Explore the vast range of titles available.

Autologous T cells engineered to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) against the CD19 antigen are in the frontline of contemporary hemato-oncology therapies, leading to high remission rates in B-cell malignancies. Although effective, major obstacles involve the complex and costly individualized manufacturing process, and CD19 target antigen loss or modulation leading to resistant and relapse following CAR therapy. A potential solution for these limitations is the use of donor-derived γδT cells as a CAR backbone. γδT cells lack allogenecity and are safely used in haploidentical transplants. Moreover, γδT cells are known to mediate natural anti-tumor responses. Here, we describe a 14-day production process initiated from peripheral-blood mononuclear cells, leading to a median 185-fold expansion of γδ T cells with high purity (>98% CD3+ and >99% γδTCR+). CAR transduction efficacy of γδ T cells was equally high when compared to standard CAR-T cells (60.5 ± 13.2 and 65.3 ± 18.3%, respectively). CD19-directed γδCAR-T cells were effective against CD19+ cell lines and in vivo, showing cytokine production, direct target killing, and clearance of bone marrow leukemic cells in an NSG model. Multiple injections of γδCAR-T cells and priming of mice with zoledronate lead to enhanced tumor reduction . Unlike standard CD19 CAR-T cells, γδCAR-T cells were able to target CD19 antigen negative leukemia cells, an effect that was enhanced after priming the cells with zoledronate. In conclusion, γδCAR-T cell production is feasible and leads to highly pure and efficient effector cells. γδCAR-T cell may provide a promising platform in the allogeneic setting, and may target leukemic cells also after antigen loss.

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.

BackgroundMucosal melanoma is an aggressive melanoma with poor prognosis. We assessed efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma in KEYNOTE-001 (NCT01295827), −002 (NCT01704287), and −006 (NCT01866319).MethodsPatients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or 10 mg/kg Q2W or Q3W. Response was assessed by independent central review per RECIST v1.1.Results1567 patients were treated and 84 (5%) had mucosal melanoma. Fifty-one of 84 were ipilimumab-naive. In patients with mucosal melanoma, the objective response rate (ORR) was 19% (95% CI 11–29%), with median duration of response (DOR) of 27.6 months (range 1.1 + to 27.6). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.7–2.8), with median overall survival (OS) of 11.3 months (7.7–16.6). ORR was 22% (95% CI 11–35%) and 15% (95% CI 5–32%) in ipilimumab-naive and ipilimumab-treated patients.ConclusionPembrolizumab provides durable antitumour activity in patients with advanced mucosal melanoma regardless of prior ipilimumab.

Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4–23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis. The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672. Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43–63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1–45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6–44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9–not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0–34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66–1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib. Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

In the COMBI-v trial, patients with previously untreated BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma who were treated with the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib had significantly longer overall and progression-free survival than those treated with vemurafenib alone. Here, we present the effects of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), an exploratory endpoint in the COMBI-v study. COMBI-v was an open-label, randomised phase 3 study in which 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF Val600 mutation were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice-daily) and trametinib (2 mg once-daily) or vemurafenib monotherapy (960 mg twice-daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. In this pre-specified exploratory analysis, we prospectively assessed HRQoL in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D), and Melanoma Subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Melanoma (FACT-M), completed at baseline, during study treatment, at disease progression, and after progression. We used a mixed-model, repeated measures ANCOVA to assess differences in mean scores between groups with baseline score as covariate; all p-values are descriptive. The COMBI-v trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01597908, and is ongoing for the primary endpoint, but is not recruiting patients. From June 4, 2012, to Oct 7, 2013, 1645 patients at 193 centres worldwide were screened for eligibility, and 704 patients were randomly assigned to dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=352) or vemurafenib (n=352). Questionnaire completion rates for both groups were high (>95% at baseline, >80% at follow-up assessments, and >70% at disease progression) with similar HRQoL and symptom scores reported at baseline in both treatment groups for all questionnaires. Differences in mean scores between treatment groups were significant and clinically meaningful in favour of the combination compared with vemurafenib monotherapy for most domains across all three questionnaires during study treatment and at disease progression, including EORTC QLQ-C30 global health (7·92, 7·62, 6·86, 7·47, 5·16, 7·56, and 7·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·005 at week 40), EORTC QLQ-C30 pain (–13·20, −8·05, −8·82, −12·69, −12·46, −11·41, and −10·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001), EQ-5D thermometer scores (7·96, 8·05, 6·83, 11·53, 7·41, 9·08, and 10·51 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·006 at week 32), and FACT-M Melanoma Subscale score (3·62, 2·93, 2·45, 3·39, 2·85, 3·00, and 3·68 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001). From the patient's perspective, which integrates not only survival advantage but also disease-associated and adverse-event-associated symptoms, treatment with the combination of a BRAF inhibitor plus a MEK inhibitor (dabrafenib plus trametinib) adds a clear benefit over monotherapy with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and supports the combination therapy as standard of care in this population. GlaxoSmithKline.

BackgroundIn the KEYNOTE-022 study, pembrolizumab with dabrafenib and trametinib (triplet) improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo with dabrafenib and trametinib (doublet) without reaching statistical significance. Mature results on PFS, duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS) are reported.MethodsThe double-blind, phase 2 part of KEYNOTE-022 enrolled patients with previously untreated BRAFV600E/K-mutated advanced melanoma from 22 sites in seven countries. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo plus dabrafenib (150 mg orally two times per day) and trametinib (2 mg orally one time a day). Primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate, DOR, and OS. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This analysis was not specified in the protocol.ResultsBetween November 30, 2015 and April 24, 2017, 120 patients were randomly assigned to triplet (n=60) or doublet (n=60) therapy. With 36.6 months of follow-up, median PFS was 16.9 months (95% CI 11.3 to 27.9) with triplet and 10.7 months (95% CI 7.2 to 16.8) with doublet (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83). With triplet and doublet, respectively, PFS at 24 months was 41.0% (95% CI 27.4% to 54.2%) and 16.3% (95% CI 8.1% to 27.1%); median DOR was 25.1 months (95% CI 14.1 to not reached) and 12.1 months (95% CI 6.0 to 15.7), respectively. Median OS was not reached with triplet and was 26.3 months with doublet (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.06). With triplet and doublet, respectively, OS at 24 months was 63.0% (95% CI 49.4% to 73.9%) and 51.7% (95% CI 38.4% to 63.4%). Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 35 patients (58%, including one death) receiving triplet and 15 patients (25%) receiving doublet.ConclusionIn BRAFV600E/K-mutant advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib substantially improved PFS, DOR, and OS with a higher incidence of TRAEs. Interpretation of these results is limited by the post hoc nature of the analysis.

The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, compared with dacarbazine, shows improved response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma that has a BRAFV600 mutation. We assessed vemurafenib in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma with BRAFV600 mutations who had few treatment options. In an open-label, multicentre study, patients with untreated or previously treated melanoma and a BRAFV600 mutation received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was safety. All analyses were done on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of vemurafenib. This report is the third interim analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307397. Between March 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2013, 3226 patients were enrolled in 44 countries. 3222 patients received at least one dose of vemurafenib (safety population). At data cutoff, 868 (27%) patients were on study treatment and 2354 (73%) had withdrawn, mainly because of disease progression. Common adverse events of all grades included rash (1592 [49%]), arthralgia (1259 [39%]), fatigue (1093 [34%]), photosensitivity reaction (994 [31%]), alopecia (826 [26%]), and nausea (628 [19%]). 1480 (46%) patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (389 [12%]), rash (155 [5%]), liver function abnormalities (165 [5%]), arthralgia (106 [3%]), and fatigue (93 [3%]). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were reported more frequently in patients aged 75 years and older (n=257; 152 [59%, 95% CI 53–65] and ten [4%, 2–7], respectively) than in those younger than 75 years (n=2965; 1286 [43%, 42–45] and 82 [3%, 2–3], respectively). Vemurafenib safety in this diverse population of patients with BRAFV600 mutated metastatic melanoma, who are more representative of routine clinical practice, was consistent with the safety profile shown in the pivotal trials of this drug. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Some solid tumors have reduced posttranscriptional RNA editing by adenosine deaminase acting on RNA (ADAR) enzymes, but the functional significance of this alteration has been unclear. Here, we found the primary RNA-editing enzyme ADAR1 is frequently reduced in metastatic melanomas. In situ analysis of melanoma samples using progression tissue microarrays indicated a substantial downregulation of ADAR1 during the metastatic transition. Further, ADAR1 knockdown altered cell morphology, promoted in vitro proliferation, and markedly enhanced the tumorigenicity in vivo. A comparative whole genome expression microarray analysis revealed that ADAR1 controls the expression of more than 100 microRNAs (miRNAs) that regulate many genes associated with the observed phenotypes. Importantly, we discovered that ADAR1 fundamentally regulates miRNA processing in an RNA binding–dependent, yet RNA editing–independent manner by regulating Dicer expression at the translational level via let-7. In addition, ADAR1 formed a complex with DGCR8 that was mutually exclusive with the DGCR8-Drosha complex that processes pri-miRNAs in the nucleus. We found that cancer cells silence ADAR1 by overexpressing miR-17 and miR-432, which both directly target the ADAR1 transcript. We further demonstrated that the genes encoding miR-17 and miR-432 are frequently amplified in melanoma and that aberrant hypomethylation of the imprinted DLK1-DIO3 region in chromosome 14 can also drive miR-432 overexpression.

Melanoma cells use different migratory strategies to exit the primary tumor mass and invade surrounding and subsequently distant tissues. We reported previously that ADAR1 expression is downregulated in metastatic melanoma, thereby facilitating proliferation. Here we show that ADAR1 silencing enhances melanoma cell invasiveness and ITGB3 expression. The enhanced invasion is reversed when ITGB3 is blocked with antibodies. Re-expression of wild-type or catalytically inactive ADAR1 establishes this mechanism as independent of RNA editing. We demonstrate that ADAR1 controls ITGB3 expression both at the post-transcriptional and transcriptional levels, via miR-22 and PAX6 transcription factor, respectively. These are proven here as direct regulators of ITGB3 expression. miR-22 expression is controlled by ADAR1 via FOXD1 transcription factor. Clinical relevance is demonstrated in patient-paired progression tissue microarray using immunohistochemistry. The novel ADAR1-dependent and RNA-editing-independent regulation of invasion, mediated by ITGB3, strongly points to a central involvement of ADAR1 in cancer progression and metastasis. In metastatic melanoma, ADAR1 is downregulated, facilitating proliferation. Here, the authors show an ADAR1-dependent and RNA-editing-independent regulation of melanoma invasion mediated by ITGB3 expression, which can be reversed when ITGB3 is blocked.

Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) of autologous tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) is an effective immunotherapy for patients with solid tumors, yielding objective response rates of around 40% in refractory patients with metastatic melanoma. Most clinical centers utilize bulk, randomly isolated TIL from the tumor tissue for expansion and infusion. Only a minor fraction of the administered T cells recognizes tumor antigens, such as shared and mutation-derived neoantigens, and consequently eliminates the tumor. Thus, there are many ongoing effects to identify and select tumor-specific TIL for therapy; however, those approaches are very costly and require months, which is unreasonable for most metastatic patients. CD137 (4-1BB) has been identified as a co-stimulatory marker, which is induced upon the specific interaction of T cells with their target cell. Therefore, CD137 can be a useful biomarker and an important tool for the selection of tumor-reactive T cells. Here, we developed and validated a simple and time efficient method for the selection of CD137-expressing T cells for therapy based on magnetic bead separation. CD137 selection was performed with clinical grade compliant reagents, and TIL were expanded in a large-scale manner to meet cell numbers required for the patient setting in a GMP facility. For the first time, the methodology was designed to comply with both clinical needs and limitations, and its feasibility was assessed. CD137-selected TIL demonstrated significantly increased antitumor reactivity and were enriched for T cells recognizing neoantigens as well as shared tumor antigens. CD137-based selection enabled the enrichment of tumor-reactive T cells without the necessity of knowing the epitope specificity or the antigen type. The direct implementation of the CD137 separation method to the cell production of TIL may provide a simple way to improve the clinical efficiency of TIL ACT.