Explore the vast range of titles available.

Immune checkpoint blockade with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 agents produces a high response rate in patients with desmoplastic melanoma. Highly sensitive skin cancer Desmoplastic melanoma (DM) is a rare subtype of skin cancer, characterized by dense stroma and a lack of targetable mutations, but a high mutational load related to UV exposure. The authors conduct a retrospective pathology review of 1,058 melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint blockade therapy. They identify 60 cases of DM and find that around 70% of these respond to PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade. DM shows high infiltration of CD8 cells and high expression of PD-L1, with specific patterns associated with response to immunotherapy. The analysis suggests that DM has one of the highest rates of response to immunotherapy, and that this rate is not related to mutational load but correlates with immune cell infiltration. Desmoplastic melanoma is a rare subtype of melanoma characterized by dense fibrous stroma, resistance to chemotherapy and a lack of actionable driver mutations, and is highly associated with ultraviolet light-induced DNA damage 1 . We analysed sixty patients with advanced desmoplastic melanoma who had been treated with antibodies to block programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or PD-1 ligand (PD-L1). Objective tumour responses were observed in forty-two of the sixty patients (70%; 95% confidence interval 57–81%), including nineteen patients (32%) with a complete response. Whole-exome sequencing revealed a high mutational load and frequent NF1 mutations (fourteen out of seventeen cases) in these tumours. Immunohistochemistry analysis from nineteen desmoplastic melanomas and thirteen non-desmoplastic melanomas revealed a higher percentage of PD-L1-positive cells in the tumour parenchyma in desmoplastic melanomas ( P  = 0.04); these cells were highly associated with increased CD8 density and PD-L1 expression in the tumour invasive margin. Therefore, patients with advanced desmoplastic melanoma derive substantial clinical benefit from PD-1 or PD-L1 immune checkpoint blockade therapy, even though desmoplastic melanoma is defined by its dense desmoplastic fibrous stroma. The benefit is likely to result from the high mutational burden and a frequent pre-existing adaptive immune response limited by PD-L1 expression.

Metastatic melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer with a median overall survival of less than one year. Advancements in our understanding of how melanoma evades the immune system as well as the recognition that melanoma is a molecularly heterogeneous disease have led to major improvements in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two novel therapies for advanced melanoma: a BRAF inhibitor, vemurafenib, and an immune stimulatory agent, ipilimumab. The success of these agents has injected excitement and hope into patients and clinicians and, while these therapies have their limitations, they will likely provide excellent building blocks for the next generation of therapies. In this review we will discuss the advantages and limitations of the two new approved agents, current clinical trials designed to overcome these limitations, and future clinical trials that we feel hold the most promise.

The approval of immunotherapeutic agents and immunotherapy-based combination strategies in recent years has revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody, was approved as monotherapy in 2015 for aRCC after treatment with a VEGF-targeting agent. In April 2018, the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, a CTLA-4 inhibitor, was approved for intermediate- and poor-risk, previously untreated patients with aRCC. Then, in 2019, combinations therapies consisting of pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) or avelumab (anti-PD-ligand (L) 1) with axitinib (a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor) were also approved to treat aRCC and are likely to produce dramatic shifts in the therapeutic landscape. To address the rapid advances in immunotherapy options for patients with aRCC, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) reconvened its Cancer Immunotherapy Guidelines (CIG) Renal Cell Carcinoma Subcommittee and tasked it with generating updated consensus recommendations for the treatment of patients with this disease.

CDKN2A and TP53 mutations are recurrent events in melanoma, occurring in 13.3% and 15.1% of cases respectively and are associated with poorer outcomes. It is unclear what effect CDKN2A and TP53 mutations have on the clinical outcomes of patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors. All patients with cutaneous melanoma or melanoma of unknown primary who received checkpoint inhibitor therapy and underwent genomic profiling with the 50-gene Mayo Clinic solid tumor targeted cancer gene panel were included. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of mutations in BRAF, NRAS, CDKN2A, and TP53. Patients without mutations in any of these genes were termed quadruple wild type (QuadWT). Clinical outcomes including median time to progression (TTP), median overall survival (OS), 6-month and 12-month OS, 6-month and 12-month without progression, ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were analyzed according to the mutational status of CDKN2A, TP53 and QuadWT. A total of 102 patients were included in this study of which 14 had mutations of CDKN2A (CDKN2Amut), 21 had TP53 mutations (TP53mut), and 12 were QuadWT. TP53mut, CDKN2Amut and QuadWT mutational status did not impact clinical outcomes including median TTP, median OS, 6-month and 12-month OS, 6-month and 12-month without progression, ORR and DCR. There was a trend towards improved median TTP and DCR in CDKN2Amut cohort and a trend towards worsened median TTP in the QuadWT cohort. Cell cycle regulators such as TP53 and CDKN2A do not appear to significantly alter clinical outcomes when immune checkpoint inhibitors are used.

The discovery of BRAF mutations in the majority of patients with metastatic melanoma combined with the identification of highly selective BRAF inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. The first highly specific BRAF inhibitor, vemurafenib, began clinical testing in 2008 and moved towards a rapid approval in 2011. Vemurafenib induced responses in ~50% of patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma and demonstrated improved overall survival in a randomized Phase III trial. Furthermore, vemurafenib is well-tolerated with a low toxicity profile and rapid onset of action. Finally, vemurafenib is active even in patients with widely metastatic disease. Despite the success of vemurafenib in treating patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma, most, if not all, patients ultimately develop resistance resulting in disease progression at a median time of ~6 months. Multiple mechanisms of resistance have been described and rationale strategies are underway to combat resistance. This review highlights the development, clinical utility, resistance mechanisms, and future use of vemurafenib both in melanoma and other malignancies. We consulted PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, ASCO annual symposium abstracts, and http://clinicaltrials.gov/ for the purpose of this review.

Glembatumumab vedotin (CDX-011, GV) is a fully human Immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody directed against glycoprotein NMB coupled via a peptide linker to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a potent cytotoxic microtubule inhibitor. This phase II study evaluated the overall response rate and safety of GV, glycoprotein NMB (GPNMB) expression, and survival in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Eligible patients with metastatic uveal melanoma who had not previously been treated with chemotherapy received GV 1.9 mg/kg every three weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included GPNMB expression, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity analysis. GPNMB expression was assessed pre- and post-treatment via immunohistochemistry for patients with available tumor tissue. Out of 35 patients who received treatment, two patients had confirmed partial responses (PRs; 6%), and 18 patients had a stable disease (SD; 51%) as the best objective response. 38% of the patients had stable disease >100 days. The grade 3 or 4 toxicities that occurred in two or more patients were neutropenia, rash, hyponatremia, and vomiting. The median progression-free survival was 3.1 months (95% CI: 1.5–5.6), and the median overall survival was 11.9 months (95% CI 9.0–16.9) in the evaluable study population. GV is well-tolerated in metastatic uveal melanoma. The disease control rate was 57% despite a low objective response rate. Exploratory immune correlation studies are underway to provide insight into target saturation, combination strategies, and antigen release.

Targeted agents form the backbone of most therapeutic strategies in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) but ultimately resistance develops and toxicity often leads to discontinuation of treatment, limiting the clinical benefits of these treatments. Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 anti-PD-1 antibody, selectively blocks the interaction between PD-1 and its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2 and provides a novel therapy option for patients with aRCC. In 2015, the pivotal phase III study CheckMate 025 led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of nivolumab in patients with aRCC who had received prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and in 2017, the phase III study CheckMate 214 showed that combined immunotherapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in greater objective response rate and prolonged progression-free survival when compared with sunitinib in intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated aRCC. Early studies of nivolumab in association with anti-angiogenic therapy have generated enthusiasm and multiple combination trials are ongoing.

We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305 patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat and PD-L1+ populations. Intent-to-treat PFS hazard ratios for atezolizumab + bevacizumab or atezolizumab monotherapy versus sunitinib were 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69–1.45) and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.82–1.71), respectively; PD-L1+ PFS hazard ratios were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.38–1.08) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.63–1.67), respectively. Exploratory biomarker analyses indicated that tumor mutation and neoantigen burden were not associated with PFS. Angiogenesis, T-effector/IFN-γ response, and myeloid inflammatory gene expression signatures were strongly and differentially associated with PFS within and across the treatments. These molecular profiles suggest that prediction of outcomes with anti-VEGF and immunotherapy may be possible and offer mechanistic insights into how blocking VEGF may overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade. An exploratory randomized controlled clinical trial of renal cell carcinoma identifies molecular patterns distinguishing responders to immune checkpoint blockade alone or combined with angiogenesis inhibitor versus angiogenesis inhibitor alone.

The anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab has shown potent antitumour activity at different doses and schedules in patients with melanoma. We compared the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab at doses of 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks in patients with ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma. In an open-label, international, multicentre expansion cohort of a phase 1 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with advanced melanoma whose disease had progressed after at least two ipilimumab doses were randomly assigned with a computer-generated allocation schedule (1:1 final ratio) to intravenous pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1) by independent central review. Analysis was done on the full-analysis set (all treated patients with measurable disease at baseline). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01295827. 173 patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (n=89) or 10 mg/kg (n=84). Median follow-up duration was 8 months. ORR was 26% at both doses—21 of 81 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and 20 of 76 in the 10 mg/kg group (difference 0%, 95% CI −14 to 13; p=0·96). Treatment was well tolerated, with similar safety profiles in the 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg groups and no drug-related deaths. The most common drug-related adverse events of any grade in the 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg groups were fatigue (29 [33%] vs 31 [37%]), pruritus (23 [26%] vs 16 [19%]), and rash (16 [18%] vs 15 [18%]). Grade 3 fatigue, reported in five (3%) patients in the 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab group, was the only drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse event reported in more than one patient. The results suggest that pembrolizumab at a dose of 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks might be an effective treatment in patients for whom there are few effective treatment options. Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Immunotherapy has produced durable clinical benefit in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC). In the past, patients treated with interferon-alpha (IFN) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) have achieved complete responses, many of which have lasted for multiple decades. More recently, a large number of new agents have been approved for RCC, several of which attack tumor angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) and VEGF receptors (VEGFR), as well as tumor metabolism, inhibiting the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Additionally, a new class of immunotherapy agents, immune checkpoint inhibitors, is emerging and will play a significant role in the treatment of patients with RCC. Therefore, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a Task Force, which met to consider the current role of approved immunotherapy agents in RCC, to provide guidance to practicing clinicians by developing consensus recommendations and to set the stage for future immunotherapeutic developments in RCC.