (66%). There were no differences in characteristics between groups. 92% of second adjuvant group received dabrafenib and trametinib and median duration of therapy was 11.8 months (0.4, 34.5). 72% required dose adjustments, 23% had grade 3 + toxicity and 38% permanently discontinued drug due to toxicity. After median 26.1 months (1.9, 56.3) follow-up, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was improved in second adjuvant group versus no second adjuvant group (median 30.8 vs 4 months, HR 0.35; p = 0.014), largely driven by a delay in early recurrence, with no difference in overall survival (p = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study examining outcomes of 'second adjuvant' targeted therapy for melanoma, after failure of adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy. Data suggest a short-term improvement in RFS, but at the cost of toxicity. Alternative strategies and more data on sequencing adjuvant therapies are required to improve outcomes.

Effects of an immunosuppressive therapy on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic melanoma - An analysis of the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

BACKGROUND

The impact of immunosuppressive therapy (IST) on immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is unclear.

METHODS

Patients with unresectable advanced melanoma (MM) treated with ICI in the years 2011-2020 were identified from the prospective multicenter German skin cancer registry ADOREG. Patients with IST within 60 days before, or within 30 days after start of ICI were compared to patients without IST. End points were disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) determined by Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors were evaluated in a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Of 814 patients treated with ICI, 73 (9%) received concomitant IST, mainly steroids. Patients with brain metastases (BM) received IST more frequently (n = 34/130 patients; 26%), than patients without BM (39/684 patients; 6%). In patients without BM, IST initiated before, but not IST initiated after start of ICI was significantly associated with worse PFS (univariate hazard ratio (HR) 2.59, 95% confidence interval (95%-CI) 1.07-6.28, p = 0.035; multivariate HR 3.48, 95%-CI 1.26-9.6, p = 0.016). There was no association between IST and OS or DCR. In patients with BM, IST initiated before, but not after start of ICI was significantly associated with worse OS (univariate HR 2.06, 95%-CI 1.07-3.95, p = 0.031; multivariate HR 5.91, 95%-CI 1.74-20.14, p = 0.004). There was no association between IST and PFS or DCR.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving IST 60 days before start of ICI showed a tendency to an impaired therapy outcome. IST initiated within 30 days after start of ICI, mainly due to early side effects, did not affect the efficacy of ICI therapy.

Management of infliximab refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor gastrointestinal toxicity: a multicenter case series

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) gastrointestinal toxicity (gastritis, enteritis, colitis) is a major cause of morbidity and treatment-related death. Guidelines agree steroid-refractory cases warrant infliximab, however best management of infliximab-refractory ICI gastrointestinal toxicity (IRIGItox) is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted an international multicenter retrospective case series. IRIGItox was defined as failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 1 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0) following ≥2 infliximab doses or failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 2 after one dose. Data were extracted regarding demographics, steroid use, response to treatment, and survival outcomes. Toxicity was graded at symptom onset and time of infliximab failure. Efficacy of infliximab refractory therapy was assessed by symptom resolution, time to resolution and steroid wean duration. Survival outcomes were examined based on immunosuppressive therapy received.

RESULTS

78 patients were identified: median age 60 years; 56% men; majority melanoma (N=70, 90%); 60 (77%) received anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 alone or in combination with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 and most had colitis (N=74, 95%). 106 post-infliximab treatments were given: 31 calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs); 27 antimetabolites (mycophenolate, azathioprine); 16 non-systemic immunomodulatory agents (eg, mesalazine or budesonide); 15 vedolizumab; 5 other biologics (anti-interleukin-12/23, 16, Janus kinase inhibitors) and 7 interventional procedures (including colectomy); 5 did not receive post-infliximab therapy. Symptom resolution was achieved in most (N=23/31, 74%) patients treated with CNIs; 12/27 (44%) with antimetabolites; 7/16 (44%) with non-systemic immunomodulation, 8/15 (53%) with vedolizumab and 5/7 (71%) with interventional procedures. No non-vedolizumab biologics resulted in toxicity resolution. CNIs had the shortest time to symptom resolution (12 days) and steroid wean (43 days); however, were associated with poorer event-free survival (6.3 months) and overall survival (26.8 months) than other agents. Conversely, vedolizumab had the longest time to toxicity resolution and steroid wean, 66 and 124 days, but most favorable survival data: EFS 24.5 months; median OS not reached. Six death occurred (three due to IRIGItox or management of toxicity; three with persisting IRIGItox and progressive disease).

CONCLUSIONS

IRIGItox causes major morbidity and mortality. Management is heterogeneous. CNIs appear most likely to result in toxicity resolution in the shortest time period, however, are associated with poorer oncological outcomes in contrast to vedolizumab.

The features and management of acquired resistance to PD1-based therapy in metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

Anti-PD-1 therapy (PD1) either alone or with anti-CTLA-4 (CTLA4), has high initial response rates, however 20% of patients (pts) with complete response (CR) and 30% with partial response (PR) within 12 months of treatment experience subsequent disease progression by 6 years. The nature and optimal management of this acquired resistance (AR) remains unknown.

METHODS

Pts from 16 centres who responded to PD1-based therapy and who later progressed were examined. Demographics, disease characteristics and subsequent treatments were evaluated.

RESULTS

299 melanoma pts were identified, median age 64y, 44% BRAFV600m. 172 (58%) received PD1 alone, 114 (38%) PD1/CTLA4 and 13 (4%) PD1 and an investigational drug. 90 (30%) pts had CR, 209 (70%) PR. Median time to AR was 12.6 mo (95% CI, 11.3, 14.2). Most (N = 193, 65%) progressed in a single organ site, and in a solitary lesion (N = 151, 51%). The most frequent sites were lymph nodes (38%) and brain (25%). Management at AR included systemic therapy (ST, 45%), local therapy (LT) +ST (31%), LT alone (21%), or observation (3%). There was no statistical difference in PFS2 or OS based on management, however, PFS2 was numerically superior for pts treated with ST alone who progressed off PD1 therapy than those who progressed on PD1 (2-year PFS2 42% versus 25%, p = 0.249). mOS from AR was 38.0 months (95% CI, 29.5-NR); longer in single-site versus multi-site progression (2-year OS 70% vs 54%, p < 0·001).

CONCLUSIONS

Acquired resistance to PD1 therapy in melanoma is largely oligometastatic, and pts may have a favorable survival outcome following salvage treatment.

The role of diabetes in metastatic melanoma patients treated with nivolumab plus relatlimab

BACKGROUND

The combination of nivolumab + relatlimab is superior to nivolumab alone in the treatment of naive patients and has activity in PD-1 refractory melanoma. We had previously observed a reduced expression of LAG3 in melanoma tissue from patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHOD

To evaluate the impact of diabetes on oncological outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab plus the LAG3 inhibitor relatlimab we performed a retrospective multicenter study.

RESULTS

Overall, 129 patients were included: 88 without diabetes before the treatment, 37 who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before the start of treatment, and 4 without diabetes before treatment who developed immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced diabetes (ICI-DM). PFS was 21.71 months (95% CI: 15.61-27.81) in patients without diabetes, 10.23 months (95% CI: 5.81-14.66) in patients with type 2 diabetes, and 50.85 months (95% CI: 23.04-78.65) in patients who developed ICI-DM. OS was 37.94 months (95% CI: 31.02-44.85) in patients without diabetes, 22.12 months (95% CI: 14.41-29.85) in those with type 2 diabetes and 57.64 months (95% CI: 42.29-72.99) in those who developed ICI-DM. Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of diabetes and LDH was correlated with OS and PFS. The mean OS was 64.63 months in subjects with low levels of glucose (< 137 mg/dl) and 36.27 months in those with high levels (hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04-0.58; p = 0.005). The patients whose glucose blood level increased after 3 months of treatment with nivolumab + relatinib compared to baseline (ratio of blood level at baseline/after 3 months > 1.5) had a worse prognosis than those whose glucose level had not increased. This result was observed also in subgroups treated either in first line or further lines. Patients who developed ICI-DM during the study period had better outcomes than the overall population and patients without diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

LAG3 inhibition for treating metastatic or unresectable melanoma has a reduced efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes, possibly due to a low expression of LAG3 in tumor tissue. Higher level evidence should be obtained.

Correlation of tumor PD-L1 expression in different tissue types and outcome of PD-1-based immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma - analysis of the DeCOG prospective multicenter cohort study ADOREG/TRIM

BACKGROUND

PD-1-based immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is the major backbone of current melanoma therapy. Tumor PD-L1 expression represents one of few biomarkers predicting ICI therapy outcome. The objective of the present study was to systematically investigate whether the type of tumor tissue examined for PD-L1 expression has an impact on the correlation with ICI therapy outcome.

METHODS

Pre-treatment tumor tissue was collected within the prospective DeCOG cohort study ADOREG/TRIM (CA209-578; NCT05750511) between February 2014 and May 2020 from 448 consecutive patients who received PD-1-based ICI for non-resectable metastatic melanoma. The primary study endpoint was best overall response (BOR), secondary endpoints were progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). All endpoints were correlated with tumor PD-L1 expression (quantified with clone 28-8; cutoff ≥5%) and stratified by tissue type.

FINDINGS

Tumor PD-L1 was determined in 95 primary tumors (PT; 36.8% positivity), 153 skin/subcutaneous (34.0% positivity), 115 lymph node (LN; 50.4% positivity), and 85 organ (40.8% positivity) metastases. Tumor PD-L1 correlated with BOR if determined in LN (OR = 0.319; 95% CI = 0.138-0.762; P = 0.010), but not in skin/subcutaneous metastases (OR = 0.656; 95% CI = 0.311-1.341; P = 0.26). PD-L1 positivity determined on LN metastases was associated with favorable survival (PFS, HR = 0.490; 95% CI = 0.310-0.775; P = 0.002; OS, HR = 0.519; 95% CI = 0.307-0.880; P = 0.014). PD-L1 positivity determined in PT (PFS, HR = 0.757; 95% CI = 0.467-1.226; P = 0.27; OS; HR = 0.528; 95% CI = 0.305-0.913; P = 0.032) was correlated with survival to a lesser extent. No relevant survival differences were detected by PD-L1 determined in skin/subcutaneous metastases (PFS, HR = 0.825; 95% CI = 0.555-1.226; P = 0.35; OS, HR = 1.083; 95% CI = 0.698-1.681; P = 0.72).

INTERPRETATION

For PD-1-based immunotherapy in melanoma, tumor PD-L1 determined in LN metastases was stronger correlated with therapy outcome than that assessed in PT or organ metastases. PD-L1 determined in skin/subcutaneous metastases showed no outcome correlation and therefore should be used with caution for clinical decision making.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb (ADOREG/TRIM, NCT05750511); German Research Foundation (DFG; Clinician Scientist Program UMEA); Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung (EKFS; Medical Scientist Academy UMESciA).

Adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab versus observation in completely resected Merkel cell carcinoma (ADMEC-O): disease-free survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an immunogenic but aggressive skin cancer. Even after complete resection and radiation, relapse rates are high. PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors showed clinical benefit in advanced MCC. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition in completely resected MCC (ie, a setting without an established systemic standard-of-care treatment).

METHODS

In this multicentre phase 2 trial, patients (any stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1) at 20 academic medical centres in Germany and the Netherlands with completely resected MCC lesions were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for 1 year, or observation, stratified by stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer stages 1-2 vs stages 3-4), age (<65 vs ≥65 years), and sex. Landmark disease-free survival (DFS) at 12 and 24 months was the primary endpoint, assessed in the intention-to-treat populations. Overall survival and safety were secondary endpoints. This planned interim analysis was triggered when the last-patient-in was followed up for more than 1 year. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02196961) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (2013-000043-78).

FINDINGS

Between Oct 1, 2014, and Aug 31, 2020, 179 patients were enrolled (116 [65%] stage 3-4, 122 [68%] ≥65 years, 111 [62%] male). Stratification factors (stage, age, sex) were balanced across the nivolumab (n=118) and internal control group (observation, n=61); adjuvant radiotherapy was more common in the control group. At a median follow-up of 24·3 months (IQR 19·2-33·4), median DFS was not reached (between-groups hazard ratio 0·58, 95% CI 0·30-1·12); DFS rates in the nivolumab group were 85% at 12 months and 84% at 24 months, and in the observation group were 77% at 12 months and 73% at 24 months. Overall survival results were not yet mature. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 48 [42%] of 115 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab and seven [11%] of 61 patients in the observation group. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION

Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 9% (1-year DFS) and 10% (2-year DFS). The present interim analysis of ADMEC-O might suggest clinical use of nivolumab in this area of unmet medical need. However, overall survival events rates, with ten events in the active treatment group and six events in the half-the-size observation group, are not mature enough to draw conclusions. The explorative data of our trial support the continuation of ongoing, randomised trials in this area. ADMEC-O suggests that adjuvant immunotherapy is clinically feasible in this area of unmet medical need.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb.

Interleukin 17 signaling supports clinical benefit of dual CTLA-4 and PD-1 checkpoint inhibition in melanoma

Recent studies suggest that BRAFV600-mutated melanomas in particular respond to dual anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). Here we identified an over-representation of interleukin (IL)-17-type 17 helper T (TH17) gene expression signatures (GES) in BRAFV600-mutated tumors. Moreover, high baseline IL-17 GES consistently predicted clinical responses in dual-ICI-treated patient cohorts but not in mono anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 ICI cohorts. High IL-17 GES corresponded to tumor infiltration with T cells and neutrophils. Accordingly, high neutrophil infiltration correlated with clinical response specifically to dual ICI, and tumor-associated neutrophils also showed strong IL-17-TH17 pathway activity and T cell activation capacity. Both the blockade of IL-17A and the depletion of neutrophils impaired dual-ICI response and decreased T cell activation. Finally, high IL-17A levels in the blood of patients with melanoma indicated a higher global TH17 cytokine profile preceding clinical response to dual ICI but not to anti-PD-1 monotherapy, suggesting a future role as a biomarker for patient stratification.

Adjuvant treatment and outcome of stage III melanoma patients: Results of a multicenter real-world German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group (DeCOG) study

PURPOSE

Clinical trials demonstrated significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) of melanoma patients receiving adjuvant treatment. As data from controlled trials are based on selected populations, we investigated adjuvantly treated stage III melanoma patients under real-world conditions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a prior multicenter cohort study, stage III-IV melanoma patients were analysed for their choice of adjuvant therapy. In this follow-up study, we examined RFS, overall and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and response to the subsequent treatment of 589 stage III patients (232 BRAF-mutated) receiving adjuvant PD-1 inhibitors (PD1; n = 479) or targeted therapy (TT; n = 110).

RESULTS

The median follow-up of the total cohort was 25.7 months. The main reason for premature discontinuation of adjuvant therapy was disease progression in PD1- (28.8%, n = 138/479) and adverse events in TT-treated patients (28.2%, n = 31/110). Among BRAF-mutated patients, RFS at 24 months was 49% (95% CI 40.6-59.0%) for PD1- and 67% (95% CI 58-77%) for TT-treated patients. The risk of recurrence was higher for BRAF-mutated PD1 than TT (hazard ratio 1.99; 95% CI 1.34-2.96; hazard ratio adjusted for age, sex and tumour stage, 2.21; 95% CI 1.48-3.30). Twenty-four months MSS was 87% (95% CI 81.0-94.1) for PD1 and 92% (95% CI 86.6-97.0) for TT. Response to subsequent systemic treatment for unresectable disease was 22% for all PD1- and 16% for TT-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

PD1-treated patients had more and earlier recurrences than TT patients. In BRAF-mutated patients, adjuvant TT might prevent early recurrences more effectively than PD1 treatment. Management of recurrence despite adjuvant treatment is challenging, with low response to current therapeutic options.

Treatment management for BRAF-mutant melanoma patients with tumor recurrence on adjuvant therapy: a multicenter study from the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant therapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) or BRAF/MEK-directed targeted therapy (TT) improves recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients with advanced, BRAFV600-mutant (BRAFmut) resected melanoma. However, 40% of these patients will develop distant metastases (DM) within 5 years, which require systemic therapy. Little data exist to guide the choice of upfront adjuvant therapy or treatment management upon DM. This study evaluated the efficacy of subsequent treatments following tumor recurrence upon upfront adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

For this multicenter cohort study, we identified 515 BRAFmut patients with resected stage III melanoma who were treated with PD-1 inhibitors (anti-PD1) or TT in the adjuvant setting. Disease characteristics, treatment regimens, details on tumor recurrence, subsequent treatment management, and survival outcomes were collected within the prospective, real-world skin cancer registry ADOReg. Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) following DM and best tumor response to first-line (1L) treatments.

RESULTS

Among 515 eligible patients, 273 patients received adjuvant anti-PD1 and 242 adjuvant TT. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 54.6% of anti-PD1 patients and 36.4% of TT patients recurred, while 39.6% (anti-PD1) and 29.3% (TT) developed DM. Risk of recurrence was significantly reduced in patients treated with TT compared with anti-PD1 (adjusted HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.68, p<0.001). Likewise, median RFS was significantly longer in TT-treated patients (31 vs 17 months, p<0.001). Patients who received TT as second adjuvant treatment upon locoregional recurrence had a longer RFS2 as compared with adjuvant CPI (41 vs 6 months, p=0.009). Patients who recurred at distant sites following adjuvant TT showed favorable response rates (42.9%) after switching to 1L ipilimumab+nivolumab (ipi+nivo). Patients with DM during adjuvant anti-PD1 achieved response rates of 58.7% after switching to 1L TT and 35.3% for 1L ipi+nivo. Overall, median PFS was significantly longer in patients who switched treatments for stage IV disease (median PFS 9 vs 5 months, p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

BRAFmut melanoma patients who developed DM upon upfront adjuvant therapy achieve favorable tumor control and prolonged PFS after switching treatment modalities in the first-line setting of stage IV disease. Patients with locoregional recurrence benefit from complete resection of recurrence followed by a second adjuvant treatment with TT.

Immune checkpoint inhibition in patients with NRAS mutated and NRAS wild type melanoma: a multicenter Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group study on 637 patients from the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

BACKGROUND

Melanomas frequently harbour somatic mutations in BRAF (40%) or NRAS (20%). Impact of NRAS mutations on the therapeutic outcome of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) remains controversial. Potential correlation of the NRAS mutational status and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression in melanoma is unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Advanced, non-resectable melanoma patients with known NRAS mutation status treated with first-line ICI between 06/2014 and 05/2020 in the prospective multicenter skin cancer registry ADOREG were included. Overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) according to NRAS status were analysed. A multivariate Cox model was used to analyse factors associated with PFS and OS; survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier approach.

RESULTS

Among 637 BRAF wild-type patients, 310 (49%) had an NRAS mutation with Q61R (41%) and Q61K (32%). NRAS-mutated (NRASmut) melanomas were significantly more often located on the lower extremities and trunk (p = 0.001); nodular melanoma was the most common subtype (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found for PFS and OS for anti-PD1 monotherapy (2-year PFS 39%, [95% confidence interval (CI), 33-47] in NRASmut patients and 41% [95% CI, 35-48] in NRAS-wild type (NRASwt) patients; 2-year OS was 54% [95% CI, 48-61] in NRASmut patients and 57% [95% CI, 50-64] in NRASwt patients) and anti-PD1 plus anti-CTLA4 therapy between both cohorts (2-year PFS was 54% [95% CI, 44-66] in NRASmut patients and 53% [95% CI, 41-67] in NRASwt patients; 2-year OS was 58% [95% CI, 49-70] in NRASmut patients and 62% [95% CI, 51-75] in NRASwt patients). The ORR to anti-PD1 was 35% for NRASwt patients and 26% for NRASmut patients and 34% compared to 32% for combinational therapy. Data on PD-L1 expression was available in 82 patients (13%). PD-L1 expression (>5%) was not correlated to NRAS mutational status. In multivariate analysis, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1, and brain metastases were significantly associated with a higher risk of death in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The PFS and OS were not affected by NRAS mutational status in patients treated with anti-PD1-based ICI. Similar ORR was seen in NRASwt and NRASmut patients. Tumour PD-L1 expression did not correlate with NRAS mutational status.

Medical Needs and Therapeutic Options for Melanoma Patients Resistant to Anti-PD-1-Directed Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

Available 4- and 5-year updates for progression-free and for overall survival demonstrate a lasting clinical benefit for melanoma patients receiving anti-PD-directed immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. However, at least one-half of the patients either do not respond to therapy or relapse early or late following the initial response to therapy. Little is known about the reasons for primary and/or secondary resistance to immunotherapy and the patterns of relapse. This review, prepared by an interdisciplinary expert panel, describes the assessment of the response and classification of resistance to PD-1 therapy, briefly summarizes the potential mechanisms of resistance, and analyzes the medical needs of and therapeutic options for melanoma patients resistant to immune checkpoint inhibitors. We appraised clinical data from trials in the metastatic, adjuvant and neo-adjuvant settings to tabulate frequencies of resistance. For these three settings, the role of predictive biomarkers for resistance is critically discussed, as well as are multimodal therapeutic options or novel immunotherapeutic approaches which may help patients overcome resistance to immune checkpoint therapy. The lack of suitable biomarkers and the currently modest outcomes of novel therapeutic regimens for overcoming resistance, most of them with a PD-1 backbone, support our recommendation to include as many patients as possible in novel or ongoing clinical trials.

Early switch from run-in treatment with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib to atezolizumab after 3 months leads to rapid loss of tumour control in patients with advanced BRAFV600-positive melanoma: The ImmunoCobiVem phase 2 randomised trial

AIM

ImmunoCobiVem investigated whether a planned switch to atezolizumab after achieving tumour control during run-in with vemurafenib + cobimetinib improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to continuous targeted therapy (TT) in patients with previously untreated advanced BRAF^V600-mutated melanoma.

METHODS

In this multicenter phase 2 study, patients received vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. After 3months, patients without progressive disease (PD) were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue vemurafenib + cobimetinib (Arm A) or switch to atezolizumab (Arm B) until first documented PD (PD1). Primary outcome was PFS1 (time from start of run-in until PD1 or death). OS and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 185 patients enroled between November 2016 and December 2019, 135 were randomly assigned after the run-in period (Arm A, n = 69; Arm B, n = 66). Median PFS1 was significantly longer in Arm A versus Arm B (13.9 versus 5.9months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.84; P_Stratified=0.001). Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR 1.22; 95%CI, 0.69-2.16; P_Stratified=0.389); 2-year OS was higher in Arm B versus Arm A (67%; 95%CI, 53-78 versus 58%; 95%CI, 45-70). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55% of patients in Arm A and 64% in Arm B; treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation of any drug in 7% and 9% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with BRAF^V600-mutated advanced melanoma who achieve tumour control with TT, early switch at 3months to atezolizumab led to rapid loss of tumour control but provided a numerical OS benefit at 2years compared with continued TT.

Abstract 965: Genomic heterogeneity and ploidy identify patients with intrinsic resistance to PD-1 blockade in metastatic melanoma

Background: Despite significant advances, only a subset of patients with advanced melanoma treated with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) experience durable responses, and biomarkers to predict response are limited. Further, while combination ICB has higher response rates and improved progression-free survival compared to single-agent therapy in the front-line setting, there is significantly increased toxicity with combination ICB, and biomarkers to identify patients who would disproportionately benefit from combination therapy vs aPD-1 ICB are poorly characterized. Methods: To understand resistance mechanisms to ICB therapy, we analyzed whole-exome-sequencing (WES) of pre-treatment tumor and matched normal tissue from 4 cohorts of previously ICB-naïve, aPD-1 treated patients (n=140). The SKCM TCGA cohort (from a pre-immuno- and targeted-therapy time period) was used for comparison to understand the prognostic and predictive role of the features identified. We then developed a parsimonious predictive model to identify patients with intrinsic resistance (PD as BOR) on aPD1 treatment with high specificity. Finally, we analyzed two additional independent cohorts to validate the model and to test whether patients predicted to have intrinsic resistance to single-agent aPD-1 may respond to combination ICB. Results: We found that high intratumoral genomic heterogeneity and low ploidy robustly identified patients with intrinsic resistance to aPD-1 within and across each independent cohort. Compared to the TCGA SKCM (“untreated” cohort), genomic heterogeneity specifically predicted response (Mann-Whitney p=0.018) and survival (multivariate Cox log rank p=0.002) in the ICB treated cohorts, but not in the untreated cohort, while ploidy was prognostic of overall survival in the “untreated” (by targeted therapy or ICB) group. (log-rank p=0.01). To establish clinically actionable predictions, we optimized a simple decision tree using genomic ploidy and heterogeneity and identified with high confidence a subset of patients with intrinsic resistance (PPV=90%) and significantly worse survival on aPD1 treatment (optimized decision tree OS log-rank p&lt;0.001; PFS log-rank p&lt;0.001). We then validated this model in a set of independent cohorts, and further demonstrate that these features and predictions of the model are independent of known clinical features and previously reported molecular biomarkers associated with poor-risk disease or poor response to ICB. Finally, in an additional cohort, we found that a significant proportion of patients predicted to have intrinsic resistance to single agent aPD-1 responded to combination aPD1+aCTLA4. Conclusions: These findings nominate the clinical and biological importance of genomic heterogeneity and ploidy, and sets a concrete framework towards clinical actionability, broadly advancing precision medicine in oncology.

Citation Format: Giuseppe Tarantino, Cora A. Ricker, Annette Wang, Will Ge, Amy Y. Huang, Shariq Madha, Jiajia Chen, Yingxiao Shi, Dennie T. Frederick, Samuel Freeman, Marta M. Holovatska, Michael P. Manos, Lisa Zimmer, Alexander Rösch, Anne Zaremba, Brendan Reardon, Jihye Park, Haitham Elmarakeby, Bastian Schilling, Anita Giobbie-Hurder, Natalie Vokes, Elizabeth I. Buchbinder, Keith Flaherty, Rizwan Haq, Catherine Wu, Genevieve Boland, F. Stephen Hodi, Eliezer Van Allen, Dirk Schadendorf, David Liu. Genomic heterogeneity and ploidy identify patients with intrinsic resistance to PD-1 blockade in metastatic melanoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 965.

The Latest Option: Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Dual immune checkpoint inhibition with ipilimumab plus nivolumab is currently the most effective, but also by far the most toxic treatment for advanced melanoma. Therefore, other combination partners that also lead to high and long-lasting responses but cause fewer adverse events were explored.

RECENT FINDINGS

Relatlimab, a LAG-3 blocking antibody, was investigated in combination with nivolumab in a phase 2/3 randomized double-blind trial (RELATIVITY-047) and could demonstrate significantly improved progression-free survival in treatment-naive advanced melanoma patients compared with nivolumab monotherapy. While the safety profile is more favorable than that of ipilimumab plus nivolumab, no significant survival benefit has yet been demonstrated with the new combination over nivolumab monotherapy. The approval of relatlimab plus nivolumab by both the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency expands the arsenal of treatment options for melanoma but raises new questions in clinical practice and a re-evaluation of currently established treatment standards and sequences.

Brain metastasis and survival outcomes after first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma: a multicenter DeCOG study on 1704 patients from the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability of effective systemic therapies, a significant number of advanced melanoma patients develops brain metastases. This study investigated differences in incidence and time to diagnosis of brain metastasis and survival outcomes dependent on the type of first-line therapy.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic, non-resectable melanoma (AJCCv8 stage IIIC-V) without brain metastasis at start of first-line therapy (1L-therapy) were identified from the prospective multicenter real-world skin cancer registry ADOREG. Study endpoints were incidence of brain metastasis, brain metastasis-free survival (BMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of 1704 patients, 916 were BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) and 788 were BRAF V600 mutant (BRAFmut). Median follow-up time after start of 1L-therapy was 40.4 months. BRAFwt patients received 1L-therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) against CTLA-4+PD-1 (n=281) or PD-1 (n=544). In BRAFmut patients, 1L-therapy was ICI in 415 patients (CTLA-4+PD-1, n=108; PD-1, n=264), and BRAF+MEK targeted therapy (TT) in 373 patients. After 24 months, 1L-therapy with BRAF+MEK resulted in a higher incidence of brain metastasis compared with PD-1±CTLA-4 (BRAF+MEK, 30.3%; CTLA-4+PD-1, 22.2%; PD-1, 14.0%). In multivariate analysis, BRAFmut patients developed brain metastases earlier on 1L-therapy with BRAF+MEK than with PD-1±CTLA-4 (CTLA-4+PD-1: HR 0.560, 95% CI 0.332 to 0.945, p=0.030; PD-1: HR 0.575, 95% CI 0.372 to 0.888, p=0.013). Type of 1L-therapy, tumor stage, and age were independent prognostic factors for BMFS in BRAFmut patients. In BRAFwt patients, tumor stage was independently associated with longer BMFS; ECOG Performance status (ECOG-PS), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and tumor stage with OS. CTLA-4+PD-1 did not result in better BMFS, PFS, or OS than PD-1 in BRAFwt patients. For BRAFmut patients, multivariate Cox regression revealed ECOG-PS, type of 1L-therapy, tumor stage, and LDH as independent prognostic factors for PFS and OS. 1L-therapy with CTLA-4+PD-1 led to longer OS than PD-1 (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.122 to 3.455, p=0.018) or BRAF+MEK (HR 2.41, 95% CI 1.432 to 4.054, p=0.001), without PD-1 being superior to BRAF+MEK.

CONCLUSIONS

In BRAFmut patients 1L-therapy with PD-1±CTLA-4 ICI resulted in a delayed and less frequent development of brain metastasis compared with BRAF+MEK TT. 1L-therapy with CTLA-4+PD-1 showed superior OS compared with PD-1 and BRAF+MEK. In BRAFwt patients, no differences in brain metastasis and survival outcomes were detected for CTLA-4+PD-1 compared with PD-1.

Characterisation and outcome of RAC1 mutated melanoma

BACKGROUND

Activating hot spot R29S mutations in RAC1, a small GTPase influencing several cellular processes including cell proliferation and cytoskeleton rearrangement, have been reported in up to 9% of sun-exposed melanomas. Clinical characteristics and treatment implications of RAC1 mutations in melanoma remain unclear.

METHODS

We investigated the largest set (n = 64) of RAC1 mutated melanoma patients reported to date, including a retrospective single institution cohort (n = 34) from the University Hospital Essen and a prospective multicentre cohort (n = 30) from the translational study Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM; CA209-578), for patient and tumour characteristics as well as therapy outcomes.

RESULTS

From 3037 sequenced melanoma samples screened RAC1 mutations occurred in ^∼2% of samples (64/3037). The most common RAC1 mutation was P29S (95%, 61/64). The majority of tumours had co-occuring MAP kinase mutations (88%, 56/64); mostly activating NRAS (47%, 30/64) mutations, followed by activating BRAF (28%, 18/64) and NF1 (25%, 16/64) mutations. RAC1 mutated melanomas were almost exclusively of cutaneous origin (84%, 54/64) or of unknown primary (MUP, 14%, 9/64). C > T alterations were the most frequent mutation type identified demonstrating a UV-signature for RAC1 mutated melanoma. Most patients with unresectable disease (39) received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) (77%, 30/39). Objective response rate of first-line treatment in patients with stage III/IV disease was 21%; median overall survival was 47.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

RAC1 mutated melanomas are rare, mostly of cutaneous origin and frequently harbour concomitant MAP kinase mutations, particularly in NRAS. Patients with advanced disease benefit from systemic treatment with ICI.

Efficacy of ipilimumab 3mg/kg following progression on low dose ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

Differing doses of ipilimumab (IPI) are used in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody in advanced melanoma. There is no data on the outcomes of patients who progress following low-dose IPI (< 3 mg/kg) and are subsequently treated with IPI 3 mg/kg (IPI3). We conducted a multicentre retrospective survey to assess the efficacy of this strategy.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage III, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma who received low dose IPI (< 3 mg/kg) with an anti-PD1 antibody with recurrence (neo/adjuvant) or progressive disease (metastatic), who then received IPI3± anti-PD1 antibody were eligible. Best investigator-determined Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed.

RESULTS

Total 36 patients received low-dose IPI with an anti-PD1 antibody, 18 (50%) in the neo/adjuvant and 18 (50%) in the metastatic setting. Of which, 20 (56%) had primary resistance and 16 (44%) had acquired resistance. All patients received IPI3 for unresectable stage III or IV melanoma; median age 60 (29-78), 18 (50%) M1d disease, 32 (89%) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Around 35 (97%) received IPI3 with nivolumab and 1 received IPI3 alone. The response rate to IPI3 was 9/36 (25%). In patients with primary resistance, the response rate was 6/20 (30%). After a median follow-up of 22 months (95% CI: 15-27 months), the median PFS and OS were not reached in patients who responded; 1-year PFS and OS were 73% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

IPI3 following recurrence/progression on low dose IPI has clinical activity, including in primary resistance. IPI dosing is therefore critical in a subset of patients.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in young adults with metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

The integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for the treatment of melanoma has resulted in remarkable and durable responses. Given the potential role of immunosenescence, age may contribute to differential ICI efficacy and toxicity. While older patients have been studied in detail, outcomes from ICI in young patients (≤40 years) are not well characterised.

METHODS

We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or ICI combination (ipilimumab and anti-PD-1). Response rates, survival, and toxicities were examined based on age comparing those under 40 years of age with older patients (age 41-70 and ≥ 71 years).

RESULTS

A total of 676 patients were included: 190 patients (28%) aged ≤40 years, 313 (46%) between ages 41-70, and 173 patients (26%) aged ≥71. Patients ≤40 years had higher response rates (53% vs 38%, p = 0.035) and improved progression-free survival (median 13.7 vs 4.0 months, p = 0.032) with combination ICI compared to monotherapy. Progression-free survival was similar among groups while overall survival was inferior in patients >70 years, who had low response rates to combination therapy (28%). ICIs had a similar incidence of severe toxicities, though hepatotoxicity was particularly common in younger patients vs. patients >40 with monotherapy (9% vs. 2%, p = 0.007) or combination ICI (37% vs. 10%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ICIs had comparable efficacy between younger and older patients, although outcomes were superior with combination ICI compared to monotherapy in patients aged ≤40 years. Toxicity incidence was similar across age groups, though organs affected were substantially different.

Immune signatures predict development of autoimmune toxicity in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are among the most promising treatment options for melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While ICIs can induce effective anti-tumor responses, they may also drive serious immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Identifying biomarkers to predict which patients will suffer from irAEs would enable more accurate clinical risk-benefit analysis for ICI treatment and may also shed light on common or distinct mechanisms underpinning treatment success and irAEs.

METHODS

In this prospective multi-center study, we combined a multi-omics approach including unbiased single-cell profiling of over 300 peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples and high-throughput proteomics analysis of over 500 serum samples to characterize the systemic immune compartment of patients with melanoma or NSCLC before and during treatment with ICIs.

FINDINGS

When we combined the parameters obtained from the multi-omics profiling of patient blood and serum, we identified potential predictive biomarkers for ICI-induced irAEs. Specifically, an early increase in CXCL9/CXCL10/CXCL11 and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) 1 to 2 weeks after the start of therapy are likely indicators of heightened risk of developing irAEs. In addition, an early expansion of Ki-67⁺ regulatory T cells (Tregs) and Ki-67⁺ CD8⁺ T cells is also likely to be associated with increased risk of irAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that the combination of these cellular and proteomic biomarkers may help to predict which patients are likely to benefit most from ICI therapy and those requiring intensive monitoring for irAEs.

FUNDING

This work was primarily funded by the European Research Council, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Cancer League, and the Forschungsförderung of the Kantonsspital St. Gallen.

Ipilimumab plus nivolumab in avelumab-refractory Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicenter study of the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare, highly aggressive skin cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation. Immune checkpoint inhibition has significantly improved treatment outcomes in metastatic disease with response rates to programmed cell death protein 1/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibition of up to 62%. However, primary and secondary resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition remains a so far unsolved clinical challenge since effective and safe treatment options for these patients are lacking.Fourteen patients with advanced (non-resectable stage III or stage IV, Union international contre le cancer 2017) Merkel cell carcinoma with primary resistance to the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab receiving subsequent therapy (second or later line) with ipilimumab plus nivolumab (IPI/NIVO) were identified in the prospective multicenter skin cancer registry ADOREG. Five of these 14 patients were reported previously and were included in this analysis with additional follow-up. Overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events were analyzed.All 14 patients received avelumab as first-line treatment. Thereof, 12 patients had shown primary resistance with progressive disease in the first tumor assessment, while two patients had initially experienced a short-lived stabilization (stable disease). Six patients had at least one systemic treatment in between avelumab and IPI/NIVO. In total, 7 patients responded to IPI/NIVO (overall response rate 50%), and response was ongoing in 4 responders at last follow-up. After a median follow-up of 18.85 months, median PFS was 5.07 months (95% CI 2.43-not available (NA)), and median OS was not reached. PFS rates at 12 months and 24 months were 42.9% and 26.8 %, respectively. The OS rate at 36 months was 64.3%. Only 3 (21%) patients did not receive all 4 cycles of IPI/NIVO due to immune-related adverse events.In this multicenter evaluation, we observed high response rates, a durable benefit and promising OS rates after treatment with later-line combined IPI/NIVO. In conclusion, our patient cohort supports our prior findings with an encouraging activity of second-line or later-line IPI/NIVO in patients with anti-PD-L1-refractory Merkel cell carcinoma.

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.

Circulating cell-free messenger RNA enables non-invasive pan-tumour monitoring of melanoma therapy independent of the mutational genotype

BACKGROUND

Plasma-derived tumour-specific cell-free nucleic acids are increasingly utilized as a minimally invasive, real-time biomarker approach in many solid tumours. Circulating tumour DNA of melanoma-specific mutations is currently the best studied liquid biopsy biomarker for melanoma. However, the combination of hotspot genetic alterations covers only around 80% of all melanoma patients. Therefore, alternative approaches are needed to enable the follow-up of all genotypes, including wild-type.

METHODS

We identified KPNA2, DTL, BACE2 and DTYMK messenger RNA (mRNA) upregulated in melanoma versus nevi tissues by unsupervised data mining (N = 175 melanoma, N = 20 normal skin, N = 6 benign nevi) and experimentally confirmed differential mRNA expression in vitro (N = 18 melanoma, N = 8 benign nevi). Circulating cell-free RNA (cfRNA) was analysed in 361 plasma samples (collected before and during therapy) from 100 melanoma patients and 18 healthy donors. Absolute cfRNA copies were quantified on droplet digital PCR.

RESULTS

KPNA2, DTL, BACE2 and DTYMK cfRNA demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy between melanoma patients' and healthy donors' plasma (AUC > 86%, p < .0001). cfRNA copies increased proportionally with increasing tumour burden independently of demographic variables and even remained elevated in individuals with radiological absence of disease. Re-analysis of single-cell transcriptomes revealed a pan-tumour origin of cfRNA, including endothelial, cancer-associated fibroblasts, macrophages and B cells beyond melanoma cells as cellular sources. Low baseline cfRNA levels were associated with significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (KPNA2 HR = .54, p = .0362; DTL HR = .60, p = .0349) and overall survival (KPNA2 HR = .52, p = .0237; BACE2 HR = .55, p = .0419; DTYMK HR = .43, p = .0393). Lastly, we found that cfRNA copies significantly increased during therapy in non-responders compared to responders regardless of therapy and mutational subtypes and that the increase of KPNA2 (HR = 1.73, p = .0441) and DTYMK (HR = 1.82, p = .018) cfRNA during therapy was predictive of shorter PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

In sum, we identified a new panel of cfRNAs for a pan-tumour liquid biopsy approach and demonstrated its utility as a prognostic, therapy-monitoring tool independent of the melanoma mutational genotype.

Genetic and methylation profiles distinguish benign, malignant and spitzoid melanocytic tumors

Accurate classification of melanocytic tumors is important for prognostic evaluation, treatment and follow-up protocols of patients. The majority of melanocytic proliferations can be classified solely based on clinical and pathological criteria, however in select cases a definitive diagnostic assessment remains challenging and additional diagnostic biomarkers would be advantageous. We analyzed melanomas, nevi, Spitz nevi and atypical spitzoid tumors using parallel sequencing (exons of 611 genes and 507 gene translocation analysis) and methylation arrays (850k Illumina EPIC). By combining detailed genetic and epigenetic analysis with reference-based and reference-free DNA methylome deconvolution we compared Spitz nevi to nevi and melanoma and assessed the potential for these methods in classifying challenging spitzoid tumors. Results were correlated with clinical and histologic features. Spitz nevi were found to cluster independently of nevi and melanoma and demonstrated a different mutation profile. Multiple copy number alterations and TERT promoter mutations were identified only in melanomas. Genome-wide methylation in Spitz nevi was comparable to benign nevi while the Leukocytes UnMethylation for Purity (LUMP) algorithm in Spitz nevi was comparable to melanoma. Histologically difficult to classify Spitz tumor cases were assessed which, based on methylation arrays, clustered between Spitz nevi and melanoma and in terms of genetic profile or copy number variations demonstrated worrisome features suggesting a malignant neoplasm. Comprehensive sequencing and methylation analysis verify Spitz nevi as an independent melanocytic entity distinct from both nevi and melanoma. Combined genetic and methylation assays can offer additional insights in diagnosing difficult to classify Spitzoid tumors.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus placebo in patients with resected stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (IMMUNED): final results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

The IMMUNED trial previously showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival for adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab as well as for adjuvant nivolumab alone in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after resection or radiotherapy. Here, we report the final analysis, including overall survival data.

METHODS

IMMUNED was an investigator-sponsored, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-arm, phase 2 trial conducted in 20 academic medical centres in Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after surgery or radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks), nivolumab monotherapy (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks), or matching placebo, for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were time-to-recurrence, overall survival, progression-free survival or recurrence-free survival 2 (in patients in the placebo group who crossed over to nivolumab monotherapy after experiencing disease recurrence), and safety endpoints. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02523313), and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 2, 2015, and Nov 20, 2018, 175 patients were enrolled in the study, and 167 were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=56), nivolumab plus ipilimumab-matching placebo (n=59), or double placebo control (n=52). At a median follow-up of 49·2 months (IQR 34·9-58·1), 4-year recurrence-free survival was 64·2% (95% CI 49·2-75·9) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 31·4% (19·7-43·8) in the nivolumab alone group, and 15·0% (6·7-26·6) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo was 0·25 (97·5% CI 0·13-0·48; p<0·0001), and for the nivolumab group versus placebo was 0·60 (0·36-1·00; p=0·024). Median overall survival was not reached in any treatment group. The HR for overall survival was significantly in favour of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo (HR 0·41; 95% CI 0·17-0·99; p=0·040), but not for the nivolumab group versus placebo (HR 0·75; 0·36-1·56; p=0·44). 4-year overall survival was 83·8% (95% CI 68·8-91·9) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 72·6% (57·4-83·2) in the nivolumab alone group, and 63·1% (46·9-75·6) in the placebo group. The median progression-free survival or recurrence-free survival 2 of patients in the placebo group who crossed over to nivolumab monotherapy after experiencing disease recurrence was not reached (95% CI 21·2 months to not reached). Rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events remained largely unchanged compared with our previous report, occurring in 71% (95% CI 57-82) of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, and 29% (95% CI 17-42) of patients receiving nivolumab alone. There were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Both active regimens continued to show significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with placebo in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease who were at high risk of recurrence. Overall survival was significantly improved for patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with placebo. Use of subsequent anti-PD-1-based therapy was high in patients in the placebo group after recurrence and most likely impacted the overall survival comparison of nivolumab alone versus placebo. The recurrence-free and overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over placebo reinforces the change of practice already initiated for the treatment of patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Characteristics of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced encephalitis and comparison with HSV-1 and anti-LGI1 encephalitis: A retrospective multicentre cohort study

AIM

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced encephalitis (ICI-iE) is a rare but life-threatening toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. We aim to identify the characteristics of ICI-iE and describe factors that discriminate it from herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1 encephalitis and anti-leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (anti-LGI1) encephalitis, as two alternative entities of encephalitis.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicentre cohort study, we collected patients with ICI-iE reported to the Side Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology from January 2015 to September 2021 and compared their clinical features and outcome with 46 consecutive patients with HSV-1 or anti-LGI1 encephalitis who were treated at a German neurological referral centre.

RESULTS

Thirty cases of ICI-iE, 25 cases of HSV-1 encephalitis and 21 cases of anti-LGI1 encephalitis were included. Clinical presentation of ICI-iE was highly variable and resembled that of HSV-1 encephalitis, while impairment of consciousness (66% vs. 5%, p = .007), confusion (83% vs. 43%; p = .02), disorientation (83% vs. 29%; p = .007) and aphasia (43% vs. 0%; p = .007) were more common in ICI-iE than in anti-LGI1 encephalitis. Antineuronal antibodies (17/18, 94%) and MRI (18/30, 60%) were mostly negative in ICI-iE, but cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) showed pleocytosis and/or elevated protein levels in almost all patients (28/29, 97%). Three patients (10%) died of ICI-iE. Early immunosuppressive treatment was associated with better outcome (r = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

ICI-iE is a heterogeneous entity without specific clinical features. CSF analysis has the highest diagnostic value, as it reveals inflammatory changes in most patients and enables the exclusion of infection. Early treatment of ICI-iE is essential to prevent sequelae and death.

COVID-19 vaccination in advanced skin cancer patients receiving systemic anticancer treatment: A prospective singlecenter study investigating seroconversion rates

Background

COVID-19 vaccination reduces risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 severity and death. However, the rate of seroconversion after COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients requiring systemic anticancer treatment is poorly investigated. The aim of the present study was to determine the rate of seroconversion after COVID-19 vaccination in advanced skin cancer patients under active systemic anticancer treatment.

Methods

This prospective single-center study of a consecutive sample of advanced skin cancer patients was performed from May 2020 until October 2021. Inclusion criteria were systemic treatment for advanced skin cancer, known COVID-19 vaccination status, repetitive anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG serum quantification and first and second COVID-19 vaccination. Primary outcome was the rate of anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG seroconversion after complete COVID-19 vaccination.

Results

Of 60 patients with advanced skin cancers, 52 patients (86.7%) received immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), seven (11.7%) targeted agents (TT), one (1.7%) chemotherapy. Median follow-up time was 12.7 months. During study progress ten patients had died from skin cancer prior to vaccination completion, six patients were lost to follow-up and three patients had refused vaccination. 41 patients completed COVID-19 vaccination with two doses and known serological status. Of those, serum testing revealed n=3 patients (7.3%) as anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG positive prior to vaccination, n=32 patients (78.0%) showed a seroconversion, n=6 patients (14.6%) did not achieve a seroconversion. Patients failing serological response were immunocompromised due to concomitant hematological malignancy, previous chemotherapy or autoimmune disease requiring immunosuppressive comedications. Immunosuppressive comedication due to severe adverse events of ICI therapy did not impair seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination. Of 41 completely vaccinated patients, 35 (85.4%) were under treatment with ICI, five (12.2%) with TT, and one (2.4%) with chemotherapy. 27 patients (65.9%) were treated non adjuvantly. Of these patients, 13 patients had achieved objective response (complete/partial response) as best tumor response (48.2%).

Conclusion and relevance

Rate of anti-SARS-CoV-2-S IgG seroconversion in advanced skin cancer patients under systemic anticancer treatment after complete COVID-19 vaccination is comparable to other cancer entities. An impaired serological response was observed in patients who were immunocompromised due to concomitant diseases or previous chemotherapies. Immunosuppressive comedication due to severe adverse events of ICI did not impair the serological response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Clinical and pathological characteristics of familial melanoma with germline TERT promoter variants

Around 10% of melanoma occur in patients with a suspected familial predisposition. TERT promoter mutations are the most common somatic hotspot mutations in human cancers. However, only two families with germline mutations have been identified to date. We present detailed histological, clinical and molecular pathologic analyses of affected patients and details of newly identified individuals in one of these previously reported families. TERT (NM_198253.3) Chr.5:1,295,161T>C (c.-57 T>C) promoter variants were detected in all melanoma-affected (n=18) and one non-diseased family member. Median age at diagnosis was 30 years (n=18, range 16-46 years, 2 unknown). While most primary melanoma arose on the upper extremities (n=7, 21%) and were superficial spreading melanoma (SSM, n=8, 24%), many primary melanoma also originated from non UV-exposed mucosal (n=2, 6%) and acral (n=4, 12%) locations. One SSM sample harboured a Chr.5:1,295,228C>T TERT promoter region in addition to the germline Chr.5:1,295,161T>C variant, arguing additional pathway activation can support tumor pathogenesis. Patients treated with BRAF inhibitor and/or immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) showed responses, although of limited duration. One mucosal melanoma harboured both a KIT copy number gain and an activating c.1727 p.Leu576Pro mutation. Following modest response to ICI, subsequent KIT inhibitor (imatinib) therapy demonstrated an ongoing complete pathological response (currently 7 months).

Right ventricular and atrial strain in patients with advanced melanoma undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy

AIMS

While immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy significantly improves survival rates in advanced melanoma, ICI can evoke severe immune-related cardiovascular adverse events. Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction negatively impacts the outcomes in cardiovascular diseases and may be an early sign for overall cardiotoxicity. We aimed to assess RV function in melanoma patients undergoing ICI therapy using conventional echocardiographic and strain imaging techniques.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively examined 30 patients (40% women, age 59 ± 13 years) with advanced melanoma (stage III/IV) before and 4 weeks after the start of ICI therapy (follow-up at 39 ± 15 days); n = 15 of the patients received nivolumab, and n = 15 received the combination therapy nivolumab/ipilimumab. Two-dimensional echocardiography with assessment of RV longitudinal strain of the free wall (RV-LSFW) and assessment of right atrial (RA) strain from speckle tracking was performed at baseline and after the start of ICI therapy. Short-term ICI therapy caused a reduction of RV-LSFW (-25.5 ± 6.4% vs. -22.4 ± 4.3%, P = 0.002) and of RA strain during contraction phase (-10.6 ± 3.5% vs. -7.7 ± 3.1%, P = 0.001). Conventional parameters including tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), fractional area change (FAC), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure were not different between the two time points (TAPSE 26 ± 5 vs. 25 ± 5 mm, P = 0.125; FAC 38 ± 13% vs. 38 ± 14%, P = 0.750; and pulmonary artery systolic pressure 27 ± 10 vs. 25 ± 8 mmHg, P = 0.268).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of RV and RA strain shows alterations even in a short-term follow-up, while changes in RV function are not visible by conventional RV parameters. Alterations in RV and RA strain could be early signs of cardiotoxicity and therefore should be assessed in patients undergoing ICI therapy.

Phase Ib/II Trial of Ribociclib in Combination with Binimetinib in Patients with NRAS-mutant Melanoma

PURPOSE

Enhanced MAPK pathway signaling and cell-cycle checkpoint dysregulation are frequent in NRAS-mutant melanoma and, as such, the regimen of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib and the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib is a rational combination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a phase Ib/II, open-label study of ribociclib + binimetinib in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma (NCT01781572). Primary objectives were to estimate the MTD/recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of the combination (phase Ib) and to characterize combination antitumor activity at the RP2D (phase II). Tumor genomic characterization and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Ten patients (16.4%) experienced dose-limiting toxicities in cycle 1 of phase Ib. Overall response rate in the phase II cohort (n = 41) for the selected RP2D (binimetinib 45 mg twice daily + ribociclib 200 mg once daily, 21 days on/7 days off) was 19.5% [8/41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 8.8-34.9]. The response rate was 32.5% (13/40; 95% CI, 20.1-48.0) in patients with NRAS mutation with concurrent alterations of CDKN2A, CDK4, or CCND1. Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI, 3.5-5.6) and median overall survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.3-14.2) for all patients. Common treatment-related toxicities included creatine phosphokinase elevation, rash, edema, anemia, nausea, diarrhea, and fatigue. Pharmacokinetics and safety were consistent with single-agent data, supporting a lack of drug-drug interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Ribociclib + binimetinib can be safely administered and is clinically active in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma. Co-mutations of cell-cycle genes may define a population with greater likelihood of treatment benefit. See related commentary by Moschos, p. 2977.

Efficacy of anti-PD-1 and ipilimumab alone or in combination in acral melanoma

BACKGROUND

Acral melanoma is a rare melanoma subtype with poor prognosis. Importantly, these patients were not identified as a specific subgroup in the landmark melanoma trials involving ipilimumab and the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab. There is therefore an absence of prospective clinical trial evidence regarding the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in this population. Acral melanoma has lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) than other cutaneous sites, and primary site is associated with differences in TMB. However the impact of this on the effectiveness of immune CPIs is unknown. We examined the efficacy of CPIs in acral melanoma, including by primary site.

METHODS

Patients with unresectable stage III/IV acral melanoma treated with CPI (anti-PD-1 and/or ipilimumab) were studied. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR); secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

In total, 325 patients were included: 234 (72%) plantar, 69 (21%) subungual and 22 (7%) palmar primary sites. First CPI included: 184 (57%) anti-PD-1, 59 (18%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination and 82 (25%) ipilimumab. ORR was significantly higher with initial anti-PD-1/ipilimumab compared with anti-PD-1 (43% vs 26%, HR 2.14, p=0.0004) and significantly lower with ipilimumab (15% vs 26%, HR 0.49, p=0.0016). Landmark PFS at 1 year was highest for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab at 34% (95% CI 24% to 49%), compared with 26% (95% CI 20% to 33%) with anti-PD-1 and 10% (95% CI 5% to 19%) with ipilimumab. Despite a trend for increased PFS, anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.85, p=0.35) or OS over anti-PD-1 (HR 1.30, p=0.16), potentially due to subsequent therapies and high rates of acquired resistance. No outcome differences were found between primary sites.

CONCLUSION

While the ORR to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab was significantly higher than anti-PD-1 and PFS numerically higher, in this retrospective cohort this benefit did not translate to improved OS. Future trials should specifically include patients with acral melanoma, to help determine the optimal management of this important melanoma subtype.

Efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy or in combination with ipilimumab after BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with V600BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma have higher rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with first-line anti-PD1 (PD1]+anti-CTLA-4 (IPI) versus PD1. Whether this is also true after BRAF/MEKi therapy is unknown. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of PD1 versus IPI +PD1 after BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi).

METHODS

Patients with V600BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma treated with BRAF/MEKi who had subsequent PD1 versus IPI+PD1 at eight centers were included. The endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), PFS, OS and safety in each group.

RESULTS

Of 200 patients with V600E (75%) or non-V600E (25%) mutant metastatic melanoma treated with BRAF/MEKi (median time of treatment 7.6 months; treatment cessation due to progressive disease in 77%), 115 (57.5%) had subsequent PD1 and 85 (42.5%) had IPI+PD1. Differences in patient characteristics between PD1 and IPI+PD1 groups included, age (med. 63 vs 54 years), time between BRAF/MEKi and PD1±IPI (16 vs 4 days), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) of ≥1 (62% vs 44%), AJCC M1C/M1D stage (72% vs 94%) and progressing brain metastases at the start of PD1±IPI (34% vs 57%). Median follow-up from PD1±IPI start was 37.8 months (95% CI, 33.9 to 52.9). ORR was 36%; 34% with PD1 vs 39% with IPI+PD1 (p=0.5713). Median PFS was 3.4 months; 3.4 with PD1 vs 3.6 months with IPI+PD1 (p=0.6951). Median OS was 15.4 months; 14.4 for PD1 vs 20.5 months with IPI+PD1 (p=0.2603). The rate of grade 3 or 4 toxicities was higher with IPI+PD1 (31%) vs PD1 (7%). ORR, PFS and OS were numerically higher with IPI+PD1 vs PD1 across most subgroups except for females, those with <10 days between BRAF/MEKi and PD1±IPI, and those with stage III/M1A/M1B melanoma. The combination of ECOG PS=0 and absence of liver metastases identified patients with >3 years OS (area under the curve, AUC=0.74), while ECOG PS ≥1, progressing brain metastases and presence of bone metastases predicted primary progression (AUC=0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

IPI+PD1 and PD1 after BRAF/MEKi have similar outcomes despite worse baseline prognostic features in the IPI+PD1 group, however, IPI+PD1 is more toxic. A combination of clinical factors can identify long-term survivors, but less accurately those with primary resistance to immunotherapy after targeted therapy.

Single-agent anti-PD-1 or combined with ipilimumab in patients with mucosal melanoma: an international, retrospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

Mucosal melanoma (MM) is a rare melanoma subtype with distinct biology and poor prognosis. Data on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is limited. We determined the efficacy of ICIs in MM, analysed by primary site and ethnicity/race.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study from 25 cancer centres in Australia, Europe, USA and Asia. Patients with histologically confirmed MM were treated with anti-PD1+/-ipilimumab. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) by primary site (naso-oral, urogenital, anorectal, other), ethnicity/race (Caucasian, Asian, Other) and treatment. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 545 patients were included: 331 (63%) Caucasian, 176 (33%) Asian and 20 (4%) Other. Primary sites included 113 (21%) anorectal, 178 (32%) urogenital, 206 (38%) naso-oral and 45 (8%) other. 348 (64%) received anti-PD1 and 197 (36%) anti-PD1/ipilimumab. RR, PFS and OS did not differ by primary site, ethnicity/race or treatment. RR for naso-oral was numerically higher for anti-PD1/ipilimumab (40%, 95% CI 29-54%) compared with anti-PD1 (29%, 95% CI 21-37%). 35% of patients that initially responded progressed. Median duration of response (mDOR) was 26 months (95% CI 18-NR [Not Reached]). Factors associated with short PFS were ECOG PS ≥3 (p<0.01), LDH >ULN (p=0.01), lung metastases (p<0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (p<0.01). Factors associated with short OS were ECOG PS ≥1 (p<0.01), LDH >ULN (p=0.03), lung metastases (p<0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

MM has poor prognosis. Treatment efficacy of anti-PD1+/-ipilimumab was similar and did not differ by ethnicity/race. Naso-oral primaries had numerically higher response to anti-PD1/ipilimumab, without difference in survival. The addition of ipilimumab did not show greater benefit over anti-PD1 for other primary sites. In responders, mDOR was short and acquired resistance was common. Other factors, including site and number of metastases were associated with survival.

Multicenter real-world data of adjuvant treatment and disease outcome of patients with melanoma with high-risk of recurrence

9570

Background: Clinical trials demonstrated a significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) of melanoma patients treated adjuvantly with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and targeted therapy (TT). As data from controlled trials are based on selected populations, we investigated melanoma patients with high risk of recurrence who opted for ICI, TT, or no adjuvant treatment (NoTx) under real-world conditions. Methods: In a prior analysis of this multicenter, retrospective cohort study, patients with resected melanoma stage III-IV between 06/2018 and 09/2019 were analyzed for adjuvant therapy choice (Lodde et al., Cancers 2021). In this follow-up study, the treatment course of ICI- and TT-treated patients as well as recurrence characteristics, subsequent management and outcomes also including NoTx patients were examined. Results: 814 patients were included (72 stage IIIA, 266 IIIB, 383 IIIC, 24 IIID, 69 IV; 309 BRAF mut); 533 patients received ICI (66%), 114 TT (14%, 36.9% of all BRAF mutated patients), 167 patients had opted for NoTx (21%). Median treatment duration was 10.2 and 11.7 months for ICI and TT, respectively. ICI was discontinued prematurely in 51% (273/533) and TT in 44% (50/114) of patients. The main reason for discontinuation was progressive disease (PD) in ICI patients (58%, 158/273) and adverse events in TT patients (60%, 33/50). At a median follow-up (FU) of 24.6 months for ICI, 25.3 months for TT, and 21.8 months for NoTx, 48% of ICI (255/533), 35% of TT (40/114), and 45% of NoTx (75/167) patients had developed a recurrence mostly at distant sites (ICI 62%, TT 63%, NoTx 64%). In patients with recurrence, median time from start of adjuvant treatment to 1st recurrence was 6.1 months in ICI and 17.6 months in TT. Median RFS was 32.0 months for ICI (95% CI 25.7-38.3), not reached for TT, and 22.3 months for NoTx (95% CI 15.2-29.4). Among BRAF mut patients with stage III, risk of recurrence was higher for ICI than TT (hazard ratio adjusted for age, sex and tumor stage, 2.31; 95% CI 1.56-3.43). Subsequent systemic treatment for the 1st recurrence was given in 76% (192/253) of ICI, 83% (33/40) of TT, and 53% (40/75) of NoTx patients. Among patients who received the 1st subsequent systemic treatment for metastatic disease, PD was the best response in 67% (82/123) for ICI, 55% (11/20) for TT, and 50% (16/32) for NoTX. Conclusions: After 2 years of FU, recurrences were mostly at distant sites in all groups. ICI had higher discontinuation rates and more and earlier recurrences than TT. BRAF mut melanoma patients treated with ICI had a significantly higher risk of relapse than TT-treated patients. Response to subsequent systemic treatment was low for both ICI and TT.

Efficacy and safety of sequencing with vemurafenib (V) plus cobimetinib (C) followed by atezolizumab (Atezo) in patients (pts) with advanced BRAFV600-positive melanoma: Interim analysis of the ImmunoCobiVem study

9548

Background: Immunotherapies (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT) have improved PFS and OS in BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma pts, but evidence regarding their optimal sequence is limited. The randomized phase 2 ImmunoCobiVem study evaluated efficacy and safety of an early switch to Atezo after initial treatment with V + C. Interim results are reported. Methods: Pts with previously untreated BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma received a 3-mo run-in with V (960 mg twice daily) + C (60 mg once daily for 21/28 days). Pts without PD/treatment interruption due to AEs during run-in were then randomized 1:1 to continue V + C (Arm A) or switch to Atezo (1200 mg every 3 wks; Arm B) until first documented PD (PD1), followed by crossover to the alternate treatment until second documented PD (PD2). End points were PFS1 (time from start of run-in until PD1 or death from any cause), PFS2 (time from start of run-in until PD2 or death from any cause), PFS3 (time from PD1 until PD2 or death from any cause), DCR, ORR, OS, and safety. Results: 185 pts were enrolled between Nov 2016 and Dec 2019 (63% male; median age 58 y); 135 pts completed run-in and were randomized to Arm A (n=69) or Arm B (n=66). At data cutoff, median follow-up for all pts was 19.0 mo. In Arm A, 36/69 pts (52%) discontinued V + C due to PD and 21/36 (58%) crossed over to Atezo; in Arm B, 49/66 pts (74%) discontinued Atezo due to PD and 35/49 (71%) crossed over to V + C. Median PFS1 was significantly longer in Arm A vs Arm B (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37–0.84; P=0.001), while median PFS3 was significantly shorter in Arm A vs Arm B (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.17–4.30; P=0.013); median PFS2 was not significantly different between arms (HR 1.57; 95% CI 0.83–2.96; P=0.163) (Table). During the randomized phase, ORR and DCR were higher in Arm A before crossover and in Arm B after crossover (Table). OS was similar between arms (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.69–2.16; P=0.389). Median (range) treatment duration across treatment phases was 11.2 mo (2.3–56.1) for Arm A and 10.7 mo (2.8–56.7) for Arm B. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55% of pts in Arm A and 64% in Arm B; AEs led to discontinuation in 10% and 12%, respectively. Conclusions: Early switch from V + C to Atezo is feasible and safe, but tumor control achieved in run-in is maintained in only a subset of pts on subsequent ICI monotherapy. Crossover to ICI monotherapy at PD results in low response, while response to TT re-exposure is frequent. Clinical trial information: NCT02902029. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of ipilimumab 3mg/kg following progression on low dose ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma

e21533

Background: Anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitors, such as ipilimumab (IPI), are commonly used in melanoma management. Whilst a clear dose-toxicity relationship exists, and a dose-response relationship is seen with monotherapy in people with anti PD-1 antibody-naïve melanoma, there is no data on the outcomes of patients who progress following low dose IPI and are subsequently treated with standard dose IPI. We conducted a multicentre, retrospective review to assess the efficacy of this strategy. Methods: Patients with resected stage III, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma who received low dose IPI (< 3mg/kg) with an anti-PD1 antibody in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant or metastatic setting with recurrence (neo/adjuvant) or progressive disease (metastatic) as best response, who then received standard dose IPI (3mg/kg, IPI3) alone or in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody were eligible. IPI dose, frequency and best investigator-assessed RECIST response were collected. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results: 36 patients from 8 centres; 27 (75%) male, BRAF V600 mutant (18, 50%). All patients received low dose IPI with an anti-PD1 antibody, 18 (50%) in the neo/adjuvant and 18 (50%) in the metastatic setting; 15 (42%) received IPI 1mg/kg every 6 weeks, 13 (36%) IPI 1mg/kg every 3 weeks, 3 (8%) IPI 50mg every 6 weeks or 100mg every 12 weeks respectively, and 2 (6%) IPI 1mg/kg every 8 weeks. 23 (64%) received >1 intervening line of systemic therapy prior to IPI3. The most common intervening therapy was BRAF/MEK inhibitors; 14/23 (61%) as 2nd line treatment, 4/8 (50%) as 3rd line treatment, and all progressed. All patients received standard dose IPI3 for unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma; median age 60 (29-78), 18 (50%) had M1d disease, 32 (89%) ECOG 0-1, 18 (50%) normal lactate dehydrogenase. 35 (97%) received IPI3 with nivolumab and 1 received single agent IPI3. 15 (42%) received 4 cycles of IPI3. The most common reason for IPI3 cessation was progressive disease (16, 44%). The response rate to IPI3 following progression on low dose IPI was 9/36 (25%); the disease control rate was 12/36 (33%). After a median follow up of 22 months (95% CI: 15-27 months), the median PFS and OS were not reached in patients who responded;1-year PFS and OS were 73% and 100% respectively. 13/36 (36%) had grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events (irAE). In 3/36 (8%), the same irAE was observed at low dose IPI and IPI3, and 1 patient had the same irAE (rash) at a higher grade with IPI3 compared to low dose IPI. Conclusions: Standard dose IPI3 following progression on low dose IPI has clinical activity.This is a reasonable treatment strategy for patients who progress on low dose IPI and provides further evidence of a dose-response relationship for IPI. Further research is needed to manage resistance to IPI with anti-PD1.

Management of infliximab-refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor gastrointestinal toxicity: A multicenter case series

2665

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) GI tox (gastritis, enteritis, colitis) is a major cause of morbidity and treatment-related death. Guidelines agree steroid-refractory cases warrant infliximab (IFx); however not all pts respond and best management of IFx-Refractory ICI GI toxicity (IRIGItox) is not clear. Methods: We conducted an international multi-centre retrospective case series. IRIGItox was defined as failure of symptom resolution ≤ Gr 1 (CTCAE v5.0) following ≥ 2 IFx doses or failure of symptom resolution ≤ Gr 2 after 1 dose. Data were extracted regarding demographics, steroid use, response and survival. Tox was graded at symptom onset and time of IFx failure. Efficacy of IFx refractory therapy was assessed by symptom resolution, time to resolution and steroid wean. Results: 78 pts were identified; med age 60 yrs (95% CI 56-65), 56% male. 70 (90%) had melanoma, 55 (71%) had advanced-stage, 60 (77%) received anti-CTLA-4 (with anti-PD1 50, single agent 10). Most had colitis (N=75, 96%) and ≥ Gr 3 tox (N=74, 95%) at symptom onset. Pre-IFx investigation varied: imaging 37%; faecal calprotectin 29%; endoscopy 59%. All pts received Med time to steroid initiation was 3 days (95% CI 2-4). 46 (59%) had primary steroid refractory disease,. Med time from symptom onset to IFx was 18 days (95% CI 12-23), a med 2 (range 1-6) doses of IFx were given, 69 (88%) pts received > 1 IFx dose. Across 78 pts, 105 post IFx treatments were given: calcineurin inhibitors (ciclosporin, tacrolimus, 32); antimetabolites (mycophenolate, azathioprine, 26); non-TNF-α MABs (vedolizumab, ustekinumab, 20); non-targeted anti-inflammatory (mesalazine, 16); non-pharmacological (colectomy 5, faecal transplant 1, photophoresis 1). 4 pts did not receive therapy for IRIGItox. Of these, 2 died of melanoma prior to resolution of tox; 1 had resolution after 4 doses IFx, 1 had recurrent melanoma and flare of tox on PD1 re-challenge. IRIGItox outcomes by post IFx treatment are shown in Table. Conclusions: This retrospective case series confirms heterogeneous management of IRIGItox. Non-pharmacological interventions and calcineurin inhibitors appear most likely to result in tox resolution. Calcineurin inhibitors have the shortest time to resolution in responders. Further details on post-IFx management and oncological outcomes will be examined. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of "second adjuvant" therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors after resection of recurrent melanoma following adjuvant PD-1–based immunotherapy

9575

Background: Both anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAK/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) reduce the risk of recurrence for patients with resected stage III melanoma. For patients with V600 BRAF-mutated melanoma who recur with resectable disease on or after adjuvant, many may be suitable for ‘second adjuvant' treatment after surgery. We sought to examine the efficacy and safety of ‘second adjuvant’ BRAF/MEKi in patients who recurred despite adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy. Methods: Patients with V600 BRAF-mutated melanoma treated with adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy for resected stage III/IV disease who recurred, underwent resection of recurrence and were then treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEKi were identified retrospectively from 13 centres. Demographics, disease characteristics, treatment details, and outcome data were examined. Results: 55 patients were included; median age at commencement of PD-1 was 53y, most were V600E (91%) and had IIIB (42%) or IIIC (44%) melanoma. PD-1 based adjuvant therapy included nivolumab (71%), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (14%), pembrolizumab (13%) and pembrolizumab plus mRNA-4157 vaccine (2%). Patients had initial recurrence after mean 8.4 months (95% CI 7.4-10.6), mainly while on treatment (65%), in regional nodes (42%), in-transit metastases (ITMs; 38%), both regional nodes and ITMs (7%) and distant metastases (13%). Surgical management included CLND (36%), selected nodal resection (11%), ITM resection (33%) and resection of distant metastasis (13%). A minority had adjuvant radiotherapy (17%). Stage at start of second adjuvant BRAF/MEKi included IIIB (29%), IIIC (53%) IIID (4%) and IV (15%). Patients received dabrafenib and trametinib (95%, N = 52) and encorafenib and binimetinib (5%, N = 3). After a median follow up of 21.4 months (19.7-25.4), 17 (31%) patients have recurred again. Mean duration of treatment was 9 months (95% CI 7.4-10.6); 20% ceased for toxicity, 7% for recurrence and 35% were on treatment at last follow up. The most common toxicity was pyrexia (43%) and 21% patients experienced a severe (G3-4) adverse event. Median RFS was 33.4 months (14.3.7-NR) and median DMFS was not reached. At 12 months, 72% (59-88) of patients were recurrence free and 90% (81-100) were free of distant recurrence. For those whose disease recurred again, most recurred after cessation of second adjuvant BRAF/MEKi (13/17, 76%). 7 (41%) recurred locally and 8 (47%) recurred with new metastatic disease but none had brain metastases. Conclusions: This is the first study examining outcomes of patients receiving second adjuvant targeted therapy for melanoma, after failure of adjuvant PD-1 based immunotherapy. While RFS appears shorter compared to first line trials, second adjuvant treatment with BRAF/MEKi appears safe and active in preventing further recurrence. Further data on sequencing adjuvant therapies are needed.

Impact of radiotherapy and sequencing of systemic therapy on survival outcomes in melanoma patients with previously untreated brain metastasis: a multicenter DeCOG study on 450 patients from the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

BACKGROUND

Despite of various therapeutic strategies, treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) still is a major challenge. This study aimed at investigating the impact of type and sequence of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and targeted therapy (TT), radiotherapy, and surgery on the survival outcome of patients with MBM.

METHOD

We assessed data of 450 patients collected within the prospective multicenter real-world skin cancer registry ADOREG who were diagnosed with MBM before start of the first non-adjuvant systemic therapy. Study endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of 450 MBM patients, 175 (38.9%) received CTLA-4+PD-1 ICB, 161 (35.8%) PD-1 ICB, and 114 (25.3%) BRAF+MEK TT as first-line treatment. Additional to systemic therapy, 67.3% of the patients received radiotherapy (stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS); conventional radiotherapy (CRT)) and 24.4% had surgery of MBM. 199 patients (42.2%) received a second-line systemic therapy. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed the application of radiotherapy (HR for SRS: 0.213, 95% CI 0.094 to 0.485, p<0.001; HR for CRT: 0.424, 95% CI 0.210 to 0.855, p=0.016), maximal size of brain metastases (HR for MBM >1 cm: 1.977, 95% CI 1.117 to 3.500, p=0.019), age (HR for age >65 years: 1.802, 95% CI 1.016 to 3.197, p=0.044), and ECOG performance status (HR for ECOG ≥2: HR: 2.615, 95% CI 1.024 to 6.676, p=0.044) as independent prognostic factors of OS on first-line therapy. The type of first-line therapy (ICB vs TT) was not independently prognostic. As second-line therapy BRAF+MEK showed the best survival outcome compared with ICB and other therapies (HR for CTLA-4+PD-1 compared with BRAF+MEK: 13.964, 95% CI 3.6 to 54.4, p<0.001; for PD-1 vs BRAF+MEK: 4.587 95% CI 1.3 to 16.8, p=0.022 for OS). Regarding therapy sequencing, patients treated with ICB as first-line therapy and BRAF+MEK as second-line therapy showed an improved OS (HR for CTLA-4+PD-1 followed by BRAF+MEK: 0.370, 95% CI 0.157 to 0.934, p=0.035; HR for PD-1 followed by BRAF+MEK: 0.290, 95% CI 0.092 to 0.918, p=0.035) compared with patients starting with BRAF+MEK in first-line therapy. There was no significant survival difference when comparing first-line therapy with CTLA-4+PD-1 ICB with PD-1 ICB.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with MBM, the addition of radiotherapy resulted in a favorable OS on systemic therapy. In BRAF-mutated MBM patients, ICB as first-line therapy and BRAF+MEK as second-line therapy were associated with a significantly prolonged OS.

Genetic characterization of advanced conjunctival melanoma and response to systemic treatment

BACKGROUND

Conjunctival melanoma is a rare type of ocular melanoma, which is prone to local recurrence and metastasis and can lead to patient death. Novel therapeutic strategies have revolutionized cutaneous melanoma management. The efficacy of these therapies in conjunctival melanoma, however, has not been evaluated in larger patient cohorts.

METHODS

In this multi-center retrospective cohort study with additional screening of the ADOREG database, data were collected from 34 patients with metastatic conjunctival melanoma who received targeted therapy (TT) (BRAF ± MEK inhibitors) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) (anti-PD-1 ± anti-CTLA4). In 15 cases, tissue was available for targeted next-generation-sequencing (611 genes) and RNA sequencing. Driver mutations, tumor mutational burden, copy number variations and inflammatory/IFNγ gene expression signatures were determined.

RESULTS

Genetic characterization identified frequent BRAF (46.7%, 7/15), NRAS (26.7%, 4/15), NF1 (20%, 3/15), and TERT promoter (46.7%, 7/15) mutations. UV associated C>T and CC>TT mutations were common. Median follow-up time after start of first TT or ICI therapy was 13.2 months. In 26 patients receiving first-line ICI, estimated one-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 42.0%, PFS and overall survival (OS) 6.2 and 18.0 months, respectively. First-line TT was given to 8 patients, estimated one-year PFS rate was 54.7%, median PFS and OS 12.6 and 29.1 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the role of UV irradiation in conjunctival melanoma and the genetic similarity with cutaneous melanoma. Conjunctival melanoma patients with advanced disease benefit from both targeted therapies (BRAF ± MEK inhibitors) and immune checkpoint inhibitors.