Explore the vast range of titles available.

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

Key Points Clinical therapeutics for advanced-stage melanoma have improved dramatically with the development of BRAF and MEK inhibitors, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking antibodies, and a modified oncolytic herpes virus that is delivered intratumourally The overall survival of patients with advanced-stage melanoma has improved from ∼9 months before 2011 to an as yet undefined timeframe, with a subset of patients having ongoing long-term tumour control Melanoma, particularly cutaneous melanoma, is amendable to immunotherapy for various reasons, including extensive tumour infiltration by T cells, a high mutational load, and crosstalk between oncogenic signalling pathways and immunobiology Resistance mechanisms to BRAF-targeted treatments and immunotherapies are being elucidated; reactivation of the MAPK pathway is common after BRAF inhibition, whereas the effectiveness of both approaches might be limited by loss of tumour antigen presentation and T-cell trafficking To move the field of clinical therapeutics forward, a greater focus on specific patient populations (based on serum lactose dehydrogenase levels, ECOG performance status, and number of metastases), as well as on landmark progression-free and overall survival measures, will be required in clinical trials In less than a decade, the treatment landscape of metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically. Novel targeted agents and immunotherapies are revolutionizing patient outcomes, but the range of available drugs complicates clinical decision-making. Herein, the authors chart the therapeutic advances and review the current evidence that can be used to guide therapeutic decisions for individual patients with metastatic melanoma, highlighting knowledge gaps. Treatment options for patients with metastatic melanoma, and especially BRAF -mutant melanoma, have changed dramatically in the past 5 years, with the FDA approval of eight new therapeutic agents. During this period, the treatment paradigm for BRAF -mutant disease has evolved rapidly: the standard-of-care BRAF-targeted approach has shifted from single-agent BRAF inhibition to combination therapy with a BRAF and a MEK inhibitor. Concurrently, immunotherapy has transitioned from cytokine-based treatment to antibody-mediated blockade of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and, now, the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoints. These changes in the treatment landscape have dramatically improved patient outcomes, with the median overall survival of patients with advanced-stage melanoma increasing from approximately 9 months before 2011 to at least 2 years — and probably longer for those with BRAF -V600-mutant disease. Herein, we review the clinical trial data that established the standard-of-care treatment approaches for advanced-stage melanoma. Mechanisms of resistance and biomarkers of response to BRAF-targeted treatments and immunotherapies are discussed, and the contrasting clinical benefits and limitations of these therapies are explored. We summarize the state of the field and outline a rational approach to frontline-treatment selection for each individual patient with BRAF -mutant melanoma.

After decades of treatment failure for metastatic melanoma, the development of BRAF inhibitors was highly anticipated to dramatically improve outcomes for patients with oncogene-addicted BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. Rapid and frequent responses occurred with BRAF inhibitors, but clinical benefit was usually transient because of the rapid emergence of drug resistance. Concurrently, and by contrast, ipilimumab, a novel immune checkpoint inhibitor, was shown to provide long-term clinical benefit, but only in a minority of patients. This situation generated an ongoing debate about how to best use these drugs in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. Recently, however, several new compounds and combinations of cell pathway signalling inhibitors and immunotherapies have been developed that look set to improve patient outcomes even further. In this Review, we discuss the existing evidence for the newest treatments for BRAF-mutant melanoma, including combined BRAF and MEK inhibition and PD-1–PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, and assess future treatment strategies that could change metastatic melanoma from a rapidly fatal terminal illness to a chronic disease for most patients.

Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006. KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAFV600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7–59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5–41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3–22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61–0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6–11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9–4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48–0·67, p<0·0001). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96 (17%) of 555 patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 50 (20%) of 256 patients in the ipilimumab group; the most common of these events were colitis (11 [2%] vs 16 [6%]), diarrhoea (ten [2%] vs seven [3%]), and fatigue (four [<1%] vs three [1%]). Any-grade serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (14%) patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 45 (18%) patients in the ipilimumab group. One patient assigned to pembrolizumab died from treatment-related sepsis. Pembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Immunotherapy combination treatments can improve patient outcomes. Epacadostat, an IDO1 selective inhibitor, and pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, showed promising antitumour activity in the phase 1–2 ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study in advanced melanoma. In this trial, we aimed to compare progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. In this international, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma previously untreated with PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and had a known BRAFV600 mutant status or consented to BRAFV600 mutation testing during screening. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression and BRAFV600 mutation status and randomly assigned (1:1) through a central interactive voice and integrated web response system to receive epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. We used block randomisation with a block size of four in each stratum. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis population included randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study was stopped after the second interim analysis; follow-up for safety is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02752074. Between June 21, 2016, and Aug 7, 2017, 928 patients were screened and 706 patients were randomly assigned to receive epacadostat plus pembrolizumab (n=354) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n=352). Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·3–14·5). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups for progression-free survival (median 4·7 months, 95% CI 2·9–6·8, for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs 4·9 months, 2·9–6·8, for placebo plus pembrolizumab; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; one-sided p=0·52) or overall survival (median not reached in either group; epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs placebo plus pembrolizumab: HR 1·13, 0·86–1·49; one-sided p=0·81). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase, which occurred in 14 (4%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11 (3%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 37 (10%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 32 (9%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in either treatment group. Epacadostat 100 mg twice daily plus pembrolizumab did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival compared with placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The usefulness of IDO1 inhibition as a strategy to enhance anti-PD-1 therapy activity in cancer remains uncertain. Incyte Corporation, in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Abstract Context Thyroid dysfunction occurs commonly following immune checkpoint inhibition. The etiology of thyroid immune-related adverse events (irAEs) remains unclear and clinical presentation can be variable. Objective This study sought to define thyroid irAEs following immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment and describe their clinical and biochemical associations. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of thyroid dysfunction in patients with melanoma undergoing cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and/or programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) based ICI treatment from November 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019. Thyroid function was measured at baseline and at regular intervals following the start of ICI treatment. Clinical and biochemical features were evaluated for associations with ICI-associated thyroid irAEs. The prevalence of thyroid autoantibodies and the effect of thyroid irAEs on survival were analyzed. Results A total of 1246 patients were included with a median follow-up of 11.3 months. Five hundred and eighteen (42%) patients developed an ICI-associated thyroid irAE. Subclinical thyrotoxicosis (n = 234) was the most common thyroid irAE, followed by overt thyrotoxicosis (n = 154), subclinical hypothyroidism (n = 61), and overt hypothyroidism (n = 39). Onset of overt thyrotoxicosis occurred a median of 5 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 2-8) after receipt of a first dose of ICI. Combination immunotherapy was strongly associated with development of overt thyrotoxicosis (odds ratio [OR] 10.8, 95% CI 4.51-25.6 vs CTLA-4 monotherapy; P < .001), as was female sex (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.37-2.95; P < .001) and younger age (OR 0.83 per 10 years, 95% CI 0.72-0.95; P = .007). By comparison, median onset of overt hypothyroidism was 14 weeks (IQR 8-25). The frequency of overt hypothyroidism did not differ between different ICI types. The strongest associations for hypothyroidism were higher baseline thyroid-stimulating hormone (OR 2.33 per mIU/L, 95% CI 1.61-3.33; P < .001) and female sex (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.67-6.56; P = .01). Overt thyrotoxicosis was associated with longer progression free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.94; P = .02) and overall survival (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-0.84; P = .005). There was no association between hypothyroidism and cancer outcomes. Conclusion Thyroid irAEs are common and there are multiple distinct phenotypes. Different thyroid irAE subtypes have unique clinical and biochemical associations, suggesting potentially distinct etiologies for thyrotoxicosis and hypothyroidism arising in this context.

Transcriptomic signatures designed to predict melanoma patient responses to PD-1 blockade have been reported but rarely validated. We now show that intra-patient heterogeneity of tumor responses to PD-1 inhibition limit the predictive performance of these signatures. We reasoned that resistance mechanisms will reflect the tumor microenvironment, and thus we examined PD-1 inhibitor resistance relative to T-cell activity in 94 melanoma tumors collected at baseline and at time of PD-1 inhibitor progression. Tumors were analyzed using RNA sequencing and flow cytometry, and validated functionally. These analyses confirm that major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I downregulation is a hallmark of resistance to PD-1 inhibitors and is associated with the MITF low /AXL high de-differentiated phenotype and cancer-associated fibroblast signatures. We demonstrate that TGFß drives the treatment resistant phenotype (MITF low /AXL high ) and contributes to MHC class I downregulation in melanoma. Combinations of anti-PD-1 with drugs that target the TGFß signaling pathway and/or which reverse melanoma de-differentiation may be effective future therapeutic strategies. A significant proportion of patients develop innate or acquired resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here, the authors show that resistance to anti-PD-1 blockade is associated with TGF-beta driven major histocompatibility complex I (MHCI) down-regulation and a de-differentiated phenotype in melanoma patients.

Patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma have high recurrence risk, similar to those with resected stage IIIA/B disease. The phase 3, double-blind CheckMate 76K trial assessed 790 patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma randomized 2:1 (stratified by tumor category) to nivolumab 480 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints included distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and safety. At 7.8 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab significantly improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–0.59; P  < 0.0001), with 12-month RFS of 89.0% versus 79.4% and benefit observed across subgroups; DMFS was also improved (HR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30–0.72). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 10.3% (nivolumab) and 2.3% (placebo) of patients. One treatment-related death (0.2%) occurred with nivolumab. Nivolumab is an effective and generally well-tolerated adjuvant treatment in patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04099251 . In this pre-specified interim analysis, patients with resected stage IIB/C melanoma who received adjuvant nivolumab had significantly prolonged recurrence-free survival compared to placebo-treated patients, providing another treatment option for this population.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib improves clinical outcomes in BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma without brain metastases; however, the activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib has not been studied in active melanoma brain metastases. Here, we report results from the phase 2 COMBI-MB trial. Our aim was to build on the current body of evidence of targeted therapy in melanoma brain metastases through an evaluation of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases. This ongoing, multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study evaluated oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice per day) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once per day) in four patient cohorts with melanoma brain metastases enrolled from 32 hospitals and institutions in Europe, North America, and Australia: (A) BRAFV600E-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with no previous local brain therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; (B) BRAFV600E-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; (C) BRAFV600D/K/R-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; and (D) BRAFV600D/E/K/R-positive, symptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0, 1, or 2. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed intracranial response in cohort A in the all-treated-patients population. Secondary endpoints included intracranial response in cohorts B, C, and D. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02039947. Between Feb 28, 2014, and Aug 5, 2016, 125 patients were enrolled in the study: 76 patients in cohort A; 16 patients in cohort B; 16 patients in cohort C; and 17 patients in cohort D. At the data cutoff (Nov 28, 2016) after a median follow-up of 8·5 months (IQR 5·5–14·0), 44 (58%; 95% CI 46–69) of 76 patients in cohort A achieved an intracranial response. Intracranial response by investigator assessment was also achieved in nine (56%; 95% CI 30–80) of 16 patients in cohort B, seven (44%; 20–70) of 16 patients in cohort C, and ten (59%; 33–82) of 17 patients in cohort D. The most common serious adverse events related to study treatment were pyrexia for dabrafenib (eight [6%] of 125 patients) and decreased ejection fraction (five [4%]) for trametinib. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of study drug relationship, were pyrexia (four [3%] of 125) and headache (three [2%]). Dabrafenib plus trametinib was active with a manageable safety profile in this melanoma population that was consistent with previous dabrafenib plus trametinib studies in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma without brain metastases, but the median duration of response was relatively short. These results provide evidence of clinical benefit with dabrafenib plus trametinib and support the need for additional research to further improve outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases. Novartis.

Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in melanoma is common and remains an intractable clinical challenge. In this study, we comprehensively profile immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance mechanisms in short-term tumor cell lines and matched tumor samples from melanoma patients progressing on immune checkpoint inhibitors. Combining genome, transcriptome, and high dimensional flow cytometric profiling with functional analysis, we identify three distinct programs of immunotherapy resistance. Here we show that resistance programs include (1) the loss of wild-type antigen expression, resulting from tumor-intrinsic IFNγ signaling and melanoma de-differentiation, (2) the disruption of antigen presentation via multiple independent mechanisms affecting MHC expression, and (3) immune cell exclusion associated with PTEN loss. The dominant role of compromised antigen production and presentation in melanoma resistance to immune checkpoint inhibition highlights the importance of treatment salvage strategies aimed at the restoration of MHC expression, stimulation of innate immunity, and re-expression of wild-type differentiation antigens. Immunotherapy resistance is common among melanoma patients. Here, the authors identify three resistance mechanism subtypes across tumor-derived cell lines and matched samples and highlight antigen presentation disruption as a key mediator of resistance.